1. "I had written this answer a few years ago, and since then have had some more ideas. The most relevant one is that a small state has minimal power to enforce law. In this case, corruption cannot be moderated. The Mafia are an important case study."

If there is minimal state you liberties will be protected, thing that will never happen in a nonminimal state, where you will have incressly less liberties until you are a slave.

Corruption in state can be moderated, because if the state makes corruption insurance imediatly will execute the criminals, and corruption will be halted in halt.

- "The small state is not a hypothetical future without historical precedent. In 1861 Sicily was annexed as part of the unification of Italy.  This led to land reforms, resulting in the privatisation of public and church land, increasing the number of land owners tenfold.  The transition from feudalism to capitalism was problematic, as the new Sicilian state did not have the resources to enforce rule of law.  Having lost their feudal commons, impoverished peasants often resorted to theft.  Coupled with rapid economic development, property owners hired mercenaries to guard property and settle disputes.  These mercenaries became dynastic entities (the first Mafia clans). When the Soviet Union imploded the same thing happened: the power vacuum which resulted from the failure of public institutions was filled by gangs and oligarchs. The minimisation of state authority and privatisation of state security creates a new aristocracy of criminal dynasties. A relevant term is 'state capture'."

The first part about both case of an amount of crime because there is no enough resources to enforce law is what happens when you no planify properly you transition to capitalism, but this no does persist in time if there is no state to help the mafia.

- "Without a strong and independent state, and thus rule of law, there is no ability to enforce contract law and thus no financial freedom. Workers will be exploited by those with money because there is nothing to stop this from happening, the 'economy' doesn't care about life or justice or efficiency."

Actually, there is a game theorical refutation to this is as simple, if the workers no are happy they will quit and go to work with the competence that  treat they good, and the only way to this to no happen is no have enough economic liberty but this cannot happen in pure capitalism because by definition a pure capitalist economy have *absolute financial liberty*

- "All that's left is bullying tactics, which work with neither unions nor government strong enough to act (e.g. Ford's anti-union antics)"

This time Ford have reason in something Unions are shitty (unles is a German Style Union ergo is a Powerless Entity that just works a negotiation bridge between workers and company), they should negotiate or resign, if Ford does no want negotiate they should resign and work with the competence. Again the only way to this to no happen is no have enough economic liberty but this cannot happen in pure capitalism because by definition a pure capitalist economy have *absolute financial liberty*

- "After the Second World War Britain held a general election in 1945, which was won by the then socialist Labour party. They adopted sweeping reforms, such as universal healthcare, unemployment welfare, free education, slum clearance, nationalisation of industry, etc."

This is called demagogy.

- "These reforms came about as a result of popular frustration with the status quo, and the realisation that nationalised schemes could work. After all, if "war communism" could defeat Nazi Germany, surely other collectivist systems could work during peace time?"

The status quo in 1945 in england was war economy was is the same as nazi economy (nazi economy is no a Capitalist one, nazi economy is a effectively socialist economy). And more demagogy.

- "The Liberal Reforms of 1906-1914 were insufficient. They had been passed to tackle social problems endemic within the classical liberal society of the 1800s. New state-led policies were implemented; like a state pension, national insurance (healthcare), and job centres. Before these reforms the elderly, sick, and unemployed had to rely on family and charity, which was often just not enough."
 
The reason why "The Liberal Reforms of 1906-1914 were insufficient" is because they are no enough demagogical. And about "Before these reforms the elderly, sick, and unemployed had to rely on family and charity, which was often just not enough" this is because you country had no enough financial liberty.

- "But this seems something more like a society run by fancy mafia clans."

Facts no care about your feelings

- "Even in the contemporary world where the state is a strong institution, corruption, bribery, and dirty tricks are frighteningly common when it comes to big business."

This is because inflation, because inflation makes that only evil persons can success in their buisness.

- "There are historical examples contrary to the notion that corporations will work for the consumer's interest, like the Pheobus Cartel. This was a conspiracy of lightbulb manufacturers between 1924 and 1939, with the largest manufacturers creating a monopoly, and agreeing to both control prices, and creating lightbulbs which would break more often to increase sales."

You can't try but only goverment cartels can last, also, with at least a wisthlebottler or one insurance company that say no to join their cartel falls instantly.

- "Without deliberate efforts to mediate between the interests of workers, government, and corporations, inequality will increase and this will lead to poverty, anger, social unrest, and perhaps even revolution. Don't forget, that's what happened as a result of the Great Depression in 1929. Germany in particular was vulnerable at this time, owing to its reliance on American investment."

This is false. Is in the best insterest of the corporations to make happy their workers, or they will quit and go to the competence, also because competence everything will be cheaper, thus making everyone richier and easying future competence ergo there will be always some company that hires you if you quit.
      
- "The Great Depression is the opus magnum of goverment intervention, a crisis who only responsible to ever happened in the Goverment."

Germany was in crisis because the intervention of their goverment printing money, moneyyyyyyy. And Germany did no last it, ask Mustache weirdo.
 
- "NASA has even done a research paper on the collapse of civilisations, putting inequality high on the list of causes. Concerningly, Thomas Piketty's magnum opus; Capital in the Twenty First Century, finds that after an analysis of capitalism from the birth of the industrialisation to present, there's one obvious rule. Private wealth grows faster than the economy, therefor inequality is natural to capitalism. Without efforts to mitigate this by organisations which have an interest in helping the poor, we are led back to the Great Depression and NASA's paper."

NASA is a public founded organization, so they will no be allowed to defend some theory that goes aganist goverment expansion.

Thomas Piketty's magnum opus is just bullshit as said by the Nobel Prize Paul Michael Romer: Capital in the Twenty-First Century was written with the attitude "Empirical work is science; theory is entertainment. There is no way to conclu thesis like this by empirica data as said by Ludwig von Mises: "There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible. If a statistician determines that a rise of 10 percent in the supply of potatoes in Atlantis at a definite time was followed by a fall of 8 percent in the price, he does not establish anything about what happened or may happen with a change in the supply of potatoes in another country or in another time. He has not "measured" the "elasticity of demand" of potatoes. He has established a unique individual historical fact. No intelligent man can doubt that the behavior of men with regard to potatoes and every other commodity is variable. Different individuals value the same things in a different way, and valuations change with the same individuals with changing conditions.…

The impracticability of measurement is not due to the lack of technical methods for the establishment of measure. It is due to the absence of constant relations.… Economics is not, as … positivists repeat again and again, backward because it is not "quantitative." It is not quantitative and does not measure because there are no constants. Statistical figures referring to economic events are historical data. They tell us what happened in a nonrepeatable historical case. Physical events can be interpreted on the ground of our knowledge concerning constant relations established by experiments. Historical events are not open to such an interpretation. [...]".
  
- "So given these things, it seems likely that a "pure" capitalist society would come into being, become very unequal, and then be overthrown by revolutionaries of some description. It could also tear itself apart as rival insurance and security firms compete for turf, and descend into feudal or criminal mentalities. Mexico's drug war for example."

But these thing are wrong.