Col,

“Why does a government need to ENSURE free movement of participants”

because monopolies can occur. To curb the negative influence of monopolies, government through anti-trust and anti monopoly legislation, helps ensure the “free” in “free-market”.

Did you miss my question? Aren’t monopolies, being a natural tendency of glorious capitalism, naturally good? If all of the players in capitalism are” free”, then shouldn’t they be “free” to buy out, or destroy by competition, anyone else and therefore monopolise the market? It would appear that government regulation is a restriction on these freedoms.

And don’t bother reiterating your point about governments being holders of monopolies, your point has been taken, and I am not arguing for government ownership in the bourgeois sense, or the Stalinist sense for that matter (although in the classic straw man style of yours you would like to pretend that I am so that you can argue against it). The fact of government monopolies does not negate the fact that capitalism tends toward privately owned monopolies, otherwise, why would we need laws against it?

It is completely irrational to say that a “free” market is “naturally” balanced by the forces of supply and demand AND that this balance requires ENFORCEMENT by government.

You apparently pay lip service to the concept of freedom, only invoking the notion when ‘unfair’ competition in the form of monopolies limits YOUR ability to get a piece of the action. Perhaps you are afraid you can’t compete with the big boys.

Tao just as we have laws to curb the actions of people who abuse, steal and rape. We have laws to curb monopolies, except apparently for labor unions.

Carrying on like a pork chop that

“It is completely irrational to say that a “free” market is “naturally” balanced by the forces of supply and demand AND that this balance requires ENFORCEMENT by government.”

Just does not cut it.

Government is the regulator, to make sure the rules of business conduct are adhered to through legislation and that those who would seek to abuse and cheat are appropriately restrained and or punished.

Enron was a case in point, where initially the Accounting rules were manipulated and distorted by the liars and cheats using “mark to market” valuation inappropriately on a vast scale (to say nothing about setting up bogus entities and debt shelters etc). That is what that house of cards was built on and that is how they managed to swindle millions of people, by corrupting the accounts which others relied on as being "fair and true".
When Andersens signed off on those Enron accounts as "fair and true" they signed their own metaphoric "death warrant", as history has observed.

I believe in the natural goodness of man, I also believe in the fallibility of man, yourself as a case in point.

Doubtless in tao-world, with tao as the “supreme leader”, your governance would need severe restraining. Oh that is the stuff of nightmares.

As dearest Margaret said (partial quote) “not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

She was right and you are wrong.

The role of government is to provide the regulatory framework which minimizes the opportunities for liars, thieves and cheats to exploit the rest of us and to exact appropriate punishment when they do.

As for “Perhaps you are afraid you can’t compete with the big boys.” I am afraid of no one.

The question Col, is, what is wrong with monopolies? Monopolies do not only occur because people abuse, cheat, lie and thieve as in the case of Enron, monopolies are a natural tendency of capitalism. Anti-trust legislation is designed to curb this natural tendency i.e. it is a response to a certain phenomena. Yet even “respectable”-capitalists break those laws anyway e.g. Microsoft.

Interestingly, you seem to want “rules” which potential monopolists should abide by to safeguard you from exploitation, but decry any attempt by workers to ensure that employers abide by “rules” to safeguard them from exploitation. In-fact you express the classic position of the petty-bourgeoisie -the small-business person who is squeezed between big business/finance capital and the workers and feels attacked from above and below (most of the ones I know are constantly moaning about interest rates and wages… oh, and of-course taxes criminally wasted on maintaining the luxurious and exorbitant living standards of the indolent loafers – the single-mothers, the young, the unemployed, the sick, the elderly).

So it appears that your view of the ideal of freedom arises from your position in the social pecking order of capitalism. If you were a large-capitalist you would want no fetters or rules limiting your ability to monopolise markets i.e. “freedom”. However, as a little-capitalist you want rules to curb the freedom of the big capitalists to monopolise, but no rules curbing your freedom to exploit workers. Your ideas of “freedom” and “rules” are unprincipled.

While your outlook apparently serves your immediate personal purpose, it is worth noting that it was the petty-bourgeois layers, decimated and impoverished by WW1 and the-Depression, who supported the Nazis in Germany, and their promises to crush the working-class – which they did on coming to power. Fascism was actually a response of capitalism in crisis to the rising workers movement –as we know, the first victims of German fascism were workers and their political organisations. It was the destruction of the workers-movement which paved the way for the Holocaust – there was no organised social force left with the power to stop it.

So it is no accident that, as the capitalist system lurches from one crisis to the next, the likes of Howard and Bush, who derive the majority of their electoral support from the petty-bourgeoisie whose social position is becoming more and more precarious, are fomenting racist and xenophobic sentiments against Muslims and refugees , promoting religious backwardness at the expense of science, disregarding civil and human rights (beefing up sedition laws, enacting “anti-terror” laws which mean we can be locked up with out charge, spying on us, locking people, including children, up in the desert and on islands, perpetrating and condoning torture), dismantling workers protections and attacking their organisations, and even launching aggressive wars and occupations of neighbouring countries.

However according to the big capitalists who all politicians really vie to represent, they haven’t gone far enough in securing the right to unrestrained profit. It might be time for the nominal “lefts” to take the reins, reintroduce conscription to aid further imperialist conquests and make further industrial relations “reforms” against the interests and wishes of their traditional support base. Not coincidentally, the ALP has just elected “Dr Death” as leader. I don’t know what the British bourgeoisie will do, their “lefts” have already done their bidding and are on the nose with the population.

But I digress. The important point Col, is that you should examine your ‘personal’ beliefs in the context of the economic reality – you have a specific class outlook which arises from your relationship to the means of production. Your hissy fit accusing me of wanting to be a “supreme leader” is just another straw man, and a diversion from the fact that you hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously, but cannot rationally explain why you do. This wishy washy opportunistic and unprincipled way of thinking of yours will inevitably lead you to accepting the unacceptable – fascism – the stuff of nightmares. In fact you are already on the way.

Tao “It was the destruction of the workers-movement which paved the way for the Holocaust”

“While your outlook apparently serves your immediate personal purpose”, tao, most would suggest it was the Treaty of Versailles which initiated the process. As for the “workers movement “ versus the “fascists”, there was nothing to choose between them. Both were the vehicles of small envious men making desperate and ruthless grasps for power.

Where Lenin ascended in Russia, through the terror of revolution and a secret deal with Germany, Hitler was later elected in Germany, supported by secret deals with Stalin.

The workers party, sponsored by Russia, was as ruthless and despotic as the fascists. I recall Stalin was, before he become a “Father of the Nation”, a terrorist bank robber and in his “political career” he displayed the same concern for people as is generally demonstrated by bank robbers and terrorists.

Lenin said “While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”

Whilst that is a strong stance, it also displays the cynicism which lays at the heart of socialism and communism, since he did also profess “The goal of socialism is communism.”

He had different thoughts later

“All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else.”

I guess he realised, that despite “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”, everything does come back to the “individual”

Lenin said “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

Margaret Thatcher observed (previous post) “not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

She remains right.

I have examined my personal beliefs, unlike Lenin, I support your right to be an individual.

Even if that means you choose to remain a “useful idiot”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Tao “potential benefits and treasures to humankind lie atrophied in the minds and bodies of production line workers and menial labourers etc.”

Those who atrophy lack a couple of rare skills

1 the insight to see a future potential. A single quick example, among millions, Bill Gates and Microsoft

2 The gonads to see it through, despite the risks. I know of one such individual, a particular car dealer who, according to his employees has exactly that quality.

This is why you presume some folk who labour in menial jobs everyday “atrophy”.

I guess if you had a modicum of the “insight” and a functioning set of gonads, you might think differently.

Oh and forcing them to follow the “peoples socialist party line” is the last thing any one should do if you expect to unlock any of those “potential benefits”.

Such an expectation demands people to be treated as individuals, not as sheep, to be herded and directed by the state.

Most of the significant inventions and improvements of the past 300 years are the products of either

1 Capitalist innovators or
2 The Military research expenditure of capitalist nations

The trolls of communism merely duplicated what they could.

Even Stalins 5 year plans were structured to buy existing heavy engineering technology from the "running dogs of capitalism". If the communist/socialist cause was so elevating and liberating, Stalin and his successors in oppression would have been exporting technology and inventions, not stealing and coping them.