Quote Originally Posted by hexo View Post
I apologize if my choice of words were very poor.

We all know how destructive the acquisitive mentality is, which is at the forefront in all transactions happening in a free market. State or no state, it doesn't change the dominant mentality. Which leads me to governments and it's primary role. Governments are an outgrowth of an economic system that is so inefficient that it needs these appointed people to serve as arbiters. That is what I meant by "state mitigating the effects of cut throat competition".

Now my statement about religion as behavior control. Every time I read free market/libertarian advocates about how they minimize greed and corruption in a free market, they always resort to canned answers such as " well if only people were educated about the non-aggression or the non-intervention principle then people would never do such malevolent things toward their fellow human beings.". Which is almost similar to religious people when they spout nonsense like "well if only people are more god fearing, then people would never..." . Get what I'm saying when I talk about ideologies as patchworks for a very flawed system? In a system where greed and competition is encouraged, of course you need behavior control mechanisms.

PS. I don't advocate institutionalized power as well.
Clarifications:
1. What is acquisitive mentality? It is only destructive for people to have such mentality and government is immune to it?
2. The primary role of Government is to be an arbiter in the market? An arbiter of what is fair and what is unfair? An arbiter of the limits of human capacity?
3. How does competition differ from cut throat competition?
4. Every time you READ free market/libertarian advocates, who do you mean? I have never heard any suggestion of a free market advocate for an affirmative action towards the reduction of greed.
5. This is what i get usually from reading libertarian views (Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig Von Mises, F A Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Richard Cobden, Benjamin Franklin, Marquis La fayette, David Hume, Ayn Rand, Peter Schiff, Thomas woods, Murray Rothbard, H L Mencken, Hugo Grotius, Desiderus Erasmus, etc...), it is more advantageous for any society to allow men to conduct their own business in pursuit of their individual self interest as long as they respect the rights of others to do the same. It is counterproductive for a society to have few men dictate how commerce should be according to their plan, whether noble or self serving, since it cannot possibly know each reality for each person. Any society that limits the commerce of men through artificial regulation, taxation, or subsidies, unconsciously harm the wealth and prosperity of the society. A select few leaders of any society can never have insights of the millions of self serving citizens in the economy, therefore any legislation that intervenes the commerce of men, must artificially enrich others and impoverish others. Economic problems don't have definite solutions, only trade offs.

6. If you don't advocate institutionalized power, what do you advocate? Isn't government an institutionalized power? Personally, it is nonsense to believe somehow government, an external authority, can know better what is good for each and everyone as compared to the people themselves. I advocate for a limited government, especially in the commerce of men.