Anarcho-capitalism is impossible.

Prior argument, I may have been online but I wasn't home. Oh dear, what shall I ever do...well here it is: Anarchism: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. (As defined by Miriam Webster). Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations, "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization" by Colin Ward. Authority: derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command. Hierarchies can be a web...sure...I'm not discussing scientific hierarchy, however, nor literary hierarchy. I'm discussing social hierarchy...I didn't realize I had to make that clear. The private ownership of capital still exists in these "hybrid" situations. The private ownership is no co-opted with the government, they are not joint-ventures. Private individuals still own the means of production, lest you can give me an example. Perhaps Canadian Crown Corporation Petro-Canada? Well, they still operate in a capitalist fashion, regardless of the government owning the stores, pumps, etc. It's, in this case, a form of state capitalism, but we look to the wider of society and realize that 90% (rough guess) of the means of production is privately owned, and the capitalist mode of production, even within the state corporations, is still n effect. I'm talking about a power hierarchy in society. One in which money is power, and your ability to accumulate more wealth than me, will result in you holding dominion over me. The same is said for having a boss. That boss has dominion over you in the workplace. What is a workplace but a private government? They govern my actions in said workplace, they govern how much I am paid, my conduct, my hours, etc. In an "an-cap" society, the wealthy as well, would easily decide what laws, what policy is in effect by their power and influence with money. Capitalism and anarchism are incompatible. Correct. Just as anarchism and the dictatorship of the proletariat are incompatible. I never said it was possible...surely a quote would help you. I insist, on the contrary, it is impossible. The reason it is impossible is the situation of hierarchy. You're whole argument against my security analysis is that companies cannot work together, they can't trust each other. However, you disregard that a contract, which is legally binding and plays a major role in a free market, will be in effect. With said contract, no "backstabbing" or anything of that nature would result, without legal repercussion. As well, you disregard the ability of a monopoly to crush out competition physically (in the case of a private security monopoly), and through hostile takeovers (which I'm sure you haven't forgotten, right?). Thus, the free market has solved nothing. When competition is bought out, absorbed if you will, the monopoly grows, and the customer base which has likely become loyal, or has been rced to sign contract, cannot turn, or afford to turn to any sort of "competition". I have looked to Somalia. One thing you fail to realize. Somalia has a government. In fact, one could argue multiple governments. Sharif Sheikh Ahmed is the president. In the cities in which conflict has prevented the government, criminal cartels have formed pseudo-governments and maintain dominance over the civilians in the areas they exist. Surely, pirating other people's private property, and people's lives, etc. is not a part of your ideology? (I'm well aware of the disorganized nature of my post. Don't really care).