**

The Capitalist Conspiracy and Entrepreneur Lobby

I have uncovered the most royally heinous and outright criminal organisation to have ever been in the employ and so close to our own government. It makes the Watergate scandal look like a tiny hiccup in a poorly run PR campaign, which was set up under false pretences to hide a far more serious problem that almost no one, especially at the highest levels, knew about.

I hope that shedding light on the scheming and calculated planning of these ambitious special-interest groups will help readers identify, treat and combat the exploitation they face, and ultimately bring the accused to account before it is too late.

Their strategies are so multi-faceted and resourceful that they make the mafia look like second-rate impersonators. Not only are they conniving opportunists trying to infiltrate our policy-makers and even get rid of them, but they also want to escape the detection of government and even overthrow it. They are the most revolutionary plotters the world has ever seen, yet they have been almost totally ignored, at least in a systematic way – until now.

They have been doing it since before the first government; verily, without them government would not be possible. Such is their cunning.

Some of their products and services are well-known and popular, but not their ideas. And it is ideas that are really dangerous. Only a select few have come to terms with their radical and subversive theories, but the threat is real and growing. Even those who display or claim to believe in these ideas often appear to be mere stooges, not knowing what they have got themselves into or where their beliefs lead.

Other than running the underground economy, they basically run the Australian Stock Exchange and all Australian companies, not to mention internationally enterprises. Small business has not been able to escape them either.

They work without deadlines; sometimes arrogantly by the light of day, sometimes stealthily under the cover of darkness.

They do it in their homes, throughout high-rise buildings, on the phone, in the newspapers; they practically run the country and worldwide economy. Indeed, the last place without them is government and similar organisations, yet government relies on them for everything except certain operations that the conspirators want scrapped.

The U.S. and its allies have been policing the world trying to eliminate the threat of anarchy, as they call it. They are so distracted by foreign concerns that they do not realise that at home the cause of anarchists is constantly trying to breakthrough. The anarchist cause is so entrenched in the Western way of life that government cannot escape it. The best it has done is to deny it. But this is no way out and they know it, as displayed in the vagueness of their theories and principles. That is why they use the term anarchy to refer to other governments or attempts at government around the world, rather than describing the same anarchists that run the productive industries.

The conspirators claim that they do not trust government, and since government is meant to represent them and they are not meant to represent government, they believe that tax evasion is justified and anti-trust legislation is not. How can you argue with people who say things like that?

Who funds them? They fund themselves.

Whose interests do they serve? Certainly their own, their customers’, their competitors’ customers’ and potential customers’; perhaps their families and friends and the charities they fund, perhaps not. They serve government as well, but only after taxes – and I’m not necessarily talking profit here; and not willingly. They serve the poor and the environment, but only insofar as they get something in return, including as selfish a thing as mere satisfaction.

What do they want from government? To be left alone. What does government want from them? For them to leave an amount of the money that they have earned alone, once they have had it taken by government; and to do whatever else government demands.

What does government offer them? Whatever it is, they do not want it. What do they offer government? Nothing, but government takes whatever it wants anyway.

Does government support them? Government cannot possibly support them without them losing the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs and capitalists: that they use their own money voluntarily earned by satisfying customers enough for them to give money – that is, purely voluntarily. When government and business combine it is worse than government on its own, for government becomes the customer. Consider, for example, what would happen if McDonald’s ran the tax office. Or imagine what would happen if government outsourced the manufacture of weapons. Unfortunately, however, no imagination is necessary there.

What limits them? Not being able to attract customers. Why might they not be able to attract customers? There are many possible personal reasons involved: lack of specialist knowledge or creativity, finances, etc. But there is only one reason that limits their operations, no matter what their personal reason might be: government. Why does government limit them? Because: (1) government is justifiably threatened by competitive environments; (2) the values of government conflict with those of others and the government backs up its value-judgements with force; and (3) government needs to get its funding for schools, hospitals, transport, defence services, etc. from somewhere, and only businesses create wealth, for only businesses have voluntary customers that demonstrate that they believe they are better off than they would be without the service provided by preferring to receive the product than keep the money that they have bought it for.

This brings us to a peculiar situation that stumps politicians and political apologists; and the more they try to get on the front foot or approach their opponent, the more likely they are to be more convincingly stumped. What if entrepreneurs and politicians are aiming for the same ends? What if the entrepreneur says that he does not want to pay tax, which government assumes in making it compulsory? How will government justify its use of force to extract “its” “income” (or loot)? It cannot defend itself on legal grounds any more than I can justify me stealing off a rich fellow because my cause is better. On economic grounds then?

But that would miss the point, for crime is crime and disadvantages the victim, even if the robber gains advantage or gives it to someone who does. And you would not be able to say whether one’s gain outweighs the others loss, for utility is not intersubjectively comparable – that is, there is no unit of measurement for utility, because utility is subjective. That is, value is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, one cannot defend one’s value-judgements at the expense of someone else’s; especially when it is law and property rights under discussion, rather than economics and values.

If people have a good business idea, then they need to impress potential customers sufficiently to get their way. If they lack enough capital to get that far, then they can attract investment. A business with money to invest gets its income through its ability to attract voluntary customers. A government with money to invest gets its income through its ability to forcefully take money away those who have earned it voluntarily. Which group better satisfies consumers? Anyone who has ever learnt the government high school curriculum or been to a government school will know the answer; unless it got the better of them.

The capitalist conspiracy has infiltrated journalism with cash for comments nowadays the norm. This bribery is rampant and even authors who don’t get paid, in agreeing to the whole voluntary system, show that they support it too. Even readers of journalism implicitly support them if they acquire their material voluntarily. Indeed, it makes all supporters of government look like hypocrites.