(Continued from previous message)

KR> of the strong is maximised at the expense of the weak.

BL> You have that backwards: maximising anarchy can lead to freedom,
BL> but you are right about the weak. It's just the way things are.

Poor old Bob.

BL> Whatever system we use, there needs to be a bias towards the
BL> weak, but the one system that did that most (Soviet Communism)
BL> ended up with the poorest whites on the planet! It doesn't work.

Pity it says nothing useful whatever about democracy tho.
We do in fact have very decent social safetynets ourselves.

BL> You can't look at a political system in isolation, you need
BL> to consider the economic system and the law at the same time.

Nope.

BL> I don't think there is any doubt that
BL> capitalism is best at creating wealth.

Or it just works, nothing much to do with 'creating wealth'.
*IF* you deliberately proscribe the worst excesses of capitalism.

BL> With that starting point, the ideal political system is
BL> one which causes minimal dissent, distributes the wealth
BL> evenly, and has minimum impact on individual freedom...

Crap, you can make a case that no system which distributes the wealth
evenly can EVER work very well, because it removes any incentive for
people to put more into the system in the hope of achieving wealth.

BL> since it is this freedom of competition
BL> that makes capitalism work. It's a loop.

Its just a tad more complicated than that Bob.

BL> A democratic anarchy would serve this best...

There aint no such thing. Poor old Bob.

BL> a minimalist democracy using tax as the weapon to control
BL> free enterprise, and basically no other laws at all.

Poor old Bob. It wont even work.
@EOT:

---