Its not up to the consumer.  Its up to the state.  Fiat money is created and maintained by the state.

As a consumer you are free to use any private money you want except when paying taxes.  You have to use the states money to pay taxes

So then we arrive at the same question.  Why is private money better than state money?

Look up Free Banking Era and see what happened during that time

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

Both Marxists and Anarchists share a common goal for liberating the working class

My error for thinking Anarchism has roots in Marxism.  Anarchism has roots in philosophies pre Marx such as Rousseau

But during the time of the First International,  Marx had ideological conflicts with Bakunin, an Anarchist.  Marx eventually had Bakunin expelled from the group although they share a common  anti capitalist goal

Im not an expert on Marx.  But I dont think he had a theory of what the state looks like in a post capitalist society.  His idea of the modern state is that it serves the interest of the bourgouis class.  I dont know if he just wants to replace that w a state that representative of the working class or no state/ minimal state

The reason why anarchism is incompatible with capitalism is that in a capitalist society the ones that hold all the capital are the rulers.  Its not possible to have "no rulers" under capitalism

Anarchy is what happens after Capitalism collapse according to Marxist ideology.  Marx thought to get to this state you need a proletariat revolution first.  Anarchists think you can just skip the revolution part

Im not defending the state.  I just acknowledge that a state is there.  The state never hindered my business.  The competition however, hinders my business greatly.  Haha

BTW im pretty sure its pretty cheap and easy to register as a sole proprietorship.  So I dont know what complications you are talking about.  

Ive had a business for 18 years.  No problems here.  And a lot of business sell cheeseburgers.  Where is your problem exactly?

We already have that.

That is naive.  You cant just say "oh you dont want liberty?" That's a strawman argument. Of course everyone wants liberty.  Marx wanted liberty,  Keynes wanted liberty. 

What you should consider is if he understands economics or not.  Does his theory support what is observable.  Is there data support his theory?

Praxeology is logical deduction.  You cant get useful answers from praxeology.  At worst you fool yourself into tautological arguments

Its not odd.  Friedman is the founder of monetarism.  He sees economics as money supply.  So all problems can be fixed via monetary policy.

Also Friedman is not what you call a modern American libertarian.  He's  more an admirer of Adam Smith.

Rothbard is big into logical deduction via praxeology.  But just because something is logical doesn't mean its true.  He reaches conclusion w/o finding empirical or statistical evidence

I say not 'real' because he neither uses modelling or statistics or facts, the common tools of economists

Dude stick to Friedman.  At least he's a real economist.

His summary is whack cause post-bubble Japan has exactly the Paradox of Thrift problem for decades.  And FYI, Friedman did think QE was the correct policy.  However, QE didn't work in that Japan situation because monetarists are wrong about how to get out of recession.  Monetary policies only arrest the deflationary spiral, but it can't increase AD.  Monetary policies worked for 70's stagflation because its easier to impose discipline on inflation than it is to stimulate spending.  "Pushing on a string" is what they call it

AnCaps don't understand Anarchism. 

Anarchism has its roots in Marxist thinking so the economic system for classical Anarchists would be Socialist.  Anarchism & Capitalism are incompatible ideology.

AnCaps are followers of Rothbard and the libertarian ones are followers of Ayn Rand.  But its all just dumb neckbeard kids.  Nobody serious takes them seriously.  The same dumb kids who think Nazis are Socialists when everyone knows Nazis practice Fascism AND Capitalism

----------------

Chomsky interview about the subject:

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

Anarchism has nothing to do w AnCap except the word Anarchism

Its like Nazism has nothing to do w Socialism

Yeah exactly.  Molyneux cant even stay on point and likes to talk over people.  If his ideas are any good he wouldn't need to do that.

The problem w Peter Joseph is RBE is utopian.  His critiques of market forces are correct.  He just doesnt have a good solution yet what to do about it. 

I doesn't really talk about the solution.  He talks about his premise (the 3 questions) which are quite correct and not illogical at all.

He only talks about getting rid of markets, but he has no idea how to do it.  That's my big critique of RBE there's no way to get to there without disruption on the scale of bloody revolution like France or Russia

And BTW, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot.  At least this Peter Joseph guy has a brain

Those are pretty good questions.

My opinion of Peter Joseph is that he is a brilliant critic in the same sense Marx was an brilliant critic of Capitalism.

But PJ has the same problem as Marx.  The RBE is not a realistic goal because there can't be a transitioning process without massive disruption

The goal isn't to have equality.  The goal is to keep inequality gap from getting out of hand.  Would you rather have a distribution like Post War US & UK or Pre Revolutionary France?

That's the issue now as the IG gets close to the levels of Pre Revolutionary France

I'm gonna have to invoke Poe's Law here.  Can't tell if this guy is serious or trolling

I don't think OP knows what a hedge fund is.

Why is it that bitcoiners think "decentralized" is some magic word that makes everything better?

D&B is just a database that issues a unique number.  The govt probably has a number so it can do business w private sector.  Doesnt mean the govt is is private company.

By definitnition it is government.  How is this not understandable?

Wait are you claiming US Govt is a for profit company?  Clearly delusional.  Go back to school

Thats a strawman.  Nobody thinks govt is benevolent.  We "statists" think govt play a role in society.  They should be criticised if they fail in their role.  Its just idiotic to think there should be no govt or private sectors can replace specific governmental roles

Specifically speaking, why have an adminstrator of public services that have profit motive?  Like youv'e never been fucked over by a corporation