I've been thinking about this for a while. What's the problem with pure anarchy? The strong rule over the weak. Most of us don't want to live in a society where the only law is your ability to fight. We have laws against violence to prevent that sort of thing. However, violent power is only one kind of power. Economic power is just as real. But we have very few laws to protect people from economic oppression. If you get mugged in an alley somewhere, then you have legal recourse. It's against the law to beat someone up and take their stuff. On the other hand, if a lender takes advantage of someone who is down on their luck financially we shrug our shoulders and say tough luck. We all agree it's unethical, but there are no laws to prevent it. We suggest that the person should just be more savvy, and then he/she wouldn't get taken advantage of. Free market economy is good, but there needs to be some control so that those with economic power don't dominate those without. I'm tired of accepting usury and price-gouging as just "the way it is." How bad does it have to get before we notice and do something?

I would say you use the wrong definition of anarchy, try reading some of this:
Infoshop.org - An Anarchist FAQ - Version 11.9
to realize that anarchy is a system of equality, and therefore also an extreme utopia. However most people seem to use your definition of it, which is sad, because it only makes the true anarchists look bad.
The "economic anarchy" you talk about I think should be referred to as neo-liberalism, which is the system where the only power is the economic power (sort of, no governments). But in pure anarchy an oppressive economic system would be "forbidden" (i.e. if there was one, it would not be anarchy).

I too think that if there should be a system of economics similar to what we have today, it needs tons of regulations and laws to be considered "good" or "fair" at all.

I see the point that the site makes. However, I think they are using a non-standard definition of the word "anarchy." That's fine, I have no problem with using non-standard definitions provided you're clear about it, and they are. Typically, anarchy refers to the absence of law or government. That's what I mean by it here. BTW, that's very different from "anarchism" which refers to a political view.

For the purpose of my previous post, consider my usage of the word "anarchy" to refer to a situation where there are no rules or laws.

Well, there should something like loans? It is just that both parties have duties. If the one giving a loan does not have reasonably expectation that the loan will be paid back, he should not have the right to loan in the first place. (or expect the money back in form of selling all the other party's stuff.) On the other hand, the loaner also should have duty to pay the money back.
I would call insurance a form of usury too. Perhaps loans and insurance should be tasks of govt, but as everything, how do you keep govt doing its purposes well. One could ask the same thing of free market, with the predictable answer, but that would lead back to the problem of usury. And does free market really guarantee quality?

Another form of usury i find especially bad, is the stock market. As far as i can see it was originally intended as a way to invest in companies, which i think is fine.(In a capitalist framework, at least) But now the stocks seem to have taken on a life of its own. Value of stocks depends too much on how bad others (dont) want them.
One way i see investing in new ideas might work is: Investigate idea, if good idea, give money, pray that the idea was actually a good one, and then get money back+ risk money. Of course, the enterprise might go no-where so that it is stopped earlier, then some money goes back earlier to save it. Or the enterprise goes better then expected and more investment is needed, then that is an idea, and new investments are possible.
When many people want to invest in something, 'stock prices' should not go up, the amount of reward risk money should go down. The person willing to leave with the lowest risk money will win an auction of investment.

Yet another case of economic anarchy is people having to choose between working unreasonably hard or starving/losing their homes/not being able to educate their children. I think taxes from the richer should come in to ensure that all people (or at least as many as possible) can get a decent living, and everyone who is smart enough gets access to education at any level at some point in their life, this without student loans as that will undermine the decent living thing i said.

PS IMO

I've wondered something similar....

If a minarchist like Ayn Rand were here, she'd probably say that there's no objective way to determine whether an economic transation is fair or unfair. IOW, if two parties consent to a trade, then both benefit, and a bystander has no right to interfere.

Although I think, if one goes this far, why not just have full blown anarchy? Economic power and political power are two abstractions of the same thing. I'm not sure one can really distinguish the two except in theory. Even in the U.S. it's pretty easy to convert one form of currency into the other.

Except that people get backed into a corner and have no choices. And companies don't take advantage of those who are well off; they take advantage of those who can't defend themselves, who couldn't even afford a retainer if they wanted to sue. That's what bothers me, and it's what gives the lie to the "free market" myth.
Yep. Yet we put you in jail for using physical force, and congratulate you for your cleverness for using financial force.

I read quite a bit of the website about Ayn Rands thinking, the government is there to prevent 'initiation of force' the government is supposed to be the only organization allowed to use force, unless someone is in direct threat.
I find the site quite consistent on some things, but it assumes a lot about that free free market works, and that, it can be funded by money from its courts. (which i find rather doubtful, and probably denies the poor of the courts, effectively meaning they are fair game for 'initiation of force'.) It also claims that stuff like roads and public space do not have to be managed by government either.

Should note that utabintarbo said he thought of the website as 'Cliff notes'. I find the attempts to define it interesting though, are there more social sites that try to define it also? I have done a little trying to define it myself, but not much yet. I do have the feeling that a-priori, i am not sure whether one should base such a system on trying to define it precisely.
Edit: Hehe, now i read you better, i guess you knew this.
I agree, they often say "vote with your pocket", but the fact is that most of current money is either in the hands of the rich, or in corporations. I do not see how that will change in minarchism. People will just have a very small vote, which, then, they barely can use, because they need essentials, while the rich can afford to wield their money as power. Also, that is a lot of votes to think about, i do not think you can really make them all work.

Yeah, it's hard to define "objectivism" because Ayn Rand was a novelist, not a philosopher. Rather than preferring to state her political views explicitly, she often intertwined them with long rambling fictional prose (much like L. Ron Hubbard). Of course, mostly the ideas weren't even her own thoughts ... she borrowed ideas from other thinkers (like Aristotle, Ludwig Von Mises, Nietzsche), sometimes mangling the ideas in the process.

Generally though she was just describing the polar opposite of communism (jumping from one extreme to another). She wanted, I think, to refute communism based on irrefutable, a apriori principles ... which is quite naive on her part. Although it makes sense given her bad experiences with it as a child.

What's scary to me though is that fans who read her novels actually want to apply the political/economic system in real life. I mean, if it works in a fictional world with imaginary people, why shouldn't it work in real life???

Doesn't that remind you of Utopia?

Utopia, Ohio? That's an interesting place ... I forgot about that

For the record, I was thinking of this Utopia, but I suspect you knew that.