[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think you're grossly overestimating the damage that would be done by a transition to a free market economy. The pain caused to dependents of the state would rather quickly be ameliorated by more rapid economic growth, and the transition could easily be staged to prevent undue hardship.

I would agree that sacrificing the positive freedoms of several generations for the sake of an end result is a moral issue, and I'm not quite sure how I'd respond to that. I would probably support it on the basis the future prosperity and happiness of mankind is more important than ephemeral prosperity and happiness, but we're not talking about several generations. Free markets would yield substantial benefits very quickly, probably before you or I have children (assuming a program were implemented now, and I assuming I haven't disastrously miscalculated your age).

[Maxim Litvinov]

I think the main dispute we actually have is about rates of change. Let me state - I'm not against a truly free market at all. I guess I treat it like some treat Communism: it sounds great in theory, the theory is pretty scientifically solid and I'd like it as an endpoint, despite some concerns as to whether it is practical...

But, let me take for granted that the theory is accurate and it will come about - no problems with another world war or weird monopolies or lots of irrational irascible consumers etc. etc. The argument then becomes one about the rate at which we should push it to come about.

From my point of view, what needs to be factored in, in terms of the 'sacrifices' of a rapid rate of change is not only 'pain caused to dependents of the state' directly, but more fully 'the lack of current alleviation of pain'. I don't see state-based aid, debt relief, social security and charity as such hurdles on the way to free trade that they should be discouraged from the start. From my POV these things might slow the transition period, but will make it far more acceptable in terms of human toll.

Anyway, that's my assessment of our differences on the issue.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

If the state doesn't exist to ensure the people's well being then it should be abolished.

Should it? To me the 'state' should only protect rights to person and property. That's sufficient in protecting people's 'well-being'.

(I was referring to the US during the Great Depression which had some of the worst unemployment and poverty, certainly even the UK's welfare state was puny at this point)

Unemployment was high in all of the major industrialied countries at the time. And you still haven't proven the link between the Great Depression and a lack of welfare.

[Ombrageux]

"Should it? To me the 'state' should only protect rights to person and property. That's sufficient in protecting people's 'well-being'. "
If that trully ensures the greatest happiness of the greatest number (greatest well-being for the greatest number) then I agree.

If not, then that state has no legitimacy.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Ultimately the role of a state differs. I don't see how it should exist to further utilitarian objectives.

[Ombrageux]

I don't see why anyone should surrender their freedom to government if the government's mandate isn't to maintain the well-being of its citizens.

Though, again, you CAN argue that government protects the well-being of its citizens best when it only protects property rights.

However, property rights are not an end in themselves. They are a means to better the well-being of the State's citizens.