: : How can anyone defend capitalism in light of the present global catastrophe?
By ignoring the counter-evidence.
I've already blown Gee's anarcho-capitalist utopia out of the water, by showing that in the absence of government the landlords would hire their own armies to force tenants to pay the rent; he continues to believe. His response was that I had a low opinion of "human nature," to assume (as I do) that people would continue to do what they're doing today.
I've already shown that Gee's anarcho-capitalist formula is no solution for problems of sexism, racism, classism, driving personal and global politics today; Gee's solution was to denounce such problems as "bad," then refuse to discuss them further.
Gee's anarcho-capitalist formula furthermore holds no hope whatsoever for the destitute millions of the world who live in slums and other degraded areas, the ones described in Jeremy Seabrook's VICTIMS OF DEVELOPMENT, since the only path to wealth in Gee's fantasy universe is the one described in Horatio Alger books or in Defoe's ROBINSON CRUSOE. When I pointed this out, Gee's response was to claim that I had falsely accused him of being "uncaring." The only hope for these people is in fact some form of collectivism, as promoted by the PT in Brazil for instance.
I've already shown that Gee's ignorance of planetary carrying capacity is maintained by a clever manipulation of words. He challenged me to read his guru Julian Simon's big book; I read it so well that Gee gave up the thread.
It takes a lot of persistence to continually barb McSpotlight with small, insubstantial posts, as Gee has done, but I guess I don't understand, since I don't share Gee's paranoia about the collectivism that engulfs us all, nor do I share his allegiance to the "privatism" that is today the reserve of mansion-owners.
Recommended reading: Jurgen Habermas' THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION, especially volume I. Habermas shows that collective actions originate in the human impulse to argue, which carries within it the potential to "coordinate tendencies to act."
: Defending capitalism is criticising the present status quo - hich is very uncapitalist (ie very unprivate).
Sorry Gee, the successful capitalists like it that way. That's what's causing the current era of mega-mergers. It's as Chomsky says: socialism for the rich, laissez-faire for the rest of us.
: To defend individual rights to life, liberty and property is not to defend big government and big business (ie those helped by govt favours)
To defend individual rights to property is to defend the big businesses that currently hold it.