I also enjoyed the article, but would ask you and others to consider that the people, through their agency, the government, do economic violence upon one another through taxation (and to a more subtle extent, through inflation of the money supply). When it is OK to step into a voting booth and obligate a neighbor to pay for a particular program or service that the voter approves (or that benefits the voter!), to which the other might not voluntarily contribute -- in other words, to commit political and economic violence with impunity -- it is a very short step to accepting and even supporting economic violence committed elsewhere in the world in one's name or for one's alleged benefit.

I don't think "capitalism" is actually the problem. In your own personal affairs, do you not expect to call your own shots, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, and to be nobody's slave, even temporarily? Do you not expect to be able to acquire and use property -- including leasing or selling it -- as you see fit, as long as nobody else is harmed? Do you not reserve the right to accumulate property for future use, perhaps in anticipation of a "rainy day"? Wouldn't you expect the government to protect your liberty and property against bullies, thugs, thieves and vandals? Wouldn't you expect government to help you enforce fair agreements that you made with others, and wouldn't you respect enforcement of others' agreements with you? These are the elements of capitalism, distilled down to the personal level; they seem not only reasonable, but desirable?

At what point, then, does reasonable and desirable capitalism become destructive, hateful, "globalist capitalism," which so many resist these days? I would argue that it isn't so much the nature of capitalism that is the problem, but the scale of its scope and application. Healthy organisms become unbalanced, developing cancers and other ailments. Just so, do capitalist organizations literally grow into counterproductiveness. Understand that corporations generally cannot grow to such malevolent size without the cooperation and assistance of governments. Indeed, governments literally create corporations, conferring limited liability upon the owners, fictional "personhood" upon the organization, and many other privileges and benefits. The notion of "corporation" and the many legal powers and privileges that notion entails, are among the main reasons that organizations can grow as large as they do. Very rarely can any "capitalist monopoly" exist without being aided and abetted by laws tailored to confer unfair advantage.

As I see it, the proper functioning of capitalism depends upon certian "natural forces" to keep enterprises in check. The "personhood" and "limited liability" aspects of corporations, in particular, negate and provide immunity to some of those forces, encouraging rapacious, monopolistic behavior on the part of organizations so "bionically enhanced." Originally, "capitalism" didn't include these aspects; they were added later -- with the approval and participation of governments -- by those, I believe, who would exert excessive influence and power over others in the name of personal wealth and privilege. In other words, the "natural forces" were standing between certain people and the realization of their ambitions, so we (or our governments, at least) agreed to blunt or remove those forces, thus eventually allowing the development of modern trans-national conglomerates.

I think we would do better to challenge the "convenient fictions" of corporation law -- which seem more and more INconvenient as time goes on -- rather than nominate "capitalism" as a scapegoat. Our real enemies are the unhealthy concentrations of wealth and power, whether they occur in government or corporations, or label themselves capitalist, socialist, or whatever. It takes a well-balanced MULTITUDE of public and private concerns to keep any of them from growing so large and influential as to be unhealthy for society. Here's a paradox: the government that is big enough to take on megacorporations in the people's name is also the government that, when corrupted, can protect megacorporations from the people. We have seen signs for a long time that the fox is guarding the henhouse, but this happened also in countries that formally eschewed capitalism, so to concentrate on the "-ism" is, I think, to miss the target.