Peter Hume,

mmmm....Ad hominem Hare Krishna references : )

I specifically highlighted that "liberaian" capitalism was grossly exploitative - and that state intervention mitigated that to some extent and allowed the capitalist system to succeed. You are arguing that we should all go back to unregulated libertarian arrangements - and I have given many examples of the sort of base humanity that emerged under such a system. None of that is "assumed" - it actually happened and is recorded as such

Mollydukes:"I think I have argued convincingly, that people like me would always come out losers against people like you if there were no restrictions on your greed."

I think you've argued a good case for your own perceived self-interest, not anything else. It is refreshing to see someone so overtly shilling for their own benefit.

What you haven't done is made a case for why I should support you. If you are so dysfunctional that you cannot support yourself then obviously you feel that someone else must do it for you, but what's in it for me? What's the quid pro quo?

I have made a decent living out of my business for the past 7 years; a business which I established and I have run with no assistance of any kind from Government and with very little capital, at least initially. The business conditions at the moment mean that the business is not making money, so I'm closing down, at least temporarily and moving into a different field for a while. If that works out, I'll have 2 businesses.

I've done that while suffering a significant reactive depression for a fair part of the first few years and in the face of significant family problems including several court cases and CSA issues. I could have curled into a ball and gone on welfare - htat's the trajectory for very many men in that situation, but I decided to do something about it instead.

A mental illness/injury is a burden to be overcome, not an excuse for failing to try. I find your justifications for your own special pleading to be unconvincing.

Antiseptic so sorry for your hard life - it must suck to be you and feel so ripped off by people like me. I am ashamed of myself and will wear sackcloth and ashes for the next few weeks.

But just one more thing about libertarianism for anyone interested in this cult movement. Check out

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim

The article includes this information.

"Cato Unbound recently hosted a debate over whether libertarianism is compatible with democracy. Milton Friedman’s grandson Patri concluded that it is not:

Democracy Is Not The Answer

Democracy is the current industry standard political system, but unfortunately it is ill-suited for a libertarian state. It has substantial systemic flaws, which are well-covered elsewhere,[2] and it poses major problems specifically for libertarians:

1) Most people are not by nature libertarians. David Nolan reports that surveys show at most 16% of people have libertarian beliefs. Nolan, the man who founded the Libertarian Party back in 1971, now calls for libertarians to give up on the strategy of electing candidates! …

2) Democracy is rigged against libertarians. Candidates bid for electoral victory partly by selling future political favors to raise funds and votes for their campaigns. Libertarians (and other honest candidates) who will not abuse their office can't sell favors, thus have fewer resources to campaign with, and so have a huge intrinsic disadvantage in an election."

I'm too snowed under with work to contribute, but just want to say I find Mollydukes' hoensty and unpretentiousness refreshing. Humans form societies because we're social animals and need that support and protection. Heaven forbid the neoliberal agenda of recent decades should maintain its heading.
There was an interview this morning on RN with a rep from the "New Economics Foundation", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economics_Foundation
a left-leaning group bent on confronting libertarian ideology with its own. She predicts the end of the Euro and sovereign insolvency btw.

Mollydukes, I asked you a simple question: what's the quid pro quo?

What do you contribute to the wellbeing of society that makes it worthwhile for society to skew natural relationships in favour of your welfare? There must be something, or why do we bother?

squeers, did you happen to look up the sititual leader of the NEF, a chap called EF Schumacher?

A quote:"“It is when we come to politics,” Schumacher insisted, “that we can no longer postpone or avoid the question regarding man's ultimate aim and purpose.” If one believes in God one will pursue politics “mindful of the eternal destiny of man and of the truths of the Gospel”. However, if one believes “that there are no higher obligations”, it becomes impossible to resist the appeal of Machiavellianism “politics as the art of gaining and maintaining power so that you and your friends can order the world as they like it”(2). Once one accepted that man was created by God with a designated purpose, politics, economics and art had value only for the end of helping man reach a higher plane of existence, which should be his goal (2)."

I thought you were an atheist?

squeers, it seems that Schumacher wasn't real happy with Marx, either:

"For Schumacher there were three main culprits, that had all been corrosive agents in a world which had lost sight of individual responsibility and a world bound to the parameters of realism and science. These were Freud, Marx and Einstein. Freud had made perception subjective through his teaching that perception was subject to the complex interplay of the ego and the id, literally rendering it self-centered. This led inevitably to a change of attitude in human relations where self-fulfillment took precedence over the needs of others. Marx, by seeking a scapegoat in the bourgeoisie, had replaced personal responsibility with a hatred for others. His fault lay in his blaming of others for problems with society. Einstein had supposedly undermined belief in absolutes with his insistence on the relativity of everything. The application of 'relativity' in all other fields including morality, led to rejection of moral codes and responsibility"

Dear me, I thought this was a "left-leaning" little group? I suppose if one defines left-leaning as "loopy" it's possible...