The Big Corp is by no means better [...]
If it initiates aggression, then it is a government and needs to be resisted.
JP Morgan's aborted coup d'etat using Smedley Butler in 1930's.
I have mixed feelings about that coup...
1953 Iran and Central America - CIA basically becoming a thug boy for tycoons fretting about their oil/bananas.
I have mixed feelings about those operations as well - the Soviet influence in the third world was far more sinister and destructive than CIA's...
Who was behind the ridicoulous as well as morbid "Three strikes and you're out" in California ? Private prison industry.
Once again - if it touches government, then it's not really private. What difference does it make whether the government establishes an institution itself or if it outsources this job to independent experts? It's still a government operation, because it is enacted through illegitimate force (i.e. taxes, laws not grounded in Natural Law, etc). An Anarcho-Capitalist justice system would have to be based on victims'
Right to Restitution (balanced by the defendant's Right to Emancipation).
And what is going on as we speak in the Niger delta?
Government-enabled violation of individual Property Rights?
I try not to psychologize my oponents, when discussing politics, but sometimes I just cannot help thinking that the libertarian ideology is just a sophisticated justification of the every little boy's dream of riding your private tank in your big, private ranch, that is yours and only yours, and no one will take away the toys.
Those tanks, as well as a private ranch big enough where those tanks can be played with without your neighbors suing you for property endangerment, will cost
a lot of money in a capitalist society. Boys with such dreams would have them fulfilled much easier by allying themselves with a government - then you can buy tanks with stolen money and ride them on ranches the size of
Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan with near-total impunity! It is socialists who psychologically project their megalomania and control freak delusions of grandeur onto "governments", with devastating results!
A well thought out veil over the simple, primeval "Because I want to".
My Right to do what I want (on my own property, without violating the Rights of others) is worth fighting for - not just for my own sake, and not just for the sake of everyone else's Right to do what they want, but because individual liberty is the essential life-blood of civilization! It is the Right of rational economic actors to fulfill their needs and desires that makes an advanced economy tick, pushes science and technology forward, and keeps the balance of power in check! Take individual liberty away, and the human civilization will be steered by an elite class of professional liars, who in reality will put their grip on power ahead of all other concerns, even if they must revert humanity back to the stone age to do it!
As for today, I can see the state as more of a neccessary evil, maybe in a couple of hundred years we will not need it, and maybe not. But even that only after a time of, yes my friend, the world government, which is comming sooner or later, but unlike you, I don't forsee a horror.
The only reason why totalitarianism failed throughout history was because we didn't have a world government. The American Revolution, for example, was only possible because the colonists could play the English and the French Empires against each-other, and the same could be said about all historical shifts in the direction of liberty. The totalitarian governments of the 20th century failed because they couldn't hide from the fact that freer parts of the world were experiencing better economic and technological growth. Allow free intergovernmental competition, and libertarianism is the natural evolutionary result! Thus they had to put their plans on hold until totalitarianism 2.0 could be implemented - manufacture an "enabling event" (ex. the "global warming" hoax, artificial economic depressions, artificial shortages of natural resources, al-CIAda, etc) and use it as an excuse to impose a world-wide government monopoly from which there can be no escape! And then it will be too late.
And you still didn't answer my question - are contingent traits to decide if you starve or not ?
Perhaps I couldn't answer because you didn't phrase your question coherently enough, but it seems to imply that someone is more likely to "starve" under a capitalist system than a socialist one - a laughable absurdity given the lessons of history that you repeatedly choose to ignore!
