It's not a better way of putting it. Your third listed one liner is still capitalism. It's just a Keynsian spin on the ugly truth. Not good but better than the alternatives,

Your second is inaccurate in the extreme. If we're going to be purist (which I equate with simplistic) there are no profits under socialism, and therefore no losses.

I think what you're advocating is actually anarchy.

You can certainly call it that. I won't debate the point.

MI6, CSIS, Homeland Security, FBI and CIA will have you on there phone tapping speed dial.....

Are you a Sid Vicious fan?........or just a 'Sex Pistol'.....

Mmmmm...perhaps not.....

Definitions of wooly grand theories that attempt to meld extremely numerous variables into one explanatory narrative are not terribly useful unless you're sitting around talking bollox with stoned 1st year undergraduates.

That said, I tend agree with Alan's broad assessment that economic relationships within and between western nation states favour corporate interests rather than individual concerns.

Whoa, Sherlock! Such penetrating analysis without the benefit of smoking dope with the riff-raff.

I'm impressed.

There's really no need to be, I was just trying to simplify it for you.

Thank you. I really appreciate your help with these complex issues.

I'm always glad to help.

Will the world wide publicity and swagger regarding Bin Laden's death result in reduced terrorist activity or will it encourage more extremism by groups and individuals?

Maybe it would have been better just to keep it secret.

Maybe it would be better if everyone was just, you know, like, nice to each other.

You mean, like in a surreal kind of utopian world....nice thought ....

No, it would be nice if they (the government) just left everyone alone to get on with things they want to do as long as they aren't harming anyone else. Harper won't do this.

There you go again, Mr. President.

Define "harm".

Could you explain what exactly you mean by this? The way it reads to me is you're, as Novo pointed out, advocating anarchy.

I prefer to call it freedom from others telling you what to do for no reason. But have it as you will.

The way I see it is that there is the law - which is there to protect individuals and their property from the actions of others. This requires a government to create the laws and a police force/judiciary to enforce them - ergo not anarchy.

I just want the government to get it's nose out where it's not needed. We don't need the government selling us booze, we don't need the government selling us car insurance, we don't need the government running gambling, we don't need the government telling us what we can do with our own bodies. Sure regulate such that fraud, exploitation and misrepresentation are difficult and illegal, but don't prevent me from entering into private contracts with others about anything I so choose. I will suffer or gain accordingly and have to live with the consequences of my own actions. I know some of you like being slaves, but I am an adult - I can make my own decisions.

What I want is the above, but with a socially progressive government that taxes fairly and helps out those that need it without prejudice or judgement. It must do this with money raised from taxation and not borrowing. Oh and fiat has got to go.

Call me an idealist sure. But don't tell me I'm left or right, because that is a crock of shit for people who still think that voting will make a difference in the corporate cleptocracy that is the west.

(Novo: Not sure how the definition of harm matters, for cases that are not criminal in nature that is whatever you call the non-criminal courts are for. If I think you've harmed me - I will sue you)