: SDF: I don't see what you're quoting, what restrictive laws do I support, with what social end in view?
All your links to the green party were unrelated to your wishes then?
: SDF: So local city government counts as a "behemoth institution"?
It is compared to any individual.
: Ever attended a city council meeting? See, it always boils down to this, anarcho-capitalists think all government is always government by aliens from outer space or some such entity eternally opposed to "ordinary people".
No, thats your fantasy of how you would like AC or libertarians to see it, then you can deride them without ever dealing with the actual problem which you do really know. You know their problem with it is that it simply does not reflect the view of 'the people' because 'the people' all have different conflicting views and that majorities dont make right. That making yourself heard is not 'doing your bit' in democracy if your opinion becomes a meaningless peep among 1000, 1 million or 6 billion. That accepting others judgements over your own simply because there are more of them is not the route to justice or equality or anything you say you value.
: SDF: Look, I pay far more in rent each year than I pay in taxes, and almost everyone else gets far more from their jobs than they can get from any government benefit. (I work for the government, however, so it's a little different for me.)
You pay no taxes, its just a game to make it look like private sector salary. They may aswell save money on the fuss and give you net pay, but then the IRS might not 'need' quite so many departments and career seeking people.
: It's the same with everyone else I know. Maybe the corporate capitalists themselves minimize their own power in their public statements of propaganda. Oh, I'm sure McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Exxon, Phillip Morris, Chrysler-Daimler etc. are SOOOOOO helpless in front of the power of "behemoth government"....
They have to bribe them and do deals, as most of the above do. You wouldnt bribe a government to do something like offer a new product unless the govt sought to bar it (precisely to elicit a bribe), you would only do so if you were trying to use apparent legitimacy in govt to do what you catn, eg fend of competent competition. Doing 'business' with the senator comes at everyone elses expense. Its only possible because the senetor has the power (and thus the force) to do it. the force possible is only there becuase the great majority of people, who could easily have stopped growth of govt in the first place, wanted a piece of the action or just didnt care to stick on anything so rigid as a principle. The egg came before the chicken.
: SDF: Firstly, it's you who is doing the painting -- I merely said that the folks in government were the handmaidens of the folks in business interests. The fact that the middle management is responsible to the top management in a hierarchy, doesn't necessarily paint the middle management as "essentially good" nor does it paint the top management as "wicked". The melodrama is what's playing within your cranium, not outside it.
You have on various occasions said that representative democracy, even as it stands now, somehow reflects what 'the people' want. So you are saying that the above is what 'the people' want? Perhaps it is.
: This explains phenomena such as the rash of stadium-buildings in American big cities, where corporate owners of sports teams are able to extract millions of dollars (funded by municipal taxes) from middle-sized American cities,
And how can they do it? I refer you to foulball to show how the process is very much a 'in bed with politicians' one. Now you are arguing that this democracy isnt representative having defended it in the education discussion.
: It is this movement of capital that drives "free trade"
This is not, as you have indicated, free trade so it is not an argument against free trade. If you imagine I would defend such keynesian economics as tax paid stadiums you were wrong. Your position seems to be that if anyone is 'allowed' to keep property all this will automatically follow.
: GW Bush didn't build up a $36.3 million war chest by bumming $1 off of each of 36,300,000 voters, nor was he proclaimed the "front-runner"
Are you expecting disagreement that the govt-media-select powerful in society arent directing a great deal of our 'democracy'. Or are you saying that if everyone 'had a say' it would therefore somehow become ok again? That your principle (might makes right) is the same as the principle currently operating?
: Thusly government has become a less-accessible commodity for the many. "Privatising" its functions is simply a way of handing the power of "votes" directly to the financial interests
You will recall from previous that I had recognised same as effective demand. AC, whatever the enthusiasm I may have for it as an economic model, would be as based in fantasy a AS (anarchism-socialism) relying as it does the sweeping away of current order. You forgot that said companies only became what they are by seeking favor and protection from govt, that they could only become what they have with govt force. that force was made available to govt by 'the people' eitehr in favor seeking or lethargic disinterest in saying 'no'