AdrianHealey: I don't think you understand the things I was trying to prove.
I don't think you understand the things I was trying to prove.
I do. It's just that you haven't proven it. From this, what exactly don't you think I understand?
AdrianHealey: Or, put it differently: what is your point and where does it contradict mine?
Or, put it differently: what is your point and where does it contradict mine?
Your accusations are baseless. You seem to think they have merit.
The fact that you are talking about 'accusations' enforces my previous statement.
What 'accusations'?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
AdrianHealey:The fact that you are talking about 'accusations' enforces my previous statement.
No, it doesn't.
AdrianHealey:What 'accusations'?
The points you were trying to make.
And you didn't answer my question.
This is going nowhere, so I'm leaving it at that.
Questions of scale and procedure simply can not be answered by abstract philosophy or economics. This must be left to social custom, normative standards and contractual development. The basic answer is that successful firms and/or respected individuals, once removed from the statist and anti-humanist ideologies of authoritarianism, can only be left to develop customary procedures that work for them.
There is no need, nor desirability, to have 'THE LAW' at once and for everyone. Boundries and standards will vary as much as the situations to which they apply.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon