Peter Hume,

Took a while to get back - I'm not used to us agreeing (to a point) and was momentarily stunned, Lol.

The U.S. Department of Defence appears to have been used as a conduit to transfer money from government resources to private interests under the banner of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. An inordinately high percentage of Defence Department funds were provided in supplemental and additional appropriations. Emergency funding is exempt from the usual ceilings making it difficult to track.

Are you suggesting that this is entirely the fault of the U.S. government? Because it appears to me that big business on this occasion infiltrated and influenced government to such an extent that the two were almost indistinguishable - hardly the sort of behaviour to inspire confidence in a utopia controlled by private enterprise..

Yes LOL. Didn’t recognize ourselves.

What you say is true but that hardly vindicates the government, does it?

Government and business weren't indistinguishable. Government was the one with a legal monopoly of lethal force, taxation, and ultimately decision-making. It first took all the money from the citizenry that it gave to the corporations. It launched, sponsored and directed the aggresion. Big business's ability to profit from the war was entirely derivative from government's commanding role in it. The fact that corporations could profit from it only begs the question why government should have had the power to enrich them in the first place.

"More bang for the buck" - that's government's idea of defining efficiency!

Government is the only party that can grant itself exemption from the general rule against force and fraud. In the absence of such a (massive) diversion of confiscated funds, capitalism would have produced something else:
a) that people voluntarily pay for, unlike tax, and
b) that doesn't involve blowing up men, women and children – like producing toys, or kitchen appliances, or engines.

I disclaim 'utopia' and unlike the left and right wing, I don't pretend to know what other people should be forced into doing. But in a society with only a small State, or even no State if that can be imagined, obviously there is no question of big business enriching itself via big government. The problem we are looking at isn't liberty and private property; it's the lack of it.

The neocons are all for wealth redistributions to big corporations; but the socialists aren't *against* wealth redistributions. They differ only in who they think other people's wealth should be given to. They are equally vulnerable to a critique that they have enabled this kind of imperialist abuse and crime.

What kind of criticism can the leftist make of Republicans outsourcing military contracts? That these functions should have been performed by government? That government should have more power to control them? How is that any improvement?

No, it won't do. It is a complete error to see private corporations profiting, and identify the problem with “capitalism”. If the problem is funded with tax, don't blame capitalism, which stands for the *private* ownership of the means of production, not the public confiscation and handouts of the means of producion.

The problem cannot be solved by giving government more power.

Liberty is the only solution that hasn't been tried. I am anti-left and anti-right. I think they offer a fake alternative. The major parties in the USA, here, in the UK, are pretty much 95 points of similarity, and 5 of difference, if that; more like 99:1.

The problem is caused by a belief in government on which left and right wing are identical. They all believe in its presumptive wisdom, goodness, capacity; they believe forced redistributions are justified, necessary, desirable. Government does wonderful social good, creates net benefits, heals the sick etc. etc. etc. When it blows up cities full of civilians, it is all necessary, for the greater good, etc. etc. etc. It's sickening.

I had to shake my head with disbelief looking at what is going on in Iraq – it’s like, “In this day and age!”

But of course it’ll be going on in this day and age while ever people believe that the State is just a convenient machine for them to violate other people into doing whatever they want!

I repeat my question: if I oppose the State invading my property rights, how are my options any different to those of the Iraqis opposing the armed force of the western States?

We need to see the essential criminality of what is being perpetrated; and call it as such.

Okay what about this one Poirot:?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html
Please let me have your critique of it.

Peter Hume,

I read most of your article - and I acknowledge that the whole question of government is one for humanity to constantly ponder.
And while I'm not a supporter of a totally homogeneous society,I can't help but look back to the beginnings of the society that we live in now for an indication of the sort of thing that unfettered capitalism is capable of.
The Industrial Revolution in Britain exploded onto the scene, for the most part, independent of government. The horrendous factory conditions that rapidly arose and consequent degradation of the populace are testament to an unrestrained capitalistic ethos. People should really take the time to closely examine the conditions that abounded in the factories and mills during that time - most would be shocked at what they find.
The wanton abuse and exploitation (there's that word again) of workers made it necessary for some form of government intervention and control - and ever since the two have found it mutually beneficial to work in tandem to control society.
One would like to think that the same thing could not occur in these enlightened times, but we only have to look overseas at the third world to see that it "is" happening now. That is/was what capitalism looks like when it is unleashed with little thought for human dignity and welfare - when profit is the only motivation.

Do you suppose that somehow if government were magically removed, that the same situation would not arise again

A common response to the arguments showing the State’s corruption and criminality are to acknowledge the force of the arguments, but still to hold a flame for the State, because it is hard to give away the established idea of its beneficence. At a gut level it is hard to think that we are faced with such blatant mass murder and institutionalized fraud and injustice, right under our nose, but at a rational level it is hard to deny it too.

When Marx wrote about the industrial revolution he did not know the population demographics of the period. Later scholarship showed that from about 1760 to 1830, the population of Britain had doubled.

Looking on the condition of the new proletariat, Marx mistakenly thought that the capitalist system was degrading these people down to the level of subsistence. Actually it was elevating them up from death.

It is mistaken to think that, in the absence of capitalism, they would have been living at a higher standard. The characteristic of modern capitalism is mass production for the masses. The scarcity causing the original problem is not caused by capitalism, but by nature. Capitalism more than any other system alleviates it.

Marx’s theory that employment is exploitative depends on the labour theory of value, which cannot be sustained. The reason workers do not get the full amount that the final product is sold for, is because they have not contributed the full value as Marx mistakenly theorized. Capital does not beget profit, as Marx said. Often it begets loss. Profit shows that the capitalist has combined the scarce factors of production in such a way that the masses as consumers value the end product more highly than the alternative possible uses of the factors. This is actually quite difficult to do. Only a small minority of the population can do it. About 80 percent of businesses go broke in the first year, and 80 % of the rest in the following five years.

Profit and loss are the means by which the masses exercise unconditional control over the course of production, so the system satisfies their most urgent and important wants as *they* judge them, not a bureaucrat. It is not for us or capitalists to judge their tastes.

The capitalist pays workers now for something that will not be sold until some time in the future. The capitalist gets something for a) risk, b) delayed grat, and c) correctly predicting the future state of the market, *if indeed he gets anything at all*.

If Marx was right, the condition of the proletariat would have got worse and worse as he predicted. Instead, the standard of living of all, the working class more than any, has risen to the highest levels in the history of the world. That being so, the charge of exploitation cannot be sustained. Capitalism does not cause or exacerbate poverty, and employment at the market rate is not exploitative.

Hayek studied the history of the idea of the dark satanic mills. He found that it was largely inaccurate.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dcCVcr6biTAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hayek+capitalism+historians&hl=en&ei=9o63TMjxBcGrceyu4NgG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
On the contrary, the English proletariat at the time were better off than their pre-capitalist peers elsewhere.

Most of the legislative reforms actually followed prior market initiatives and developments; just as superannuation and parental leave have more recently.

But in any event, it is not valid to applaud a legislative reform if by banning a visible problem that keeps people alive, it condemns them to an obscure death.

Passing laws and confiscating wealth does not make the masses wealthier. The centre-left’s hope of achieving social justice by redistribution cannot work, because the same political process redistributes wealth to the rich and powerful, who always have the advantage over the poor. It only makes matters worse than they would be under a regime of liberty and property.

However I’m not calling for the abolition of the State. I just think it could be beneficially trimmed by at least 20 percent, and probably 50 or more.

Okay, trimmed *to* 20 percent and that’s my final offer!