: :regulated by their own actions in a free market of private property. I don't believe that real-world corporations are benign: Now if the state, unions and citizens behaving as consumers can't regulate capitalism and rid us of the corporate menace, which you accept exists, why would letting these organisations behave as though they have licence make a difference?
Because these organizations are mostly concerned with the profit motive, and will provide consumers with their concerns IF their concerns are communicated through the price system in a free market. Muddying up the price system and the market through government intervention just makes it MORE DIFFICULT for consumers to have an effective voice.
: That's just about as utopian as suggesting that a nationalised economy is more free and social than a capitalist one.
You seem to recognize this as truth, and yet you don't understand that the ONLY alternative to a capitalist economy is a nationalised one. Though there are different degrees of nationalization, to be sure.
: :If you simply must know, I'd point you towards Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and David Friedman.
: Von Mises, should have known,
Since you complained about insinuation above, I'll assume that "Von Mises, should have known" isn't what it appears to be.
>I didnt know he was an anarchist anyway, or, sorry, claimed to be an anarchist, you cant be an anarchist without being egalitarian,
No, you're right. He wasn't an anarchist, but he came close. However, it is important to read him in order to understand where Rothbard comes from.
> Rothbard, I'd have listed him earlier but I wasnt sure, again, how to spell his name, I did mention Friedman by the way,
No, you mentioned Milton Friedman. David Friedman is his son, and holds very different beliefs from his father.
> the whole neo-liberal austrian school where very utopian and more ideological than factual.
Neither David nor Milton Friedman subscribe to the Austrian school, nor have they ever.
: Dont anyone say Hayek.
Hayek!
None.
