Hmm... thread started called "I don't get anarchists", some anarchists take the time to try to explain their positions, you don't listen and misrepresent the argument. nice.
You're right. Some have taken the time and I shouldn't have ignored that. At the same time, a very simple question ("who will print the stamps?") gets the response "Duh, printers". That kind of response ought to win hearts and minds, eh?
And what do you mean by a social not fiscal libertarian.
Civil libertarian. Someone with an interest in preserving individual liberties and ensuring that the state controls as little as it needs to to function. As opposed to a fiscal libertarian (eg: Drew Carey) who will believe in NO government to speak of, no taxes, every man for himself, etc.
I notice you never answered whether you think the corporate form is a good thing or not either.
Look again. You didn't ask for my opinion on the matter. You asked me to explain to you why libertarians feel the way they do, and I responded that I'm not in their club.
Personally, I don't think that corporations have to be abolished, but I'm open to further restrictions on them. I don't believe that corporations necessarily do a better job of managing things, but neither do I believe the Crown does.
What you think of the concept of a free market? Is it possible for something that no one has ever experienced to be the central tent of an just economic system?
Well, nobody has seen an Ideal Gas yet either, but the Ideal Gas Law isn't useless for it. I think that market forces are a good starting point for understanding economics, and I think that there are some factors, such as supply and demand, that are so basic that they can't be discarded. I, personally, don't think that a laissez faire, totally unrestricted market is a good thing. I think the market can correct for a lot of things much more sensibly than a government fiat, but not everything.
Is it libertarian and individualistic to have corporations control our economies?
Control? Or influence? Are you speaking hyperbolically? If you're speaking literally, as in a corporation setting the prime rate or a corporation deciding when we need to print more money then I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean is it libertarian to have corporations have influence (even exteme influence) over the economy then I would suppose that it is, corporations being controlled by individuals by way of the board and shareholders and such. Libertarian thinking can't promise you that someone else's choices won't affect the market in a way you don't want; it could only promise that you would be unfettered by the government in attempting to affect it back to the way you do want. I'd like to note again, though, that I don't desire a market that's totally free of government control.
Given your questions above we already know you have no imagination so I don't see how you could believe in the free market because that would require one.
Au contraire. I'm imagining you kissing my ass right now.
You should explain yourself because you are really starting to look like a run of the mill troll with no idea about anything except their right wing fantasies.
If you can't understand my posts -- and evidently, you can't -- what would you do with my explanation? You don't really want an explanation anyway, I don't think, unless it amounts to "Oh, I'm so wrong but I've seen the light!" or some similar repudiation of anything you disagree with. I wouldn't hold your breath.