ALL,

thanks for link. I don't disagree with its main thrust; that fiat inflation is at the root of the problem of a degenerate culture.
Where I continue to find myself at odds with free market ideology is a) in its celebration of the "sainted entrepreneur", virtually a messianic figure whose "talents" are undermined by the welfare state. And b) that the whole ideology seems to me an exercise in conservative rationalisation.
Towards the end of your link it unabashedly favours a regressive Christian morality, including all the usual taboos--while I certainly support the taboo on incest, other aspects of repressed sexuality seem to me better normalised.
Most importantly, genuine free markets would lead to a neo-aristocracy rather than a fair system of equal opportunity.
I do agree that using fiat inflation to virtually enforce what amounts to an ever expanding pyramid scheme, seems assured to lead to our collective ruin, morally and practically. We can't go on expanding on abstract money and creative credit.
I'd be willing to consider free-marketism but for one non-negotiable imposition; a mandatory and universal wealth and assets cap, no exceptions.
So, get rid of fiat inflation (which forces us to live within our means) and indecent individual wealth. That way economies, welfare states and unsustainable populations would have to shrink to sustainable levels.
Of course we'd have to find another way to encourage horders to keep their money in circulation; zero inflation means money under the mattress. But there are ways to address any such problems, and in my view it's a nonsense that an economy can only be sustained via concentrations of wealth in "talented" quarters. In practice, worthless dynasties are formed, and more importantly--a point that most people seem so brainwashed as to be incapable of considering: THERE IS NO ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A SOCIETY (INDEED GLOBALISED CULTURE) BASED ON DRASTIC INEQUALITIES. Nor, imo, is there any practical need for it; arguments to the contrary are feeble and self-serving. Capitalism is, finally, indefensible.

Neoliberalism is of course not capitalism in any pure sense, but a much more evolved form of "human farming".

Correction;
instead of <So, get rid of fiat inflation (which forces us to live within our means)> above, I meant to say <So, get rid of fiat inflation (which would force us to live within our means).

Not that I'm encouraging All or anyone to respond. I realise I'm whistling in the wind and would just as soon save my breath.

Squeers “Capitalism is, finally, indefensible.

Neoliberalism is of course not capitalism in any pure sense, but a much more evolved form of "human farming".”

Libertarian capitalism is a far superior method of economic organization than any of the others so far theorized about or tried

For instance your suggestion of “human farming” is something more akin to the practical application of collectivism, (by any name), a system of human and economic organization which is commonly seen asa the antithesis of capitalism.

In the name of “collectivism”, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all saw starvation as a legitimate tool of state control, something which is similar to ‘human farming” where the herd is culled as a deliberate policy of the all powerful state.

George Bernard Shaw, well known member of the socialist “Fabian Society” was a rabid advocate of Eugenics, the selection of people fit to breed or not. More collectivism which runs roughshod over individual rights, supposedly in the name of the collective but in fact in the name of a despicable, despotic state machine.

I recall Margaret Thatcher wisely wrote
“there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”

Individuals achieve all and they achieve most when government is of a libertarian capitalist nature and not its bastard antithesis, “collectivism” by whatever name you care to give it….
Marxism
Communism
Socialism

So many names for the same disease…which reminds me of something else Margaret said

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Too right.. they fail yet are too stupid to learn form their failure and insist on imposing the same flawed economics again and again…. Example Greece, today… another socialist basket case
And something which cannot defend itself and is, thus, far less “defensible” that good old capitalism

Col,
I agree that capitalism is the best system "so far tried", and I don't defend the totalitarian states you mention--though it's tiresome the way these are routinely trotted out in the place of a defence of the failings of capitalism. If you cared to think about it--but of course you don't--neoliberalism "is" akin to human farming. Thatcher's precious individualism is pure fantasy, narcissism to the extent that denizens believe in it; Homo consumericus has all the autonomy of flightless meat chickens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism#Politics_and_society
Greece btw, apart from being the cradle of democracy, is a parlimentary republic, and it's capitalism that's the basket case.

But how can you create something from nothing , then infer it to the creator who then creates it ; That means it is a miracle ; which is Metaphysics ; now That sounds like classical political Ledgermain .
You presuppose that something exist where it does not .

You fall into the Hegelian trap of Dialectics Squeers, A person creates a pint of beer , it is not there because you wish it to be , an individual created it for someone’s consumption if not for his own consumption , thus trade; We may well call Capitalism Bartering , But how many beers can you barter for your products , and lets say you are a carpenter and trade two chairs for six pints of beer , obviously you can see the main point here , How many chairs does the beer producer need ? Obviously not sixty : Ok , unless he is opening the first public bar ;-), and how many beers can you drink before you are legless anyway.
Government at this point does not exist , so there is not any O H & S yet to give you a verbal and there is not money invented yet to rob it from you .

So the Metaphysical Zietgist , or The creator has not been created yet. yes , that sounds odd, But .Pre suppose .

That is still in production in the envy machine.
So now we need a currency that has a standard value so Individual can trade between each other in exchange for Value for value , be it Goods or Services , Thus Society ;
Now , there is something to rob , so Governments of any description moves in and commence their predation on the Individuals.
BUT;

Yes you guessed it; there is more;
Not only do they prey on the producers and society, they think they can organise it better so they can rob and plunder with even less effort; Thus Social Engineering;
And societies go down the shoot for another thousand years or so;
This world is littered with extinct civilizations, as far back as 9 thousand years ago. Give or take a few years of course.