Anarcho-capitalism is the right form of government

The Federal Reserve operates outside of the the Federal Government like the post office, though it was created by congress in 1913. The Federal Reserve has charter from the United States government to manufacture money on behalf of the United States, the money is that of the United States, not the Fed, and yes, had the bank bailouts of 2008 not occurred, the entire global economy could very well have fallen in on itself even more than it had, but had deregulation not occurred under the thumbs of men like Greenspan and Larry Summers, the 2008 finical crises could have very well not happened. Deregulation caused the pure greed of the banks where were, "to big to fail," to over invest in toxic assets, insure toxic assets, do slimy business dealing between one another, and intertwine themselves with one another on such a global level, that if one went under, they all went under. You fail to understand that the Fed alone was not responsible for the bailouts, but required permission from the department of the Treasury as well, as US money was used in the bailouts. The "bailout" of GM was simply an act of government buying stock when GM hit rock bottom, and one GM's stock rises, the federal government will sell and all the money is back. This was a direct action of the United States government to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. The idea that firms never owned land themselves that "measured up," and this is why some firms don't partake in protecting the environment is ludicrous. If a firm was going to take measures to protect the environment, why would government regulation on protecting the environment prevent that? In the places with the least government regulation such as Mexico and China, companies can dump whatever they please into the environment, and they often do. This shows that regulation isn't the reason behind why firms decide to pollute. I feel personally, that using the concepts of capitalism itself, with no direct incentive to contain pollution, a firm will find that it maximizes profits to just dump it into the environment. The problem isn't that regulation exists. I'd like to address the boom and bust cycle or market volatility in itself. While not at visible in micro-economic scenarios, on a macro scale, they are almost impossible to miss. Using stocks as an example, as investors add money to a company, or market, the company or market flourishes and the "boom" is seen, but when something causes a panic, and/or mass sell off, the price of the stock falls, and the value of the market falls, thus the "bust". Such a thing happened during the 1920s that led to the depression in the 1930s. People began making money of stocks, and it came to the point where everyone wanted to get in on the stock craze and people started buying stock on margin with loaned money. Eventually, calls were placed on the loans, and people had to sell the stock they had bought on margin prematurely, as more calls on the credit were issued, more people began selling, and prices across the market began to fall sharply. These quick sells led to a crash of the entire market, a bust following the boom of the roaring 20s. This bust led to the Great Depression. Another bust can be seen in 2008, when the entire banking industry almost collapsed and took the world economy with it. Deregulation of investment banks led to unrealistic loans being made to people who knowingly couldn't pay them back. The housing market was the best example of this, and this is where the majority of "toxic assets" were created. Banks would issue bad mortgages, lump the bad mortgages together with good ones, and sell them to other banks or privet equity groups with insurance. The issue came when the assets began to show their dark side and spoiled and the "insurance" went to be collected, the bank that made the deal couldn't pay, thusly the housing bubble popped, the market crashed, and if it hadn't been for the government provided social safety net and the quick wit and actions of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson to bail out the larger banks, the bust could have very well let to a depression much worse than that of the 1930s. Boom and Bust cycles and market volatility are real, and are not a direct attribution to "regulation," but simple human nature acting on the principals of capitalism. On a different side of your argument, I'd like to hear who creates the laws for which these private courts judge by, because if their are laws that differentiate good from bad behavior, then your argument for anarcho-capitalist society is flawed, and something is no longer anarchy when a centralized "legislative" power is in existence. A centralized government is always better than no government, even if that government imposes regulation that prevent some firms from making a few dollars or a few hundred dollars here or there.