Originally Posted by u-Bob

I agree that it hasn't. There have been periods in history that came close. There was the Icelandic Free State. There was a period in Irish history that came close to Anarcho-capitalism. During the bronze age there were cities in the Indus valley that were extremely advanced for their time and had drainage systems, multistory brick buildings etc and operated without what we would now call a government or taxes.

I am however curious about how you are so certain that "it never will". If you look at things from a purely utilitarian point then a pure free market system is the most efficient way to run things. The work of for example David Friedman is very interesting to read in that regard.

If you look at things from an ethical point of view than it is the only fair way to run things. For more info: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (argumentation ethics), Walter Block, Murray Rothbard (natural rights based theory), Frank Van Dun (argumentation ethics), Stephan Kinsella (estoppel),...

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Like sperbonzo already pointed out; you always have unintended consequences. You may fix one problem, but you end up creating tons of new ones.

Intentions don't matter. Intervening in the economy, e ven with good intentions, will still cause unforeseeable problems.

Mises himself in 'Socialism' about central planned economies:
The impracticability of Socialism is the result of intellectual, not moral, incapacity. . . . Even angels, if they were endowed only with human reason, could not form a socialistic community.

Originally Posted by u-Bob

There's no conspiracy-theory-type 'coverup'. Let me illustrate what I was saying with another example:

2 years ago, the people living in the EU were told they had to show some solidarity with Ireland. A couple of months ago they were told to show solidarity with Greece or Greece would default.

The Greek state has been borrowing money for a very long time (just like all modern states do). Greece borrowed money to cover its expenses. Greece than borrowed more money to pay back its previous loans (including interest). As their accumulated debt is over 170% of their GDP, it's impossible for them to pay back that money with tax euros.

Who gave out loans to the Greek state? Banks, all kinds of different funds etc. They even kept giving Greece loans when it was obvious to them that Greece would be unable to repay those loans. Eventually the situation became that bad that no one wanted to give Greece anymore loans.

At that point politicians and bankers screamed: "The market failed! No one wants to buy Greek bonds! no one wants to give Greece any new loans!".

Did the market fail? Of course not. The market reacted the way it should. If no one is willing to pay to buy Greek bonds, that is the market giving you information that those bonds are worthless. If no one is willing to give out new loans to Greece, that is the market giving you information that Greece is unlikely to pay back its loans.

What happened? The EU decide to set up a special emergency fund. All other EU countries now borrow money (at an interest rate based on their own rating) from the same banks that gave out loans to Greece when it was already obvious that Greece would not be able to pay them back. Those countries then lend that money to Greece (at a different interest rate). Greece then uses that money to pay off the banks. All those EU countries now have to use taxpayer money to pay back its loans to those banks (+ interest).

So in essence what happened is that a couple of banks acted irresponsibly and gave out loans that it would not have been able to give out in a free market (because that would have meant the end of those banks). When the borrower was unable to pay back its loans, the EU then essentially made every member country borrow money from those same banks so Greece could pay back tot he same banks.

The EU emergency fund didn't put "new money into the markets". It took money out of the financial system and then put it back into the same financial system, but with the promise to pay back a little extra. Where will that little extra come from? Taxation.

And now that it has become obvious that 2 other member states (Spain and Italy) will not be able to repay their debts, they are doing basically the same thing all over, but this time its the ECB that will be giving out the new loans. The ECB announced that it will start printing extra euros to buy Italian and Spanish bonds (effectively inflating the money supply).

Originally Posted by u-Bob

We don't have the technology we have today thanks to the gov, but despite of the gov.

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Ah, the invisible hand. Yes, that would be that 'price mechanism' I described.

Originally Posted by u-Bob

If you define 'greed' as wanting more than you have now than every human being is driven by greed.

People have bread to eat because the baker is driven by 'greed'. The baker doesn't get up early in the morning to bake bread out of the goodness of his heart. No, he bakes bread, so he can sell it and use that money to buy goods and services he desires.

And yes, crimes exist and will always exist. Where there a need for security services, the market will provide it.

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Yes, there are people and groups of people who want to steal, loot, pillage. Yes, there are corporation that want to wipe out there competition. Yes, there are scammers etc...

But who does the gov call when they want to regulate the banking business? Bankers. Who does the gov call on when they want to regulate industry x? Experts from that industry.

I urge you to take a look at the work of for example Butler Shaffer. In his "In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition" (I'll see if I can dig up a pdf) he does a great job of exposing tons of government regulations that were lobbied for by existing member of certain industries with the aim of restricting access to the market and wiping out new competitors.