Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

a reply to: jimmyx

ok...but with government, we have legal ways of checking and controlling their power over us, far less with corporations, who because of the "monied" power they hold over our government, they were for instance, able to force the taxpayer to pony up 700 billion dollars back in 2008, and if the government didn't, they publically said it would collapse the financial system of this country.

This position is slightly true. Corporations don't dangle a carrot in front of the face of government to get government to act, though. That position implies that corporations are the rulers and not government.

You forget the major difference between corporations and government. A corporation cannot levy taxes directly against citizens with the threat of fine or imprisonment for not paying up, a government can.

Corporations have an incentive to bribe government, because government has the power to make them a protected monopoly through law. Not unlike public and private schools, even private schools are forced into the mold the state dictates--otherwise they don't get to exist.

So, the really big businessea work deals with government to write tax laws that benefit them and crush smaller businesses.

It is true that corporations do pay-off government, but think on the very nature of government and why they would have such an incentive to do so.

We cannot fix this problem by trusting government to police itself.


ETA: since government can write laws to levy taxes, and government has the troops necessary to police citizens--government is in absolute control of both the purse and the sword of a country. So there is nothing a business can do to be more powerful than government. A corporation can only hope to align itself with the intentions of the state to gain unfair advantage in the economy.

a reply to: jimmyx

I would also like to add:

We all tend to fight one another concerning economic models, primarily capitalism vs. socialism, and which model is better than the other.

I think that history proves that, regardless as to which economic model people choose to follow, it is when the state intervenes in voluntary transactions that the people lose.

When the state controls a capitalist economy you get fascism.

When the state controls a socialist economy you get communism.

Why? Because the very nature of government is authoritarian. The very nature of government is aggression and force.

Why should I care if one community chooses to pool their resources together and to share labor and profits in an egalitarian-based model? Are the interactions voluntary? If so, awesome!

Why should you care if one community decides to trade goods and services for money in a capitalist market, if the transactions are voluntary?

When you get down to it, I have no right to force you to live under the economical model that you believe--whether true or false--will maximize your potential as a human being.

Likewise, I expect the same, but when we appeal to the state to fix any issues that may arise, we are making an appeal to violence itself to force others to live in what we believe to be the ideal system.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I think you can find examples of places where both capitalism and socialism have their places. I think capitalism works best when you have people who do not know or fully trust one another. I think socialism works best when people are all in and dedicated to one another.

Socialism is best for a family-style setting. I think most families and possibly small clans/tribes tend to be more naturally socialist in their inner lives.

But get much larger and capitalism tends to be a better system in that it helps cut down on an individual's ability to take open advantage of his fellows.

a reply to: ketsuko

One model may very well be better suited in different situations, but I wasn't really trying to make a comparison of the two.

Even if capitalism were a better model, economically, than socialism--or vice versa--what right do we have to tell people interacting voluntarily that they're not allowed to organize themselves into the model they want?

It would be immoral for me to use the state's power as, a person who prefers capitalism, to force a socialist community to conform to my standards.

But, that logic holds true going the other way, too.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Agreed.

It's really all about the compulsion. People think I'm against socialism. That's not it. I'm against being forced into it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Agreed.

It's really all about the compulsion. People think I'm against socialism. That's not it. I'm against being forced into it.

Yes!

It is about being against the use of force, on strictly moral grounds, that the initiation of aggression is immoral.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JeanPaul

On the simplest level, I grew the tomato plant. It would not exist without my labor and efforts. I "stole" it from nobody and no state came along and required me to grow it.

Similarly, my neighbor took the time and effort to raise his hen.

There is a wonderful children's story that illustrates this. It's called The Little Red Hen. The hen finds some wheat one day while she is out foraging, and instead of eating it up right away, she has an idea. She decides she will plant the wheat, grow more and harvest it and use it to bake a large loaf of bread to feed both she and her chicks. At every stage in the process at which she and her chicks work, she invites the other animals on the farm to help them at their labor. The others refuse always having something more important to do.

And in the end, when the bread is freshly baked and ready, she asks one more time who will help them eat, and there is no shortage of volunteers from all around the farm. This time, she refuses them and keeps the bread all to herself and the chicks who have helped her.

Did she "steal" the bread from the other animals? According to you she did even though she asked them to help her at every step and none would. Presumably if they had, she would have shared her bread with them.

I rewrote this story using your modern socialist beliefs. In the rewritten version, the animals appeal to the farmer that it's not fair that she "stole" the bread from them, so the farmer takes the bread from her and divides it up. Because she and her chicks did all the work, they still get the biggest share, but all the animals who did nothing also get a smaller equal share because it wouldn't fair for them to get nothing. So, no one is happy. The hen is upset because when she divides the loaf out to her family there isn't enough for them who worked so hard for it, and the animals still hate the hen because they only see she has more than they do.

So the next time the hen sees some wheat on the side of the road ... she simply eats it.

You haven't understood a word Ive said.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Agreed.

It's really all about the compulsion. People think I'm against socialism. That's not it. I'm against being forced into it.

Yes!

It is about being against the use of force, on strictly moral grounds, that the initiation of aggression is immoral.

How does capitalism generate a large global labor force? Do you know?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

I get the impression that you recognize the threat of state violence and coercion and attribute its use by governments over the course of history only to "capitalism" which you define as the seeking of "profit" which you define as "[stealing]" (I paraphrase, forgive me).

Catallaxy is derived from the Greek verb katalatto, which means “to exchange,” or “to become reconciled with,” or “to admit into the community,” or, “to change from an enemy into a friend.” The cognate catallaxy, therefore, refers to a pattern of mutually beneficial interaction ("friendship") that does not require that participants share the same ends.

In a free market with no interventionist "economic" policies imposed by one or more governments, the greatest proportion of productivity and transactional equitability has been achieved. The largest number of people have also been raised out of abject poverty.

In terms of best case scenario, there is no comparison to any other "economic" system.

As Mises pointed out, even the Soviet Union participated in the world economy as a capitalist enterprise but did so as a single unit with all of its eggs in the one basket against a world with interests differing from that of the Soviet Union's. Without global totalitarian control over every market, it cannot succeed.

Therefore, if the suggestion is that a little bit of that which did not work might somehow succeed, whereas a lot of it did not, I fail to fathom how that could be?

I think many people have a belief that some sort of behavioral police should invade our private lives and dictate non-violent non-criminal behavior and attitudes. This is a totalitarian idea, make no mistake.

All social engineering requires a political (by force) or an economic incentive.

You can't be a little totalitarian.

It doesn't mean you can't have government, it just means that government can't have that power.

In "third way" sophistry speak ("what about the roads, schools, children, etc.?"), they are all already local matters of concern so removing control over them by a federal government who should not have been in the first place does no harm.

Yes, because there is little reason for most laws, I believe they should mostly go away.

"The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better."

-Friedrich Hayek

Don't tell me how I define capitalism with a pathetic straw man then go and quote Hayek at the end of it. That fascist loving slime understood exactly how capitalism had to be maintained.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Now, now, be nice.

a reply to: JeanPaul

How does capitalism generate a large global labor force? Do you know?

Through persuasion as opposed to force.

If the state is involved, then you have fascism (force), not free-market capitalism, just as if the state gets involved in a socialist economy you get communism (force), not socialism.

Abolish government and there would be no issue.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Don't tell me how I define capitalism with a pathetic straw man then go and quote Hayek at the end of it. That fascist loving slime understood exactly how capitalism had to be maintained.

Capitalism is an economic system and not a form of government.

Just like socialism is an economic system and not a form of government.

An economic system cannot force anyone to do anything, a government can, because government is--by it's nature--aggression against human beings for the sole purpose of rulership.

If you favor voluntary interactions between human beings, then you, through logic, should be able to deduce who the aggressor is.

Fascism is a form of government in which the state controls a capitalist economy.

Just as Communism is a form of government in which the state controls a socialist economy.

It is entirely possible to have a functioning society that follows any economic model, that has no government.


ETA: Also, instead of yelling, please tell us how you define capitalism.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.[1] Modern Capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses.[2]

Definition taken from the Mises Institute

a reply to: JeanPaul

Fascism is national syndicalism which is socialism.

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.

-Benito Mussolini

Maybe you meant neo-fascist?

Main article: Fascist as an insult

Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'". Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times". "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".

How could you identify Hayek with either definition?

Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Following World War II, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movements.

Indeed, by the definition above, it would seem to be a plausible approximation of your own philosophy would it not?

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JeanPaul

How does capitalism generate a large global labor force? Do you know?

Through persuasion as opposed to force.

If the state is involved, then you have fascism (force), not free-market capitalism, just as if the state gets involved in a socialist economy you get communism (force), not socialism.

Abolish government and there would be no issue.

This is where your ideology become philosophical idealism. Capitalism is an industrial property based market system relying on global trade, global commodity production. This requires a disciplined global labor force. Capitalism (which you will deny even exists) cannot exist in pockets of isolated communities. Where people "voluntarily" just "make and trade" things.

Large disciplined labor forces are created via dispossession. By ensuring people have no other way to survive outside of selling their labor to owners of capital/property. This process is fully developed in advanced western nations but is ongoing in developing nations. Large working class populations are created by force. if people could just as easily survive without selling themselves to a boss people would not do so.

The second need for coercion involves market expansion. This is related to dispossession but we're talking about the need for capitalism to constantly open up new markets, to have new sources of labor, new sources of resources, new consumers to buy products and sop on. There has been "voluntary" trade between advanced western nations but capitalism requires more. Capitalism requires other "developing" nations to embrace the property based market system. The USG has understood this for quite some time. Pre WW1 the USA sent its NAVY to Japan with the threat of "open up your markets or be destroyed". Mathew Perry, in 1853, was sent to Japan to facilitate market expansion. This process has repeated time and time again. In Russia, China, Vietnam, all throughout South America etc. If alternative economic systems begin to manifest the threats end and violence is employed. A tactic even Hayek supported.

There is no capitalism without coercion. It's philosophical idealism. You advocate ideas in your head with no material basis. Like religion.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Fascism is national syndicalism which is socialism.

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.

-Benito Mussolini

Maybe you meant neo-fascist?

Main article: Fascist as an insult

Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'". Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times". "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".

How could you identify Hayek with either definition?

Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Following World War II, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movements.

Indeed, by the definition above, it would seem to be a plausible approximation of your own philosophy would it not?

Hayek supported the fascist Pinochet in order to violently overthrow a democratically elected government in Chile. Hayek said he preferred a fascist dictatorship over a socialist government and he put his money where his mouth was when he backed the fascist Pinochet, who killed and tortured countless people. Milton Friedman's "Chicago School" also backed Pinochet.

They exposed how capitalism actually functions. What happens when alternative economic systems threaten the established order. When non authoritarian, non Bolshevik socialism manifests capitalists crush it under an iron boot. Why? Because capitalism can't exist if an alternative economic system becomes wide spread and people actually have a choice to NOT sell their labor to capitalists. If people also don't take part in "free trade" with capitalist nations. The whole system requires an expanding global capitalist system. Socialism, or any alternative to capitalism, cannot be allowed to manifest. Not in South America, not in Africa, and certainly not in any of the advances western capitalist nations.

Germany was on the brink of going socialist before WW2. What did the capitalists do? They funded Hitlers rise to power in order to end the socialist threat in Germany and to go to war with the Bolsheviks in Russia. Industrialists such as Henry Ford all the way to the Bank Of England funded Hitlers rise to power.

There's also a reason the USA, after WW2, became so aggressive around the globe making sure no alternative economic systems manifested. They understand the material reality capitalism presents. The cold war wasn't waged to keep Russia from invading the USA it was waged in order to prevent alternative economic systems from manifesting in so saving capitalism itself.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Fascism is national syndicalism which is socialism.

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.

-Benito Mussolini

Maybe you meant neo-fascist?

Main article: Fascist as an insult

Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'". Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times". "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".

How could you identify Hayek with either definition?

Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Following World War II, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movements.

Indeed, by the definition above, it would seem to be a plausible approximation of your own philosophy would it not?

And, you insulting me here, calling me a fascist has absolutely no connection to reality. Just like your "voluntarism" or "anarcho" capitalism ideology. When I say the things I say about Hayek it has actual facts behind it. Facts you will no doubt attempt to deny until your face turns blue.

Fact is, Hayek had his fingerprints all over the fascist dictatorship in Chile. I on the other hand, have never advocated fascism for any reason. Ever.

a reply to: JeanPaul

You wouldn't happen to be in Romania would you?

You sound a lot like someone I know.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: ketsuko

One model may very well be better suited in different situations, but I wasn't really trying to make a comparison of the two.

Even

Even if capitalism were a better model, economically, than socialism--or vice versa--what right do we have to tell people interacting voluntarily that they're not allowed to organize themselves into the model they want?

ould be immoral for me to use the state's power as, a person who prefers capitalism, to force a socialist community to conform to my standards.

But, that logic holds true going the other way, too.

Even if capitalism were a better model, economically, than socialism--or vice versa--what right do we have to tell people interacting voluntarily that they're not allowed to organize themselves into the model they want?




why???....because down through history it has been shown that the "model they want" hasn't been exactly healthy for the rest of the people living in that society...






sorry screwed my post up

"free market capitalism"....no such thing...if there is, please show a "1st world" country that had/has one.....it exists in economic teachings and rhetorical ponderings.