Sandy,
I'm child-dying-from hunger-in-North-Korea serious. Capitalism (free markets) is not Corporatism (government-chartered entities given special privileges). Free markets are ecosystems, totalitarianism is the opposite of free markets, and non-aggression is what I believe we need to evolve towards.
Capitalism doesn't require people to pursue profits – if it did, I would strongly oppose it! It simply means being able to engage in voluntary free exchange without someone using violence or the threat of it to stop you. What you and I choose to do with that freedom should be up to each of us! You can take George Soros as your role model, or Mother Teresa; you can be as materialistic, or non-materialistic, as you choose. But you and I don't have the right to rob people, directly or via government, to carry out our preferred visions of society, even if we're sure it's for a good cause.
Part of what I mean by describing markets as an ecosystem: You refer to hiding revenues offshore, but in the global ecosystem, there is no "offshore", or everywhere is "offshore", because each part of the world is"offshore" to somewhere else, just as biohabitats do not respect national boundaries (except when people artificially divide them by putting up walls and fences). Hiding wealth can be a rational response to robbers and bullies who are stronger than you are, just as many animals hide themselves or their food from predators or thieves.
The government-run education, government-subsidized paving over of parts of the planet for roads, government-controlled parklands, government-run libraries, government-run health care that you refer to have never been free of cost; the costs are merely sanitized and ignored, like the cost in animal suffering of the shrink-wrapped meat for sale in supermarkets.
You stress the importance of privacy, and I couldn't agree more. People should not be forced to disclose their personal information on registration forms, should not be forced to carry or use identification, should not be subject to non-consensual searches of their private property. Forced egalitarianism, whether imposed by a majority of society or by a minority, necessarily relies on violating privacy.
I also strongly agree that corporations, whether for-profit or "non-profit", are not persons. Neither are labor unions. Neither are governments. All of these organizations are composed of people, some of whom are greedier than others. I'm unfortunately not aware of any studies which have attempted to measure and compare the average levels of greed of people in different types of organization. That could be very interesting data to see, if they could come up with a workable measurement tool or tools. But whichever type of organization a person works in, if any, I think the worst kind of greed is when desire for non-consensually-earned resources leads the greedy to engage in direct or indirect violence and aggression against others.
There are many ways to redistribute wealth, some of which I support. In Los Angeles, as Nina Ortega just posted about on the LPSF-discuss list, wealth is being redistributed from wealthier members of society to the homeless in the form of tiny houses – but then, due to lack of respect for private property rights, it is being coercively redistributed from the homeless to the Los Angeles city government:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/25/private-citizens-try-to-help-homeless-by
I am opposed to methods of wealth redistribution which involve violence or the threat of violence against people who resist attempts to redistribute their resources. Can we agree to oppose the initiation of violence or the threat of violence? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'd honestly like to know, as one human being to another, whether we can agree on that much, and if you do not agree, what standards you believe people should have to meet before using such means against others?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))