Just because I "don't trust the motives of businessmen" does NOT mean I "unfailingly trust the motives of politicians"

Its really annoying how you do that, and not just to me, but to everyone you argue with. You put words in our mouths and thoughts in our brains which we do not have, then you point out how stupid we are for thinking and speaking that way. Its unfair, and infuriating. I used to think you did it maliciously and deliberately as a cheap rhetorical tactic, but now I think I see why. With you its always black or white, no gray. You are incapable of reconciling opposing concepts simultaneously into a working synthesis. You must reject one totally, and embrace the other completely. No middle ground, your way or the highway. For you, the only alternative to 1890s satanic-mill capitalism is the Cambodian killing fields. I'm sure I'm not the first person to tell you this, but you are dialectically challenged.

For the record, I feel about politicians (and government bureaucrats) exactly the same way I feel about their analogues, businessmen (and professional manager/executives). They are both careerists and bureaucrats. They are psychologically and culturally indistinguishable from lawyers. Individually, they may be very nice, decent people, but as a class, their interests differ from mine. I don't trust any of them. I have spent decades working for both private industry and government, and I can honestly report the two experiences are indistinguishable.

Anarchists, the original Libertarians, before the latter were co-opted by capitalism, rejected both government AND business. They understood that underneath the neckties, they're both the same guy.

Ever heard of Elisee Reclus, the 19th century anarchist geographer? Or his professional and political colleague, Pyotr Kropotkin. They're in Wikipedia.