>As I said previously, I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. Let's examine the facts and discuss further. Saying we disagree in the interpretation of historical events without even discussing any is a cop out and intellectually disingenuous.

We would only be discussing our subjective interpretations of facts. I don't think that's intellectually disingenuous. For example, how could you argue with a Holocaust-denier who believes that all records were forged? You could be pointing to the exact same things but interpreting them differently. I don't think we share a common ground, and there nothing I could say to you or you could say to me to change the way we emphasize or de-emphasize historical facts and their relation to one another.

>In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet customer demands.

What is a "free" market? I think this is the important question. My core belief is that actors in an economy will act according to game theory. Is a free market one with no rules? If so, what is to stop someone from lying, cheating, or stealing? Is a free market a system with a few basic principles? If so, who serves as judge to determine if rules were broken? How do you ensure this judge acts in the best interest of the market rather than their own best interest? What is the punishment for breaking rules? In my view, businesses do have a drive to create value. However, businesses also have a drive to make a cheap buck where they can at someone else's expense. I think having a government act on behalf of consumers is necessary to keep rent-seeking motives in check and let value-creation stay at the forefront. I simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act with my best interests at heart.

>I know very few people who view the government as an organization which negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard anyone describe government in such a manner.

Ideally, I do think that is what a government should be. I'm very happy that my government has orchestrated clean water, built power lines, roads, and bridges, and ensured basic standards for food quality. In essence, the government is a sort of corporation of which I received a single share upon birth. The ultimate morality of being forced into purchasing that share is debatable, but pragmatically, at least for now, I'm happy with it.

>Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the standard of living and increase human cooperation.

I think you carry a lot of baggage when you use the term socialism. I'm not talking full-scale USSR planned economies. The US has been dabbling in socialist policies since the Great Depression. That track record you attribute to capitalism I attribute to socialism (or I guess social capitalism). I'm not advocating for full government control of the economy. I do think the government can be an actor in an economy for net benefit, and I think certain powers should be ensured.

>I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron to me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully taken from them determine whether the money is being squandered.

Let's call it social capitalism, then. You seem to have a problem with the word socialism itself.