You furthermore suggest some scenarios and claim that I shouldn't have a problem with your work if I wish to see those scenarios to continue. But I don't as all of those examples you mentioned are flawed and built around the current system. To ask me to support those is to implicitly ask me to support the current system which I do not. If the farmer has surivival problems because of market swings, then obviously the market mechanisms are inefficient (as I in fact believe). If big budget films require exploitation to make (which they do) then they're better off not being made through their traditional ways. Humans will still make movies as long as there is a demand for them anyway.

In closing, I don't think you may be able to see the true extent of your actions or the system you are supporting, anymore than a kind capitalist can see how he's still exploiting his wage-workers, no matter how nice he is and maintaining a flawed system.

I'm not willing to change my philosophy because I'm not convinced it is flawed enough to justify an alternative. Without going over the facts again, (everyone else can read my previous comments), I still think capitalism is not the problem; it is individuals with too much influence and not enough intelligence or moral grounding that fuel the shift in balance negatively. I assume you and others here will disagree with me but I don't think I'm contributing to social and economic destruction in my attempt to succeed both creatively and financially, nor do I think that I'm an enabler for the political and economic elite.

I suggested previously how my trading operation benefits parties on both sides of a trade. If you don't have a problem with home ownership and you accept taking out a mortgage then what I do is necessary. Do you want a farmer to survive the swings in value of his crops and livestock before it is ready for market, then what I do is necessary. Want to watch a big budget film from one country, yet filmed in another, then what I do is necessary. Mutual aid is thus provided.

I considered your post over the few days. I attempted to view the world as I perceive you do during my routine, considering what I can do differently and what impact it will have on those around me.

I'm going to continue to fight for the removal of illegal or unnecessary powers exercised by my federal and state government here in my country. I will support organizations that serve the same goal. I will continue to work towards goals that I set, fueled by my entrepreneurial drive, but always as I have in the past, with the understanding of the impact that my choices and actions have on others.

I know this will mean nothing to you, but I don't think that my success is dependent on the collective loss of others.

If it is any consolation, I don't get the fascination with Ludwig von Mises that some foster. The flaws are considerable, similar in scope to Rand, but I guess that is what you get when you try to find an answer and instead think you have found a hero. you may, at least consider this a small victory.

but since you frequently talk about TPD I assumed it held some special significance for your analysis of capitalism.

Not really no. I just use it when I think it's an appropriate example/metaphor. I didn't think I was overusing it :-S

Anyway there's more to game theory than the prisoner's dilemma, but since you frequently talk about TPD I assumed it held some special significance for your analysis of capitalism.

yet you've indicated previously that in a communist anarchist society that people will work even harder than they do now!

Where? I find it hard to believe that I've indicated so when I believe the exact opposite.

I also wonder at your attitude toward so-called "defectors" – laziness is not something I tend to associate with hectic proletarian jobs where you have to work your ass off or be fired, yet you've indicated previously that in a communist anarchist society that people will work even harder than they do now!