Couple of things :-) 1. We are a republic not a democracy. Mob-rule would suck IMHO 2. I'm not advocating replacing the government with anarchy and capitalism, I'm saying they must work together. Letting one overwhelm the other would be bad, very bad. Government should be constrained with checks and balances, and capitalism should be constrained by competition.

I think you miss-understand me. I'm not advocating a system of only voting with one's money. I agree that we must go into the polling place an make choices about policy (how can deciding between McD's and BK make any difference in influencing the current war?) I'm saying, in the marketplace when we vote with our dollars we are causing real change. Day-to-day decisions are based on our desires and abilities. Yes we could want more and be jealous of others who have more, but we still purchase what is right for us at that time. When the market is manipulated then choice is removed and our dollar vote is void.

In both of your examples you have shown how capitalism and representative governments must work together to ensure a best-case outcome. I don't disagree with you that we need the government, I'm just saying that the "dollar vote" moves many of the mundane choices into the hands of the individuals who are best able to make the decision for themselves.

In the case that someone damages something of yours you ask to have them repair it (i.e. you sue them). Then the damage to your property is reflected in the cost of their product (because all costs are added to the cost of the product). Then the consumers of that product can choose to buy another company's products that were environmentally responsible. It is common practice today to "call out" companies that do socially unacceptable things and have consumers "vote" for another's product.

You need to think on a micro scale not macro. By voting with your dollars I'm talking about on any single item. A person with lots of money does not go out and buy lots of insurance policies (though the could). They go out and get one, and they try to get the best value, just like you and I. All that more money does, form the point of view of the consumer, is give you the option to vote on more stuff than someone with less money.

If Bill Gates wants to buy 1000 health insurance policies for himself he is welcome to. Most people only buy one. To be honest I don't follow your argument, unless you are saying a person with a zillon dollars is going to prop up a bad business and force others to use it. If that was the case I would think that that person wouldn't have a zillon dollars for long.

People vote with their money all the time. They vote their own self interests. They "take their business elsewhere". They "don't leave a tip". If you offer a better (perceived) value then even those people with a "thousand times the votes" will "vote" for you. What we have in the health insurance industry is government implemented monopolies. And, IMHO, monopoly capitalism is really the downfall of capitalism we are seeing today. Too big to fail then becomes the call of all the bad choices the executives make. In the IT world we call this single point of failure. True capitalism made of many small businesses is like having many redundant systems so if one fails others are still around to take up the load.

Heh I have to throw the irony flag on this one. You say "They have an anti-trust exemption" then say "the government is the only entity large enough to be able to compete". Isn't it the government that gave them the anti-trust exemption? How about getting rid of that?

"Further, there isn't any choice for an insurance plan governed by democracy instead of stockholders" First, true capitalism is democracy (People vote with their money). Second, why the government? If you wanted profit out of the equation, why not a heath care co-op? Or not-for-profit insurance?

The US has these great trade deficits too. This is one of the roots of the problem. The U.S. has all of these "Trade Partners" who don't buy anything from us. These partners need to either buy stuff/services from the US or re-balance the currencies, otherwise the people in the US are just mortgaging the increase of the standard-of-living of these other countries.

You use the argument that Software engineers should be paid the same as electrical engineers and civil engineers. I would agree, but there is a problem with this analogy. A civil engineer does not build the structures that they design, construction workers do (who get paid less). Electrical engineers don't build the devices they design, technicians and factory workers do. Software engineers need to get out of the work of doing "construction" and into designing and engineering solutions. That is where the value will be.

Stimulus bill hahahah whatever