I see, here's where I think we come to some differences.
I enjoyed your idealisations and find that in some capacities it's true, but I believe you are mistaking the idea of Ideal for Present. If you imagine business a priori, you could imagine two people engaging in the simple task of bartering. One person has something the other wants, and the other person has something the One has. They trade. Both of them are happy because they got what they want. This scenario instead implies Desire and Aquisition. Then it becomes a situation that is not merely one-sided like you seem to be postulating.
That's your entire problem is that you seem to imagine this as a one-way situation involving only one circumstance.
"Sure, they'd need more and better education to be small business owners, executives or scientists, but shouldn't you be pointing at our own government's motivations and, ahem, government run education system when you start to play your blame game? "
Sure. I've said plenty of times that part of the problems here is that we have a shitty education system. As one of the most modern and supposedly innovative nations, as you put it, we should be capable of bringing up healthy people, right? I mentioned that in another thread not long ago. I don't really know why the government does it, but they seem to like people stupid.
But the simple fact is we don't, for some reason people in this country are barely educated. Aren't we one of the only countries in the world who charges for college? Thanks "Capitalism!". Sure, there's options for financial aid and such, but who wants to be in debt most of their lives? Most people are too stupid to find grants or some kind of cheap system. Why aren't the colleges teaching them how to get them..? What was it you said, they are more interested in 'Profit'?
I'll take this down a purely pointless angle to elicit emotional response: what if our children's toys were made by people who are "Profit". Think about our children, good sir, and the idea that their education is mostly maintained by people our for profit.
Which brings me to my next point; we're talking about a country that had at least some vested interest in oil obtained through a war by a presidency who's company is reaping the rewards? How do you expect educated people and a good education system with a government that is more reliant on profit than quality?
If the government's job is to make profits, how is it going to restrict business? Why would it? That's the entire method for republicans, right, the trickle down effect or whatever. How does that work when companies are relocating for more profits?
With philosophies like that you're going to breed a nation of starbucks employees and business owners/operators. But then, you said the government's purpose is to gain power; but having power isn't good when your motivations are placed in the thing you're supposed to restrict. I suppose that it's impossible to be entirely detached from it, but there's certainly more eligible angles available.
The rest of what you were saying was just another attack on bad human nature. Essentially that people are slothful, and not really interested in being motivated towards any greater goods. Essentially saying "We" let it get out of control. No, "We" did nothing. I believe people who suffer from personality afflictions like greed and sloth are alot different than I am, because they have no motivation to make anything better but just to perpetuate their lifestyle as simple as possible. (I'm not really saying this to say I'm better than them, simply to point out the results of the system we are discussing.)
You say the Government is designed to restrict this nature, but how can you expect them to do so when they suffer the same afflictions? Many of these ethics stem from problems like big business and government themselves. Rich people abusing their wealth and keeping people poor and uneducated isn't some new thing.
"Union labor used to be a big selling point among American consumers, so companies abused themselves with it willingly. "
Yea ;/ More examples of people who wanted profit. I'm sure the union board people weren't slicing the tabs, were they?
I expect that you reasonably agree with most of the above?
"Shouldn't we be helping them to advance?"
Yea, that's not unreasonable at all. Remember that food for oil thing. That was a great effort, I thought(kind of). Didn't it suffer from some strange leech like beast? How can you expect to really advance the world up to "our point". Why would we want to? It's not like we're the healthiest bunch of rascals. I'd rather see things fixed in a good state here before we start cutting off limbs. Kind of hard to heal up if you don't have that good nutrition.
"Unfortunately, our founding fathers were not so prescient as to include a specific wall between commerce and state, as is made obvious by even a cursory examination of the current state of economic affairs in our modern system of governance. "
No but seriously I agree entirely. That plithy statement earlier and this would be in line together. Considering I imagine the connections between Government and "Capitalism" to be thinly seperated, you'll see we agree entirely. Maybe we should demand serperation of Work and State
;(
"I like people, and I trust them to strive for a better life, generally, and given the most encouragement to do so possible. "
That's exactly what anarchism is about, who told you otherwise? It emphasizes a "Family and friend's" community that is self-sustaining(food and water, possibly clothing) while maintaining connections with modern day technology and knowledge, essentially. Each person is charged with maintaining needs of the community. It's sort of like the Amish, in a way, but as i said; maintining connections with modern day technology(solar lighting, eg) and without the stiffy philosophies and nature.
I realize there was alot more that you wrote, but my writing is getting too disorganized.