: Yes I get your point. Your analogy is weak, however, you don't vote for the theiving grocer. There is no democractic process of control.
No its perfect, you can vote for one of 2 grocers to monopolise carrots 'for you' - make it any better or any more moral?
: You missed the point. Laws to a certai degree have to be vague and general in order to cover all the particulars of any individual crime.
And to be made to cover what you want it to cover at any time. Anti-trust laws are very vaige, almost any succesful compny could fall under them at any time - its just a question of picking this months target.
: I fail to see how the "separation of economy and state" clause will be any more affective in fighting corruptio than current anticorruption laws and methods.
you mean corruptionas in corporate armed gangs then - rather than monopolised govt corruption?
: A greater equality in the distribution of wealth would have no negative impact (unless you consider administrative costs) upon the large sum of wealth in a nation, it may even lead to more prosperous economic growth.
: The problem with poor people is that they don't have money. Solution: give them money. I love it when people say "I care too much for the poor that I don't give them money." What an odd manner of thinking? It harkens back to a certain Spencer of Social Darwinism....
You were earlier speaking of not solving symptons but causes....
Right, im talking volume of money not loaves of bread. i am familar with all the 'well established economic theories'
: Besides you still have not addressed the procyclical aspects of a flat tax.
: One word: externalities. I've discussed it at length in a previous post.
I must have missed it, in this particular context.