Thanks for the party-space, (e:jessika). Wish we could have talked to you more, but your couch was so comfy (and at that time not puke-covered).

And, after a two week period of diminishing pain, my back is "back" to normal.

So, at the aforementioned party, I joined the discussion mentioned by (e:paul) with (e:ejtower). It was pretty fun. I forget sometimes how much fun it is to have a purely academic discussion. Makes me almost miss school...almost.

His post hits on some of the points that we talked about. He and I are agreed that true innovation and invention are best inspired by free markets. They inevitably tend to maximize effectiveness and reduce cost without any outside interference. We both think any "green" revolution must be market driven. We both think that federal/governmental intervention oftentimes stymies this same innovation. Why make the next energy/food source when the one you're banking on is guaranteed profits not through marketability but through government subsidies? He managed to convince me that he's a pretty smart guy. Who counters your argument that energy is necessary for cyborgs to work with an argument that oil is just another energy-rich oil, many of which are growing right now in a field near you?

We differed in our opinions on government. (E:jtower) wants to abolish government. That may not be quite right: he wants there to be no government (we didn't really discuss the method of disposal). According to him, government inhibits the natural rights of people, or in his words, government "justif[ies] our infringements on each other's right to life". My question is, without government, who protects your individual right to life? I suppose we are all responsible for protecting our own rights, unless we have powerful friends/relatives who decide to help us. I think one of the purposes of government is to provide a base level of survival for everyone. It makes those people who would just die, I guess, able to survive, if minimally. It gives everyone (or at least most) an opportunity to compete with those with lots of powerful (can we just say rich?) friends/relatives. Of course it doesn't always work that way. Most people have no chance of becoming powerful. But, at the same time, most people have the opportunity to survive, without having to earn it on the free market. If you believe in the right to life, shouldn't you want everyone to have this opportunity, regardless of connections to already existing power?

So we could have another discussion on the function/effectiveness of government (which I'm sure the Larson brothers would happily participate in). But I just can't see how a realistic anarchy (and I do mean in the political sense) would ever come to exist. And I worry that ideas of unfettered marketplaces play right into the hands of the entrenched power that exists in our world. Does Wal-mart really need less government oversight?

P.S.: If any opinions expressed here don't actually belong to the owners expressed above, please feel free to comment or clarify.