Let's see, silly or disingenuous?

> While I can see the point, albeit very far-fetched, you make about nation

> states, I am left wondering how you propose regulating any market without

> them.

This one is silly. I can only assume that you misunderstood his point, and probably not deliberately either.

He didn't say that nations should be done away with. He was arguing that nationalism, the idea that your nation is somehow better than all other nations, is a bad thing, because nations are inherently racist. This is clearly, to him, something to guard against. I would agree.

> How a free market would lead to government-mandated and supported

> "beasts" to regulate the market is beyond me.

And this is either disingenuous or you have no understanding of how markets work.

Totally unregulated (no patents, no copyright, no government protection of any kind) capitalism, of the kind that the libertarian fringe worship, leads almost immediately to huge monopolies. Any large company can, by and large, produce things cheaper than a small one, and thus any product created by a small business can be freely copied (verbatim, in this scenario) by any large business. Plus, of course, without various 'anticompetitive' (according to libertarians) laws and practices, large companies can very easily force smaller ones out of business. ('You may not sell raw materials to anyone without asking us first, or you'll lose us as a customer.' And so forth.)

There's your "free" market.

-fred