: I also concur. However, remember that regulation is oftena viable answer and should not be dismised out of hand.
Im not against regulation of any sort, but if regulation is to be legitimate then it must be consistent and reasoned in a manner that reflects actuality. A regulation which says that burglary is wrong but asset forfeiture based simply on suspicion is ok is inconsistent.
: That's correct, the cure the government provides is little more tahna way to protect the large money centered banks.
Which are virtually owned by any government who owns the mint and decides on interest rates etc. Its protecting themselves. To wrote off debts would cost the government nothing except a political leveraging tool, it would cost the citizerns an enormous amount spread out in money devaluations (via inflation) and taxes.
: Yeah the IMF and the World bank are mere tools: tools of multinationals, money centered banks, and rich bond holders. If the third world had some controll over their governing boards there could be a real possibility that these organizations could help developing nations.
More to the point if money was lent to private individual organisations in the third world then those in receipt would have planned out repayments against gains, a politician seems unable to do this and third world countries governments have wasted much of their debt on fruitless pursuits.
:.... amrket is either unwilling to provide or will provide a socially inadequate amount.
There is no unwillingness for businesses to offer so called 'public goods' the charge has always been that such would be 'unfair' - and politicians have lept upon it so as to control more and more (especially education - where state decides whats to be put into young minds and how)
: You missed my point. Government exists before property. You can do whatever you desire within the rules of the system created by the government. However, you can not break those rules. For example, I can't sell children or buy human organs;
Yet would you feel that a government that rules children to be property is as legitimate? Probably not ans the reason is that we have defined property as that which you got by trading value for value not life for life. If it were but a legal concept and no more then any variation would have to be equally valid.
: Could you provide a direct quote and an explication please?
For instance, amendement 13 states that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." contradicts amend 16 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Being levied an income tax whether you like it or not is having to work a portion of your life at the behest of others, like a slave.
: For example GM would not be the company it is today if the federal interstate transit system was not created.
A private road system may have stimulated car buying even more! What im saying here is that just because something happened a certain way - it doesn means it was *necessary* for business, or 'good' for free trade.
: I agree whole heartedly. The problem is what should one do about it?
Stop the government from having power to favor or disfavor these groups, a pressure group would look silly rushing up govt to compalin about this or that issue to be told "what? we just run the police, courts and army - why are you asking us - its a private matter!"