[ThisWillDestroyYou]

I can only respond to part of this as I am busy.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Sorry for being slow to reply - have been travelling a lot this week with work so haven't had chance to sit down and compose a full response.

It's fine. We can't all monitor the forums 24/7

Originally Posted by dr2005

In response:

1) I always add in "with respect" where my response could be construed as being otherwise (for instance in this case, where someone less accommodating might think I was being snarky by pointing out the difference in terminology). Written communication of this sort is notorious for being misconstrued, and having been accused of attacks in the past when I have intended nothing of the sort I always err on the side of caution. It also acts as a helpful reminder to people that I am courteous in my reply, however much it challenges what they are saying.

You're free to do what you want. However, I would let you know, this isn't necessary for me. I believe it's implied that people are being polite, and when they aren't, I really don't care. People who are snarky, generally, don't deserve the time of day to be offended by them.

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) Ignoring my posts simply because you have failed to convince me on arguments regarding religion is exceptionally narrow-minded of you

It's a Current Events and Debates forum, not just a debates forum. I did not respond to debate or convince anyone of anything, but to cause people to think.

I also disagree with this being narrow-minded. I choose my fights. There becomes a certain point when people appear too dogmatic that debating is virtually useless. I still read your posts, and I still consider what you have to say. Choosing not to debate is not being narrow-minded. Not reading the post or considering what you had to say, would be. The argument is a tad fallacious. If we had to debate with everyone we disagree with, we'd never get anything else done. There comes a point when you know not to respond, but to still listen to what someone says because there is always potential to learn. If we take your implied definition of narrow-mindedness, everyone is then narrow-minded for not debating.

Originally Posted by dr2005

3) You are posting on a public forum where all posts are open to reply both from the intended recipient and the wider community on this forum.

Again, I disagree on this point. It is a public forum, yes. But, say someone said, "I don't believe in god." I, then, quoted them and said, "Why don't you believe in god?" I am not asking everyone in the forum to respond.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a corporatocracy as "a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations". Thus far, the last one which I've found identified in a peer-reviewed history source (either within or outside the USA) is Rhodesia. Claims of the United States and similar jurisdictions being one tend to be confined to the conspiracy theorists, who don't seem so keen on the peer review process.

I don't agree with most conspiracy theories, but I think your claim on theorists being found of peer review is wrong. They welcome peer review, but they disagree with the typical reviewers who are generally statists and involved with the government in some way. There are substantial reasons for this, but I think the main point is obvious. Even to big government (republican or democrat) supporters this should be obvious.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 2001) specifically forbids the implementation of a national curriculum.

I don't really care to get into this, as we will form a whole sub-argument around this. I will solely say this, just because there is an act that forbids something, doesn't mean it can't be implemented in subtle ways. Again, my point isn't to debate, if you care to see what I mean a little critical thinking and Google searches can go a long way. I don't have the time to debate this, nor do I care to. This topic is widely debated, and highly unlikely to be resolved by two forum users.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The Constitution is silent on education matters

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

My point is over the federally funded DoE. The rest in response is also misunderstood because I did not get my point across clear enough. I think you're overlooking the point. The DoE encourages various ideas that nearly eliminate individual choice when it comes to schooling. You're also underestimating the power of the federal governments influence on the states education system. Again, I can write a book about this, and in fact there have been books already written on this. Countless articles, studies, etc. have been documented on this, and even politicians outright talk about this. My point being, it's useless to debate this when officials can't even agree.

Originally Posted by dr2005

1) Company A is an established consumer technology company. An entrepreneur, B, comes up with a product in the same sector as A's but with some distinct differences and improvements. A uses its superior resources to not only write a cease-and-desist letter to B alleging theft of its intellectual property, but also to ensure all its distribution agreements prevent its partners from stocking competing products, including B's. As a result, B's product fails to reach the market as he cannot afford to fight the legal battle or find a stockist.

1) How did Company A attain superior resources in the free market?
2) This lawsuit wouldn't take place in a free market. Cease-and-desists create unfair competition.
3) You're assuming that if this law suit took place, there'd be no one to help the entrepreneur with the lawsuit, and financial obligations that may come up, which is easier than every given our access on the web.
4) You're assuming there isn't any other option for the entrepreneur, but to give up.
5) In a free market, a corporation, "company a," woudn't be granted special privileges (copyright, limited liability, patents, etc.) from the government in exchange for taxes. Company B would be allowed to create an identical product without the fear of a lawsuit. Corporations are a product of a statist society, not a free market.
6) This example is based on a fallacy and a misunderstanding of how the free market works.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/how-fear-...minishes-life/

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) Mr C and his family have run a successful, popular Mexican restaurant for over fifty years in their home town. D, a national chain of Mexican restaurants, opens a new restaurant on the same street as Mr C's. D cuts its prices aggressively and engages in a marketing blitz, funded by its head office, in order to force Mr C out of the market. Despite several mixed and negative reviews of D's products, Mr C's restaurant is marginalised such that it cannot make a profit, and closes. D then raises their prices back to existing levels, citing the earlier levels as an "opening discount".

This, again, is a terrible example. Just because prices are cut does not mean it will remove all business from Mr C. In fact, in California, there was a national Mexican chain (two, in fact), right across the street from a family owned restaurant. More people preferred the quality and authenticity of the family restaurant. There is a market for everyone. Just because there is an On the Border across the street from a mom-and-pop, doesn't mean everyone will abandon the mom-and-pop.

This is also a false assumption that this doesn't happen in our current society. In fact, the government typically grants privileges to the corporations and larger companies over the smaller companies. The free market offers better opportunity allowing consumers to pick the winner.

Originally Posted by dr2005

3) Two candidates, E and F, apply for the same job. Both have very impressive academic records, E from well-established schools and colleges in affluent areas and F from schools and colleges in more deprived areas. However, whereas E's neighbourhood was serviced by a number of providers of extracurricular activities such as sports and social clubs funded by private businesses, F's was not as the businesses behind such schemes did not view it as viable. E gets the job over F, for no reason other than his membership of these sports and social clubs.

This also happens in today's system. The free market would provide more opportunities and free choice in schools instead of being unable to choose based on your neighborhood which is often determined by your income.

Originally Posted by dr2005

4) G is a large car manufacturer, with a significant share of its domestic market and sizeable operations overseas. One of its competitors overseas, H, decides to start selling cars in G's home market, in the belief that its more reliable and cheaper-to-run models will be popular with consumers in G's country. In response, G threatens its dealers that it will withdraw their franchises if they stock H's models as well, and engages in a marketing campaign bad-mouthing H's products and using selective reviews to make their own (inferior) products sound better. As such, H cannot establish a stable foothold in G's home market and withdraws.

In a free market the competitor (H) could establish it's own dealers and base its advertisement on it's success in other countries. In the information age people are capable seeking out the reviews on their own. Just because they couldn't use G's dealers doesn't mean they're SOL. Sure, it might take some problem solving, but problem solving requires entrepreneurs and jobs, which is a plus.

I think a lot of your understanding of the free market is misunderstood. The free market wouldn't operate in anyway like it does today because the current market isn't free.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal. Parties can choose to enter into contracts of exclusivity if they so wish, and do so on a regular basis. However, those participants in the free market with access to higher levels of resources, and market reach, will always be in a more powerful position than those starting up, and more often than not will use that position to stifle competition. The examples I give above are all based on fairly typical occurrences in the business world. Supply and demand may form the fundamental component of the free market, but it is not immune to external influence and on its own cannot create a level playing field. Indeed, the notion of truly perfect competition within a free market tends to be regarded as utopian, and - perhaps counterintuitively - a certain amount of state intervention in the market is in fact aimed at trying to improve competition (for example the Competition Commission in the UK and the core economic freedoms within the EU).

The reason small businesses have trouble today aren't because of competition, but because of laws, regulations, and government favor of larger corporations who fund their government campaigns. It has nothing to do with competition. In fact, most of the examples you gave are results of the government and legal problems that the republican and democratic parties have created.

While I do not believe the free market is infallible, I believe it is a far better system, and the only system that brings equality to the table.

The other problem I see is that you're assuming the government HAS to give money in order to create equality. I disagree. The government doesn't create equality, it stifles it. People should be able to freely grant money to businesses they want at a local and national level, and NOT rely on the government to decide what is best for their money. This is the problem I see in the two-party mindset. They cannot fathom another way of operating without the government. They largely assume "human is fallible, so we have to have a government." The problem is the government is made up of (fallible) people and those (fallible) people are determining how to spend other (fallible) people's money from a detached perspective not relevant to the people, but rather being controlled by (fallible) lobbying interest groups. Rather, because humankind is fallible, I find it better to leave the money with the (fallible) people to wisely determine what is best for THEIR money, since they probably have a better idea than an external party choosing what's best and where there is no consequences for ill spending of their money. Where, if left to the people, there would be consequences for the spending of their own money.

I'd like to ask you the same question I asked another poster. First of all, as I've said, you're free to your own beliefs. And because of that, I would never seek to harm you by any external force via weapons, hired men to hunt you down, or sending someone to torture you and lock you away. I think you ought to be free to have your own beliefs without fear of persecution. Would you grant me the same?