That doesn't sound like capitalism to me at all. Sounds like totalitarian socialism as run by a corporation.
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company bought the land?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company bought every available business?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company paid ridiculously low wages?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company hired its own security forces?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company bought every media outlet?
At what point, exactly, did it become 'totalitarian socialism' as you call it? At what point is the actual purchase of goods and services 'totalitarian socialism', and if it is the final abuse of those privileges, then how does 'pure capitalism' actually stop it?
So not really an example of pure capitalism, unless you think capitalism is just another kind of socialism, and I don't. Maybe you do. I'd argue the point but what came after that in your post really just put me off talking politics with you at all.
Putting words in my mouth doesn't net you any points. Either you admit that their must be legitimate restrictions on the consumption of goods and the imposition of externalities, in which case it is no longer 'pure capitalism', or you accept that yes, 'pure capitalism' does lead to totalitarian regimes, as it has in the past, some of which we are paying for now, as the rentier class acquires property and enslaves the working class with its 'rights'.
Yeah, 'cause then... G'Huh? Then who has to argue what point by point? Minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged? In what way?
Do you want to have your property rights enforced?
You have a home of some kind. Do you expect to fend for your protection entirely on your own, with no legal system to resort to if someone steals from you or injure you, or do you expect to actually have those protections.
And what the crap is that bit at the end? Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves? Where did this nonsense come from?
Libertarianism is essentially a version of anarchism that grants Government two rights - action against fraud and theft, which some libertarians reduce to merely theft ('fraud' being the theft of your right to the truth).
If you don't see how raw capitalism can and has been abused, then I can see why you might think it's 'nonsense', but if you want to understand why people don't take Libertarians seriously - and if you want to understand the reason behind the rising Marxist and Communist movements in this country - then you should probably take the time to examine the logic behind it rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Otherwise, yes, you're going to do nothing but commit ad hominems like
Let's see... looking up Kim Stanley Robinson... basically an anti-capitalism sci-fi writer. Oh boy. (Working really hard now not to be sarcastic about choosing a quote from him about libertarianism.) So we're gonna do that now are we?
Nah. Nevermind. I'm not going to respond in kind to that nonsense. As tempting though it may be, it isn't worth my time. If you really believe that kind of falderal, I doubt there is anything I could say to convince you otherwise. Be well and have a nice day.
Do you think this sort of talk sways anyone?
I do believe that you honestly believe what you are typing. I do not, however, believe that you have thought it through.
If you want to present 'pure capitalism' as the be-all-end-all of society, in order to be taken seriously, you need to explain what measures will be in place to prevent abuse before it happens.