-
No. The Fed can only be that powerful through being protected by the state. Which is only possible because of peoples superstitions about the usefulness of the state. Private companies couldn’t pull that off.
-
Not if he competes for customers. The only problem I could come up with is that the road owner would be so rich that he doesn’t care about the profits. Meaning it’s worth the losses for him to harass some people he doesn’t like, for example a religious or ethnic group. Anyone got a response to that?
-
I wouldn’t support such centralized control. This is a complicated issue and there have been whole threads about this. This one comes to mind. My short answer would be that any bank could offer any currency they want and customers would prefer those backed by commodities.
-
I realize that complete anarchy is problematic as long as there are still authoritarian states in the world. In my mind anarchy is not something that some regions implement while the rest of the world still are authoritarian dictatorships. Rather, all countries gradually build down their state involvement in the economy as they are becomming more economically interdependent. At the point where some countries decide to outright abolish the state there won’t be any evil dictatorships around any more.
-
Read The Machinery of Freedom. It’s free. Short answer is that there would be higher layers of courts that they hand the decision to. Also, fighting legal battes is expensive and keeps you from engaging in profitable work, so everyone has an incentive to accept a slightly imperfect ruling rather than to keep fighting.
-
I think so. It’s in the book if you care about the details.
As for your blogpost. I read that back when you mentioned it in the other thread. I wrote a partial response, and never posted it. I will write a new response and post it in this thread.