>> This is a serious question for those who come
>> in here to rail against the free market.
good questions?
who has come here to "rail against the free market."?

<< 1) Do you think that the new alternative to free markets would be so wonderful that everyone would freely choose to abandon free market systems in favor of the new system? >>

Anarchism is the default state of ANY newly found land. You'll find that it is almost universally rejected, often immediately.


<< 2) If you think case number 1 applies, what makes you think future generations would not ever revive free market economies? >>

Future generations will forget the lessons of the past and enable all sorts of imbalanced systems. Communism on one end and anarchism on the other. In the end either extreme will collapse in societal catastrophe and a balance will be restored, or the people will dwindle. See: Rapa Nui.


<< 3) What if, under the new anarchist system 80% of the people choose to participate in the new economic system, 10% of the people choose to abstain from all economic transactions and "do it on their own," and 10% choose to participate in a free market economy? >>

I actually lament the fact that the ENTIRE world is spoken for by some entity or another. If it were not, we could establish a new colony for that 10% and let them create their own new utopia. Crassly speaking it would entice the foolish element to flee out of the midst of the wise, ~~OR~~ it would lead to the utter prosperity of that emigrated 10% and they would prove their point fabulously, like America itself once did.


<< 6) If they're not allowed to continue, why not? >>

That is why I am for giving them their own land to create their own rules. The problem with society today is that we do not have room to give new ideas their own land to grow and experiment and survive or fail. Anarcho-Capitalism has every right to have its own land and practice its own beliefs and prove to the world that they are a spectacular story of success or failure. But as it stands, we cannot give you that and that is a detriment to all of civilization. Having room to test out newer and newer societal models in their purity, is absolutely essential to the evolution and perfection of humanity.

It unnerves the crap out of me that people are not free to break off and form their own new nation based on their own ideals.

common (misinformed) argument against anarchism:
without government control, the thugs and oportunists would take over. CNN often refers to these types of international situations as "anarchy"

the over-simplified answer:
that situation is not anarchism, but totalitarianism on a smaller and un-linked or un-organized level.

your questions do spark thought and reconsideration in my mind, but they also bear a similarity to the above mentioned argument. whether people choose free market systems or not is just as irrelevant as whether they would choose the percieved security of a heirerarchical system or not. In my mind, anarchism is a philosophy that doesn't put much weight on what people would statistically or probably do in a particular absense of current power structures. It is an argumant against the necesity of these power structures altogether. The "free" market, whether or not the people would choose it or not, is a definate power structure. To deny that is to deny that money is a controlling and controllable entity. So it seems to me that the questions presented here could almost be rephrased as:

If we presuppose an anarchist system, would people choose anarchism? After all, who's to stop those who fear chaos and feel sheltered by a system of hierarchy? What if under the new anarchist system, 80% chose not to participate in the new anarchist system? Well that's kind of what's going on right now. Although 20% might be a generous estimate of how many of us anarchists there are around here.

How can a free market system ever be lacking in priveledge toward those who have advantage in marketing skills or in circumstantial placement (ie: birth into a priveledged class or race)? And with this priveledge comes devision of labor. And as long as there is devision of labor, there is hierarchy.