I keep hearing this but nowhere am I told why it would be more efficient. Competing companies COULD be more efficient, but there's no guarantee.
I recently saw a government monopoly being broken up, and the end result is a rather large "meh". The prices are about the same, the service is about the same (but slightly better), and the salaries for employees in the new de-monopolized shops are about the same (but slightly lower). There are more shops though. This goes for cities. No idea how things are in the countryside.
That monopoly was probably run as efficient as it could be by anyone, private or state. A bit more waste now if you look at it from a resources perspective.
Still, I don't buy this "the government does everything poorly" argument that keeps popping up here. Perhaps you just have a shitty government. Then fix it. You have the tools. No revolution needed.

I wouldn't say worthless.
This guy is both spot on and quite funny while he's at it. 
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2251220&cid=36493684

Yes, because no project has ever changed direction mid stride.  

Difficulty is too high for me now. I won't be able to mine any more. I have some bitcents that I've mined. Please send it to the wikileaks account if you don't want to send it to me. My payout address should be registered, or send it to 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v which should be WikiLeaks (according to http://wikileaks.org/support.html)

Just look at it as a tax that will help bitcoin function. 
Without it necessary services that is required will not work, so we all have to pay a bit to help out. 

Please explain the difference to me. I'd love to hear it.
A state that doesn't intervene because it can't or because it doesn't exist is the same I'd say. The end result is no intervention. So you should really go there, it does sound like the utopia you want.
Or don't. I have a feeling it wouldn't be beneficial to your health and longevity.

That. Just that.
"The gubbimint's bad, mkay?"
Bloody annoying is what it is.
Like the tech, hate the fanbois.

I'm a slashdot guy and I don't hate bitcoin. I don't love it either though.
I do however find the rampant libertarianism that comes with bitcoin somewhat annoying.
The tech is cool, though.
And it's quite obvious that many who frequent these forums are young, rather naive and not nearly as pragmatic as I am. And I also think it's far to insecure. I mined a few coins and that's all I'll invest in it.
I think bitcoin has a place, but I'm not sure it'll find it before something else takes over.

This was rather a stream of consciousness than a well thought out post, but take it for what it is.

You're right. Wrong forum.

Oh please. That argument can be used to attack anyone at any time.

Anyone using their knowledge in any field can be the target of your vigilante justice because they're "initiating force against the ignorant" by their mere expertise in the field.

This is why anarcho-capitalism, voluntarism or whatever you call it is garbage. It's just word play to allow "might makes right".

The website owners might be scum, but you don't have to be.
And no, a DDoS isn't non violent. Informing the public is. Barricading the entrance isn't.

What was it you used to say about aggression? Or is this defence again?
Is it defence when you're aggressive something you don't like, but defence when someone is aggressive against something you like?

But I do agree that the website should be avoided and reported.

What's up with with the randomizer? Anyone have any news?
Have I missed an announcement somewhere?

Oh, look, I can also link images.

I asked questions. People pointed me to what they thought were good videos and articles. They weren't.
Feel free to suggest things to read/watch, I'll give it a shot. Bad/stupid things don't get much time though.

Or you could just use the current system which is both working, economical and efficient. Why replace a system, with some faults, with another with different but equally big or bigger faults? Why not try to improvements? Look, I can see some benefits to your way of thinking, and I can see how some thoughts can be incorporated into current systems, but your system as a whole just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think it is. You can have different credit ratings with different organizations.  You can't have different owners of a patch of land. Not at the same time anyway.

I don't agree with your conclusion. And laws are seldom retroactive, and those who are are advertised in advance to let you react to them. Also, your solution to the problem above would be to make sure the person with the most resources wins? Hardly seems more fair to me.

I'm not sure which great thinkers you refer to, but I did read a few articles that was offered to me, and watched a few youtube films that people suggested, and if that represented the great thinkers I'm not impressed.

Fences? Really? Visible border? Go have a look at a large farm. They have no fences around their crop fields and it would be very impractical and expensive to have it. It becomes even more absurd with forests.
I assure you that I could claim enough land anywhere to go around and inspect it every 10 years or so, making sure it's doing it's job acting as a carbon sink. I see so many ways to abuse the system you're proposing. So you have to prove that you own your property to anyone who shows up?

Credit rating is a bit like IP isn't it. It's not "scarce".
I was in Greece not too long ago. I came across a guy who built a house there. He assumed that the road outside was a public road, which it wasn't it'd turn out. When his house was built some guy came up with a document showing that he owned the road and now wanted to be compensated. Our hero had nothing to do but to pay the fee that the man asked for. Then another man came, with another contract claiming the HE owned the road, then another and another. All with valid documents. And the fee was low enough to not bother going to court about.
He fully expects someone to come one day with a paper claiming to own the land that the house stands on, but then the stakes will be higher.
Turns out that this isn't uncommon in Greece. A country with a more or less failed state. That's what I'd expect without a central authority.

The way I see it labour is labour, no matter if you put it into IP or into a patch of land. You should somehow have the right to that labour, but as stated above, there's a difference between them so we tweak the rules governing them. According to you the fact that only one person CAN use physical property at any given time is the point, but that's just an ideological argument. If you're not using your property during the day, and I do, it has absolutely no impact on you. Yet you say I can't do that because you have the right to the labour you put into it. Yet you're not willing to extend that to IP.

Why not. It's just rules. You can tweak rules. Unless you're ideologically stuck.

From BitterTea: "If it's unowned you can homestead it, which is just whatever method society accepts as a market of proving "I claimed this first"."
So, why not use a similar one on ideas, just like I wrote? I had this idea first, it's now mine. However since everyone understands that there's a difference between an idea and a spot of land, we tweak the rule a little. You don't own the idea forever, like with the land, but for a limited time. See, not that hard.

How?
Once money are with paypal, withdraw to bank and you should be fine, right?

I'd claim all land and use it to increase biodiversity, study long term effects of global warming or anything else that would be very hard to actually check. I mean, how can you actually check what I'm doing? My forests might be in a growth period, no action required on my part. My fields might be resting for a few years to yield bigger crops in the future. How can you tell?
Or isn't that allowed?

And another thing that interests me. How do you keep track of which land actually belong to whom? A central land authority that registers all owners? Doesn't seem like something you'd like. Several registers? Something else?