Remember this from the other day?

Phelps' reply:

…brought this extended response down on you. Blame him.

To begin with, that the interests of corporations and the wealthy privileged class differ from those of mere mortals (and Chaos deities) isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of observation. And yes, those with influence will try to increase that influence.

Yet if we've seen cycles at all, it consists of people assuming physical control means psychological control and overreaching…sometimes they overreach within their own society, sometimes their society overreaches and sometimes they just reach until they're in no condition to respond to change, but no one sees infinite growth. And when those with control fail, that which they control fails, at least briefly. And since we ARE talking nations, societies,, economies, even a brief failure is a whole lot of grief that we'd really just rather not have to endure.

Some counter is needed to balance the tendency to overreach. Some balance is needed to compensate for the influence wealth has on the direction of society. There are very few social forces powerful enough to fill that role.

Though I concede that, at this point, none of those social forces are even trying to fulfill it.

Why not just let things sort themselves out, let market forces define our society? Because market forces pay no regard to things like hunger, tornadoes and mud slides and yes, terrorist attacks. Suppose we had let market forces sort out New York's problems after the World Trade Center was destroyed? What market forces played into the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and not Col. Gaddafi?

The specific answers are not important in this case. The point is, non-market based decisions are made all the time. Do we really have a choice but to restore New York City?

We as a people decide what is important. It is a choice which issues are lovingly shepherded into actuality and which left to the winds of time and fate. And among those with the right to influence those choices, we the people have only one real way to play, and that's through government.

Government CAN…not to say will, but can…shift the balance of power back to the people. Corporations know this, which is why they lie. Yes, lie…how many bills are promoted by industry groups and lobbyists as ways of promoting competition _deregulation when we all know that NO BUSINESS WANTS COMPETITION. The way electronic voting is being implemented by companies with very close ties to the Republican party gives me pause for similar reasons.

The power of government isn't the problem. The problem is the end to which that power is bent. I'd rather keep the mechanism around and just get control of it back where it belongs. And it's something that must be done now. See, the neocons are right in this, that what happens in the next five years will shape the next fifty.

I would certainly endorse this. An even more compelling argument is that there is no way the powers of the state can be restricted to a point where they can't be hijacked and used for acute rent-seeking.

I have this problem--I get into these discussion threads where I'll illustrate the way in which a "libertarian paradise" (country with extremely limited government) becomes a plundering tyranny, and some interlocutor will say, "Colombia obviously wasn't libertarian at all if this could happen." In other words, defenders of limited government invariably jig the terms of the argument to favor their side. Colombia (1863-1954) had two of the most libertarian constitutions ever seen; Lebanon (1920-1990) was a runner up, although Pres. Mu'ad Chehab (1958-64) actually commissioned some roads and a few schools in downtown Beirut. Lebanon had been the wealthiest province of the Ottoman Empire because the local khedive had sided with Selim the Conqueror in 1512--so the country became a tax-haven for enterprise throughout the huge Ottoman Empire.

Let me see... Hong Kong is usually cited as a case of a country where markets created a country with the highest per capita concentration of Rolls Royce cars. This example is not usually cited by people who've lived in the region; Hong Kong was built by cartels under state coordination, and of course had unique advantages as an entrepot.

Many countries have had brief experiences with minimalist government (Japan, 1914-1924; UK, 1834-1914; France, 1873-1880's; Austria, 1848-1880's; Mexico, 1870-1910; and so on). In every case the experiment ended with a collapse of confidence in the financial system and massive fraud, monopoly, and extortion in the business sector.

Bottom line: minimal state means a b-sector will take over its coercive functions, while the social functions will be ignored.