Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: daskakik

Well our friend hasn't read Roseau or Locke so that will just fly right over.

You ignored Voltaire.

Social contract is definitely part of the equation.

According to Rousseau

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Here’s
one who thinks he is the master of others, yet he is more
enslaved than they are. How did this change come about? I
don’t know. What can make it legitimate? That’s a question
that I think I can answer"

Rousseau makes the chains legitimate.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Government is the favorite strawman of the Austrian school but once government is taken out of the equation and things still don't resemble a free market then it falls flat.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I didn't forget Voltaire.

Do you understand what Roseau is saying? Or was that just a wiki quote.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Government is the favorite strawman of the Austrian school but once government is taken out of the equation and things still don't resemble a free market then it falls flat.

Some evolution would be involved if the gov disappeared over night.

Most choices and behaviors done all day every day have nothing to do with the gov.

Law exists before gov, like the rules at home or in a community. Real law is codified habit and custom.

If there had been no government for the last 6000 years, there would be no crime.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I didn't forget Voltaire.

Do you understand what Roseau is saying? Or was that just a wiki quote.

Rousseau is saying the chains must be made legitimate.

Rousseau is not saying the chains are illegitimate.

"Slaves never want to be free. Slaves only want to be King" Marilyn Manson.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Your a fool if you believe that.

Perhaps you should also read Leviathon.

The social contract is what protects you from being mauled by Ghankis Khan.

It can also enslave you.

If you studied domestic scale culture which exists without government you would realize how dumb your statement is.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Very good.

And Marilyn Manson? WGAS. Thats my NE acronym.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: deadlyhope

While I'm late to the party and this has probably already been said, you're mistaking Crony Capitalism with Capitalism. Yes, on the larger scale, we have a Crony-Capitalist problem--quite a big one--but on the smaller scale where the average American is concerned, Capitalism works quite well.

The two are not the same, nor should they be mistaken for the same, yet here you are doing it.

Where do we have it on the small scale and how is it possible when the crony capitalist effects other parts of the economy?
I would like to start a business on the small scale but the crony capitalists have enacted competition killing policies.

It is like saying Communist China has capitalism when the state owns the majority and largest business's (SOE) in the country and the workers do not work voluntarily as required under capitalism.

The effects of Crony Capitalism effect all other sectors like a shock wave traveling outward

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Some evolution would be involved if the gov disappeared over night.

Most choices and behaviors done all day every day have nothing to do with the gov.

Law exists before gov, like the rules at home or in a community. Real law is codified habit and custom.

If there had been no government for the last 6000 years, there would be no crime.

So why did you argue: "So crime is set up by the justice system?"

I understand that all government is coercion but the Austrian school seems to downlplay that not all coercion is a product of government. That is what would keep free markets from existing even if government disappeared overnight.

a reply to: daskakik

Hey man the market will take care of the armed group of thugs that come and take your property.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The example of a Large Corporation controlling a particular market is bad.
What is even worse, is when Multiple Large Corporations work together (rather than competing) to screw over the country and workers with trade deals like NAFTA or the TPP.

Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods, services and labor - Where was the labor input on these trade pacts?
The Constitution requires our country be run for these benefit of all citizens - Where was the citizens input on these trade pacts?

The politicians put in place to pass these trade pacts (written by corporations themselves) so they could see what is in them, had their campaigns bankrolled by these same corporations.

Majority of citizens have taxation without representation

What we have is worse than some rogue corporation owning a large part of the market in one sector

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


Capitalism is not a model. It is a description of what actually happened during the unprecedented rise in per capita wealth in the modern West.

This is a Good Propaganda Tag Line we used during the Cold War.
"We bankrupted the Soviet Union because our capitalist system is better than Communism."

One thing that is never mentioned though, is we were bankrolled by the world via the Petro Dollar, therefore we could print at will and export inflation. When you have a hold of other peoples wallet, of course you are going to outspend your nemesis.

We did not have Free Market Capitalism then either.

originally posted by: luthier
Hey man the market will take care of the armed group of thugs that come and take your property.

Only if it is the free market.

Beware of other markets who try to pass themselves off as the one and only free market because it could be Rousseau trying to make the chains legitimate.

a reply to: daskakik

The free market exists on the back of a unicorn. When you see one let me know.

originally posted by: AshleyRobinson
a reply to: deadlyhope

Switzerland, new zealand, etc can't even militarily defend themselves. America is the entire continental defense of Europe, Australia, and most of the "free" world. Imagine how wonderful these welfare programs would be cut in all of these countries if they actually had to pay to defend themselves.

We have hundreds of bases all over the world and thousands of ships circumnavigating the globe and it is not defend ourselves

It is to defend the established economic global structure.
The ones that benefit the most from this arrangement is not the citizens of our country or their countries.

It is the Global Corporations, Bonsuses and Shareholders that benefit the most.

The ones that should be paying for this Global Military should not be countries and citizens but should be payed by these Global Corporations.

Otherwise, we should retreat back to our Constitutional Borders and let it all fall apart and see how the Corporate Globalist Utopia survives without other peoples money defending them

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Your a fool if you believe that.

Perhaps you should also read Leviathon.

The social contract is what protects you from being mauled by Ghankis Khan.

It can also enslave you.

If you studied domestic scale culture which exists without government you would realize how dumb your statement is.

Speaking of fools.

When Leviathan was written, folks had their tongues cut out for advocation of less government.

I wonder what Leviathan advocates.

I believe he thinks that humanity is so evil that some human must have absolute authority.

A social theory turns the arrows, swords, and spears of a Asian scourge intent on conquest?

Your theory invokes Santa Clause as savior.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Some evolution would be involved if the gov disappeared over night.

Most choices and behaviors done all day every day have nothing to do with the gov.

Law exists before gov, like the rules at home or in a community. Real law is codified habit and custom.

If there had been no government for the last 6000 years, there would be no crime.

So why did you argue: "So crime is set up by the justice system?"

I understand that all government is coercion but the Austrian school seems to downlplay that not all coercion is a product of government. That is what would keep free markets from existing even if government disappeared overnight.

Yes I agree if that happened over night.

There would be an evolution over time of what constitutes socially acceptable behavior. Some coercion would be accepted until the day that all coercion is eschewed by civilization, like slavery was.

However, in a non violent natural drift towards a free market the gov would simply get smaller and smaller until it reached its essential function or disappeared entirely.

The point in favor of AnCap is: What possible non-violent coercion could be as bad as paying 10 years of work for nothing or getting drafted and slain?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: daskakik

The free market exists on the back of a unicorn. When you see one let me know.

The industrial revolution is a lie?

The free market had more effect in the Industrial Revolution than any other economic idea.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Yes I agree if that happened over night.

There would be an evolution over time of what constitutes socially acceptable behavior. Some coercion would be accepted until the day that all coercion is eschewed by civilization, like slavery was.

Sounds good but, would it happen?

However, in a non violent natural drift towards a free market the gov would simply get smaller and smaller until it reached its essential function or disappeared entirely.

But would it happen?

The point in favor of AnCap is: What possible non-violent coercion could be as bad as paying 10 years of work for nothing or getting drafted and slain?

The point against it is that it isn't likely to happen. Maybe imposible.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Wow.

It's good you are finally doing some reading but your comprehension is a bit off.

Hobbes wrote Leviathan after seeing the effects of the Bloody Revolution. What was that over?

So the contrast between this and the Glorious revolution is what I am getting at here. Locke and Roseau did not agree with Hobbes. Hobbes just offers another explanation of man in the natural state.

Now a days however you can look at anthropology and very clearly see man is indeed barborous without law. You can take what ever you want and society without law has no property or possessions. You also get raided, raped, and murdered by opposing tribes. Your only defense being arranged marriages into outside tribes to connect larger units. Even this is a basic social contract.

So when the bandits come for your bussiness control the mines and distribution perhaps you can hold up your free market bible and idol of old Ludwig bit I doubt they will care.

What you did was completely ignore history and human nature for a philosophical ideas that is a complete farse. It's only an ideal. It's not actual.