[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's to stop the most powerful businessmen from deciding that things will be infinitely more profitable if they enforce their will on the people. Will "neutral arbiters" stop the system from being overthrown? I just don't see how AC sustains itself or how it is remotely practical.

As a Libertarian, I agree with the general contention that the state oversteps its bounds and is overly powerful throughout the world, but in order to prevent a new state from arising and enforcing a totalitarian regime, it is necessary for at least some minimal level of government. How else will the system be stable?


[/ QUOTE ]

To play the Devil's Advocate, what is to stop a powerful businessman from doing the same when a 'minimal government' is in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

The lawful government of the people acting as a check on the power of private of wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is so special about this, as compared to this:

The people acting as a check on the power of private of wealth.

and in any event, the problem as I see it is the 'lawful government' not wealth.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the richest 2 people in the world, and both americans are giving away their vast fortunes to charity. This is the reality. If they were building tanks and agressing against others I would accept your point as valid.