Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

a reply to: JeanPaul

This is where your ideology become philosophical idealism. Capitalism is an industrial property based market system relying on global trade, global commodity production.

Capitalism has nothing to do with being industrialized or global trade.

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.

This requires a disciplined global labor force.

No, it doesn't.

Capitalism (which you will deny even exists) cannot exist in pockets of isolated communities.

Capitalism does exist, but there are no free-markets, they are all regulated through state intervention.

Capitalism....cannot exist in pockets of isolated communities where people "voluntarily" just "make and trade" things.

Actually, it can. Ask Ireland.

Large disciplined labor forces are created via dispossession.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. An economic model cannot dispose anyone.

A government can, though. A corporation with the backing of government troops can also dispossess people.

But, a free-market capitalist economy with no government isn't going to dispossess anyone.

If I went out into the wilderness and found land that was unowned, and I took clay from that land, and--using my labor, I transformed the clay from it's original state into a new state, that of a small statue--I have, then, impressed upon the clay a piece of my personality. And by impressing upon it a piece of myself and transforming it from it's natural state, I have gained ownership over it, and it becomes my private property.

Since I have gained ownership over that portion of clay, I can, as is my right, trade the statue to anyone who would find value in it for compensation. Whether that compensation is monetary or a product/service that the other person is offering, is absolutely my choice and the choice of the other person involved in the transaction.

If I fence off the area of land that contains the clay, and I build a house, and I work the land to extract the clay--then I have transformed the land from it's natural state, and through my labor I have claimed ownership over it.

If I use tools to extract the clay and manufacture many statues for sale, I have become a capitalist.

If I make a contract with someone, that I will pay them X dollars for a trade in their labor for money, who has been dispossessed?

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 keyword here is Nation which implies government.

The nature of government is power and aggression, whether the economic model a government uses is capitalism or socialism is irrelevant--all governments are the perpetrators of violence and theft against people.

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.

It doesn't matter if your claim is true, what Hayek does and what Hayek says are two different things.

If Hayek made valid claims that are true and valid, then it would be a logical fallacy to say that his claims aren't true because he behaved immorally. That is an ad hominem.

I have never read any Hayek nor studied his history, though.

I can tell you that you are still confusing the actions of a government with economic models, though.

Governments that use capitalism (fascist governments) are authoritarian and will do anything to perpetuate their existence, that is the nature of government.

Governments that use socialism (communist governments) are authoritarian and will do anything to perpetuate their existence, that is the nature of government.

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

Uh, no. You don't know what coercion is. No one threatened me with violence, imprisonment, fine or all three when I bought a cup of coffee this morning. I bought the coffee because I wanted coffee. The transaction between myself and the coffee shop was voluntary.

But, I can separate economic models and forms of government in my head.

A corporation cannot force me to work for them or buy their product. They can appeal to government to use government to force such things, though.

You really need to separate the two.

The United States government commits the atrocities that you speak of. Accusing an economic model of causing authoritarian states is like blaming the theory of evolution for pollution.

a reply to: jimmyx

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...

"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.

Well, at least we know it wasn't free market capitalism that did it.

a reply to: jimmyx

You like to rhetorically dance around a lot so that you can excuse using violence against people.

a reply to: jimmyx

I wrote two very long posts, why didn't you respond to any of what I said?

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

if the corporation is the only place where you can get a paying job, YOU will be forced to work for them or be homeless and possibly die....geez, you need to travel and converse with the locals, start first with the 3rd world countries.
why do you think the people of southeast Asia travel all the way to the wealthy middle east for low-paying jobs? because they like the dry sand, and prison-like living conditions?....no!...they don't have a choice, they can't find a job in their own country, so they either go there and work, or they and/or their family will die....

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: jimmyx

You like to rhetorically dance around a lot so that you can excuse using violence against people.

what?...violence against people?? you have me confused with someone else

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: jimmyx

I wrote two very long posts, why didn't you respond to any of what I said?

well, number 1 is that I respond to what I want to.....and number 2, it would take me to long to respond to each one of your points. you think government is wrong, I don't. you associate governments with political and societal absolutes, I don't. capitalism can work in a representative government like ours, but "THE REPRESENTATIVE" government was setup to protect AGAINST the power that "wealth" has always maintained down through the centuries. whether that wealth resided in a dictator, king, ruling family, or a religion.

a reply to: jimmyx

if the corporation is the only place where you can get a paying job, YOU will be forced to work for them or be homeless and possibly die....

No.

I've eaten plenty of food that I didn't pay for. I did work for it though.

There are lots of animals out there that, through your labor, you can kill and eat. Once you have transformed the animal from it's natural state, it is your property.

The deer population in Ohio is pretty large.

But, if you want a cheeseburger--that product that was transformed through the labor of someone else, then you had better be prepared to trade for it.


And the US government refuses to recognize the common law principles of homesteading--transforming a wild area into an area suitable for living in through your labor.

I mean, you know, like zoning laws and things.

geez, you need to travel and converse with the locals, start first with the 3rd world countries.

What for? Any issues they are going through can be traced back to government involvement.

why do you think the people of southeast Asia travel all the way to the wealthy middle east for low-paying jobs? because they like the dry sand, and prison-like living conditions?....no!...they don't have a choice, they can't find a job in their own country, so they either go there and work, or they and/or their family will die....

They don't like the conditions of their own country, so they voluntarily leave to find better opportunities...I'm having trouble seeing the negative in this.

a reply to: jimmyx

well, number 1 is that I respond to what I want to.....and number 2, it would take me to long to respond to each one of your points. you think government is wrong, I don't. you associate governments with political and societal absolutes, I don't. capitalism can work in a representative government like ours, but "THE REPRESENTATIVE" government was setup to protect AGAINST the power that "wealth" has always maintained down through the centuries. whether that wealth resided in a dictator, king, ruling family, or a religion.

Wealth and government power are two different things, they are not mutually inclusive.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: jimmyx

well, number 1 is that I respond to what I want to.....and number 2, it would take me to long to respond to each one of your points. you think government is wrong, I don't. you associate governments with political and societal absolutes, I don't. capitalism can work in a representative government like ours, but "THE REPRESENTATIVE" government was setup to protect AGAINST the power that "wealth" has always maintained down through the centuries. whether that wealth resided in a dictator, king, ruling family, or a religion.

Wealth and government power are two different things, they are not mutually inclusive.

on paper, yes...in the real world, show me a country government run by the poor.

a reply to: jimmyx

what?...violence against people?? you have me confused with someone else

Government is organized aggression (police and military forces).

Government writes the laws that you have to follow, and controls the people that force you to follow them.

If you support the existence of government, then you support violence against human beings.

Any appeal to government is an appeal to force.

Bribing government is incentivized because of the nature of what government is. A monopoly on law, security, and theft.

If I wanted to harm you, I wouldn't use a business to do it. I would simply make behaviors that you exhibit illegal.

a reply to: jimmyx

on paper, yes...in the real world, show me a country government run by the poor.

Behold, the nature inherent in centralized monopolies.

a reply to: jimmyx

1000 years of Irish anarchy

Capitalism has nothing to do with industrialization or trade? I stopped reading there.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Capitalism has nothing to do with industrialization or trade? I stopped reading there.

My toddler does that, too, when she hears something she doesn't like--sticks her fingers firmly in her ears proclaiming "nanner nanner, I can't hear you."

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JeanPaul

Capitalism has nothing to do with industrialization or trade? I stopped reading there.

My toddler does that, too, when she hears something she doesn't like--sticks her fingers firmly in her ears proclaiming "nanner nanner, I can't hear you."

Some kids are very smart at a young age. He/she probably doesn't want to hear your free market propaganda either. Good kid!

But seriously, lets not get all personal. I've had debates with you guys for 15 years. On YouTube, in person with Kevin Carson- "mutualism", with Sthphan Molybeux, the "Agorists, "Anarcho" capitalists etc.

Most of you start off with denying the fundemental nature of capitalism. As if Ancient Rome was a capitalist nation. You guys think capitalism is simply people making and trading things.

It's a specific mode of production which necessitates coercion, government intervention, social programs and war. Ricardo, Smith etc blazed the trail. What they didn't publish so much was their thoughts on dispossession- how society was to be transformed in order to allow the property based market system to flourish.

Micheal Perlman has compiled hundreds of pages showing how the "free market" was actually planned. How government intervention gave rise to capitalism in the 18th-19th century. Karl Polanyi has done the same with his book "The Great Transformation". Mises himself tried to "debunk" Polanyi with a nonsensical attack on TGT. Perlman's work has been left untouched by free market types. As you will no doubt ignore as well.

(The Invention Of Capitalism)
is.vsfs.cz...

(The Great Transformation)
www2.dse.unibo.it...


Then we obviously have Marx's account of "primitive accumulation". Adam Smith, as you probably know, said "previous" capital accumulated through a "voluntary" process where some people worked hard and saved and others preferred to sell their labor to bosses/owners. This nonsensical historical description of the rise of capitalism has been utterly demolished.

So not only do you people deny what capitalism actually is you deny how it came to be. There's no debating this level of idealism. We'll call it "historical idealism". Meaning, your thoughts have nothing to do with reality. Like Mises use of "praxeology". You people reject empirical data. You think all these lofty ideas in your head form some sort of objective truth. There's no debating with that.

-Edited in order to provide links to educational material

The fundamental point I'm making here is that the mass production/trade capitalism necessitates cannot manifest nor be maintained if populations have viable alternatives, if people can just as easily survive without submitting to wage labor they will not so so. Many nations have also been forced into trade.

This is why traditional means of survival had to be coercivly abolished. This is why, much later, the Cold War was waged. Alternative modes of production cannot coexist within a capitalist society.

On the global stage, capitalism must also have acsess to an ever expanding labor force, more consumers, more resources. Capitalism is like a great white shark. If it stops swimming it will die. It needs acsess to China, Japan, Vietnam, India, Europe, Africa, South America etc. More trade, more resources, more labor, more consumers. This process of market expansion has always been coercive- in reality.

There's a reason for all the wars. A reason various governments have forced market reforms, a reason places such as Japan, India and Chile have been forced to play along. The USA's threat to Japan- "open up your country to transformation or be destroyed". Why? Why did this happen? Because its a systemic necessity. Perpetual growth is necessary. There is no such thing as zero growth capitalism. It's impossible.

Even further, the only way "anarcho" capitalism would be possible is on a local non industrial scale. Like an old village economy with artisans/farmers/peasants making and trading things. But that's not capitalism. We could call it market based but large scale commodity production would not exist and most people would control their own "means of production".

a reply to: JeanPaul

Even further, the only way "anarcho" capitalism would be possible is on a local non industrial scale. Like an old village economy with artisans/farmers/peasants making and trading things. But that's not capitalism. We could call it market based but large scale commodity production would not exist and most people would control their own "means of production".

Well this is what I am arguing for, this model, whatever you would call it.

As for the rest of your posts, I will need time to read through everything you presented

a reply to: JeanPaul

Rarely can I say that I categorically denounce a misinformation post (or what I believe to be anyway) but, you force me to in this case.

The creativity with which your obfuscation penetrates into pseudo-reasonable facets of historical characters and regions is admirable.

One simple question will hopefully pierce through this confusion about the derogatory term coined by Marx to deride private ownership in the means of production, "capitalism".

When were free markets invented?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Rarely can I say that I categorically denounce a misinformation post (or what I believe to be anyway) but, you force me to in this case.

The creativity with which your obfuscation penetrates into pseudo-reasonable facets of historical characters and regions is admirable.

One simple question will hopefully pierce through this confusion about the derogatory term coined by Marx to deride private ownership in the means of production, "capitalism".

When were free markets invented?

Talk about pseudo intellectual. "Free markets". As I said. You people deny the very existence of capitalism. I already knew you would pull this crap. Read my post again. Educate yourself.