But the creditor at least has a right to the available property of the borrower. The capitalist does not have a right to the consumer's paycheck. So if a bank lends money to you (invests in you) so that you may buy a house, in the event of your default they have a right to take your newly bought home. If a capitalist invests in the means to produce something he assumes all the risk of his product not being wanted by consumers, whereas the consumer assumes no such risk but still benefits from the added value of the capitalist's labor.

Why is friendship needed? people can survive without friendship.
But in any case what do you mean 'survival'? 10000 years ago survival meant living until your 30th birthday. In any case life is not a binary value, there are qualities, and it's not 'luxury' to want to live a better life rather than merely survive until the arbitrary day you die.

δεν τα κατάφερα αυτή τη φορά, αλλά στο προηγούμενο που πήγα πέρασα πολύ ωραία και ωφέλιμα. Μοναδικό «μελανό» σημείο ήταν η διαφημιστική παρουσίαση της Sony που μας έβαλαν να δούμε.

θα το μεταφέρει το intensedebate στο friendfeed?

perhaps you are confusing evolution with cell structure and behavior. The latter can be examined in petri dishes, but the former can't. Evolution is much more than DNA.

And of course the law of supply and demand is only one proposition of economics. There are many other theorems, like the Welfare Theorems which tell us about market efficiency and other 'good stuff'. And no, having an ideal free market is not a prerequisite for research into free market operation. So assertions about idealized markets operation can be tested against contrary assertions. This is what science is all about.

it's funny how someone arguing rationally can claim that human rationality is false. in any case, rational humans may be a simplification but not an invalid one, in almost the same way that newton's laws of motion are simplifications of the truer einsteinian laws of relativity.

And, once more, you are confusing libertarians with economists in saying that it is an especially libertarian thing to say that free market capitalism is a better system than any other so far. It is economists who know why, and tell us, that free markets work better. Libertarianism is only reinforced by this discovery by economists but is not based on that discovery.

for example, monetarism (Friedman perhaps the most well known monetarist) is an economic theory that requires government to have a monopoly over the money supply. This is for pragmatic reasons and to one degree or another is contrary to more anarchic aspects of libertarianism.

Just as evolution is a sound proposition regardless if there are people supporting it for other reasons (say a dislike of religion) so it is with economic laws which are sound regardless if there are people, libertarians, who support the laws' conclusions for other, moral, reasons. Your criticism of libertarians is unfair because the laws of economics are established independently of libertarian moral preferences and therefore libertarians are not being dogmatic when they use them as arguments in favor of libertarian ideology.

that is like a religious person saying that because atheists are evolution's proponents they can ignore the scientific basis for evolution by concentrating only on atheists with a 'religious' (since they haven't necessarily conducted economic research themselves) adherence to evolution.

no, you should read a peer-reviewed economic journal and talk to the economists who are publishing in it.