There is no need for any centralised government to enforce contracts, a system of private competing courts and private competing security forces does that just fine. As to you 'rubbing one while watching teenage girls if you keep your distance' - where is the problem? You are correct, it is not hurting anybody. If you are doing it in a way that everybody has to observe you do it, then there may be a problem with the rules set up within the private property boundaries you are in (and no, there shouldn't be any 'public property', all property has to be private, even if it means that property is owned by a corporation that runs the city for example, and yes, most if not all cities are corporations).

I was born in the USSR and worked my way out of poverty in the last couple of decades. Edge cases are exactly that: a low percentage of people that fall behind regardless what. The entire population shouldn't be punished unfairly by having policy that is aimed to steal to provide something for those edge cases.

As to your last statement: you are against people having power if you are against the freedom of an individual from the oppression of the collective. If you stand on the side of a government being able to initiate violence against an individual to steal from the individual, to enslave him, then you are not for people having power, you are for a system that breeds powerless slaves.

I am obviously talking about the free market capitalism, which excludes the slavery, I am talking about free trade and the industrial revolution. In USA the industrial revolution happened in the North, so you may want to refresh your history books, factories weren't built or operated by slaves. Sure, people were poor, but that's the normal state of affairs where farmers were offered jobs in factories, they had no experience or knowledge, so their market value to the production lines was low, but it increased with time, as capital was accrued and experience was built up. It was the industrial revolution that showed that slavery was not an efficient way to run a business, free people work better, have real incentives to do a better job because it means better pay. Industrial revolution within the free market capitalist economy settings built the economy that USA became (and that it destroyed), not slavery. Slavery barely registered on the wealth generation. As an example Standard Oil production was done with only free people working for a wage, not slaves.

- your suggestion is to steal and to use violence to take from those who have wealth to subsidise those who do not and you do not see a problem with that? You and your friends are not the only game in town, under what scenario have people actually left children to starve? What people are we talking about and in case where there isn't enough food for people that they would leave children to starve, what government could do anything about any of it?

- what is ridiculous is to expect that you can steal your way into prosperity.

It's not unicorns that are charitable, there no unicorns, it's people that are not stolen from. In any case, you are again talking about complete edge cases, cases where a child is born into nothingness apparently, no parents, no siblings, no grandparents, no uncles or ants to take care of them. What are they born somewhere in the woods? Well, no amount of government will help them there. Children that born in hospitals are not thrown out into the dirt, there are actual charitable organisations that make money (yes they make, evil profits) by collecting money for such cases and they can manage their collections much better than any government and in a free market capitalist environment charitable organizations are also competing with each other for dollars, so they have to be transparent and efficient otherwise they may lose to their competition. Governments do not have to be anything, transparency, efficiency, those are against government mode of operation, because it works against the main goal of government: accretion of power. You don't accrue power by reducing itself by finding efficiencies and reducing costs, you accrue power by increasing your army and in case of bureaucrats their staff members are their army and the more of those a government office has, the more powerful it is, the more it can steal from people via taxes and inflation. Governments do not solve problems, it is against their mode of operation, governments increase problems because solving a problem means that there is no more need for that agency or at least not for an agency of that size. In free market capitalist economy a company that no longer provides a marketable product has to change or disappear, government does not do such a thing, it uses its power to make the problem bigger and deeper, not solve it. A solved problem is against government principle of increasing its own power.

- free markets discover prices that allow them to clear. Obviously you don't understand it.

- a person without skills is of 0 use to me.

A person with skills is worth money.

A person without skills has these options: go make some money and go study somewhere and pay for that privilege or go on welfare apparently or find a position that could be used to start their career.

Making money to give it away to a college is dumb unless you are talking about a doctor maybe (even then I would argue you can learn on your own and by working for doctors for free for some time). At least in an apprenticeship position you don't have to pay me to learn the skills and you don't accrue debt to me unlike in a college, where you learn nothing of any use to me anyway and you accrue debt and waste time.

- certainly and I saved that capital to build my systems. That's the beauty of free market capitalism, I had to save the capital from previous production and under-consumption or I could borrow it from somebody else who saved it. The good thing about it if I engage in a mode of operation where my work is not paying my bills while draining me of capital I can only lose my own money and you are in no way on a hook for it. You apparently think that this is somehow wrong.

- houses are built from bricks, maybe you didn't realise it, but mud can be used to make bricks and then those bricks can be used to build houses and to build stoves that then can be used to produce better bricks. It's amazing what a little world education does for a person.

- competition is a beautiful thing, isn't it? If you can't write something marketable that's really not anybody's problem, do something else instead.

Maybe you shouldn't be taking the mud bricks and music as a literal advice for your own circumstance, find your own 'mud brick' to make, you may end up actually making something of value, something that somebody may find useful in some way.

But so far all I see from you is absolute closemindedness, you are of an opinion that people are incapable of doing something on their own to satisfy demands/desires of others.

- one can create wealth, and obviously if the idea is to create for trade you should really concentrate your energy on creating things that others may find useful and trade for it. What a concept, did you just discover trade for yourself?

There is plenty that a person can do in the modern world starting from nothing with nothing, a person can work for others when he has nothing of his own, that's how we all start in life - with no skills and with no assets (most of us) and it takes time and we acquire skills and assets (most of us). Sure, there always will be people who are incapable of being useful to others, those are edge cases and there shouldn't be any policy that is based on edge cases that affects the rest of the people in the society.

There you go, believing that you have some form of higher moral authority while denying the simple fact that all of your positions require that violence is initiated against individuals to support your system of governance by creating a system of wealth transfer to buy votes.

Yes, people are being oppressed in this system and no, there will be no reasonable solution based on rational behaviour of a majority in this situation, the majority wants their free lunch whatever the cost.

But I am not looking for help from anybody, I build my life in a way that specifically routes around the type of economic and societal damage that you advocate by choosing not to participate in many of these structures, specifically by building a business in a way that mitigates some of this damage. A business can be built that way, it's just more expensive to build it, it requires more energy, more preparation.

There is no problem with a monopoly that is created in a free market economy because such a monopoly actually cannot buy favours from a government because there are no favours to buy because the government is not involved.

Once a government is involved, favours can certainly be bought, but that's the destruction of the free market and that's what we have here now.

It is actually wrong for you to think that your approach has 'fewer moving parts', your approach is the exact opposite: your government approach requires a benevolent government that acts in the best interest of the economy regardless of what the populous says and believes it wants and the mob wants free stuff, so the politicians promise it and eventually destroy the economy because the only way to deliver this 'free stuff' is to steal from those who produce through taxes, licenses, regulations and inflation.

It is the exact opposite of what you believe, free market capitalist economy has 'less moving parts' to have system function because it doesn't mandate that there are any parts at all. Any moving parts in a free market capitalist economy are emerging properties of the economy where people are trying to make their own lives better by satisfying desires of others.

Of-course there are crooks and there will be crooks always, most people don't operate that way simply because it's actually less safe and more stressful to operate as a crook and it gives less satisfaction of an accomplishment at the end of the day.

But what would you know about it without actually building a business on your own first from nothing?

- and I am not looking for a 'just' society where the idea of 'justice' is theft and initiation of government violence.

- and you are wrong, free market capitalist society is what created the wealthy economies of 19th century that were destroyed in the 20th-21st centuries, however an approximation of free market capitalism also gave birth to a new gigantic wealth generating machine in China.

- and I never said people will have absolutely everything they would ever hope to have under free market capitalist society, you still have to earn things you want to possess, however under that system it is much more likely that you will have much more based on the competitive pressures on the market participants, who are after your money not in the dark valleys and government prison industrial complex backed by the government's ability to initiate violence against an individual but they are after your mind and desire, which they are aiming to satisfy with their offerings. A company providing products and services to the market participants is a much more sound business model than a company trying to steal. Providing good products is a way to build a sustainable wealth generating business, stealing money is the path that governments and crooks take (no difference between the two, I actually consider private sector crooks to be much more respectable people than government officials, at least the crooks have to convince you to give them the money, government doesn't, it takes because it has the guns).

- the laws have to apply equally to all people, but government initiating force is your idea of 'justice', so there is very little discussion to be had here.

- society upkeeps itself, no collectivist violence is necessary for that in fact collectivist violence doesn't build stable systems that can withstand the test of time, as all subsidies, governments eventually fail at all tasks that you supposedly want them to run.

- that's your prerogative, I state categorically that power corrupts and governments are eventually corrupted absolutely because nothing can stop their grab of power, there is no competition to stop them, there is no legal framework to stop them because they redefine what is legal to prevent any loss of power and to increase the power government holds.

- actually I am not trying to achieve anything, my position is that there is no need to try to achieve something, government doesn't exist to give us any form of direction and when governments try all we have is violence and bankruptcy. There is no need for government directing the society, society can direct itself just fine. What you are rejecting is the principle of a free individual making individual choices, you are rejecting freedom in lieu of violence.

- as I said, you are rejecting freedom and you invite violence. Violence only begets violence.

- looks like you never had any principles based around individual freedom and non-initiating of violence against people. Without having principles you can move from one position to another based on sophistry, but there is no virtue in this approach.

Free market capitalism is not what you have and you cannot base your understanding of what you believe capitalism is on your experience because you haven't experienced it yourself. Being sold into sex slavery under free market capitalism is not in any way different than being sold into sex slavery under communism or fascism or socialism or any other dictatorial system.

Actually I don't ask or demand anything from anybody, I observe and make my own choices and base my investments on my own understanding of what is going on and one thing is for sure, I am not with the crowd on any of it. I don't expect anybody to change anything based on any actual understanding, I expect things to fail in the way that I predict, that's all. As to my employees, they are paid fair market wages in the currency of their choice, in fact I have people that are paid in bullion.

My 'beloved' free market created the USA economy of 19th century that the socialist/fascist policies of 20th and the 21st century have successfully destroyed.

Violence happens whether there is free market or whether there is socialism of fascism. However a socialist / fascist / dictatorial system is violent by definition, its violence is delegated to the government structure, which means that it can only grow unchallenged by any internal competitive forces.

Free market will also have violence, there is not even a slightest question about it. The difference is very important: in a free market capitalist economy violence remains in the hands of private individuals, who can and will create systems, that will occupy the space that the violence wants to occupy. This space is left to the people that are unproductive but desire life that they did not earn, so they will attack the productive individuals and there will be Mafias created, not government bandits but private sector bandits.

They will compete with each other for turf and as with every competitive system the prices that the market has to bear will go lower, the prices that people will have to pay to the competitive Mafia market will be pushed down by the same competitive forces that push down prices for cell phones and MRI scans (and the only reason that health care prices go up is government counterfeit money and regulations, not technology, technology is progress that pushes prices lower, not higher).

My position is that organised crime in a free market capitalist society costs society much less than organised government. I never in my wildest dreams assume anything about people beyond the actual desire to benefit from every situation in some way.

There is no ideal society and I don't assume anything about human nature beyond desire to survive. People like you think that people like me assume something 'good' about the market participants, you couldn't be further from the truth. I assume that everybody who can take advantage of you will try to do it for their own gain and benefit. However in a free market capitalist economy you stand to gain more by working for the market than against it.

You stand more to gain by capturing hearts and minds of individuals the way largest companies of today capture them, Apple, Google, Tesla, whatever. Those are the actual free market players, not Haliburton, not Boeing, not General Motors, not F&F.

The reality is that you allowed yourself to be placed into a very tiny box by your government propaganda 'education' system.

Correct, all modern currencies are counterfeit, including the bitcoins. The countries that have high productive output, like China have currencies that are as counterfeit as the largest welfare recipients, like the USA.

Fake money is created all over the world to steal productivity of the individuals to subsidise the powerful government Mafia structures. The people are hurt, the wealth is stolen. The difference is that while the Chinese government is stealing from the Chinese people with inflation, USA government is stealing from the Chinese as well, such is the property of being 'world reserve currency'. You get to steal from other nations with your inflation while the rest can only steal from their own.

There is a sure way to tell if paper money is counterfeit and it doen't require blowing. Is it fiat printed by a government controlled agency and it has no savings behind it, as in there are no gold reserves that the paper came be used to redeem? It is counterfeit.

Real money is not created by a government but by voluntary market decisions. If a government controls issuing of currency and it removes free market regulations from the process then the government is counterfeiting the money.

Are your kidneys theft? You have kidneys, that's theft. Also your eyes and all other body parts, it's complete theft.

- the care for orphaned children is provided by private charities without any questions. As a child, your entire existence depends on others for some time, and yes, your parents brought you to this world it is their responsibility. If they don't want you plenty of charity orphanages exist around the world and in a free market environment adoption is much easier than what it is today. Plenty of people want to adopt children.

- and presumably you are a wanted child, if you are not, again, there are adoption and orphanage routes. Worst case scenario you get tossed into a trash bin, but those cases exist under any social/economic systems, the point of children has no merit in these discussions.

In fact the SS was originally set up in the states for 'widows and orphans', well it was an obvious welfare scam from the very beginning and should never have started, but it was because of the wrong idea that the market is unable somehow to deal with edge case scenarios that you want base the policy upon and cram it down everybody's throats.

- profit driven free market capitalist society is a wealthiest society that can possibly be built without violence against individuals, thus it is the most moral society and in such a society there are enough resources for every form of private care to exist, from charities and orphanages simply to adoption where it concerns children.

- nobody is and nobody should be. Forcing people is immoral however it is done.

However without government rules on hiring/firing practices there are no issues for people to find apprenticeship positions. I run a business and I have people that start working here for free just to learn the skills. Governments stand in the way of apprenticeship positions, many people would not refuse free / cheap labour and help in exchange for letting a person to work and learn on the job.

- wrong, capitalism is private ownership and operation of property and in a free market settings (absent government meddling) there is no need to force anybody to start businesses and to hire at market clearing prices.

Clearly you have a huge problem understanding what a market clearing mechanism absent government intervention is. You apparently want to force people to hire others or to force people to feed others for some unbelievable insane reasons that you interpret as 'morality', while what you are actually doing is engaging in the most immoral act of all: initiating act of violence against individuals.

- wrong, collectively you own absolutely nothing. Every time one can in such a 'collective ownership', one pulls the blanket to himself, stealing, cheating, doing whatever he can to take that 'collective' possession (a contradiction in terms) and make it his or her own individual possession.

- you are absolutely 100% wrong. Clearly you don't understand where wealth comes from and what it is.

When I build my systems I create new wealth that never existed before. When somebody takes some mud and turns it into a piece of art or into a brick they create some wealth that didn't exist before. When a person writes a book or a new sheet of music he creates wealth that didn't exist before and nobody gave it to them, it didn't exist, it was created out of nothing just because people wanted / needed to create it. Wealth comes from desire for better life and poverty comes from envy for the wealth of others and from desire to initiate violence and steal.

- in a free market capitalist system a capitalist can create more and more wealth and save it, which is great, that's how the capitalist can now invest into more and more ambitious projects and if his projects fail the rest of the society is not forced to pick up the pieces and repay the loss to the capitalist.

In the system we have today if you are a politically connected person, you are using the non-free market system, that provides you with advantages that are first stolen, taken away from individuals who are not free, but have violence initiated against them by the State to provide these non-free market redistributive pay outs to people that now have plenty of moral hazard accumulated in the system, plenty of reasons to gamble with money, be it their own savings or savings of anybody at all and they know that they cannot lose because there is the police, the army and the entire ridiculous government system standing behind them, giving them back anything they lose.

The real losers in your non-free market system are the poor of-course, because the rich will always have what they need but the poor suffer most under socialist/fascist/dictatorial systems, because there is no free market to grow the wealth at all, there is only one pie and as it shrinks the crumbs that you get are harder and harder to fight for, so you desire for bigger and bigger government to initiate force on your behalf to get you those crumbs.

You are eating yourself to death and you don't know it.

- tell me, how did you arrive to a situation in a free market capitalist economy where you and your friends have 'all the money' and 'all the property' and 'all the food'?

You are building a strange enough hypothetical situation, which falls apart once you realise that in a free market capitalist economy you could not arrive at that destination. You can't own everything around you while the rest of the people own nothing, that's not possible within an actual free market system, which requires that government is not preventing people from competition.

The only thing that actually creates real monopolies is government threat of violence. Today in Toronto UberX is being fought by the city government to try and protect the existing business models that the city is involved in (taxi licensing, etc.) and they do it under the guise of 'protecting the people'. Well sure, they are protecting some people at the expense of everybody else, who would rather do business with UberX than with government protected and licensed monopolies.

You create a hypothetical out of vacuum while pretending that a situation like that arises in a free market capitalist system, it does not.

In a free market capitalist system you are born a free person, a family or a charity is taking care of you or you while you are a child and eventually you learn from peers and become an apprentice in a business, studying it, learning the skills necessary to provide others within the same market conditions with the output of your own labour. You don't 'own everything', you only own what you can earn and with time your earning potential increases.

A situation with too much labour and not enough jobs only arises in government manipulated economies, which are not free market economies. In a free market capitalist economy markets discover prices that allow markets to clear, that means the prices adjust accordingly to the supply and demand for all things, including all types of labour and capital and land and other assets and resources.

So my argument doesn't fall apart, you can pretend that a situation that you describe will arise in such settings, but it does not, a situation that you describe arises in a non-free economy, in a non-capitalist economy.

A capitalist economy means private ownership and operation of property, this includes your own body and that is what gives us self determination - ability to operate our bodies free from government intervention and manipulation and our bodies extend to the fruits of our labour, which required us to input some kind of work, taking away from our leisure and doing work that somebody finds useful and is willing to exchange fruits of his/her for your productive output voluntarily.

In a situation when a person appears out of nowhere who has nothing and is in need of some help, people never refused others some help, but this is absolutely different from all forms of government tyranny, the tyranny of the State, that steals from us supposedly to 'help'.

It is unacceptable to declare some form of moral authority based on theft and initiation of violent force.