"Zach, stop clinging to your anarcho-capitalist classics."
^The moment you stop avoiding them, I might consider it.

"Prices lower only if there are is supply to meet demand."
^Are you arguing that supply WOULDN'T meet demand?

"Education supply is not infinite."
^Why can't it be? Why can't, in a free society, other institutions who benefitted from a freer market enter the business of providing an education?

"If education is cheaper in the way you believe the market would provide, then there will not be high pay for teachers . Thus, teachers will be discouraged from the industry. Would you subsidize their pay to prevent that? That means education opportunities would be less available, and would have to be rationed by price based on intellectual competition. That is how it would be exclusionary."

^No. Let's say you have three schools. The first is very cookie-cutter, the second has somewhat of a negative reputation, and the third has a well-respected faculty and because the consumer considers these qualities to best fulfill his needs, he tends to go more towards the third school. Consumers (students) pay, capital structure is extended, wages rise.

"then there will not be high pay for teachers . Thus, teachers will be discouraged from the industry. Would you subsidize their pay to prevent that? That means education opportunities would be less available, and would have to be rationed by price based on intellectual competition. That is how it would be exclusionary."

^You are basically saying that a free market causes a lack of opportunity for some because education is a limited resource, yet how is education a limited resource? Again, where, in a free society, is the rule that maintains that only certain institutions could be schools? Oh wait, there is none. Except the kinds of monopolistic controls that only exist in a statist society.

"I am not a "liberal". Classically, yes. The fact that you think I am by default proves you would not do well in a purely competitive system. You are an ideologue who views the world through rigid principles and an inflexible mind."

^If you were defending the "virtues" of a bureaucratic government, you would be a liberal. That's fact. That's why neoconservatives are "neo", because they're LIBERAL conservatives. My mind is extremely flexible as well. I deviate with a lot of libertarians on MANY things. Maybe if you knew me you'd realize that, but you have to guess when it comes to your insults because you, in fact, don't.

"Actually, most people would agree that sophisticated language is a good trait. Actually, it is indicative of better education. People who are prone to mocking it are likely those that think they are so right they are above critique."

^Of course. I use big words too. But when you make a petty stupid insult about the way I write, I will respond in kind. Stick to the point at hand.

"For capitalism to flourish, there needs to be law for things such as property rights. Otherwise the market disappears."

^For one who claims to have read Rothbard, you obviously have not read "For a New Liberty." I highly recommend it, as it debunks the idea that the state is required to enforce property rights.

"Perhaps you find anarchy appealing, so I suggest you travel to Somalia to experience it first hand."
^The government collapsed in 1991, and afters years and years of socialism it takes TIME for the infrastructure to rebuild. Nothing can speed this up: any kind of IGO/gov intervention would only augment in the short term and hinder in the long term. There have been civil wars and untold violence in the region which has contributed to the decay. The CIA Factbook talks in depth about how the service industries, electronics industries, food markets, militia markets, etc. have flourished contrary to many expectations to the contrary. Peter Leeson did a study of Somalia where his data concluded that development and standard of living in Somalia under anarchy was IMPROVED since the state collapsed, and in comparison to neighboring African states. Again, those nations are poor, but this is a delayed process.

"And thank you for the straw man. I never said that I want "more" subsidies. "
^A straw man is when one makes up an exaggerated viewpoint and then attacks it. I did no such thing. I merely took your defense of subsidies and made a sort of prediction as to your views. I believe I was right. That is not a straw man.

"If you think an etch-a-sketch rewrite of the system would yield positive results, I cannot see how, as it would be heavily skewed against the disadvantaged. How useful is your view if it is entirely theoretical? How could it be transplanted into an established society?"
^So you are suggesting that the reason that anarchocapitalism is unworkable is simply because we couldn't implement it in today's society? That's a fallacy. It would be extremely difficult to implement only because we have a system literally strangled by regulation and bureaucracy. That in no way debunks anarchocapitalism. At all.

"Oddly enough, most who hold your views default to Von Mises or Rothbard in arguments. Again, it proves memory, nothing else. Maybe reading them opened your eyes, or something, but they are not biblical in any sense. "
^I could say the exact same thing about the Obama supporters in the mainstream papers who have been quoting Krugman as of late. Von Mises and Rothbard are sadly not as well known as they should be today, which prompts me bringing them up. I've read Man Economy and State and if you want to start getting into the nitty gritty, bring it on. I don't just "default" to their names. I KNOW their arguments and theories.

"Funny how you could not refute my comment about inflation, and only make the most basic of basic statements about economics."
^The dollar is being devalued. Of course. I understand that as inflation occurs, more fiat dollars are needed to equal the same wealth. There's nothing to refute.

"You start with the syllogism that the government caused all ills and that without it things would be different, therefore being anti-government is a virtuous thing. That is not a testable hypothesis."
^That's not a hypothesis. That's a SYNTHESIS of a whole host of ideas and ideals that I believe in. If you want to get into anything nitty-gritty, ask away.

"I'm sure your crystal ball told you that."
^Yup. I must have borrowed yours. You know, the one that told you I wouldn't have been able to go to the U in a free society. Right.