Do I have to explain everything?

1)Ayn Rand/Karl Marx "in charge" are metaphors for the fact that an overly complex Roman Empire became top heavy for non-ideological reasons. I'm not making any implied comparisons of the two.

2)Yes, economies DO have a purpose: To help organize human communities so that human labor can be converted to goods and services that serve human needs and to allow humans to participate in that activity. It is NOT the purpose of a human economy to provide a means for the owners of human resources to accumulate wealth and provide meaningful emotional activity, personal wealth and career satisfaction for themselves. Coral reefs existed long before human beings. Economies arose after humans did. It makes no sense to talk about economies where no humans are involved. The same goes for governments.

3)Governments and economies are not equivalent, but it is impossible to have one without the other. Even if you claim you "only have one", it is actually carrying out both functions. Communists tried to have government run the economy. It didn't work, unless you worked for the government in a high position. Capitalism tries to have owners of the means of production controlling all governmental functions, by either privatizing them or forcing a puppet government to administer them in ways that primarily benefit them. That doesn't work either, except for those in high positions. I've always felt the only difference between a Soviet Commissar and a high level executive is that the former wore a baggy suit. But they have the exact same mentality.

4) "Only highly-centralized systems CAN become “too big to govern." A meaningless statement that really is an attempt to justify a government in which large commercial organizations and those who run them exercise all the political power. All big human systems are highly centralized, from the top down,have you ever seen a company that wasn't? Laissez faire economies in their immature state may exhibit competition, but when they finally mature, they are oligarchies. Free markets can only exist if regulation splits up the biggest and most powerful predator organizations. This is why the Libertarian utopias you are always talking about have never existed in the real world. Business men want no part of them, and good businessmen know how to frustrate market forces.

In historical times, power was concentrated in the hands of those who owned land.
It was a landed aristocracy where land was the source of all wealth and only land owners had any power. Today, we have an ownership oligarchy which functions in pretty much the same way, although it is not based on land, but commercial and financial activity.However, they are acting pretty much the same way as the land owners did to hold their power and their wealth.

Modern capitalism does have one major improvement over landed aristocracies, though, they are not hereditary. But the Republicans are working on that.

5) “Absolutely?” You sure? Why?"

Don't patronize me, TB. You can tell me I'm full of shit, but don't talk to me like I was a child. Do you really think I don't have good reasons for thinking what I think? Do you think I'm going to get tongue-tied and be incapable of expressing myself? Do you believe I will be unable to put together a coherent sentence? Do you wish to contrast your inquisitive thoughtful mind to my indoctrinated and opinionated and emotional rationalizations? Remember, Tom, you're the one who seems determined to challenge everything I say. Are you afraid someone might actually believe me?

It takes effort to write these long posts and when I know ahead of time you won't believe anything I'm saying, it is not worth that effort. Remember, this is not a debate. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, or impress anyone with my erudition or debating skills.

I simply find the entrepreneurial ethos unpleasant and those obsessed with it tiresome. They have a right to exist, I suppose. They even provide a useful service and they deserve to be rewarded for it if they provide that service well and fill that role successfully. They're kind of like cops and lawyers, bail bondsmen, motivational speakers, football coaches, wedding planners and fitness gurus. We may occasionally need one, but we don't have to like them. I know you feel they are admirable people, but I tend to find them annoying. I would rather hang out with mystics, scientists and artists. They aren't always trying to sell me something.