As the U.S. has heretofore seemed to demonstrate, on the whole, capitalism is an uncontroled virus in the body of democracy. Most people would chose freedom. But what freedoms are universally good for us and which are not so necessary as to be harmful, left to our own device? Freedom to claw into the economic balance of a nation doesn't sit well. Perhaps the Greeks carried it as far as it could go....
I like the way Friedman put it.
There isn't much point to democracy without capitalism. There wouldn't be any wealth to plunder.
James: There isn't much point to democracy without capitalism. There wouldn't be any wealth to plunder. This
This
democratic feudalism. lol
So what's with this free-world support to introduce democracy to recently "liberated" oppressed nations?? It isn't really amusing to think that the greater political powers subcribe to "misery loves company" is it?
I agree that freedom to lie, cheat, outwit, con and otherwise pursue happiness by way of capitalism is worth fighting for. War is certainly an excellent capital generator all by itself..and I dare say, its most common purpose. What goes through the modern soldier's mind? "I'm here to defend the freedoms these people never had...and I'm getting paid $3,000 a month to do so". Well, beats begging for a hamburger flippin' job, back in the States. And it sure beats four years and thousands of dollars in education, just to make something of myself.
This world seems to have turned out to be what we've made it...I'll be darned! LOL
Ron Marquis: So what's with this free-world support to introduce democracy to recently "liberated" oppressed nations?? It isn't really amusing to think that the greater political powers subcribe to "misery loves company" is it? I agree that freedom to lie, cheat, outwit, con and otherwise pursue happiness by way of capitalism is worth fighting for. War is certainly an excellent capital generator all by itself..and I dare say, its most common purpose. What goes through the modern soldier's mind? "I'm here to defend the freedoms these people never had...and I'm getting paid $3,000 a month to do so". Well, beats begging for a hamburger flippin' job, back in the States. And it sure beats four years and thousands of dollars in education, just to make something of myself. This world seems to have turned out to be what we've made it...I'll be darned! LOL
First off, I don't think that you're going to find many supporters of the current wars in the Middle East in here.
Second, Capitalism has produced more peace than Democracy ever has. Capitalism is free individuals trading and exchanging to best satisfy their desires. Democracy is the tyranny of the 51%. Democratically elected leaders got us involved in the current Middle Eastern drama. I don't remember American solders going over to invade Iraq because Coca-Cola told them to.
Thirdly, War only produces revenue for certain industries, overall war Impovrishes nations by destroying their current wealth.
OK..I'm good with that. So what would be the best political forum for capitalism? And describe how your choice would better monitor abusers of capital power?
Define capital power. Define its abuse. Then it may be possible to see, whether this abuse should be monitored.
Very well. Let's review recent current events here in the U.S. Without being too long winded or required to produce more than one example, to start.
Insurance Industry. Banking Industry. I guess that's two. Required bailouts. Senior officers awarded themselves large "performance" bonus. Some took huge severance benefits. Even yet today, still banks have not relenquished the total funds provided for homeowner relief. Capitalists empowered to make the choice, chose to allow banks to lend more than consumers could re-pay. The list may go on. But take your turn, now. Should these have been monitored. Are there no abuses?
Ron Marquis: Very well. Let's review recent current events here in the U.S. Without being too long winded or required to produce more than one example, to start. Insurance Industry. Banking Industry. I guess that's two. Required bailouts. Senior officers awarded themselves large "performance" bonus. Some took huge severance benefits. Even yet today, still banks have not relenquished the total funds provided for homeowner relief. Capitalists empowered to make the choice, chose to allow banks to lend more than consumers could re-pay. The list may go on. But take your turn, now. Should these have been monitored. Are there no abuses?
Well ,as an Anarcho-Capitalist I'll say what would happen to both of those industries if the same senario occurred in an Anarchic Capitalist society. If there was no government to bail them out they would have to face the consequences of their actions and go out of business. Then liquidation where entrepreneurs would snatch up the productive bits off the corpses of the old business and put them to productive use. There would be little to no recession and the world would keep on spinning.
Market forces are much better at curbing bad behavior than regulatory bodies which often make the situation worse.
So then, Capitalism can only be a fair process without any form of government. Is that your estimation? But is a society, totally ungoverned, an economical environment that could support Capitalism. There's no money...no banking system...and in a "barter system" what do we do about the Robin Hoods?????
No.No. I need more. I need the name of that political body. If no governing system or theory of one exists today, then there is no place for capitalism, unless you are willing to live in a disadvantaged, unprotected community of general citizens.
I'm assuming no one present is head of any state...we are all here part of the general citizens. Yes?
Democracy, a political system of majority rule, is compatible with Communism, a failed economic system where the means of production are owned by the government.
Capitalism assumes the means of production are privately owned.
There is nothing viral about privately owned means of production.
What you're referring to as Capitalism is in fact Corporatism, a system of monopolization created by the State.
Anarchy simply means no government. Money, which originates from spontaneous order, requires no government. Laws require no government. Many of the things you're assuming require government do not require government.
I agree that freedom to lie, cheat, outwit, con and otherwise pursue happiness by way of capitalism is worth fighting for.
Really, are you sure those are the only reasons why people are successful when left to trade freely?
If that's what determines the success of entrepreneurs, then what determines the success of politicians and civil servants? God help us. We really will need Him to help us, because you evidently can't trust the management of a central economic planning secretariat to any mortal man.
War is certainly an excellent capital generator all by itself..and I dare say, its most common purpose.
How can war possibly generate capital? It makes a few men relatively richer at the expense of millions. If you're willing to admit that the Emperor is naked, it's just the largest criminal enterprise in history.
It's not the free market that gives these people the bare-faced cheek to pretend that they're doing something noble. Millions of soldiers don't blindly acquise to becoming indentured murderers because they think it's going to make them rich. They do it because something evil has usurped the moral high ground.
Have you ever looked up "politics" in a thesaurus?
Politics is the whole problem here. The market self-regulates when it doesn't think there are infinitely wise men in charge pulling all the purse-strings.
You think that the two most regulated industries imploding is a sign that the free market is unworkable?
They didn't "require" bailouts. They should have gone bust. That's what would have happened if America had a free market. Congress voted to give them your money. In fact, they "required" it in the first place because they knew that Congress would give it to them when they failed. How on Earth can any government delegate regulatory responsibility when it doesn't have any itself?
So then, Capitalism can only be a fair process without any form of government. Is that your estimation?
I actually think that this is the case. Although some people define 'government' more broadly to include the voluntary security and administrative services we'd need without states. I don't personally like to do that, because thesaurus synonyms for "government" are even worse than "politics".
But is a society, totally ungoverned, an economical environment that could support Capitalism. There's no money...no banking system...and in a "barter system" what do we do about the Robin Hoods?????
Hah..
What do you think is a good reason to regard something as 'money'?
What makes the cheap cotton paper with the green ink on it so special? Or the imaginary numbers in a bank's computer?
It's just 'legal tender', which means that you and all the other animals on the farm accept it as valid payment for all debts... Or else.
The government money is only valuable because there are men with guns forcing us all to pretend that it is. Real money is valuable not because we are forced to delude ourselves, but because it's naturally scarce. Real money used by decent, civilised beings doesn't involve a master-counterfeiter forcing us to live on his terms, subsidising his violent excesses.
Thank Gentlemen. I am so pleased. This is the sort of input I needed. Setting aside assumptions, adopting the opinions of like minded groups.
Where do we go, how do we join...this place where we can enjoy Anarchy and Capitalism.
I will sell of my goods, turn my currencies into supplies, equipment...I have skills, I have a good attitude. I'd gladly contribute both.
SO NOW WHAT?
I feel confident we could tear up a classroom were we cornered now together, we three. But practically, "is that all there is?"
Can such a society concept be sold to enough people to open our own show??? Who would make all the arrangements, decisions, give directions?
OMG...who would ultimately have to take responsibility for something...be in charge of something. Crap...what happening to my ANARCHY???
There is no such thing as a citizen.
Who determines the price of a good or service?
What does it take to make a pencil?
How do birds fly in perfect formation and change direction without any given command?
None of this requires government. In fact, government more often than not screws things up.
And in instances where human beings require hierarchial order rather than spontaneous order, these need not be through the initiation of aggression.
What is viral, systemic, is the seemingly endless faith of those who believe government is the answer. That government once in place can be controlled. That there are no alternatives.
This is why you won't find a place practicing pure anarcho-capitalism. That being the case, this doesn't invalidate the argument that anarcho-capitalism is the best system for the human species. Aspects of the system have evaded even the most tyrannical governments.
Should enough people waken from their ignorance, then perhaps a society will form that practices pure anarcho-capitalism. For now all that supporters of the system can do is educate and oppose government to whatever degree possible within their own constraints.
Well, gentlemen, it's been a real shame...I was so into you guys earlier today. There's some good though. This little exercise at least gives me some understanding as to the reason why some cliches must be repeated over and over again to make them sound true. Like "the pen is mighter than the sword" ha!
No one is in the least bit inclined to do any 'waking up" in this world. Anarchy could only take hold of the masses through force, violence and subsequently war. Those who crave it lack the violence to take it. So raise your pennants high and ride your 'lectric ponies across these empty spaces
There's nothing "best for the human species" unless crime, cunning, deceit and greed are removed from our natures. And were that to happen, ANY set of rules, any form of government would be satisfactory.
Violence could never be a way to achieve anarcho-capitalism, it would only be a way to lead to the deaths of untold numbers of people. Sure, why not have the goal of crime/deceit/greed removed from people's natures? Once violence is renounced from within only can real change can come about. It's nothing new. This has always been the human struggle.
It's pretty clear that this guy hasn't read a single thing about anarcho-capitalism, might not even know who Mises or Rothbard are, doesn't understand a thing about economics and keeps voting for corporation sponsored candidates so these same candidates can fight the evil corporations.
I don't know why some of you are bothering yourselves, honestly.
I'd like to think he's trying.
Ron,
Here's a great historical example of a society functioning without a state as you know it.
Here's a great article addressing a lot of the concerns most people have.
And this Mises Insitute and the popularity of Ron Paul are two great examples of how public opinion can be changed. Paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years. If what you suggest is true, these ideas wouldn't be any farther along. People are asking questions about the Federal Reserve. The bank actually requires a PR army now. The Audit the Fed bill got over 300 co-sponsers in the US House of Reps last year...in a Democrat controlled Congress. It already has 130 sponsors this session. An organization called "The Ludwig von Mises Institutute" has over 40,000 followers on Facebook. The Road to Serfdom was ranked #1 on Amazon.com just last year.
I could go on and on. If you seriously think tides can't change and overall public opinion can't shift, then you are either incredulous or blind. And certainly have no knowledge of history.
Oh come now, sir, neivity is not the culprit. Everyone votes for the corporate selects, they're the only one's who make the ballot..And as for those rich enough to claim Independence, they are surely corporations in themselves and have their personal agendas as well.
People "bother" with these threads, if for no other reason, to evolve their own convictions. To put your opinions into print requires more examination than just blissfully humming to yourself in the corner.
Was that supposed to be a response to me or anything I linked to? I'm afraid none of what you said makes any sense to me.
Can democracy exist without capitalism?
I wasn't aware that Capitalism could exist within a democracy.
Frederique Bastiao:I don't know why some of you are bothering yourselves, honestly.
Because that is why the website is here.
Ron Marquis:Well, gentlemen, it's been a real shame...I was so into you guys earlier today.
First mistake was to be so into anyone.
So if anarcho-capitalism is such a pipe dream in your opinion, then how is your unstated position any better?
It's easy to sit back and throw stones at ideas, but I have yet to see you provide any position on the subject. Economically, all I see is a blatant attack on Capitalism, when in fact what you're describing is not Capitalism. Politically, all that can be determined is that you support government, which means you support the monopoly of force.
Hello Mr. Farmer. How are you?
You may have noticed how "personal" this thread has become for many. I've been defended by a few and I thank them for their faith in me possibly owning some intelligence..lol
Now that my original question is no longer an important issue to this thread..I will point out I had really expected to be offered answers rather than criticisms. It was even occasionally pointed out that some of the words I used to express a thought did not even exist? Not that they weren't in the dictionary, just that they don't exist. hummm
Well, I'll be moving along now...if I wanted to match wits rather than discuss solutions, I'd have downloaded computer games.
I suppose I could spend $179 to better understand "something", but I don't support unaccredited education.
Oh Boy! Won't someone race off to start a thread on that subject. See ya....
Ron Marquis:I suppose I could spend $179 to better understand "something", but I don't support unaccredited education.
So you have never learned anything outside state school. Makes sense.
Citizens don't exist Ron. If you'd like to define a citizen, I would be happy to demonstrate how it is an irrational concept.
Liberty student: I hadn't intended to return for another bout. However I am moved to inform you that my recent "complaint" did not include your observations. In fact, at the risk of embarassing you among your peers, lol, I most often felt defended and sometime supported by your comments.
By the way, I have pulled some of the reference literature you suggested and will read it.
I do now recall your reference as you've repeated above. And so, yes, by all means, I will "listen". Others may well benefit. I'm not the first to use the word citizen perhaps out of context, or pure stupidity..Others who read will be glad they didn't make the blunder themselves.
Please do define a citizen and make your demonstration.
You shouldn't be surprised that I find paragraph 1 unworthy of response. I am a successful business owner. A reasonably experienced survivalist. A graduate. A family man and a patriot (which doesn't mean I agree with the choices made by the 51%ers).,
Why waste $179 on knowledge when the real power is in the credits. Don't even bother to read a book just buy the credits?
You came to this site looking for knowledge, don't let a few few snotty pseudo intellectuals run you off. There's a wealth of free information here to explore.
The knowledgeable fisherman catches more fish than the credited one. Unless of course you're looking for a government job.
I don't understand a lot of this. Are we mixing threads here? Who are these pseudo intellectuals running him off? What reference materials has Liberty Student suggested and where? What $179? What paragraph 1 is Ron talking about? It's almost as if he's having a completely different conversation than the one in this thread.
Liberty!!! This fellow should have gotten more than 5 points for his efforts.
And Mr. Smith,,I only took offense because credits don't just come from state schools...nor knowledge from within the sheltered shadows of musty ancient scripts.
The only job a government ever offered me was to demonstrate to a military contractor the firing mechanism I designed for the fully-automatic 12 ga
shotgun they took away from me when I was nineteen. It was an offer I couldn't refuse, hence I avoided prosecution.
Ron Marquis:I am a successful business owner. A reasonably experienced survivalist. A graduate. A family man and a patriot (which doesn't mean I agree with the choices made by the 51%ers).,
I have no idea what any relevance this is.
I asked you to define a citizen for me. I know what a citizen is supposed to be. They don't exist.
Excuse me. I thought you suggested that you could tell me what a citizen was and demonstrate ( was that not the word you used) why a citizen cannot exist.
My simple definition of a citizen is perhaps from too common a level of communication, where a reference to a citizen might be construed to mean a member of some society, nation and maybe even tribe. A citizen would not have to be in good standing with his peers, he could be a bad citizen.
So now, what part of citizen don't I understand?
Can you give a concise definition Ron?
A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized. An inhabitant of a particular town or city.
A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
If the citizen described above cannot exist..please demonstrate making him go away.
It is a very strange notion to pit the idea of democracy against that of the enterprising individual. The problem inherent within is that, when offered democracy, the enterprising individual asks "What's in it for me?" and acts on those incentives. If it is denied that enterprising individuals act on what they perceive to be in their best interest, then what is the point of voting in a democracy? You cannot make the claim that everyone will vote for what is best for society rather than themselves, because there is no way to prove it, one way or another. But even to suggest it implies that the voter will sometimes vote against what they perceive to be important. At that point, voting itself loses all real meaning, because it is no longer the voice of the voting individual.
So much for democracy, then. As to the question of what political boby is necessary to bring about individual freedom, there isn't one. Such freedom only exists once people realize the father-hand of some overseer walking them through life is unnecessary, and if anything deficient. Without the mindset that one is not a child that needs guiding, there simply is no free society.
My apologies. We can return to our regularly scheduled game of "assertion frisbee" now.