Quote from: blogospheroid on July 12, 2011, 11:29:14 AM

I don't disagree that politics and economics cannot be separated. But do you agree that the law is a ham-handed tool to resolve issues that arise rarely?

This isn't a problem that "arises rarely" it's chronic, it's widespread, it's perpetual. It's going on everyday without exclusion. How is that "rarely"? How is implementing a law that stops parasitical activities "ham-handed"?

Quote from: blogospheroid on July 12, 2011, 11:29:14 AM

Ludwig Von Mises's book on interventionism and the real life experience of India's absolutely horrid license raj are full of examples of laws that have been passed ignoring economic effects and resulting in great suffering.

Nice selective quote mine collapse there by the way. But you're avoiding the question I posed.

Quote from: blogospheroid on July 12, 2011, 11:29:14 AM

You should consider the cost-benefit analysis of the probability of your being able to convice a majority of the people in the government that affects your life and your ability to carve your own sphere of autonomy and voluntary trade.
And technological changes affect this, greatly. Before bitcoin, I was very skeptical of even the possibility of agorism. Now it seems really feasible.
I agree with patri freidman's ideas on this. The systems competing in the world are a function of the market for governance.

You start by convincing people, the politians usually play catch up. This isn't execlusively for my own self interest, a foriegn concept on a forum such as this, I know. If people are reasonable they'll be convinced, if they are ideologically driven on some market founded faith-based doctrine, then perhaps not. But I'll never know if I don't try.

Quote from: blogospheroid on July 12, 2011, 11:29:14 AM

Not thinking of entrepreneurial solutions is the real relinquising of self determination.
Thinking "Oh this problem will be solved only if I have 1000000 people on my side" is relinquishment.

Quaint how you cede to me in this statement that you believe that you or I shouldn't be heard by our government for a redress of grievances but seem to hold tenable that there is no problem with that. First of all how is anything to do with being 'entrepreneurial' related to taxation and regulation? History provides testament argument against your second statement. Mass movements are never easy but they only happen for those 'foolish' enough to believe they can change the system.