The problem is that if you have one entity (government) that owns all the means of production, then it is impossible to engage in successful economic behavior. The process of buyers and sellers coming together freely in the market results in Prices. But when one entity controls and owns everything, there is not buying and selling, therefore there are no prices. Without prices, it becomes impossible to efficiently allocate resources. As with Socialism, any size of government encounters this problem. Without prices, there is measure of profit and loss, and they cannot distinguish between useful or wasteful uses of social and physical resources. It results in wealth destruction, shortages, and misallocations of capital goods and labor.
Yes, governments really do lack the ability of economic calculation. Just because they have budgets, and can compare tax revenue to their obligated expenses, does not mean that they can ever determine the best use of their labor and resources. Without consumers freedom to choose which products and services they want, they government will not be able to identify what to produce nor how much. Because they get tax revenue not matter what, they are unable to discern consumer preference and without profit and loss, they are unable to discern whether they are applying their resources most effectively.
Yes, taxation is slavery. And the current justice system is not worth it, it is a joke. Suspects spend as long as a year waiting trial, patent trolls stifle innovation, and failed burglars sue homeowners. It is a series of legal plunder against the smallest minority of all, the individual. The Government is the one that robs and kills people. You tax-funded system provides no recourse for that. Law existed before the state, and can be better provided by the market.
When did I suggest that the government should own the means of production? Oh, I didn't.
Still, you are making an assertion here and there are counter-examples. In Chine the government does own the means of production, but their economy is booming...
Everything you are saying is kind of refuting things I'm not saying. When did I say there should be no prices, there should be no consumer freedom or that there should not be any free market?
The current justice system is surely imperfect, but it is orders of magnitudes better than the wild wild west or no justice system at all. As I said, at the very least, it enforces contract and without contracts the market is going to suffer quite a lot. And patent trolls are indeed a real plague, but at least the majority of intellectual property is properly protected. Throw away all patent law and what do you get? No good incentive to innovate...
When you suggest that government should run X industry or service, you are in fact suggesting that it should be out of private hands and therefore the government will own the means of production of whatever it is. (Health care, law, etc.) And in such government run services there is no consumer choice since they are taxed whether they use it or not, and therefore there is no market pricing for those services and no measure of success (profit or loss) for the government to analyze their own actions.
Law and contracts are products of the market which existed before government took monopoly ownership of them. I provided you a recommended reading of a book called The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State. It provides dozens of examples private law and enforcement, and how they out perform their government counterparts.
Intellectual property could have its own debate. For instance, some hold that it is not even property, since two people can have the same idea, and not infringe on the other's right to do so. IP laws prevent the small business creativity they are supposed to help. Just because someone filed a patent before the next guy has no bearing on how good or successful the first idea will be. All it does is limit the property rights of others. A patent on the steam engine delayed the industrial revolution in the UK by over 20 years..
You keep refuting points I'm not making.
Regarding your book suggestion, if the book is full of good examples, it shouldn't be hard to provide me with one instead of asking me to devote the time to read hundreds of pages. Not that I might not get to this book at some point, but I don't think asking the other side to go read this or that book is a fair thing to do as part of a discussion.
I'm not aware of jurisdictions where ideas themselves can be copyrighted. What gets protected by patents or authorship laws are particular implementations. As far as I know in most jurisdictions, if you can prove that you had no knowledge of the patent and you came up with something similar on your own and can demonstrate that, the patent is not enforcible against you.
Sure, there are a lot of questions to be had about IP and patent laws, but if you throw them away completely, you get a lot of industries going under too, so it's always a give or take. The idea behind patents as a whole is to stimulate innovation.
You'll thank me later
http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=92#t-2
I doubt the book has convincing arguments if you are having a hard time summarizing them...
I did summarize it. You asked for examples, i provided a link.
Hoping that if you don't believe me, maybe you will hear out other smart people; )