ME:

I want to take a step back from this discussion and ask a question, cause their is no doubt that the system is corrupt and rigged for a few people at the top. Is it your belief that a company will ultimately do what is in the best for society and that it is governments involvement that forces them to make bad decisions not in the interest of the people? Or is a businesses goal to make as much profit as possible irregardless of consequences? In either instance why would we tear down safeguards that protect the population as a whole in favor of a survival of the fittest approach. Couldn’t a better argument be made for reform of the system then dismantling of the system? or is your contention that it’s too corrupt and can’t be reformed, and if this is the case then shouldn’t the solution be overthrow of the government as we know as our forefathers recommended?

2 hours ago · Like

Scott 

‎”Or is a businesses goal to make as much profit as possible irregardless of consequences?” — yes, this one.

“why tear down safeguards that protect the population as a whole in favor of a survival of the fittest approach?” — because that’s not what the state is. The state is just the biggest corporation of all, the top protection racket that rules the rest. The one with the “right” to commit acts of violence and preemptive coercion against others. The regulations ARE MEANT to protect the banker, the polluter, agribusiness, big pharma, oil, etc., etc. The state is their weapon, not ours. Especially in the sense of executive regulation. The solution is whether in an anarchist or an extremely minarchist system, is to protect people from violations of their rights through basic civil lawsuits, torts and if it comes to it criminal prosecution on the lowest level. This is really long, but worth it I think. Especially the way he explains the rise of the regulatory state 100 years ago: it was all a giant right wing judo scam to convince liberals to embrace the state. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html

Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

www.lewrockwell.com

Originally published in Left and Right, …See More

2 hours ago · Like

ME:

Absolutely, their is a market for everything, however, the market for war is more profitable then the market for peace, just as the market for Defense is more profitable then the market for education, even though every study to the contrary says the best defense to authoritarianism is education. Interesting how the market works. Trust me, i get it, their is not one area of our economy the government is not involved in, and it kills me about how badly the system has been corrupted. It’s choosing the lesser of two evils, and honestly I am tired of the choice being evil one and evil two.

2 hours ago · Like

Scott

I think it’s the above linked piece where he talks about how there is always a much faster turn over rate in power in the marketplace than by regular elections. There never really was a monopoly in US history other than the state itself and AT&T, and that was because the state had outlawed competition for them.