[Agamemnon]

? Are you saying those companies can influence (through bribery and what not) what the governement does? Is that not an argument for removing government since it is used as a tool to pursue companies own interest at the expense of others?

Yes they can, and no its not. Just because a good institution has been hijacked by selfish forces is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd suggest that the government is supposed to shield us from these insidious corporate forces, not act as their tool. I'd prefer complete governmental and corporate reform, redefining their places appropriately, to abolishing central organization as we know it.

Basicaly, in your words the government itself is the tool you are fearing most – tool the rich use when they squeeze out the poor for what they`ve got.

Exactly, identify the 'rich' as the problem, and deal with them. Tossing the government away will just force them to find another avenue to use their resources to control and manipulate the 'poor' to generate more resources for themselves.

The only thing I agree with you on is that the Government is not doing its job appropriately.

No, not really. I understand that the governments very purpose is to act as outlined above – as a parasite. In other words, if I say the government acts as a parasite, I am not saying it is not doing its job appropriately. For me, personaly, there`s neither no place for the government in a free world, nor it can do its job appropriately (in a metaphysical kind of sense).

I'm no lover of the US founding fathers, but I've got to believe that many people began setting up responsible government as a way to protect individual rights and at the same time ensure individual freedom. Not to act like a parasite. Its pretty important to note that its parasitic nature revolves around its infiltration by selfish institutions, not because it was set up and designed to screw you over. To what end?

Where we differ is that you think that removing Government is somehow the answer, leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

I`m not too sure why you always suggest that everyone will be left alone. Do not people tend to help each other? Family, friends, completely strange people too? How about charities, see the world wide donations to South East Asia after the catastrophe. It clearly is happening - people are not left alone to fend for themselves where the state fails.

So basically, charity from the rich will be the final safety-net for the poor? I'm starving, so I'll rely on the good nature of those around me to eat? Sounds Utopian to me.

Pretty important to note that a massive amount of these donations to SE Asia are being coordinated... and donated by 'governmental' institutions. In fact, I'd suggest governments combined are giving a whole lot more than corporations combined.

If anything, the belief that the state wil take care of weak and poweless kills sympathy and philantrophy among people. Because you can always say – I paid enough taxes so the state has enough money to take care of the poor, why should I donate again? Long time ago I posted here an article how American Red Cross spoke against government donations because of this very reason. Maybe I`ll be able to look it up again.

Again, I don't believe that individual welfare can be ensured by the goodwill of the rich. In times where individual rights were not entrenched, the elite tended to 'exploit' the hell out of poor, abundant labour pools. I'd suggest basing social welfare on donations from the rich is no way to assure the well-being of everyone.

Soooo... good will is supposed to stop me from taking your stuff? The 'law' which no longer has any government backing (funding)? Who makes the 'law' now to say that I'm breaking it? You make your own, and say that I'm violating it? Sure you've got a right to defend yourself, but what if you're disabled?

What I was talking about is called Natural Law, and the thing is – no one creates it, it is discovered by reson. It follows from the simple fact that people act in a world of scarce resources. Because resources are scarce, there needs to be a way how to allocate them. One way is through violence, where the fittest survive and other way is through private property rights paradigm. I`m not too sure going into details here is appropriate for a hockey board, but for a full full debate, check out this: Ethics of Liberty mainly
Part One - Natural Law. Then we may discuss particular elements you disagree with.

This basically sounds like Utopian economics. People who won't take more than they need, help others for the sake of helping others. I'm thinking violence is going to overrule sharing in several instances, and that will lead to problems. Welcome to Thunderdome

Please explain this theory further, it is unclear. I'm not exactly sure how you enforce order in this new (lack of) system. Also, what happens to handicapped individuals, those who are sick, orphans, etc. Are you expecting all of these issues to be taken care of by goodwill? Utopian.

As for the defense and law enforcement, you did not read the article I linked, did you? Its not too long. Then we can talk about details you have issues with, it will be much clearer.

And again, I dont know where is that coming from – handicaped individuals not being taken care for. Guess what – weak and powerless were being taken care for looong before state pension system came into place late 19th century and are taken care for now in places where the government fails totaly. Thinking that the state is a babysitter, the only one who will save people, that is utopian.

Yeah, the handicapped were taken care of all right. Tossed into institutions and basically jailed until they died. I'm pretty sure I could point out some instances where the disabled are doing a whole lot better now than they would have in 1800's England. I skimmed the article. It also seemed to dwell on philosphical niceties to sharing and equitable distribution, without admitting that the realities of this ideal rely almost solely on good-will.

Come on, dont give up so early. Its not like I`ve became a libertarian overnight.

And yes, you can call it libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. Theoretical background are people like M. Rothbard, L. von Mises, H.H. Hoppe, Locke etc.

BTW I would be interested as what stuff have you heard. I have heard some supposedly libertarian stuff on this board too, and let me tell you, its apples and oranges. Not even close.

Well, I don't think that I'm giving up, but I doubt either of us will be swayed to the other's point of view. Besides, we're using up board space boring the hell out of everyone

I think there was a thread here a month or two ago that mentioned Libertarianism. I thought somehow Chomsky was a Libertarian, so maybe that's what I've heard.

In the end, I'd love for everyone to just start helping everyone else out, so that we didn't need protection of our rights from institutions like governments. But as long as someone out there is willing to violate your 'Natural Law' of respecting each other's property and liberty, then it won't work.

Utopian. I love Utopias, but I can't argue in favour of their validity, it just doesn't work like that for us.