First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.  There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.  Any force, foreign or domestic, capable of developing to a certain level is able to overtake it.  If the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, I think that we would have lost the war of 1812 and lost our independence.  We almost lost anyway, despite the advanced level of federal order that the US Constitution provided.  AnCap theories of government do not provide well for the collective defense of the founding ideas, be that a physical defense from foreign powers or the defense of ideas.  Hell, neither does libertarianism for that matter.  It's a contradiction that we all want to live in a free society, but also wish to be protected from risk for ourselves and our children.  What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the socity with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

If you can't stand letting my assertions stand uncontested, then by all means, contest them. That's what I've been asking you to do, rather than make childish mocking noises and useless remarks about the count of lines in a post.

How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion?

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

Citation please.  Or it didn't happen.  And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig.

That might explain why it has moved up recently, but you responded to a question about the movement in august, which should have a different explaination?

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this:

1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment.

2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses.

3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses.

4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it.

5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water.

6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes.

7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided.

Bought in @ $6 because i liked the stable price of bitcoin, while € was really weak.
I should throw a party for breaking $13, but I'm to confused to be pleased with the development.
I simply do not understand whats driving this price.

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action?

Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?

Except for the once-a decade cold fusion hoaxes. Can't go without mentioning them  

But look on the bright side, if the trend holds you can buy thorium reactors from China by 2022.

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.

Read it again. We were discussing pollutants. With regard to pollutants, which can be naturally occurring, or caused by humanity, the question is: are we putting out enough pollutants to cause global warming?

Various governments around the world exist for lots of different reasons.

Unfortunately, for some reason Bitcoin seems to attract a few extremist nutters who worship Property (and money) above all else as their god, and equate most forms of 'community' and organisational structures with Satan. They see Bitcoin as a useful tool that they can misuse to promote their crazy utopias.