So you would prefer the workers making the million dollar cars go hungry instead of being paid to make cars? Because you are jealous of someone who is more successful than you and so you want to put hundreds of working class people out of work and kill someone for having a nicer car than you? You sound like an insane person. I am sure that, like most socialist-"anarchists" I have met, you are about 15 years old and pissed off that you are broke while your rich neighbors kid has nice things because his dad is rich. I have actually heard the two car argument from socialists, who think that having two cars means you stole one car from society. Because not many people actually need two cars, and your underlying philosophy is from each according to his ability to each according to his need. So you want to take from the person with two cars one car, as he doesn't need the extra car, and give the extra car to someone who has no car and needs one. Just look at squatting, that is huge with European socialists, and it pretty much comes down to if someone has a home and they are not using it, it should be illegal for them to keep others out of it, because others need homes and they have no current use for it. I don't claim that all squatters are socialists though, I know it is a common cultural thing in parts of Europe, and indeed I have plenty of friends who have squatted (but I certainly wouldn't stay friends with someone who burns rich kids alive in their cars, or probably even with someone who goes around making sure everyone has exactly one car!). No taxes and socialism is pretty much a non-sequitor. Let's go over to wikipedia and see what you actually think "anarcho-socialism" is! So they believe in "converting" (ie: stealing) private property into a public good, while allowing some forms of personal property. So you can own shoes, but not a shoe factory. So they want to steal the shoe factory, most likely killing the owner, and then they want the shoes produced to be distributed throughout society. That seems pretty much in line with my claim, although they did use some mighty fine euphemisms to make it seem less horrible. Also, you are going to have a hard time stealing the means of production without a strong central government. And who exactly determines how to distribute all of the produced shoes? I imagine also a central government. So pretty much you need a government to have socialism, which is pretty much what I said, and also what makes anarcho-socialism a misnomer. The first sentence goes against the first paragraph. The first paragraph claims that the socialist "anarchists" desire to steal productive property, and this is a coercive social organization. It is coercive to force people to not own means of production. You are also apparently against free association, as you don't want to let people join companies that make million dollar cars. You most likely want to tell people where to work actually, although you certainly want to tell them where they cannot work! Socialists assert that a free society can be attained by stealing everything from rich people and murdering them for good measure. They also promote identifying, criticizing and dismantling all authority that that goes against their belief system, which here is called by the euphemism of illegitmate authority. Whereas anarcho-capitalists seek to identify, criticize and dismantle all authorities that attempt to initiate force against others, anarcho-socialists wish to initiate force against those who are richer than they are in order to create a society where everyone is of equal socioeconomic status. Anarcho-capitalists claim that illegitimate authority is any authority that attempts to initiate force, socialists claim that illegitimate authority is anyone who has more economic power than others. But this is also contradictory. The socialists claim they are against the exercise of institutionalized economic power, yet they desire to form institutions that exercise so much power that they seize the means of production from all individuals. They claim to be critical of coercive institutions, but what could be more coercive than handcuffing rich kids into their million dollar cars and burning them alive? What could be more coercive than stealing all economically significant property? What could be more coercive than telling people what they can produce (no million dollar cars apparently) and what they can have (again no million dollar cars, but really they take it much further and would say you can only have one car, one pair of shoes, to be changed after so much time and after putting in a request to a centralized agency, just like the socialists have always done). They act like if someone buys a car factory it is not his personal property, which is just absurd. They think that someone owning a car factory is antagonistic to individual freedom, but not torching the rich person who owns the car factory and taking it over themselves. Although it is obvious that capitalism does give more power to people who have more capital, it does not prevent people from amassing more capital. It is entirely possible to move up several positions in the socioeconomic hierarchy, as I previously stated. I know many upper middle class and lower upper class people who were born poor. It is more rare to move up from the bottom to the top, although even this happens in some cases. Many rappers are a good example of this, a lot of them were born into the worst poverty and now they are some of the richest people in the world. Sure this is exceptional, but it demonstrates that even moving from the bottom to the top is possible. It is equally possible to move from the top to the bottom, as many who win or inherit large amounts of money discover. In a socialist world they strive to make it impossible to move below or above dead center, and somehow they think that this increases freedom. In all implementations of socialism ever seen, two classes emerge. The party class and the people class. The party class is essentially what the socialists claim to be against, but in reality it is what their leaders are striving for. The people who manage seizing the means of production and distributing it to society will always distribute more to themselves and their friends than they do to the people, just look at a history book to see this. So in practice socialism turns into something horrible, and in theory it is something almost as horrible to begin with. And here is where they argue that you should have only one car. If you have two cars, one of the cars is not in use. In the eyes of socialists, this car is private property and should be seized and redistributed to society. You possessions are things that you can actually use according to them, so therefor you get to keep one of your cars if you are in the habit of using it anyway. It is funny that these idiot socialists said my argument is incorrect and that I should read wikipedia, when it says right on wikipedia that these socialist idiots actually believe what I claimed they believed in the first place. No surprise there, the communist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This means that you don't get that extra car if you don't, in the eyes of the implicit state, need it. Also, if the state thinks you have the ability to make shoes, don't be surprised when they come with guns and tell you that you are now a shoe maker. Again they want to abolish private property, but not "personal property", which although it doesn't at its face value make any sense at all, can be analyzed to mean "You only get one car". The communists want to abolish money, although one of their implementations uses time dollars. In such a system everyone is given money from the centralized government according to how many hours they work. An hour working as a janitor is rewarded with one hour dollar, and an hour working as a neurosurgeon is rewarded with one hour dollar. Now it is quite obvious that a great many people would not desire to do demanding work when they are paid as much for their work as people who are doing much less demanding work, so you may wonder how the hell is anything other than unskilled labor going to get done in such a society. Well the answer is that the state-by-any-other-name decides who is skilled enough to do demanding work, and then they pick a job for them and tell them that is the job they must do. So there are still neurosurgeons, they are just working with guns to their heads, and they are paid an hourly wage equal to the janitors. Sounds like a totally free society to me!! Well I think that is enough Wikipedia reading for now. I would comment on the entire article but it is massive and really I think I have already shown that my understanding of the subject was correct prior to you suggesting that I read more about it, and also have demonstrated that I probably actually have a much better understanding of it than you do.