Capitalism vs. Statism

[albert6014]

For my definition, Anarchy is the relationship between humans without government. It could be anarcho-capitalistic, but since fact is that in capitalism for any company first priority is money and everything else like knowledge, technological advancement and quality of product(planned obsolence=bigger profit) is correlated by that first priority, I dont like such system either.

So the system, which doesnt consist party-led government AND without capitalism would be much better off for most humans. Do I have an example? Yes I do. And you too. Your relationship(and the want of it) with your family is not based through government. Your relationship with a friend, either. Your love? Especially that. With these people, you help them and they help you. They can give you physical or emotional help and there is no systemic barrier inbetween(taxes, permission from third party to act in a specific way). In fact, I never found two specific words from the law system in the country I live in - Love and Compassion.

Hence those two words are anarchic in personality. They cant fit in into law system.

 

P.S. For anyone defending capitalism, I can say only two words, what will destroy his/her religion/faith - Planned Obsolescence

[Michael Archer]

I just realized what a contradiction it is to be an anti-capitalist.

 

To all the people bashing capitalism: you do realize that most, if not all, of the good in first world countries comes from corporations and people who strive to make money, not through altruistic acts? Your computer (and probably operating system) you use to view the internet was created and designed by people wanting to get filthy rich. Your ISP that allows you to connect to the internet is not giving you internet because he's an altruist. Corporations make it possible for me, when I've never even met you, to view your statements against capitalism and these very corporations who make your life so comfortable.

 

It kind of makes me sick.

 

Just to comment on the "living in fear", well, I've always thought that if you speak the right way, act appropriately beforehand, have lots of "comrades" which are also not stupid or basically people who stick together for you and you for them and in situations were you still can't reason with the brute (which can happen maybe once in a life?), attack him first, or lay traps, than you should be fine.

 

Sounds like an amazing, orderly way to run a society.

 

For my definition, Anarchy is the relationship between humans without government. It could be anarcho-capitalistic

 

LOLWUT? Anarcho-capitalism? That's a contradiction in terms! It's impossible to combine peaceful capitalism where men compete with dollars with anarchy (where men compete with guns and brute strength).

 

but since fact is that in capitalism for any company first priority is money and everything else like knowledge, technological advancement and quality of product(planned obsolence=bigger profit) is correlated by that first priority, I dont like such system either.

 

Money is the result of knowledge, technological advancement and quality of product--you can't have one without the others. Money is the product of a man's ability to think; he'll only trade that ability for things he decides are equal in value. Capitalism, like the mind and body, does not support mediocrity and stagnation e.g. a businessman who makes a mediocre product will lose hard to a businessman that makes a great product.

 

You; opponent of capitalism: by what right do you claim by force the lives and ability of other men? By what standard?

[ProHypster]

I'm not pro anarchism lol, that was just something I had in mind.

 

I also don't think capitalism is "evil", I just think there can be better less corrupt ways to live already and especially in the future.

 

Anarcho Capitalism is possible just like Anarcho-Communism... And no you are not qualified to say that it is impossible, philosophers and scientists have studied and experimented with this for 200 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

 

Lastly, Capitalist countries still have much more international wars then any other system, largely due to the fact that most countries are capitalist but also because "peace" and "capitalism" are not associated with each other at all.

 

For example, Communist Cuba had only one war in it's history. In those same years, USA had wars with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea...

[Michael Archer]

I looked at the article you posted. One thing I noticed is that, and I quote: "In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies "

 

Voluntarily-funded private defense agencies? You mean the mafia and other gangs? Oh god.

 

Capitalism is based on objectivity; statism is based subjectivity. There is no compromise between objectivity and subjectivity for the same reason there is no compromise between food and poison; any system that tries to mix the two, poison always wins eventually.

 

I'm wondering why you think capitalism causes wars. A business man who's wealth comes from creation and production gains nothing from the government taxing his land and property; any business man is anti-war. A statist country cannot produce anything; a statist country must wage war in order to seize goods from people that produced it.

 

Note that in the twentieth century, every single war was started by statist countries e.g. Germany, Russia, Japan, North Korea, Cuba. A capitalist country when attacked has a moral obligation to retaliate; USA was retaliating.

 

Going back even farther to nineteenth century USA; the northern states were industrial and capitalistic while the southern states were rural, primitive and used slave labor. Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He meant that it was impossible for capitalism to exist with slavery. Lincoln was trying to slowly get rid of slavery, so treasonous slaveholders opened fire on an American military base to preserve statism and slavery; the capitalist north had no choice but to retaliate.

[ProHypster]

That post has some major errors... beginning from any businessman is anti-war all the way to misunderstanding of statism and capitalism. The opposite of Statism is Anarchy while the opposite of Capitalism is Communism, Capitalism can be statist like Napolean Bonaparte's government. And anarchy can be Communist, well we haven't seen such a marvel yet...

 

I can agree on the fact that most wars started in the 20th century were caused by statist countries but that is a misunderstanding and is really because most countries were statist at the time, although in the 21st century it's starting to look otherwise with the Serbian-Kosovo, Russian-Georgian, Turkey-Greece wars.

 

I also don't agree on your proposal that it was actually USA that was attacked by Afghanistan, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq and Iran not the opposite.

 

Hah... good thing you are not a US foreign affairs person

[BTGBullseye]

Voluntarily-funded private defense agencies? You mean the mafia and other gangs? Oh god.

More like the Police in a certain Californian city... Small business that gets paid by the individuals in their district to protect the individuals. Sorta like a private security company, except it's public.

[Michael Archer]

Bullseye, who's to enforce that system with no government?

 

As I said before, "Rational Anarchism" is a contradiction. Reason and the mind can not coexist with Anarchism i.e. mob rule/rule by force.

 

That post has some major errors... beginning from any businessman is anti-war all the way to misunderstanding of statism and capitalism.

 

I don't understand: how can a capitalist business man who produces goods instead of seizing them and who's land is taxed to pay for the war effort be pro-war?

 

The opposite of Statism is Anarchy

 

Statism is the theory that a man's life doesn't belong to himself, but it belongs to a collective. The statist thinks that some men have the right to initiate force on others.

 

In that sense, Anarchy is statism.

 

Capitalism can be statist like Napolean Bonaparte's government. And anarchy can be Communist, well we haven't seen such a marvel yet...

 

What? Capitalism is a system of individualism and the respect of individual rights. Napoleon thought that some men had the right to initiate force on others. The free market and the mind can not function under the threat of force.

 

I also don't agree on your proposal that it was actually USA that was attacked by Afghanistan, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq and Iran not the opposite.

 

Maybe not, but a communist or islamic dictatorship that relies on the initiation of force on other people has no right to exist. A free country is always justified in destroying a dictatorship, since a dictatorship has no rights.

[ProHypster]

I think this will reply to your post:

 

What is Capitalism?

 

The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively new social system.1

 

But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?

Class division

 

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

 

The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.

 

This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.

 

It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)

The profit motive

 

In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press. Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money.

 

The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.

 

As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements of profit.

Capitalism = free market?

 

It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society.

 

It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early colonial settlements in North America. Some Greens wish to see a return to this kind of economy. We do not think that it is a viable alternative for modern society. Such a system would almost inevitability lead to capital accumulation and profit making—the definitive features of capitalism.

 

Here are more websites if you don't trust this one:

 

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_capitalism.php

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-capitalism.htm

 

http://answers.yourdictionary.com/business/what-is-capitalism.html

 

Finally, this is the real reason we, and I don't agree with you.

 

Today's Meaning

 

Though capitalism is a European term coined during the Enlightenment, today the word carries a heavier meaning than that referring to an easily understood economic system. Much debate surrounds the social, economic, religious, and psychological effects of a capitalistic society. Any economic system practiced by a society will influence the way those in that society think, and capitalism is no exception.

[Song]

Ah, finally I understand Micheal Archer and why you don't like anarchy.

Well, don't be offended, but please look up again what anarchy really means.

 

The idea itself does not include chaos nor does it include other ideas like

'survival of the fittest/strongest'. As with most government, society and

economic idea it can and only can be the evil you think it is but it also could

be the complete opposite: good. It all depends on the ones using/initiating it.

 

Again the anarchic idea does not necessarily mean 'rule by force', it can, but it

is not the primary goal of the idea.

[Axeldeath]

I don't understand: how can a capitalist business man who produces goods instead of seizing them and who's land is taxed to pay for the war effort be pro-war?

 

Because businessmen can make a lot of money from war. e.g. Bell Helicopters, they would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't persuaded the American government to buy their helicopters for military purposes.

[BTGBullseye]

Ah, finally I understand Micheal Archer and why you don't like anarchy.

Well, don't be offended, but please look up again what anarchy really means.

 

The idea itself does not include chaos nor does it include other ideas like

'survival of the fittest/strongest'. As with most government, society and

economic idea it can and only can be the evil you think it is but it also could

be the complete opposite: good. It all depends on the ones using/initiating it.

 

Again the anarchic idea does not necessarily mean 'rule by force', it can, but it

is not the primary goal of the idea.

I wanted to +rep you, but I'm out of points.

[Doom Shepherd]

The inability to differentiate how socioeconomic ideas work "in theory" to the way they end up working "in practice" has plagued idealistic thinkers since the earliest days. It has certainly been the bane of everyone from Christians to Communists, and Anarchists are no exception.

[Doom Shepherd]

For example, Communist Cuba had only one war in it's history. In those same years, USA had wars with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea...

 

Not quite, given the soldierrs Cuba sent to places like Ethiopia, Angola, Nicaragua, Grenada, Algeria, Zaire, Yemen, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Bolivia, and the Dominican Republic.

 

That's a lot of interventionism, for an itty-bitty country.

[ProHypster]

The inability to differentiate how socioeconomic ideas work "in theory" to the way they end up working "in practice" has plagued idealistic thinkers since the earliest days. It has certainly been the bane of everyone from Christians to Communists, and Anarchists are no exception.

Of course, I don't think we are ready for anything more social then the EU is right now. And even the EU is struggling in it's pioneer system.

 

Especially the economic part is true.

[Michael Archer]

I think this will reply to your post:

 

What is Capitalism?

 

The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively new social system.1

 

Well, if you want to be specific: when I say "capitalism" I mean "lassiez-faire capitalism" i.e. pure, uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism. Basically, in lassiez-faire, there's a complete separation between economics and the government exactly like the separation between the church and government.

 

As I imagine Dave would say: "Good capitalism, like all property being privately owned. None of this half-assed, government regulated, mixed-economy crap."

 

The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the middle class slowly replaces the working class in capitalism. Before capitalism, there were only two classes: the working and the elite classes. From what I understand, the middle class only came from the industrial revolution where there came a demand for more efficient labor. The middle class is the life and blood of capitalism and the economy; the "capitalist class" as you call them are only remnants of the past where the middle class is the present and future and they will eventually become the capitalist class.

 

How exactly are they exploited? I've never understood the Marxist argument. How are the capitalists exploiting the working class anymore than the working class are exploiting the capitalists? Both groups see each other as a way to make money and make deals accordingly. A worker voluntarily assumes the responsibility of his job description and gets paid accordingly; if he doesn't like it, he's free to find a capitalist who will pay him better. This is not exploitation. What is exploitation however is how the socialists treat the capitalist class: the capitalists work, but the fruits of their labor are forcibly taken away from them i.e. the capitalists are slaves in socialism. Why do you not call this exploitation?

 

If by "exploitation," you mean making the masses slaves, then I refer you to socialism i.e. the theory that says that man does not have the right to exist for himself and his own effort and that his life does not belong to him. Slavery does not get any more literal than that.

 

And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)

 

State benefits (i.e. forcibly taken money from those who earned it to give to people who did not) is socialism, not capitalism.

 

In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs.

 

Same thing. People won't buy things they don't want or need; ergo if you make a product no one needs, no one will buy it and thus no profit.

 

Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money.

 

It is true that people without money (unproductive people) will not be able to satisfy their needs. As for their plight, they would have to rely on charity i.e. the voluntary giving of people who earned goods to people who did not earn it. The productive people in a charity still retain their autonomy.

 

If there are not enough charities, that is unfortunate; however, this does not justify you or the government putting a gun to the head of a businessman who rightfully earned his money to pay for someone who did not i.e. this does not give you the right to rob people. Robbing: whether conducted by a lone individual or a government sanctioned by a majority vote is wrong, period.

 

The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.

 

So? Capitalism doesn't support mediocrity; you either make a good product or you lose to someone who does.

 

As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from starvation to war, to alienation and crime.

 

I've never come across a more ignorant statement.

 

War: right now, we're at war with middle-eastern countries. These countries are run by Islamic dictatorships. Islam is a nihilistic ideology that holds that man does not have right to exist and make a profit for himself, but exists to serve others. Islam declared war on the semi-capitalist west because they hold capitalism and human production immoral. Any Islamic country (to be fair, any statist country) relies on war, since they can not produce any goods. Only capitalism is the system of production, so statists have to forcibly take from the people that produced it i.e. they have to wage war. Again, observe that all wars in the 20th century were initiated by statist and not capitalist countries.

 

Starvation: Are you kidding me? Obesity is a problem in the capitalist United States for one thing. Also, my mother used to live in communist Yugoslavia. She said that one of her favorite things to eat were bananas and ice cream; the only problem was that bananas and ice cream were ridiculously expensive that it was a luxury she could only afford once in a while. When she came to capitalist Canada, she was amazed about how much choice in food there is and she was even more amazed about how bananas are the cheapest fruit and ice cream was readily available to everyone. This is not a one-time story: Ayn Rand said that when she was living in communist Russia, the only thing people talked about was food since they were so hungry all the time (millions of peasants died from starvation). This is not suprising: the way to make the most amount of food is by free men who are willing to produce as much as they can so they can strive for their own happiness. Next time you walk into a grocery store, take a look at how much selection you have; this is all possible by capitalism and production and not the use of force.

 

Alientation: What exactly do you mean by that?

 

Crime: Crimes such as robbery are tools of the looters. Before money can be robbed, it must be created through production by honest men who created it for profit. Money is the tool of creators who made it for their own purposes, not the robbers. Blaming crime on the capitalists is similar to blaming rape on a victim.

 

It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society.

 

Cuba, China and the U.S.S.R; like you said, were all slave countries. Capitalism is incompatible with slavery. I think the best demonstration of this was the US Civil War i.e. capitalist north vs. statist south. Abraham Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Thankfully, the US government successfully defended capitalism and the slaveholders were crushed.

 

"Viable to do so" is not indicative of a free-market and therefore, not of capitalism. To call the Soviet Union "capitalism" is so ridiculous, I feel like an idiot for entertaining this. Capitalism is a system of free-trade i.e. traders are free to trade with one another in the best way they see fit for any reason they want. In Soviet Union, the only purpose of "trade" (which was really extortion) was to "serve the people and country." In capitalism, you're allowed to live for yourself; in statism, you're not.

 

It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early colonial settlements in North America. Some Greens wish to see a return to this kind of economy. We do not think that it is a viable alternative for modern society. Such a system would almost inevitability lead to capital accumulation and profit making—the definitive features of capitalism.

 

I think you need to look up "free-market," because I don't think it means what you think it means. Free-market means that trades are voluntarily, prices are controlled by supply and demand, but most importantly that people can trade in whatever way they see fit. If for profit, for sport, it doesn't matter--the point is that it's free.

 

Of course, I don't think we are ready for anything more social then the EU is right now. And even the EU is struggling in it's pioneer system.

 

Why do you assume to speak for all Europeans? I'd assume that most would not want to be part of your sick, statist experiment.

 

Finally, this is the real reason we, and I don't agree with you.

 

That's fine, I respect your right to disagree with me. But answer this question:

 

By what right do you have to forcibly take something that does not belong to you? By what standard do you extort people?

 

Again the anarchic idea does not necessarily mean 'rule by force', it can, but it

is not the primary goal of the idea.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

I think I've said enough on the subject of Anarchy.

 

Because businessmen can make a lot of money from war. e.g. Bell Helicopters, they would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't persuaded the American government to buy their helicopters for military purposes.

 

True, but only those who deal with the government. The vast majority of businessmen have nothing to gain from war.

 

Capitalism is a system where men are free to produce and are free from the initiation of force (this is how men produce best). Therefore, a capitalist country does not need to go to war to thrive and prosper whereas a statist country does.

 

The inability to differentiate how socioeconomic ideas work "in theory" to the way they end up working "in practice" has plagued idealistic thinkers since the earliest days.

 

How does one judge whether a theory is good or not? How do you say, "this is a good theory?"

 

The only standard I can think of is how it works in practice.

[ProHypster]

So your mother is from Yugoslavia?? Your main impression of the Soviet Union is from Ayn Raid living there during Stalin's regime??

 

That's is pretty deep-biased I must say, hence I cannot further debate with you.

Also because we cannot agree what the word capitalism means and are not willing to change the meaning of it.

 

I have to say I've studied the Soviet Union very much, and I have been to Canada, I prefer today's Ukraine to the Soviet Union but I also prefer many soviet laws and ways of life to the laws and way of life today since we now have too many alcoholics, western drugs, bandits.

 

Also SU >>>>>>> Yugoslavia in price and salary statistics.

[Michael Archer]

My impression of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia comes from reading about other people who have lived there. Have you lived in the Soviet Union? What's your point?

 

In terms of what "capitalism" means, I'm going by the definiton that Wikipedia gives: "Capitalism is an economic system structured upon the accumulation of capital in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.[1] Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other."

 

When I talk about "capitalism," I'm talking about lassiez-faire capitalism. What kind of capitalism are you talking about?

 

What laws do you say that you like from the Soviet Union?

[danielsangeo]

Can you please tell me how laissez-faire capitalism works in a completely state-free (non-statist) system? By what means do you have to agree upon the value of something (item, service, etc) without government? If I do something (conduct a service, build a product, etc) and it's worth X, but then someone else says that the value of that good/service/etc is less than X, does that mean that the value of the good/service/etc is not fixed?

 

Let's say I were to mow someone's lawn. We mutually agree that the value of my service is 20-strips of green paper. So, I mow the lawn and take my 20-strips to, let's say an electronics store. There is an item I want. But the electronics store says that the 20-strips of green paper I have are actually just worth 10-strips of paper and that the item which costs 20-strips of paper is, therefore, out of my reach. But then, someone else comes in, with 20-strips of identical green paper, and the store owner tells this person that his 20-strips is valued at 20-strips and gives it to the person.

 

By what measure do I have to file a grievance with the store owner? Let's say that I'm an atheist and the other customer is a Christian and the store owner will only sell to Christians. As soon as you introduce a third party, such as an arbitrator, you are introducing a statist system so you can't have an arbitrator.

[albert6014]

Oh god... The author just can't view differently. Its pointless to argue.

Even if I would say that the biggest business on earth is weapon industry(to kill people, wohoo for capitalism), it wouldn't change his mind. And yes, I didn't say I favour anarcho-capitalism. Its just part of the way to live.

Even when I would post this - ''http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc''

It wouldn't change his mind. Like, LINUX, guys, wasn't created because of capitalism nor money.

And I pointed out many things the capitalism-lover even ignored. Its totally pointless, because 95% of the people in the world just suffer under Stockholm Syndrome(figure it out yourself).

Can you tell me how China has produced almost all of our technology nowadays? Like, because China is the best example of capitalism? Thats just so bullshit... Like, everything is bad except ''THIS''(fill the gap in whichever religion you believe)

P.S. The author is quite educated in this tho - http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

P.S.S. Lets go ahead with so complex discussion and seem to be smartasses while knowing nothing about how to communicate with your neighbour next door.

[Michael Archer]

Can you please tell me how laissez-faire capitalism works in a completely state-free (non-statist) system?

 

That's a very good question and I'll answer it if you read my post.

 

Basically, humans cannot survive peacefully without a government (if the movie Black Hawk Down is any accurate representation of an Anarchy) Also, by definition, capitalism has a government. Asking how capitalism would work in a state-free system is like asking how would Grounded Aviation or Deep Sea Astronomy would work. (this is Ross' forum after all; we can't allow there to not be quotes!)

 

If I do something (conduct a service, build a product, etc) and it's worth X, but then someone else says that the value of that good/service/etc is less than X, does that mean that the value of the good/service/etc is not fixed?

 

Let's say I were to mow someone's lawn. We mutually agree that the value of my service is 20-strips of green paper. So, I mow the lawn and take my 20-strips to, let's say an electronics store. There is an item I want. But the electronics store says that the 20-strips of green paper I have are actually just worth 10-strips of paper and that the item which costs 20-strips of paper is, therefore, out of my reach. But then, someone else comes in, with 20-strips of identical green paper, and the store owner tells this person that his 20-strips is valued at 20-strips and gives it to the person.

 

By what measure do I have to file a grievance with the store owner? Let's say that I'm an atheist and the other customer is a Christian and the store owner will only sell to Christians. As soon as you introduce a third party, such as an arbitrator, you are introducing a statist system so you can't have an arbitrator.

 

This is a good question. the short answer is: The gold standard.

 

The long answer: In a free society, men would choose what to trade with what they find valuable--this would usually be gold. In our current system, the government has pretty much thrown green pieces of paper at us and said "here, this is valuable because we say it's valuable." Those pieces of paper mean nothing--they're just paper that the government can print any time they feel like it. Gold has an objective value that's determined by supply and demand. This is the most rational and sane piece of currency I've ever seen in my entire life. Gold cannot be inflated nor it can be deflated at the government's whim; its value is purely objective.

 

In your store owner scenario, both the store owner and the consumer would voluntarily choose their values they would trade. For the sake of convenience, it would probably be gold. If one party didn't like the terms of the trade, the trade wouldn't take place. If the store owner did not recognize the value of that piece of paper, he wouldn't make the trade; just like if you offered me some pocket lint and insisted it was worth an hour of my time, I'd decline.

 

In honest disputes (e.g. Party A says that B broke their legally legitimate contract while B says he didn't) they would be settled objectively by the court of law.

 

Oh god... The author just can't view differently. Its pointless to argue.

Even if I would say that the biggest business on earth is weapon industry(to kill people, wohoo for capitalism), it wouldn't change his mind.

 

The weapon industry creates and innovates revolutionary machines; they make money because their machines are good. They don't kill people--governments do that.

 

Even when I would post this - ''http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc''

 

I took ten minutes out of my busy day to watch your video, so you better write in response something worth reading.

 

So what? What's your point? I'm talking about capitalism, not ways to run a business. That's up to the businessmen.

 

It wouldn't change his mind. Like, LINUX, guys, wasn't created because of capitalism nor money.

 

Steve Jobs wasn't primarily motivated by money; he only used money as a tool to achieve greatness. Is he too much of a capitalist for you? Fine, I'll think of another example.

 

Ever hear of a guy named Jimmy Wales? He's an Objectvist: this means that he believes that the purpose of a man's life is to pursue his own happiness through his rational self-interest and that the only system that allows man to do this (and therefore the only moral system) is lassiez-faire capitalism. He created this completely charitable service.

 

And I pointed out many things the capitalism-lover even ignored. Its totally pointless, because 95% of the people in the world just suffer under Stockholm Syndrome(figure it out yourself).

 

Sympathizing with captors? Oh, I think I get it; you're implying that since I live in Canada (a relatively capitalist nation) I must start sympathizing with the country's system.

 

If by "hostage" you mean a man who trades with those he only finds worthy, he strives to find people who will only trade his value for an equal value, and most importantly that all his relationships are voluntary; then yes, he's a hostage. If by "hostage" you meant a man who works as a slave i.e. his life belongs to the country/state, he's not allowed to decide who he deals with under what conditions, he's not allowed to decide his own course of action since he's constantly under the threat of force; then I refer you to statist countries like the Soviet Union or North Korea.

 

Can you tell me how China has produced almost all of our technology nowadays? Like, because China is the best example of capitalism? Thats just so bullshit... Like, everything is bad except ''THIS''(fill the gap in whichever religion you believe)

 

What do you mean by best? I think the best technologies in my life are the Apple computer, the Windows computer, the iPhone, the Google search engine, Wikipedia, and the air conditioner (we've been having heat waves in Toronto). All of those are a product of America and capitalism.

 

P.S. The author is quite educated in this tho - http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

 

I'll read this when you respond to my response to your Youtube video.

 

P.S.S. Lets go ahead with so complex discussion and seem to be smartasses while knowing nothing about how to communicate with your neighbour next door.

 

I'll try, but since your attempts and mature discussions seem to consist entirely of juvenile insults, it'll be difficult.

 

By the way, a second post-script is usually denoted by "P.P.S."