This is where the views of poeple such as you, SDF, DDN and myself become an uneasy and perhaps unintended agreement.: Separation of the state and wealthy capitalists is a pipe dream, Gee.
Oh I know that really, just as I recognise that genuine participative democracies which still protect the individual from the whims of the many are a pipe dream, and that socialism without the growth of state is a pipe dream.
We, at this board, are big on pipes.
The big scary 'capitalists' you speak of are only possible with incorporation and a variety of protective regulations brought about by 'big government' - to expose all business to the relative chaos of the free market would see them constantly competing for consumer choice rather than speaking to their man in washington in a mutual two way deal (dont kid yourself that washington is owned, or that politicians are *not* 100% in on the scam, in one form or another).
Removing 'big business' without undoing what makes it possible (national governments with unlimited power, achievable with unconstitutional democracy) is pointless - and a cheap way to forever blame private property and trade for the ills of tribal nationalism and statism generally with its utter disregard for individual liberty (I mean negative liberty).
Limiting the role of government is like pruning - it temporarily removes the ability of national (and thus 'credible') legislation to protect and nurture inefficient businesses into giants. As per the famous quotation - it takes 'constant vigilance'. within time the government adds to itself (via the intended or uninted actions of interest groups in an unlimited democracy - and via the mechanics of public choice theory and apathy) so as to renew the alliance with ineffective corporations - taking their status and money to gain secod hand power and glory for themselves in return for protection from the very thing they are supposed to chase - consumer choice.
The best protection is a constitution, with the sad acknowledgement that renewing the constitution is cyclical, that regardless of what is demonstrably right or wrong (morally or in terms of consequence) it is the will of the great majority that steers 'society'.
To propose socialism is to undo all the stops and let any whim be heard and any law be passed and enforced at any level provided it is popular enough - its based on the reasonable hope that people will all get along together, the less reasonable hope that people will compromise on anything and more than anything - the non starter hope that people will agree to work for all and sundry without being able to select the beneficiaries of their efforts.
