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

No, I don't, Kemp, because, in spite of your repeated accusations to the contrary, I am not a communist.  I resented your accusations and lost a lot of respect for you whenever you suggested it.

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.  You don't disagree with me on this last point except, perhaps, the extent to which the free market has been rendered impotent. 

You assume we disagree on the means by which the proper balance of individual liberty and equality of economic opportunity should be restored.  But I have never made any claim on the correct theory to implement in practice to achieve said balance.  In some cases, it could be achieved through big government.  In some cases no government at all.  In some cases a left-wing government, in others a right-wing government.  I have NEVER claimed that there is any one best way to achieve said balance; I have only ever called for such a balance to be effectuated.

Such balance is a task for individual communities to achieve on their own with support from state, federal, and international levels.  Whether it is a family farm or a metropolis, every community should be permitted to use every legitimate means at its disposal to achieve equality of economic opportunity and ensure individual liberty and do so without imposing on other communities' opportunities to likewise achieve said balance. The SOLE role of municipal, state, federal, and international levels of 'government' should be to empower communities in helping them achieve these ends, and their support should NOT be mandatory unless one individual within a given community, by pursuing his liberty, or the community by pursing equality of economic opportunity for its members, imposes upon the economic opportunity or individual liberty of other communities. 

As a human being, I should be able to purchase a plot of land somewhere on this planet, declare myself non-participatory in whatever municipal, state, federal, or international jurisdiction associated with my land, and be able to work that land as I see fit to ensure my survival and the survival of my family.

I shouldn't have to pay any taxes if I choose not to receive any services.  If the land were to produce all good necessary to fulfill the basic needs of myself and my family, I shouldn't have to conduct any trade with anyone else, nor participate in any monetary system of any other community.  If I didn't want to, I should not be required to share in any particular vision of anyone else's notion of the proper balance of individual freedom and equality of economic opportunity, nor should I have to adhere to terms dictated upon me of the standards by which communities must abide.

In other words, governments should be ethical enough not to infringe on any individual's or any community's system of 'balance' of economic opportunity and individual liberty.

Let's be real, though.  None of them are.  And because they are not ethical enough to provide for this scenario, the way to work towards enforcing an effective balance between individual liberty and equality of economic opportunity is to have governmental systems already in place start doing this. They have to get their priorities straight and work to ensure individual liberty and provide for equality of economic opportunity.

"let me know when a community gets $$ from the IMF wihtout the IMF telling it what to do. Ditto a Federal or state authority.

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.   The reason is $$ - there's no money in ensuring justice, in protecting the values of individual liberty and equality of opportunity. 

"doing it on your own" with "somebody else's money" don't go together"

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.

"meaning if they don't find violators they can't fund happy free people doing it on their own? sounds liek they have to keep finding violators"

Again, paradigm shift needed: if there aren't violators, no need for government, and no need for them to get $.

"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.

"Lies.  I never did such.  Prove it."

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

That was simply one example.

The tax would have to be about 99% to balance the budget. If I'm off by a few percent because he'd make up some offsets elsewhere with 0 numbers to back them up, that doesn't change the argument or its validity.

I didn't "conjecture" what rate would be required, I cited sources for total US corporate profits and the annual deficit for the past few years, including what they were slated to hit this year. I cited the numbers and pointed out what he was proposing in real terms. That's not "conjecture," that's injecting common sense into abject stupidity and ignorance.

He very directly proposed increasing corporate tax rates to wipe out our government deficit. He was direct and clear on the method and the objective. Technically, the tax rate he proposed is exactly the tax rate (method) he proposed to achieve balanced government budgets (objective). He was too ignorant of the facts to know what this tax rate would be, but that doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what he advocated. Technically, I just did the math that he proposed.

He also claimed that such a tax rate would have no impact on businesses, because it's only a tax on PROFIT. The ridiculous ignorance of statements like this is why I used such unfriendly words.

I quoted him very directly in stating things which are 100% communist and pointed out that they were. He immediately stopped responding to those threads. I wish I'd kept links for the 1 or 2 which were explicitly and undeniably clear. But, considering this level of dishonestly or just unimaginable stupidity, it doesn't really matter. I stoop pretty low, but I'm not interested in that stupid and dishonest of an exchange.

If you vehemently argue X Y and Z one week then insult people who point out that you did just weeks later, maybe some unpleasant descriptors aptly describe you.

?

I quoted you very directly in the past. There was no disputing what you said. You didn't dispute it at the time; you couldn't. I'm just pointing out what you said in the past. Denying it's just stupid. Most people's memories last more than a few weeks. Grow up.

I don't keep track of weirdo children who lie about their positions on a bloody politics forum. Grow up.

I have a counter-proposal: All the lying about things you've said and positions you've advocated? Just stop.

"I quoted you very directly in the past."

More lies...

"You didn't dispute it at the time; you couldn't"

Again, your fallacy in logic is apparent.  You honestly think that because I didn't dispute it at the time, I couldn't?   You say, "You are a communist, Xeno!"  I say, " -- "  Therefore you think I must be a communist simply because you say it?  Lol.  Kemp and his God-complex: he speaks and it manifests.  Why don't you go and you transform yourself into a leprechaun by uttering that you are one to yourself; maybe you'll find some lucky charms at the end of the rainbow.  Go on, say it "I am a leprechaun".

Quote me.  Go read my stuff.  Find it.  Maybe you'll learn something.

I'm not going to go search page after page of threads to find things you're either too stupid to remember or lying about.

You've been very open about your desire for massive government taxing corporations out of existence, redistributing income, and redistributing wealth. And you've gone farther.

This is a stupid discussion. If you have memory problems, they're not my problem. If you have trouble with the English language, that's not my problem. If you object to what educated people think of communism yet hold views 100% in line with communism, that's not my problem.

Give me a break.

Nobody cares what privileges you think you should have. You don't have that privilege on this forum.

That I'm not going to spend what could easily be a half hour or more looking for things you said is not slander--or libel, by the way, which is what it is in writing. Slander is spoken. It's not hijacking to ask someone how they can hold mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time, or how their views have changed, or how they reconcile such cognitive dissonance. It's not spamming.

You can't have a "good discussion" if you're not being honest. I barely referenced what you're whining about in this thread. You made a big deal out of it, not me; I've accepted that you're a weird person who selectively ignores things which require him to think or be coherent.

You can't talk out both sides of your mouth in good faith. Inquiring about such contradictions is not trolling, spam, libel, or harassment.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Kemp.  Slander is a tactic used to repress freedom of expression.  I would expect such from far left socialists and communists, tyrannical fascists.  You do a disservice to the values upon which your country was founded.  And you consider yourself a 'liber'tarian?