Economics Questions

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

JackCuyler — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:17:23 GMT

So there is a big difference between "use" and "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something"(yes, one is very short, and the other is 30 times longer)?

Getting back to the original point, if I build the "means of production", using my own labor and natural resources, according to Locke, I own those "means of production" forever -- even if I never touch them again. It doesn't matter that I don't use them. I own them because I created them, again, according to Locke. What you attributed to Locke, what you don't use, you don't own, is completely at odds with Locke's theory.

So again, I ask, why would anyone let others use his means of production?

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

DanielMuff — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:40:43 GMT

aervew:

capitalism has never existed without state.

This is kinda like saying that humanity has never existed without crime.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

Johnny Doe — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:06:06 GMT

JackCuyler:

Does anyone create stuff out of thin air?

No, but that's not really relevant is it? I used, "Create," when I should have used, "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something."

Better? If you have an issue with Locke, that's fine. Please don't attribute your "use it or lose it" ideas to him.

So there is a big difference between "use" and "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something"(yes, one is very short, and the other is 30 times longer)?

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

JackCuyler — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:52:35 GMT

Does anyone create stuff out of thin air?

No, but that's not really relevant is it? I used, "Create," when I should have used, "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something."

Better? If you have an issue with Locke, that's fine. Please don't attribute your "use it or lose it" ideas to him.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

Johnny Doe — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:46:01 GMT

JackCuyler:

What? Lockean property rights, i.e. what you don`t use, you don`t own.

Use has nothing to do with Lockean property rights, which have everything to do with creation, i.e. what you create, you own forever, or until you choose to give it away.

Does anyone create stuff out of thin air?

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

James — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:02:49 GMT

@aervew

I think you're conflating the state with law and order. If the state was set up to protect law and order, it can't also be what caused law and order.

capitalism has never existed without state. prove me wrong. in fact it doesnt even have to be capitalism, any economic system of somewhat stable property rights requires the state.

This is unsubstantiated reactionism. Correlation does not equal causation. Consider that if this were the year 1000 AD, you could substitute 'capitalism' with 'society' or 'civilisation', and 'state' with 'chattel slavery'.

'Any system of relatively desirable civilisation we've seen so far has involved chattel slavery, therefore the most desirable system of civilisation available to us necessarily requires chattel slavery.'

btw iceland & ireland had state functionality though somewhat differently structured. they had the final judicator / chieftan / king. it is only through the distorted eyesight of the libertarian that this system is interpreted as anarchy

Well, if you're willing to necessarily and strictly circumscribe the role of "the state" to that of a natural or common law enforcer and contract dispute arbitrator, you probably are a libertarian.

One has to consider the basis for why any particular such entity has jurisdiction over particular peoples and not others. Do you think there should be one world government for every human being, with universal jurisdiction and only devolved powers to sub-global governing bodies? What real mechanisms are there in place to ensure that it does not become abusive of its monopolised mandate, assuming the logical impossibility that it was set up to both create and protect desirable human civilisation? Is it appropriate to regard human beings as one primary actor? A collective hive mind?

But if you don't accept world government, what particular arrangement of nation-states is the most desirable or rational, given the government's strictly circumscribed role as the court of last resort for law enforcement and dispute resolution? What theory of international relations do you ascribe to? If you believe in the desirability of nation-states, don't you realise the desirability of 'international law' and 'international relations'? Why is it rational to regard the shifting patchwork hodgepodge of violently-established nation-states and empires as the primary actors in a system of 'international relations'? How can legal fictions like nation-states be primary actors? Surely it is the individual who is the only real primary actor, superstitions and legal fictions aside?

Of course there must be a court of last resort for a given dispute of law, but that's no reason to accept the state, and no reason to accept profoundly irrational grounds for jurisdiction. There is a lot of literature on the subject of private law arbitration mechanisms, but really the most rational system has to be emergent, as it can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

No2statism — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:44:42 GMT

Capitalism can't exist with the state.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

aervew — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:36:14 GMT

capitalism has never existed without state. prove me wrong. in fact it doesnt even have to be capitalism, any economic system of somewhat stable property rights requires the state. As demonstrated by the paradox in the "The failure of Anarcho-Capitalism" thread, this is STRICTLY the case. And by strictly i mean 100% exceptions are impossible.

btw iceland & ireland had state functionality though somewhat differently structured. they had the final judicator / chieftan / king. it is only through the distorted eyesight of the libertarian that this system is interpreted as anarchy

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

JackCuyler — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:36:57 GMT

What? Lockean property rights, i.e. what you don`t use, you don`t own.

Use has nothing to do with Lockean property rights, which have everything to do with creation, i.e. what you create, you own forever, or until you choose to give it away.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

Johnny Doe — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:25:46 GMT

What? Lockean property rights, i.e. what you don`t use, you don`t own.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

JackCuyler — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:20:02 GMT

Why should anyone control the means of production used by others?

Why should anyone allow others to use his means of production?

Why should a capitalist extract the surplus value from workers?

How to "extract"?

Value is subjective. There is no such thing as "surplus value". The capitalist pays a laborer the subjective, agreed upon, value of his output and charges the customer the subjective, agreed upon, value of his product. These are not the same.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

Johnny Doe — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:03:59 GMT

Why should anyone control the means of production used by others?

Why should a capitalist extract the surplus value from workers?

How to "extract"?

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

JackCuyler — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:03:52 GMT

With or without a state, value is subjective.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

bbnet — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:18:08 GMT

Why would one want to control useless means of production?

Workers would be responsible for extracting their surplus value via a second job.

Landlords would extract rent from tenants with a little help from Bruno and his big bat.

Re: can capitalism exist without the state?

Peter — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:38:45 GMT

hey man I'm serious.