Yes.

Granted well off kids do have more chances to stay well off in their adult lives. But that doesn't mean that all the other children don't. The majority of the rich in the country have got their through hard work not inheritance. All children go to school and have the opportunity to surpass their parents income wise. Granted for some kids its harder but education is where im a friggen commie.

And no offense but your dad was either content with whatever he did or just a quitter..

Im sorry but there time just isn't worth all that much. Whatever there doing for a living theres either no demand or miles of other people who want that job. If these people arn't happy where they are then they need to make some tough decisions to get themselves out. (You also need look at what these people did to get where they are)

__________________
Collective? I'm sure thats easy when your not surrounded by a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards!!!

Do you honestly imagine that the poor economic circumstances of the working class stem from their own personal decisions?

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

The funny thing is, the only alternative to the socialists misguided notion of "wage slavery" is to force "the greedy capitalist pigs" to pay the "exploited workers" more.

Now, you tell me, which sounds more like genuine slavery? Voluntary agreements or decisions imposed on some by violence.

I'd say the latter. Which is where my opposition to capitalism stems from.

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

In which case you shouldn't be in opposition to a genuine free market. I agree with you, the current state of affairs (which some like to capitalism, hence my aversion to the term) is wrong, but I properly identify the culprit.

I've told you before that there's no point in arguing over the ideological meaning of a "free market" because it is not a conceptually sound idea. I have asked you for instances of existing "free markets" in the world. You were unable to provide any. In the name of fairness, I then provided you with several examples of libertarian socialist societies. You mocked one without addressing its conceptual soundness, but did not post any reply about the rest, even when I prompted you to do so.

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

In which case you shouldn't be in opposition to a genuine free market. I agree with you, the current state of affairs (which some like to capitalism, hence my aversion to the term) is wrong, but I properly identify the culprit.

Am I missing something?

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

That's a logical fallacy, the past is descriptive, not prescriptive.

100 years ago the internet didn't exist, does that make it an impossibility?

In any case, even if free market anarchism could never be put into practise (which isn't true, it can) it still doesn't mean it isn't the correct position to advocate.

Moreover, there have been examples of free market societies, medievil Iceland, medievil Ireland, the Wild West other places in the USA. The Spanish anarhcism rested on coercion and as such wasn't anarchism. The rest? I'll admit, I'm clueless about them.

That again? I find it interesting that you would cite medieval Iceland and the Wild West when I've already rebutted those examples before, and when you say that "the past is descriptive, not prescriptive."

Spanish anarchism, on the other hand, has functioned well in an industrialized urban setting. It's not that you're clueless about the rest. You're clueless about Spanish anarchism. Were you the one who posted the Bryan Caplan link?

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin