: See my reply to your post. If unemployment is caused by deliberate engineering of the economy (i.e. *not* laissez faire) via the federal reserve as a supposedly 'liberal' economist called Galbraith believes then he would find unlikely agreement with 'separation of state and economy' libertarians.Separation of the state and wealthy capitalists is a pipe dream, Gee.
Here's one reason why.
Capitalists need overseas resources. They have overseas industries and investments. When governments overseas falter or change, these resources, industries, and investments are threatened.
In a 'truly' laissez-faire world, the capitalists with overseas interests would be required to protect their interests. As you might expect, that would be very expensive. Of course, by the logic of laissez-faire, that would be acceptable; the capitalists with overseas holdings would add the cost of their increased investment (vast private militaries that protect their overseas holdings) to the product they are selling.
With me?
Consumers could then decide to purchase those products---at the new higher prices that include the added investment of vast military equipment and forces---or not. Effective demand, correct?
But in the real world, Gee, capitalists would rather have the state pay to protect their overseas interests. And the 'state' that pays the majority of this bill is the average consumer.
Why not abolish the state, as Borg would advocate, and simply let the capitalists who want to invest in risky overseas endeavors buy their own vast military machines to protect their overseas holdings?
Here's the punchline: because arming every capitalist company with nuclear missiles (and so on) would be dangerous because the 'nature' of capitalism is competition and competition in the capitalist world is one capitalist company trying to eradicate another. Arming these bastards would be armageddon.
