Title: "Adam Smith's Grave."
I look at OpEdNews and other what are called alternative sites. OpEdNews is supposed to be progressive; however, lots of libertarian capitalists (sort of paleoconservatives) do what is called troll the sites to post comments, articles, and links there. They do this in an attempt to swing people from the giving-and-sharing economic model to Adam Smith capitalism. The libertarian capitalists claim that everything other than their brand of capitalism is flawed. They complain that socialists use coercion in attempt to force them, the capitalists, into sharing. They also complain about how central planning doesn't work, never has worked, and never will. That's it. That's the sum total of their political economic model.
Well, let's take a quick look. First of all, not all brands of socialism are coercive. That knocks down the entire argument of the libertarian capitalists. Second, not all socialism is centrally planned. That too knocks down the entire argument of the libertarian capitalists. Third, the libertarian capitalist (in general) say that there is only one place where coercion is acceptable and that's to enforce their right to be capitalists, meaning to open markets where they aren't wanted. It's called gunboat diplomacy. It was used on Japan for instance when the U.S. said open up your market or we open fire. That third point simply points to the utter hypocrisy of the idiotic position that is libertarian capitalism.
There is a word that is often used by capitalists. It's "envy." Supposedly, anyone who doesn't like the capitalists system envies the rich, covets what the rich possess, and wants to gain those possessions away by immoral, unethical, and frankly illegal means. Well, immoral, unethical, and illegal as used here by the libertarian capitalists are just selective connotations of the terms hypocritically applied. The rich have what they have by immoral, unethical, and frankly illegal means. Their ancestors stole the Commons by force of arms. It's that simple. The system has been enforced by threats and violence ever since. It's never been a real choice by a truly informed electorate. What the common people have wanted is their stolen inheritance back from the thieving capitalists.
The libertarian capitalists are fond of attempting to use the term egalitarianism out of context. Egalitarianism doesn't mean that there aren't any differences between people. It means rather that those with gifts serve the whole, and those with fewer gifts are thereby treated with all the love and compassion that those with gifts ought to want to receive as well. It's Christian. The libertarian capitalists hate Christianity, because their hearts are too cold, small, and hard for the Golden Rule.
Another charge against the heart of the New Commandment is that it is for a quota system; however, if all are serving, as in Christianity, this is moot. The hang-up with the libertarian capitalists is their selfishness.
The libertarian capitalists reached their height with the last 30 some years especially beginning with the Reagan October Surprise when the Reaganites stole the election by doing a dirty-tricks deal with the Iranians to hold the American hostages until Reagan's inauguration.
Now though we can see all the fruits of the terrible laissez-faire capitalists. Their inherent selfish competition (inherently immoral) has brought the U.S. to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and perhaps in the history of the nation if proper steps are not taken to reverse all the policies and procedures of those laissez-faire capitalists. They brought on the Great Depression too.
An example link provided by the wholly mistaken libertarian or anarcho-capitalists is to an article where one Murray N. Rothbard revisits in 1991 the introduction to his work entitled, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor," written in 1970.
There are many other things I write about libertarian capitalism you may discover by a search of this site.