Foxpup, you are clearly stretching to try to make you position sound credible.
No, because of one very simple fact: when you spend a dollar, you don't have it any more. So you want to think carefully about what your spending your money on. You make sure you're getting what you're paying for.
This is a bit of equivocation. When we are talking about those with money here, what we are really talking about is spending power. That is, those with lots of income. What money you currently have on hand is a resource, but the real power comes from having that massive income, that spending power. Thus there is a huge incentive to spend what money you have in order to ensure your income, your spending power. And if legislation is controlled entirely by the free market, as it would be under the system you propose, then you are literally saying that those with the spending power make the laws. And of course they'll enforce things in a way to keep themselves rich, and who cares about the little guy.
With voting, there's no such incentive. There's no accountability. Politicians have nothing at stake, no reason to do what's best for the state, only what's best for themselves.
Not true. They have to worry about their acceptance by the public. So at the very least, they have to give the appearance that the care about what's best for the state.
The most fundamental principle of anarchy is that you can't force anyone to have what they don't want. If people don't want human rights, in what sense are they even rights in the first place?
The US constitution's main purpose is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. With anarchy, the minority have no such protection.
If anarchy ruled, it'd be a major setback to social progress. Things like racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, and so forth would be rampant under such a system. The gay rights movement, for example, wouldn't have been able to make near the progress it has if those with the power could just stamp out anyone that tries to speak up about such issues.
I wouldn't be so certain. Look at the mafia, it's basically ran like a business, and they have no problem with using violence. The trick is to keep enough probable deniability, like if the other guy's place just happens to burn down in the middle of the night.... And for those that you deal with that you must let them know of your use of violence, you make sure they understand, it's nothing personal, just business.
Actually, they do have a problem with using violence against those who have done nothing to warrant it. It's a bad idea to default on a loan from the Mafia. It's a bad idea to run a competing business on the Mafia's territory. And it's an especially bad idea to physically assault a member of the Mafia. But as a general rule, if you don't mess them, they don't mess with you.
Yes, it's a bad idea to run a competing business in their territory. What makes it their territory? Because they say so. And what makes you a competing business? Because you happen to be located in the area they claim as their territory, quite likely to no fault of your own. This is exactly what I was illustrating. Without laws, there is nothing to stop any very large business from operating in this same fashion.
Foxpup, you can't honestly believe that money only gives power to those willing to exchange favors for money. You say this, but then go on to talk about privatized armies. What is a privatized army is not a way to change monetary power into military power, and military power most certainly gives power over others whether they are willing or not.
Not if the others have their own military power.
Not everyone would have the same access to military power because not everyone has the same spending power. You seriously can't be that naive.
Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that the first statement is incorrect also; there IS a way to obtain money that does not involve producing anything of value: it's called theft.
I disagree. The ability to avoid retaliation from the aforementioned private armies sounds like it would be very valuable indeed. 
Seriously, though, how many people do expect to get away with theft when the police force is replaced by private agencies that get paid for results?
First of all, I'm not sure what it is you are getting at with the "avoid retaliation" statement. But regardless of what retaliations or punishments there might be, the fact remains that theft is indeed a way to obtain money that does not require producing anything of value. That's pretty much the definition of the word.
Since you claim to disagree, are you honestly making the claim that under anarchy there wouldn't be -any- theft? Because if so, I can't take you serious. Theft has been going on since before human civilization even existed.
There's a reason those companies are ficticious. (No, the reason is not "the government stops companies being evil". Just looks at what the government lets companies get away with. Bad publicity does more to discourage companies from acting irresponsibly than anything the government does.)
The reason those companies are fictitious is because real companies are inherently indifferent towards good and evil. In the movies, however, things are often portrayed as extremes because it makes for more engaging stories.
And while it's true that keeping a good public image goes a long way towards keeping a company in line, so does having the law they must answer to. Public image doesn't matter much for short lived companies. With anarchy, these companies that we generally regard as frauds would run rampant.
