Hahahaha Justinian I doesn't understand the free market! It's so adorable.

By your logic, Justinian I, the US government should run EVERYTHING. Due to economies of scale, it'd be more efficient!

Dumbass.

"Lies.  I never did such.  Prove it."

I find myself suddenly disinterested in an exchange with a deceitful, retarded child.

It's impossible to prevent corporate interests from advocating their views. Corporations are, after all, merely people--who have free speech--collaborating for profit. Attempts to curtail their free speech will just result in more corruption. Talking isn't so harmful. Conspiracies are a little more so.

I agree that companies should probably not take a stand against the horrible action of "not wanting to finance abortions." It's just not that evil.

It's not the controlling regime that I compare to Afghanistan, but what's left when that regime is toppled. There are still ethnic divides and there's still conflict.

I don't agree that Assad's regime is the worst possible option. I can think of all kinds of things that have gone on recently which I haven't heard alleged in Syria. I'm all for the people's right to rebel--His regime is certainly evil--but I don't presume that it's literally the worst possible option, nor that this compels us to get involved.

While I don't think any US servicemen were killed in Libya: (1) There was risk that they could have been. (2) There would be significantly more risk in Syria and there would surely be casualties. (3) It's not just US servicemen, but of course the loss of human life in general that I question if we aren't 100% sure that the cause is 100% just.

Russians aren't going to abandon Assad. He's their only Arab ally in the region. Pretending it's possible that we could convince them to is just silly.

I think we're often too quick to assume others are like us in the West. When America rebelled against England, or when the Confederacy rebelled against the Union, each side knew that the other was culturally similar to them. War crimes happen, but generally speaking, both sides knew they wouldn't be enslaved in the event of surrender or some other horrible fate.

These areas of the world are very different. There isn't the Enlightenment faith in human reason and democratic principles. While many appreciate democratic action when given the opportunity to participate, many are skeptical of the legitimacy of elections. There aren't laws and justice systems looking anything like ours. And while, as you say, extremist elements are not particularly popular in most nations/regions, they are the best organized.

I don't share your faith that the next regime will probably be any better. Assad is bad; but people afraid of continued war, afraid of losing their cultural identity under a freer system, and afraid of losing power to ethnic rivals under a freer system don't always make the best decisions. And those who promise the most security, stability, and protection of their cultural values tend to be just like Assad.

"Where you assume I am for big government comes from this:  I call for government to enforce the balance between individual liberty and equality of economic opportunity.  You claim that government is not necessary in achieving this balance because the free market can provide for this balance.  I claim that the free market it not providing for this because it is sabotaged by corrupt government colluding with monopolies / oligolpolies. "

The solution to this is simply battling corruption in government. You've repeatedly argued way, way, way beyond this to things like controlled wages.

"But I have never made any claim on the correct theory to implement in practice to achieve said balance."

You've advocated government wage control, redistribution of wealth, and 99% corporate taxes. I never accused you of being a communist; I merely pointed out that you were describing communist views when you talked about your positions. You have advocated methods. Denial at this point is just silly. You've been very clear, repeatedly, in the past.

No government is ever going to leave you alone on your plot of land. If you use literally no other services or benefit from the controlling government in no other way, they'll still argue defense: If not for them, there'd be no rule of law and marauders might well kill you and take your land and stuff. You'll never get out of property taxes, at least not under any modern huge/corrupt/socialistic government. They use too much money. They can certainly be minimized, or maybe removed (if that were the choice for sources of taxation), but that would require limited government--not the behemoth web of governments up to an international level which you propose.

Regulating "opportunity" certainly wouldn't be easy. And you're talking about the equivalent of local, state, national, and international levels of government, all with the power to create, judge, and enforce their laws. So much bureaucracy requires cash.

^ What The Yell said about doing it on your own with someone else's money. This is why I don't like your communist views: They involve too much control. You can pretend that everyone on an international scale is just going to smile and work together for the greater good, but man isn't built that way. And our societies/cultures know it. You have this unending faith in big government and huge government institutions like they're all going to be smart and efficient (hahahahaha!), and they're all going to work together with an honest desire to be fair, productive, and helpful. It's just laughable on its face.

"If international levels did what they were supposed to, they would act to protect human rights and the rights of communities from corrupt federal and state authorities, and vice versa: federal and state authorities would hold international authorities to account."

Case in point, your unending faith in the incorruptibility of man. You have a presumption that there should be authority all the way up to the international level ensuring all this justice. It never occurs to you that a global government with that level of control is inherently unable to protect individuals' rights. Giving anyone that level of control and expecting incorruptibility is just silly. You can't protect against corruption by creating a global government--that's the most corruptible thing I've ever heard of.

"Why is it you equate ensuring 'justice' with 'protection money'.  The state, federal, and international levels of governance are supposed to be goons to whom people pledge protection money to ensure their rights?  Change of paradigm required here: those who violate people's rights should get fined, and thereby funds operations of governance."

Again, more faith that such power wouldn't be abused. More presumptions that there's any such thing as "international... governance." You can't just "change" the paradigm when the paradigm is natural order. Human beings look out for themselves and their interests. You keep presuming human beings can be given global power with absolutely no regard for the fact that this drastically increases the potential (which we always manage to realize!) for corruption--it doesn't regulate it.

"We're not talking about anything other than enforcement of laws, laws which ensure individual liberty and equality of opportunity.  Those who violate those laws should get fined.  Again, if there are no violators, no enforcement is needed; no government is needed, no $ to fund government or enforcement is needed."

No safety net at all? (Yes, ours is ridiculous, covering cell phones, air conditioning, cable tv!) No national defense? No environmental protections? No protections from the fact that using fines as a means to finance government is obviously begging for wide-scale abuse? Maybe more government to regulate government? And more government to regulate the regulators? Sounds sound.

" In the event justice is actually restored to the world, there would be PLENTY of people out there who could be fined more than enough to compensate victims (and government for cost of enforcing the law). "

Presumes facts not in evidence. 1) You can only take what they've got. 2) You can only take it if you catch them and can prove it. 3) You're talking big government; that takes a lot of money to fund.

Presumably you'll dispute that what you're saying necessarily means big government, but:
You're talking about many tiers of government going up to an international level.
You're talking about regulating "opportunity," which would require a hell of a lot of data and government to collect it.
Many decisions would have to be made about what constitutes one's rights vs another's, one group's vs another's, especially in regard to "opportunity," not just liberty. You require levels of courts, levels of enforcement no different than now.
The method you proposed to fund government would beg for abuse, so you'd need regulators. And regulators for the regulators. And probably a whole lot more.

"The question I have is why so much criminality has been condoned (and in some cases even sponsored) by governments for so long?"

Because government is corrupting, and corrupt people know to seek power in government. Start to accept this fact of human nature, and nature, and stop proposing more government to solve everything. It's a corrupting influence which attracts the corrupt. It's not a protection against corruption. That's why America was founded upon limited government principles, so the law would restrict the corrupt asshat politicians and the whole operation would be small and visible enough that the people could keep them in check.

We [clucked] that up many decades ago. But damn did we have a good run. We need to return to those principles of limited government restrained by law, not more corruptible government to protect us from corrupt government.

I think what you refer to is the biggest rationalization for the supposed purpose of the fed. Most justify the fed because it supposedly protects us from the natural cycles of the free market.

The problem is, the massive costs of government we're paying for are far worse than the natural cycles of the free market. Natural temporary downturns in economic cycles aren't nearly as bad when what you've earned is worth several times more than with our ridiculous inflation and taxation.

The recent crisis showed us two things: The fed and our government are capable of creating huge bubbles with terrible consequences, and they're capable of slowing recovery after the fact.

All of the facts we're spoon fed are that more government is the solution, even when the problem was too much government. We NEEDED congress to meddle in the economy to get banks to make bad loans so that people who couldn't afford houses could have them. We NEEDED congress to bail out the banks with tarp because of this. We NEEDED congress to pass stimulus to pay for oversized pensions which never should have been given and to aid in recovery from the burst of the housing bubble which they had a huge part in creating. We NEEDED Dodd-Frank to protect us from the crisis government, in large part, caused--even though it doesn't deal with what caused the problem. We NEED the fed to protect us from these "natural" cycles which aren't, anymore, natural at all.

At every step, government politicians and the economists who depend on them for jobs justify MORE government for EVERY problem. More government is ALWAYS the solution--Even if the government was the biggest factor in causing the problem, not natural economic cycles. As long as people are too ignorant/stupid to understand what's going on, they just keep bombarding us with 100% MORE GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION messages. They claim a consensus on that opinion, because 100% of government politicians, bureaucrats, and economists all agree that MORE government is good for their job security, paychecks, and careers.

I think it should be fought with an educated populace and a limited government enforcing sensible laws.

You think it should be fought with an all-powerful government with the power to do and run literally everything.

We differ on the solution. I believe man is corruptible and systems must be made with this in mind. You have a loooooot of faith in the incorruptibility of man.

It's not that I disagree that free markets are hindered all over the place in Amerika today. But to pretend they're 100% gone and don't produce many results in many areas is silly. Let's be honest. They're under assault all over the place, harming everyone and society as a whole. But they're not extinct.

I think one of the biggest things rarely discussed in Amerika today are the hidden costs of government/corporate corruption. For every dollar wasted because of statism and corruption of the free market, for every dollar wasted by redundant and corrupt bureaucracy, for every dollar printed to pay for this nonsense, we're paying the price. Sooner or later taxes and/or inflation balance everything. We're getting nothing for free. No idiot bureaucrat is harmless. Ultimately, one way or another, the cost of this massive waste is taxed/inflated out of the wealth/standard of living of every American. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a HUGE issue and it doesn't get 1% of the attention it deserves today.

You can't buy a bloody gallon of milk or a loaf of bread without literally dozens of taxes and regulations (some are necessary/good, but we have significantly more than that) increasing its cost several times over. Add inflation to the mix and people are enjoying literally a fraction of the income they gain through their contribution to society, thanks to waste and corruption.

Awww, you poor baby.

I legitimately and non-trollingly ask for evidence that the Syrian rebels would be any more just, free, and democratic than the Afghans/Libyans.

Do you educate me with any such evidence? No. Do you cry? Yes. Who's the troll?

Equating libertarian ideals with anarchy is a stupid straw man. What a joke.

Gitmo's not that bad. Big expensive soccer field, big new TVs.

Though if you said it was more painful than what's going on in Syria, you might be saying something!

Then of course, the question of moderation and the lives lost in the process becomes the question! And who would ultimately moderate when your trailer was destroyed by an IED!?

I've got nothing. I'm so mean. I'm done.

That can be handled with economically/mathematically sound regulations and some regulators with a little power.

Instead, we get massive government bureaucracies with too much power who get in bed with monopolistic extortion rather than fight it.

Greece caused Greece to burn.

Germany isn't burning.

Maybe there's something to be said for not bankrupting one's nation and ruining its people's standard of living?