There’s a difference between “regulation” and protection for individual rights. I want everyone’s individual rights protected, and while I can imagine a truly voluntary society with private law systems protecting individual rights, I understand that’s a big jump for most people. I’d be okay with a minimal state…

I agree there has to be protection for individual rights, so we need remedies against theft and fraud. I’d be okay with a minimal government that existed just to protect our rights, but most of what is done through regulation could be done privately.

“once they have a lead, it only grows exponentially” - Demonstrably false, as shown by all the large companies that have been in dominant positions in the market and lost them. Competition is always with us and no one can rest on their laurels. If they do, the next competitor to enter might eat your lunch. I’m sure…

If you support free markets, you should be for any size corporation that works effectively and efficiently. What support for free markets isn’t is support for big business. There shouldn’t be special subsidies and tax breaks for large companies, supporting them over small companies. We need a separation of market and…

It’s kind of like a concierge plan. You expect to use it, but some will subsidize others because not everyone uses it as much. Seems to make decent economic sense.

Capitalism “require[s] a certain level of government oversight to protect consumers” is the claim, made by people who assume the answer without even trying anything else. 

“Pure capitalism doesn’t work” is something often repeated with no evidence. Regulating the market and protecting the public are things private groups could be doing if the state wasn’t monopolizing those areas. “Spreading some of the wealth” is just a euphemism for stealing, but there’s such a thing as voluntary…

“Not true, especially for a public company that’s expected to not just turn a profit, but turn a higher profit year over year. Some customers just aren’t worth serving, even if they’re willing to pay”

The moral is perhaps you should move to where people are or bear the costs of living in distant, difficult to reach…

“Would you be fine with a corporation causing a drought because they’re sucking up the water supply in order to sell back to people in bottles at a profit”

Except that doesn’t happen and as far as I know, has never happened. It’s government that creates water shortages by monopoly infrastructure and price controls.…

Capitalism is highly correlated with massive increases in wealth over time, which you can contrast with non-capitalist countries and see that wealth doesn’t automatically increase over time without it. Economics also provides good mechanistic explanations for how it could be responsible. At this point doubting the…

Then you could do what you can always do in nature, go get some yourself. Or maybe go live somewhere that it is profitable for them to serve. You don’t have a right to have everything brought to you on the mountaintop you’ve chosen to live on.

And breaking up Standard Oil was also wrong. They were always subject to competition. Standard Oil owned 88% of refining business at its height, but its market share had already decreased to 64% by 1911 before the anti-trust case, and continued to drop. Anti-trust is simply a cudgel wielded by the politically…

Regarding the castration etc, do you really think there’s nothing objectively different about the brains of men and women that cause them to behave differently besides culture? It’s, what, coincidence, that men and women have different roles throughout virtually every culture on the planet, even isolated communities…

What he wrote was actually peppered with footnotes and links to recent, peer-reviewed science, not “pseudoscience.” Nice try, though.