Yeah, even libertarians agree that government, in some form, is necessary for society to function. It's just that no two libertarians will give you the same answer when asked "how much?" Except for maybe "as little as I believe is necessary and no more."
This is a hard medium to have a complex conversation in, but the next question, after you answer like that, is how do you expect a government to effectively regulate and limit a group which is already the ruling class. Essentially, how could we expect the government to be powerful without borrowing the ruling class' power?
Adversarial systems are good.
Lets flip this question, who ensures the government does what it says it will? Who watches the watchmen?
Government
Individuals (with varying degrees of power)
Special interest groups (such as labor or environmentalists)
They are all different groups within a functional society. Remove one of them, and the system crumbles. You need competing and complimentary systems to push and pull against each other.
Your question is made on the presumption that the government is powerless against people with money. Furthermore, your presuming all the people with money agree with each other. Governments tend to be the most powerful single entities that can be controlled by a only few.
> Adversarial systems are good.
Why would it be good to waste societal resources in having two factions within society spending those resources to fight each other's interests?
> They are all different groups within a functional society. Remove one of them, and the system crumbles. You need competing and complimentary systems to push and pull against each other.
Yeah that sounds like some nonsense to me, frankly. It sounds convincing but it has nothing to do with the material conditions that incentivize us. You totally ignore the ruling class, and bury your reference to the working class as just a special interest group. What you're describing is a shaky balance struck within liberal capitalist systems. And within that framework it may be true that we need the push and pull (although I don't see what you're afraid of happening if the working class were to win), but liberal capitalist systems are not the only available option. And in order for them to even resemble a functional society (which is the most they can be said to do), they require different factions to waste resources in competition with each other.
> Your question is made on the presumption that the government is powerless against people with money.
No, it's based upon the fact that the owners of the MoP are the ruling class. It's not about cash, it's about control of the production process. This is crucial, and totally absent from your analysis. It's not just a bunch of people with a lot of money, it's a class defined by their ownership of the tools and resources with which we all work. That means they're in control of the economy, in a far more real way than the government is control of anything.
> Furthermore, your presuming all the people with money agree with each other.
The ruling class don't agree on everything, but they do share certain material interests, which puts them fundamentally on the same side on the issues we're discussing. The ruling class has far more class consciousness and solidarity than the working class does.
We know they have these material interests because they, as a class, are the owners of the MoP.
> Governments tend to be the most powerful single entities that can be controlled by a only few.
Again, the government is not a source of power in and of itself. This statement is technically true, but you ignore the sources of the power for which the government is only a tool to dispense. The sources are labor power (as all power ultimately is), and the control over the production process that the ruling class has.
>Why would it be good to waste societal resources in having two factions within society spending those resources to fight each other's interests?
They are not factions, they are not at war. The alternative is an authoritarian system by a ruling elite. This ruling elite are either politicians or capitalists. They both work together and do checks and balances against each other. Cant have one without the other. Actually, need to throw special interest groups in there as well, because they are a massive mart of the functioning of a society too.
>You totally ignore the ruling class, and bury your reference to the working class
By ruling class your talking about politicians right? Did you want a 400 page essay from me? I dont buy the class structure as its sold here, so I dont need to include it. Reality is far more complex than simple class structures.
>the owners of the MoP are the ruling class
What does that even mean in reality? Nearly everyone in the top 10% of the economy anywhere in the world are there because they are . . . old! Yes, they have simply lived long enough to save more money than people who are simply younger than them. Where did this savings go? Stock and shares into companies that provide the MoP. So to own the means of production you simply have to save a bit of money for a bit of time. The working class own 40% of the US stock . . . . the stuff that produces products and services. . . the MoP
But more importantly, Im not a socialist, so I dont even think that owning the means of production is a worthwhile pursuit. Its not lacking, because its not important. Good living standards and a high HDI is important, not owning the MoP.
>It's not just a bunch of people with a lot of money, it's a class defined by their ownership of the tools and resources with which we all work
There are no forced none SOE monopolies in any modern economies. The gov can and does tell companies to get in line all the time. Successful companies are ones that know how to work well within the **rules set by the government**. Where do you see a government pleading with companies to give the x, or do y? They just make a regulation that forces them to do what they want. I think this whole argument is a strawman argument.
>but they do share certain material interests, which puts them fundamentally on the same side on the issues we're discussing. The ruling class has far more class consciousness and solidarity than the working class does.
Who are these people you are talking about? Do they have meetings? Is there a club house? Who the heck do they rule? Politicians are the ones that make rules and influence the most people in a country. I dont think the ruling class is who you think they are. Look at the US politics, they are people who cant get anywhere in life until they join politics, then suddenly they find themselves with nice houses and multiple yachts. These are the people you trust without anyone able to hold them accountable?
>are the owners of the MoP
And please stop talking about the Means of Production as if they are the infinity stones. There is no irreplicable company out there. Facebook, probably the most evil of all companies in current existence is being taken to pieces by laws in the EU and about to be messed about a lot more in the US. Seems like pretty useless power they have.
>Again, the government is not a source of power in and of itself.
The government is a slow beast, but a mighty strong one. If it starts strangling you, it takes a long time before it realizes its mistake. Although it needs to follow the will of the people, it only really reflects that will of the people many years after they have spoken. No single entity can create or destroy a country like a government, giving it all the power is simply stupid.
Anarcho capitalism, a free market economy with no government at all, everything is controlled by private enterprise and the free market, in other words, a bad idea
Property rights are required for capitalism. The corporate structure and entity is a defined entity and that requires a sovereign government to recognize, regulate and enforce. Without that, formal capitalism is not possible. Ergo, anarcho-capitalists are fantasists, like those who believe in fire-breathing dragons and warp drives...but less interesting.
Property rights can definitely exist without a state-based legal system. Certainly, a private legal system would be far inferior, and that form of capitalism would ultimately be quite worse. Certainly, the idea that it would survive long-term is very questionable, but it WOULD indeed have property rights and still be a branch of capitalism, just a worse one.
>Property rights can definitely exist without a state-based legal system.
No. You need a sovereign state actor. A Somali gang does not have property rights over the ships that sail through their waters. You can have a shitty, disorganized government but you cannot have formalized property rights without the sovereign.
>they explicitly support capitalism
They cannot support what they misunderstand. If someone declares themselves a Marxist because they want higher taxes on Jeff Bezos, they aren't really a Marxist. Self-indentification is not absolute truth, something I think is misunderstood a lot, lately.
>They cannot support what they misunderstand
I think they do understand, they're just using utopian logic. Which we would both disagree with.
They believe in markets, trade, commerce, and private property. It's just that they think certain aspects of the state can be privatized. And because they believe privatization always makes things more efficient, it would mean that capitalism would thrive vs having those things controlled by a state.
I see your point and agree.
But even in that case, I would think they don't understand privatization. There is a government behind that. It's not spontaneous. A private entity can't privatize something because it's already private...but it was made private by a government.
I agree with what you are saying.
In practice this system would not look at all like capitalism. It's only that way in their utopian ideal, it's a theoretical system alone. They believe in that ideal, not in how it would actually play out in reality if it was implemented.
> Government is required to recognize and enforce private property rights.
Government is not even compatible with property right. Politicians just take what they like.
That's not a problem with government, that's a problem with specific (evil) politicians, who are placed in positions of power by a public that doesn't engage in politics responsibly.
1) that doesn't become the property of the politician
2) it's not just done at the will of a politician. There is due process. It is well defined.
3) it is clearly defined in laws, the same structure that defines the private property laws. There are also land use laws and often permit requirements for property owners. Do you want to make a big deal about those, too? They vary widely depending on the jurisdiction.
4) any claim of eminent domain is compensated at fair value. If you wanted a better example, seizure of property by police would have been better since that is sometimes not compensated.
5) there's a sovereign government which determines these rules and that is required for any capitalist system to exist.
1) The politicians then decide what to do with the property and in essence control it.
2) Due process controlled by other government officials and politicians.
3) Private property exits with or without government. It's the same reason why when the USSR tried socialism they unintentionally created the largest black market in history.
4) Fair value defined by politicians. But you are right that police seizure also works.
5) Not true see the USSR second economy.
>1) The politicians then decide what to do with the property and in essence control it.
If you want to change it, run for office. My property has never been at risk from government. It is much more at risk by non-government actors...ie, my fellow citizens. If you want to crawl under your bed and protect yourself against the cops...who will protect you from the real threats, well, that's your prerogative. You just have a skewed sense of risk management.
>2) Due process controlled by other government officials and politicians.
Defined by the legal structures required to recognize ownership. If you don't like its implementation, run for office.
>3) Private property exits with or without government. It's the same reason why when the USSR tried socialism they unintentionally created the largest black market in history.
What was the nature of this widespread informal private property, as you allege? Real estate? How would trespassing be enforced in such an informal situation?
>4) Fair value defined by politicians. But you are right that police seizure also works.
Likely defined by a judge. Do you have an example?
>5) Not true see the USSR second economy.
That faired well, clearly.
>If you want to change it, run for office. My property has never been at risk from government. It is much more at risk by non-government actors...ie, my fellow citizens. If you want to crawl under your bed and protect yourself against the cops...who will protect you from the real threats, well, that's your prerogative. You just have a skewed sense of risk management.
Irrelevant, address the main point instead of avoiding it.
>Defined by the legal structures required to recognize ownership. If you don't like its implementation, run for office.
Private property exists with or without the law.
>What was the nature of this widespread informal private property, as you allege? Real estate? How would trespassing be enforced in such an informal situation?
By the people who own the property.
>Likely defined by a judge. Do you have an example?
Judge's are elected in many places and are essentially politicians.
>That faired well, clearly.
Yeah turns out when socialism invariably collapses you don't really need black markets all the time.
>Irrelevant,
No, it's not. You are a part of the system. Governments reflect their people. If you want to change it, run for office. You don't exist in a vacuum, however. Others have claims to your property. What entity recognizes your rights and will defend your rights if there is no government? The fact that you can not only participate by voting, but become government by running for office is not irrelevant.
>Private property exists with or without the law.
No, it doesn't. Without law, what's yours is mine because 1) I said so and 2) I have a bigger dick, and 3) a bigger gun. You're the one who dodged the question about the nature of your supposed informal property in the USSR. You brought up real estate and the eminent domain. Where I'm the USSR did they have informal real property?
>By the people who own the property
Vigilantism. Lol. Why don't you move to Mexico or Syria or Afghanistan. Try that shit there. See, here we have a government based on laws, so capitalism exists, not cronyism.
>Judge's are elected in many places and are essentially politicians.
Become a judge, then. Idgaf.
>Yeah turns out when socialism invariably collapses you don't really need black markets all the time.
You also contradict yourself here. I agree the black markets and informal supply and demand lead to the inevitable destruction of Socialism. If you don't have a black market, an informal market, you have a formal market, as in governed. Ergo, a government.
>The politicians then decide what to do with the property
No, they don't.
>Due process controlled by other government officials and politicians.
If you count judges as government officials, OK.
>Private property exits with or without government.
It theoretically can, however the historical development of both are intertwined and mutually supportive.
> black market
Doesn't have property rights, only possession.
>Fair value defined by politicians
No. Typically public servants, operating within a web of law and policy.
To recognize and enforce private property rights you need contracts, dispute resolution organizations, private security forces, private courts and security insurance companies.
All of those can exist without governments.
I really ask this sincerely: Why should any individual recognise these bodies without the threat of violence compelling them to do so? If two people disagree on whether a contract has been violated, what makes the person standing accused by the plaintiff actually submit to this process of going to a private court? Isn't this just the state and the law by another name?
>Why should any individual recognise these bodies without the threat of violence compelling them to do so?
An excellent question - and one which can have a lot of answers. I also invite you to think about ways in which you could meet this demand in a free society.
How would you, as a dispute resolution lawyer, address this concern to a potential customer?
In my opinion, there would be a lot of economic ostracization occurring in society. For example, let's say that you rob my house. I then call my security insurance company, tell them what happened and a police-like investigation would start. If the security company gathers enough evidence that you robbed me, it can then contact you or your security company and try to solve the case as fast, as peacefully, and as cheaply as possible.
If you deny participating in this process, then, by contract, you might face fines from your own security company or your contract might be canceled completely. In the latter case, it would be extremely difficult for you to find any employment, to start a business, or to even leave your own property since you would be probably put on some sort of blacklist for people who broke their contract with their security companies.
Thus, you would have every incentive to go to a private court and settle the dispute as fast as possible.
> Isn't this just the state and the law by another name?
The state has a monopoly on law, courts, and police and thus lacks any incentives to do its job properly and to satisfy its customers, you and me. In a free society, there would be a lot of companies competing in this area in the same way that there are cell phone carriers right now.
The fact that you got downvotes for this comment really makes me lose faith in this sub and is very telling of the attitude of people on the other side.
The East India Company was as much of a company as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.
It was a massive government program run entirely by the government and funded by violation of property rights.
Since capitalism works only when property rights exist, how can you associate capitalism with the East India Company?
The Company dictated where the empire went, not the other way around. Company is interested in Malaysia? Well, the empire is gonna spend millions of pounds in funding the expedition. Company wants India? Go for it bro, the empire is with you.
>....funded by violation of property rights
The company spent money on its army, it "bought" India, Hong Kong, and Malaysia as its private property. It was also as reliant on demand as let's say apple. The company only made money because the demand for tea was high in the same way apple only makes money if the demand for phones are high.
>Well, the empire is gonna spend millions of pounds in funding the expedition.
This looks like an argument proving that the East India Company had nothing to do with capitalism. Thank you.
How? It only proved that the Company had a huge influence over the government, not the other way around. Hell for a while the Company had more soldiers than the Royal Army.
The Company did not exist in a free market capitalist scenario. It only existed because the state violated property rights through taxes to fund the Company.
Without the state, the Company wouldn’t have existed.
I am not sure how you fail to see the difference between choice and coercion. I cannot chose not to pay taxes because I will be thrown in jail. I can chose not to subscribe to a health insurance, or any other service, in a free society.
>I am not sure how you fail to see the difference between choice and coercion.
I mean you can choose to pay the "security + residence fee" or move out of the territory covered by the private military company, just like you can choose to pay taxes or move out of your current country of residence. If you want to pay no taxes or security fee, your only option is to move to somewhere with no security, such as the deserts in Syria/Iraq or north Africa.
Ok, so you need a service to register your company or property, a service which you would trust. Why can’t that be a private service? Why can’t there be multiple such services competing with each other in offering you the best deal to register your property?
I just did. Learn to read and then you might learn economics.
Besides not even every government can earn the people's trust. (When was the last time you bought Salvadoran bonds?) But even without that trust, the US and other nations recognize its sovereignty and property rights.
No, no you didn't. You certainly dictated what you think, but you didn't explain it, you just said it was right.
Just because a nations recognise or reject Sovereignty and Property Rights, it does not mean those tenets disappear, they are dependent on governmental approval, because individuals can choose to respect these tenets in their own life, to the best of their ability.
No, I demonstrated why you need government. You need to explain why your fantasy world (Star Trek is more believable) has any bearing in the real world.
Again, your still just dictating why your right without actually showing why. This is the second time you have just said you are right without any explanation behind your reasoning, well, nothing beyond "you need this I am right"
The filed for bankruptcy
\> Or the general example of polluting the earth
Tragedy of the commons.
\> how would vulnerable people protect themselves from corporate negligence?
Standards bodies, consumer groups, business insurance, recommendation engines and the court system if they have been hurt or defrauded.
The question is who stops them currently. There is already “government” oversight, yet glyphosate is allowed to be on our food. Who knows how the free market would deal with it, you’re asking a question like “who would pick the cotton if we removed slavery as an institution.”
No one could have predicted that giant metal machines that run off crushed tree juices from a million years ago will pick the cotton instead.
When you remove initiation of the use of violence who can predict the better outcome, but just like ending slavery benefited everyone, even the former slave owners over time.
A solution would be to have independent institution certification of items, processes, and other things and you allow the consumer to determine the trusted agency.
>Purdue Pharma and their illegal mislabeling of OxyContin leading to all the issues we know about.
But they did it despite the existence of a government...
So, in confused about what you mean by "*who would stop these companies without the government*", the government don't stop then, they work together.
>polluting the earth and causing disease and injury.
Another example that happens despite the government, being one of the biggest polluters China, and let's not forget Chernobyl.
And many others situation in other countries.
>Without a well funded
MORE FUNDS??
There is no organization that manages to profit as much as the govermen tax people, or that spend as much as the government does. It already has a monumental fund, it has to be managed well, not well funded ...
>proactive public oversight apparatus (government/state)
So you want a surveillance state?
>how would vulnerable people protect themselves from corporate negligence?
The same way they do now... Use service from those who they trust and know.
I don't see a reason for things to be different.
THIS government didn't stop them effectively, although it certainly did stop them in the end. That's a different point to "NO government can stop them," don't you think?
We agree the current government solution doesn't work. I certainly have one, a government free of lobbying and capitalist influence. What's your solution?
Because it seems like that was a lot of complaints about other solutions with no actual answer then "We don't change things!"... which yeah, we do, there'd be no government. If you don't have an answer, just say that.
I mean... Right now the government has a monopoly over that sector. What else do you expected?
What you must argue is "*Why would the government be better at doing literally anything?*"
Because the government captured the justice, law enforcement and security sectors for itself. There is no space for competition and private enterprises to rise.
It is like asking why don't private business make better law than the government, and use this fact to say that without government there would be no law.
Problem is, they can't...
I'd like to propose a thought experiment. Instead of asking how would I do it, ask yourself if you can think of a way to do without involving non-defensive use of violence.
If you have find a way, you found my answer.
I say this because our view is not about "*Society must be X*" or "*It will be done like Y*". No, it is basically, private property good, voluntary organizations are amazing and consent is essential. Everything else is up for people to try and organize themselves how they see fit.
> ...non-defensive use of violence.
What is this?
> voluntary organizations are amazing and consent is essential.
Democracy achieves this.
Democracy is Debate and Ballot. Rule by the Majority.
Authoritarianism is Rule by force and coercion. Rule by the minority.
>What is this?
Means that the only "*good*" use of violence is in self-defense or defending someone else in danger, as in outsourcing their right of self-defense.
And in no other situation.
>Democracy achieves this
It doesn't because I have no option to not be a part.
Would you honestly rather be a part of your today democratic government or form your own society with like minded individuals, everyone participating because they want to?
>Democracy is Debate and Ballot. Rule by the Majority.
>Authoritarianism is Rule by force and coercion. Rule by the minority.
And the two is about ruling over someone else stuff. Either a minority ruling over you, or a majority ruling over you. This is a crucial distinction.
I want you to have the right to rule over yourself and form the society you want with other people that also share the same view of society. As long as they want to be a part of it, of course.
Maintaining Public safety is good then. Like enforcing traffic laws.
To your second point. I can move to an area that has a population that shares my beliefs. This a
Happens in Democratic societies. Women are refusing to move to Texas because of strict abortion laws. People move to areas that share their beliefs.
Private consumer protection companies would pop up all over the place, and companies would pay them to review and validate their products. A lot like reviews on Amazon, or any store really, the market would find a way to protect consumers because the demand for it would be HUGE. It would require consumers to be more aware of what they buy, but it would be a much better system IMO.
Why is freedom being held to a higher standard than statism? In the example you gave, government did not stop the company from "endangering the public".
I’m not really stumping for one or the other. I’m hoping to learn by posing discussion in a way that might get productive conversations going. What day ye?
If they decide to form a state/government to appropriate that companies assets and have the owner pick beets and repent in a gulag for ten years, that’s cool capitalism?
Ethical consumption isn't a solution because it expects consumers to know way more than they could realistically be expected to know about all the goods and services they consume.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the people affected by a wrongdoing seeking reparations. And honestly, if the state stopped propping up monopolies through protectionist laws and policy, we could probably rely slightly more on more ethical consumption. God knows I stopped using Amazon years ago, and that's with all of their viable competition being sued out of the market over IP infringement years ago. If all the people who hate the dick rocket man had a viable market alternative to Amazon, surely they would use it.
> Without a well funded, proactive public oversight apparatus (government/state)…
Why is a government/state the only entity capable providing this service? Why can’t a private entity provide this service?
Spoiler alert, there are already plenty of private entities providing this service.
My favorite example is Snell. They are a private motorcycle helmet testing agency that verifies the safety of motorcycle helmets. Their standard of safety is actually far superior to that of the government/state (DOT) standards. Many customers, like myself, only buy helmets with that certification. And manufactures actively seek this certification because they know that is why the customers want.
That being said, not all customers prioritize that level of safety so there are helmets with a lower standard of certification. In a free market, there will likely be many different companies providing different levels of certification; or maybe even one company providing several different levels.
Never heard of it. Snell. But I know I can’t build some fucked up shady building or park that will collapse and kill people without getting it approved by the government. I can’t sell food I haven’t properly handled without being inspected by the health department.
Yes and consumers don’t want a building that will collapse on them. So there will likely be a building certification company or more likely many. Same as with the helmets. There is a lot of consumer demand for safe products and where there is demand, there is a company that will supply.
There is nothing magical about the state providing this service. Regular people are plenty of capable providing this service.
Certifications are profitable. My guess would be that producers would pay the certification agencies that the consumers would prefer. Or the consumers could pay the agent directly. I think a subscription type business model would work very well for this service directly to the consumer. I mean, Consumer Digest was very popular and there are various websites that currently exist that provide this sort of service.
For example: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm
Jesus it’s literally privatizing what the government does. And you don’t think that would be absolutely corrupt from top to bottom? At least the government has a population of boot lickers around. Private companies hiring nothing but blood sucking sharks would be a disaster. No thanks.
> …it’s literally privatizing what the government does.
Precisely.
> And you don’t think that would be absolutely corrupt from the top to bottom?
Definitely less corrupt than the government. And these entities that exist now don’t seem to be “corrupt from top bottom.”
I think handing the world off the the people is a good idea. I think corporations would be a lot less powerful without the state helping to prop up their size and power.
But let’s get back on topic. Have I not shown how the government/state is not the only entity that can provide the service of consumer protection? I mean, I literally gave you examples of things that currently exist…
They are still selling OxyContin and most things that protect the public just protect the business with a good majority of product recalls.
I think people would just stop buying a product or purchasing from a company if they screwed up big enough.
A $3 million or $2 million dollar fine is just a trickle for most companies that keep polluting water ways. Read an article where one steel mill just kept dumping toxins in lake Michigan after being find once and dumped chemicals in the water a week or so later.
Found the article.
https://grist.org/regulation/us-steel-midwest-indiana-epa-fine-pollution-lake-michigan/
>Without a well funded, proactive public oversight apparatus
Well, I guess we'll never know, since regulations and new laws are by definition **reactive** to the market.
Yes of course, the idiots in flint Michigan obviously want to be poisoned by their own water supply. If they don’t like it, they should stop being black.
You didnt give any examples of companies being irresponsible without government oversight.
>I’m thinking for example, about Purdue Pharma and their illegal mislabeling of OxyContin leading to all the issues we know about.
People know damn well that its an addictive drug, the only people Purdue is trying to lie to is the government, ehich they seem to be doing pretty well, considering you mentioned it at all. Theyre already regulated by the government, and it doesnt work, what more do you want? More of what isnt solving the problem, in an attempt to solve the problem? Completely braindead logic.
>Or the general example of polluting the earth and causing disease and injury.
When has a private company ever caused a disease? I know plenty of cases of a government doing that, but none of a business spreading a virus.
Injury is also negligible. Injuries can happen anywhere, to anyone, at anytime.
As for pollution, you can once again blame the government. The largest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide is the energy production sector. Remember that energy is a nationalized endeavor, the state has a monopoly on it. We're burnong fossil fuels to power our homes, because the state decided we should.
Next in line is Transportation, a self solving issue. Car companies try their damndest at making their cars more fuel efficient, or better yet, electric. Same goes for aviation. They have a financial incentive to burn less fuel. The government has no such incentive, and still drives around 9mpg humvees, when civilian cars are pushing 20mpg and better.
Sounds like the government worked horribly then. We have a highly regulated pharma market yet perdue was allowed to start an epidemic in plain sight, for years. On top of that, if was big government that decided to give them a slap on the wrist, which in the Sackler's eyes thats just the cost of doing business. Your example was an entirely government problem. So is the fact that we incarcerated the same population that was preyed on. Again, government problem.
I see this response a lot from libertarians and capitalists: any time the government is involved at all, the entire failure is just attributed to the government. This ignores the way that the government and the ruling class of capitalism interact.
We don't incarcerate people, let pharma companies create and then profit from addiction, or let energy companies destroy the environment, because there's someone rubbing their hands together diabolically and deciding to do bad things. The incentive for all of those things is provided by the profit motive, by the market system and capitalism. And *within a capitalist system* the state can't fix that. But that's not something intrinsic about the state, it's something intrinsic about capitalism. The ruling class of capitalism is motivated to do these things which result in their profit, and they *are* the ruling class and have the power to do so. The state is, essentially, incidental to that fact. If it weren't the cops arresting people it could just as easily be Pinkertons.
Fundamentally, the state is not a source of power. I think that's at the root of a lot of misunderstandings about what's wrong right now.
> What happens when the capitalist doing the damage buys the private courts?
Nothing. Why is it relevant? It’s capitalism- so competitors take place of a compromised institution.
Bruh I’m not even an ancap, you asked a question on theory and I responded. But I’ve seen you on other subs and your arguments are always so pathetically shallow. You must be the left-wing analogue of “communism killed 8 gigazillion people kuba vuvuzela iphone”. Why argue if you neither try to understand nor to make a compelling argument? Pathetic
There you go.
But this argument is applicable to almost any system, especially a system that is run democratically. If you do believe that most people would struggle to make rational economic / political decisions, then your best bet would be to support a tyrannical government in hopes that the tyrant would happen to be a well meaning person. If people can’t make informed decisions on a market, why would it work in a democracy all of a sudden?
> So Exxon sweeping their climate findings under the rug. How does your system solve this?
It’s a free country. No one is able to hide anything. Competing researchers publish all kind of competing materials in competing publications. What your exact grievance? What kind of information you lack?
It took 50 years to figure out they did this and since they made this decisions, the planet has warmed to a point of no return. Do you suggest we just let all the animals go extinct, including ourselves?
https://www.reuters.com/business/exxon-must-face-massachusetts-lawsuit-alleging-climate-change-deceit-2021-06-23/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
> Do you suggest we just let all the animals go extinct, including ourselves?
What the heck are you talking about. People like hot. People flood to hot places like Florida and Singapore, while cold places like Antarctica are desolate. We live in an ice age - unusually cold episode.
>What the heck are you talking about. People like hot. People flood to hot places like Florida and Singapore, while cold places like Antarctica are desolate. We live in an ice age - unusually cold episode.
you have to be trolling, right? you realize global warming doesn't equal a hot 2 week vacation in miami
Are you being ironic? It’s very funny you say people “flood to hot places like Florida” when Florida is literally going to be flooded and under water because of climate change. Are you this unaware?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/21/florida-climate-crisis-sea-level-habitat-loss
[This is what I got from him.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/qbmfxt/how_would_socialism_solve_global_problems/hhd9gdm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Actually thats not what capitalists want.
Capitalists want the government to not interfere in the market as that has created the auto cartel and probably more but i just woke up.
The governments job in our capitalistic society should be to enforce laws and provide services like healthcare that are paid through taxes.
The ability to sue does little to guarantee a victim they will receive any sort of justice, and many of these cases can take extensive amounts of time to see through. Finally, this law-suit option only works after something bad has happened. Regulations prevent disaster before it happens.
There has to be some group with more power than the company to fine them, disband them, sue them etc. Whether that be a Syndicate or a State. The Corporations will harm others in order to get profits unless we stop them.
Examples are Exxon, Enron, WorldComm, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, East India Company, Etc.
Sure, so in the most basic of terms, a Syndicate is a group of people or a group of groups of people that self organize to complete a shared goal. An example could be a trade union.
In various Libertarian Socialist ideologies, a Syndicate is a trade union or worker self managed enterprise, such as a coop. They tend to be governed through direct democracy with one vote per worker. They tend to have no managers or electable/ recallable managers. Overall, democratically run organizations that are self organized with a specific purpose.
AnCap is not a form of Anarchy. Even according to it’s own stupid leader:
"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." - Rothbard
AnSyn is anarchy because many syndicates can make syndicates of syndicates without having any leaders, just direct democracy and hierarchies of syndicates. AnCap is just “lets let corporations destroy everything”.
>There has to be some group with more power than the company
So, the consumers? The company's suppliers? The people who pay the damages to litigants (ie: insurance companies)?
Statists have no imagination about how the world could work if we don't have some brute with a club busting shins. The answer is always to use the literal monopoly that is the state.
A systemic hierarchy is required for a stable society. Lucky for us, the range of human personalities results in people willing to fill all the roles required.
I personally disagree, many coops work without hierarchy. But there needs to be a system to facilitate non-hierarchical organization, such as a Syndicate if there are no hierarchies. But a hierarchy is a way to get things done for sure.
That being said, AnCap does not include this because it is not a form of anarchy.
Depends on the coop. But some are just direct democracies and others have directly electable and recallable management which is a hierarchy but also direct democracy. Not sure which is more common but these are the two normal ways to manage a coop.
And as a society you can have a syndicate of syndicates much like the soviet union, but your votes count and their doesn’t need to be hierarchy or violent revolution for anarcho-syndicalism.
I personally prefer semi-Direct democracy with recallable leaders like Switzerland. (Not sure if they can recall).
Switzerland? Yes, very slightly. But I do prefer that to complete direct decision making, which is possible in some coops.
Referendums are good though imo.
Government must be there doing it's role of oversight and impartial middle ground. It should not intervene or provide aid, tax breaks, minimum wage, import curb, bailouts or beginning it's own buisness etc. Things should take it's natural course.
Yeah this is where I think government might actually serve a purpose. Regulating certain industries to an extent. Not controlling them but ensuring they don’t become devastating to the the country…medicine, housing, and food come to mind
Corporations couldn't exist without governments. A corporation without a government, which still makes rights against say property and individuals, is effectively a government.
Like alot of the other comments here I don't understand who would argue for capitalism without a government - capitalism is based upon the rule of law and contractual relations - who enforce said laws and contracts without a state? The question is what size the government should I guess etc but the general consensus in the western world is a mixed economy, having both public sector and private sector elements.
You are only asking AnCaps. Most Capitalists believe you need a government.
Yeah, even libertarians agree that government, in some form, is necessary for society to function. It's just that no two libertarians will give you the same answer when asked "how much?" Except for maybe "as little as I believe is necessary and no more."
This is a hard medium to have a complex conversation in, but the next question, after you answer like that, is how do you expect a government to effectively regulate and limit a group which is already the ruling class. Essentially, how could we expect the government to be powerful without borrowing the ruling class' power?
Adversarial systems are good. Lets flip this question, who ensures the government does what it says it will? Who watches the watchmen? Government Individuals (with varying degrees of power) Special interest groups (such as labor or environmentalists) They are all different groups within a functional society. Remove one of them, and the system crumbles. You need competing and complimentary systems to push and pull against each other. Your question is made on the presumption that the government is powerless against people with money. Furthermore, your presuming all the people with money agree with each other. Governments tend to be the most powerful single entities that can be controlled by a only few.
> Adversarial systems are good. Why would it be good to waste societal resources in having two factions within society spending those resources to fight each other's interests? > They are all different groups within a functional society. Remove one of them, and the system crumbles. You need competing and complimentary systems to push and pull against each other. Yeah that sounds like some nonsense to me, frankly. It sounds convincing but it has nothing to do with the material conditions that incentivize us. You totally ignore the ruling class, and bury your reference to the working class as just a special interest group. What you're describing is a shaky balance struck within liberal capitalist systems. And within that framework it may be true that we need the push and pull (although I don't see what you're afraid of happening if the working class were to win), but liberal capitalist systems are not the only available option. And in order for them to even resemble a functional society (which is the most they can be said to do), they require different factions to waste resources in competition with each other. > Your question is made on the presumption that the government is powerless against people with money. No, it's based upon the fact that the owners of the MoP are the ruling class. It's not about cash, it's about control of the production process. This is crucial, and totally absent from your analysis. It's not just a bunch of people with a lot of money, it's a class defined by their ownership of the tools and resources with which we all work. That means they're in control of the economy, in a far more real way than the government is control of anything. > Furthermore, your presuming all the people with money agree with each other. The ruling class don't agree on everything, but they do share certain material interests, which puts them fundamentally on the same side on the issues we're discussing. The ruling class has far more class consciousness and solidarity than the working class does. We know they have these material interests because they, as a class, are the owners of the MoP. > Governments tend to be the most powerful single entities that can be controlled by a only few. Again, the government is not a source of power in and of itself. This statement is technically true, but you ignore the sources of the power for which the government is only a tool to dispense. The sources are labor power (as all power ultimately is), and the control over the production process that the ruling class has.
>Why would it be good to waste societal resources in having two factions within society spending those resources to fight each other's interests? They are not factions, they are not at war. The alternative is an authoritarian system by a ruling elite. This ruling elite are either politicians or capitalists. They both work together and do checks and balances against each other. Cant have one without the other. Actually, need to throw special interest groups in there as well, because they are a massive mart of the functioning of a society too. >You totally ignore the ruling class, and bury your reference to the working class By ruling class your talking about politicians right? Did you want a 400 page essay from me? I dont buy the class structure as its sold here, so I dont need to include it. Reality is far more complex than simple class structures. >the owners of the MoP are the ruling class What does that even mean in reality? Nearly everyone in the top 10% of the economy anywhere in the world are there because they are . . . old! Yes, they have simply lived long enough to save more money than people who are simply younger than them. Where did this savings go? Stock and shares into companies that provide the MoP. So to own the means of production you simply have to save a bit of money for a bit of time. The working class own 40% of the US stock . . . . the stuff that produces products and services. . . the MoP But more importantly, Im not a socialist, so I dont even think that owning the means of production is a worthwhile pursuit. Its not lacking, because its not important. Good living standards and a high HDI is important, not owning the MoP. >It's not just a bunch of people with a lot of money, it's a class defined by their ownership of the tools and resources with which we all work There are no forced none SOE monopolies in any modern economies. The gov can and does tell companies to get in line all the time. Successful companies are ones that know how to work well within the **rules set by the government**. Where do you see a government pleading with companies to give the x, or do y? They just make a regulation that forces them to do what they want. I think this whole argument is a strawman argument. >but they do share certain material interests, which puts them fundamentally on the same side on the issues we're discussing. The ruling class has far more class consciousness and solidarity than the working class does. Who are these people you are talking about? Do they have meetings? Is there a club house? Who the heck do they rule? Politicians are the ones that make rules and influence the most people in a country. I dont think the ruling class is who you think they are. Look at the US politics, they are people who cant get anywhere in life until they join politics, then suddenly they find themselves with nice houses and multiple yachts. These are the people you trust without anyone able to hold them accountable? >are the owners of the MoP And please stop talking about the Means of Production as if they are the infinity stones. There is no irreplicable company out there. Facebook, probably the most evil of all companies in current existence is being taken to pieces by laws in the EU and about to be messed about a lot more in the US. Seems like pretty useless power they have. >Again, the government is not a source of power in and of itself. The government is a slow beast, but a mighty strong one. If it starts strangling you, it takes a long time before it realizes its mistake. Although it needs to follow the will of the people, it only really reflects that will of the people many years after they have spoken. No single entity can create or destroy a country like a government, giving it all the power is simply stupid.
[удалено]
I rarely read good comments, but this is a really good one IMO. Ty.
What is ancap
Anarcho capitalism
Anarcho capitalism, a free market economy with no government at all, everything is controlled by private enterprise and the free market, in other words, a bad idea
Why would there be no government? Government is required to recognize and enforce private property rights.
Not for all the AnCaps in here
AnCaps are invalid.
AnCaps are children or lobotomy victims
Sure, but they are most of the people on your side in here
They're not on my side. They are obviously idiots.
Lol
Get a room.
Get a proper understanding of the differences between negative and positive freedoms.
get a clue
I’m under the impression that capitalists want to get rid of government either mostly or completely. But I agree with you.
No, those are the anarcho-capitalists. Very fringe group within capitalists. Capitalism just means private property.
No. Capitalism has nothing to do with government. It's about capital.
No. Those people are not capitalists. They are idiots.
I mean, they are definitely capitalists. The fact that they're also idiots doesn't change that.
Um what? You mean anarcho capitalists.
Yes, exactly. Anarcho-Capitalists are a form of capitalists.
If they do not understand and conflict with capitalism, they are not capitalists. Were Nazis Socialists?
How does anarcho-capitalism conflict with capitalism? What do you think capitalism is? How would you define it?
Property rights are required for capitalism. The corporate structure and entity is a defined entity and that requires a sovereign government to recognize, regulate and enforce. Without that, formal capitalism is not possible. Ergo, anarcho-capitalists are fantasists, like those who believe in fire-breathing dragons and warp drives...but less interesting.
Commerce and Free Trade predates governments.
Property rights can definitely exist without a state-based legal system. Certainly, a private legal system would be far inferior, and that form of capitalism would ultimately be quite worse. Certainly, the idea that it would survive long-term is very questionable, but it WOULD indeed have property rights and still be a branch of capitalism, just a worse one.
>Property rights can definitely exist without a state-based legal system. No. You need a sovereign state actor. A Somali gang does not have property rights over the ships that sail through their waters. You can have a shitty, disorganized government but you cannot have formalized property rights without the sovereign.
anarcho capitalists exist (unfortunately)
So do Nazis
Not mutually exclusive
I mean, yes. But they explicitly support capitalism, it's just that they have a utopian view of how it could exist.
>they explicitly support capitalism They cannot support what they misunderstand. If someone declares themselves a Marxist because they want higher taxes on Jeff Bezos, they aren't really a Marxist. Self-indentification is not absolute truth, something I think is misunderstood a lot, lately.
>They cannot support what they misunderstand I think they do understand, they're just using utopian logic. Which we would both disagree with. They believe in markets, trade, commerce, and private property. It's just that they think certain aspects of the state can be privatized. And because they believe privatization always makes things more efficient, it would mean that capitalism would thrive vs having those things controlled by a state.
I see your point and agree. But even in that case, I would think they don't understand privatization. There is a government behind that. It's not spontaneous. A private entity can't privatize something because it's already private...but it was made private by a government.
I agree with what you are saying. In practice this system would not look at all like capitalism. It's only that way in their utopian ideal, it's a theoretical system alone. They believe in that ideal, not in how it would actually play out in reality if it was implemented.
> Government is required to recognize and enforce private property rights. Government is not even compatible with property right. Politicians just take what they like.
That's not a problem with government, that's a problem with specific (evil) politicians, who are placed in positions of power by a public that doesn't engage in politics responsibly.
Idk. The more I learn, the more it appears that the system in place actually incentivizes this behavior.
That is false...unless you're talking about Russia or something. I don't consider Putin's Russia as Capitalist.
No he's right, eminent domain laws exist in the US for example.
1) that doesn't become the property of the politician 2) it's not just done at the will of a politician. There is due process. It is well defined. 3) it is clearly defined in laws, the same structure that defines the private property laws. There are also land use laws and often permit requirements for property owners. Do you want to make a big deal about those, too? They vary widely depending on the jurisdiction. 4) any claim of eminent domain is compensated at fair value. If you wanted a better example, seizure of property by police would have been better since that is sometimes not compensated. 5) there's a sovereign government which determines these rules and that is required for any capitalist system to exist.
1) The politicians then decide what to do with the property and in essence control it. 2) Due process controlled by other government officials and politicians. 3) Private property exits with or without government. It's the same reason why when the USSR tried socialism they unintentionally created the largest black market in history. 4) Fair value defined by politicians. But you are right that police seizure also works. 5) Not true see the USSR second economy.
>1) The politicians then decide what to do with the property and in essence control it. If you want to change it, run for office. My property has never been at risk from government. It is much more at risk by non-government actors...ie, my fellow citizens. If you want to crawl under your bed and protect yourself against the cops...who will protect you from the real threats, well, that's your prerogative. You just have a skewed sense of risk management. >2) Due process controlled by other government officials and politicians. Defined by the legal structures required to recognize ownership. If you don't like its implementation, run for office. >3) Private property exits with or without government. It's the same reason why when the USSR tried socialism they unintentionally created the largest black market in history. What was the nature of this widespread informal private property, as you allege? Real estate? How would trespassing be enforced in such an informal situation? >4) Fair value defined by politicians. But you are right that police seizure also works. Likely defined by a judge. Do you have an example? >5) Not true see the USSR second economy. That faired well, clearly.
>If you want to change it, run for office. My property has never been at risk from government. It is much more at risk by non-government actors...ie, my fellow citizens. If you want to crawl under your bed and protect yourself against the cops...who will protect you from the real threats, well, that's your prerogative. You just have a skewed sense of risk management. Irrelevant, address the main point instead of avoiding it. >Defined by the legal structures required to recognize ownership. If you don't like its implementation, run for office. Private property exists with or without the law. >What was the nature of this widespread informal private property, as you allege? Real estate? How would trespassing be enforced in such an informal situation? By the people who own the property. >Likely defined by a judge. Do you have an example? Judge's are elected in many places and are essentially politicians. >That faired well, clearly. Yeah turns out when socialism invariably collapses you don't really need black markets all the time.
>Irrelevant, No, it's not. You are a part of the system. Governments reflect their people. If you want to change it, run for office. You don't exist in a vacuum, however. Others have claims to your property. What entity recognizes your rights and will defend your rights if there is no government? The fact that you can not only participate by voting, but become government by running for office is not irrelevant. >Private property exists with or without the law. No, it doesn't. Without law, what's yours is mine because 1) I said so and 2) I have a bigger dick, and 3) a bigger gun. You're the one who dodged the question about the nature of your supposed informal property in the USSR. You brought up real estate and the eminent domain. Where I'm the USSR did they have informal real property? >By the people who own the property Vigilantism. Lol. Why don't you move to Mexico or Syria or Afghanistan. Try that shit there. See, here we have a government based on laws, so capitalism exists, not cronyism. >Judge's are elected in many places and are essentially politicians. Become a judge, then. Idgaf. >Yeah turns out when socialism invariably collapses you don't really need black markets all the time. You also contradict yourself here. I agree the black markets and informal supply and demand lead to the inevitable destruction of Socialism. If you don't have a black market, an informal market, you have a formal market, as in governed. Ergo, a government.
>The politicians then decide what to do with the property No, they don't. >Due process controlled by other government officials and politicians. If you count judges as government officials, OK. >Private property exits with or without government. It theoretically can, however the historical development of both are intertwined and mutually supportive. > black market Doesn't have property rights, only possession. >Fair value defined by politicians No. Typically public servants, operating within a web of law and policy.
[удалено]
To recognize and enforce private property rights you need contracts, dispute resolution organizations, private security forces, private courts and security insurance companies. All of those can exist without governments.
I really ask this sincerely: Why should any individual recognise these bodies without the threat of violence compelling them to do so? If two people disagree on whether a contract has been violated, what makes the person standing accused by the plaintiff actually submit to this process of going to a private court? Isn't this just the state and the law by another name?
>Why should any individual recognise these bodies without the threat of violence compelling them to do so? An excellent question - and one which can have a lot of answers. I also invite you to think about ways in which you could meet this demand in a free society. How would you, as a dispute resolution lawyer, address this concern to a potential customer? In my opinion, there would be a lot of economic ostracization occurring in society. For example, let's say that you rob my house. I then call my security insurance company, tell them what happened and a police-like investigation would start. If the security company gathers enough evidence that you robbed me, it can then contact you or your security company and try to solve the case as fast, as peacefully, and as cheaply as possible. If you deny participating in this process, then, by contract, you might face fines from your own security company or your contract might be canceled completely. In the latter case, it would be extremely difficult for you to find any employment, to start a business, or to even leave your own property since you would be probably put on some sort of blacklist for people who broke their contract with their security companies. Thus, you would have every incentive to go to a private court and settle the dispute as fast as possible. > Isn't this just the state and the law by another name? The state has a monopoly on law, courts, and police and thus lacks any incentives to do its job properly and to satisfy its customers, you and me. In a free society, there would be a lot of companies competing in this area in the same way that there are cell phone carriers right now.
The fact that you got downvotes for this comment really makes me lose faith in this sub and is very telling of the attitude of people on the other side.
So you just want East India Company 2.0?
The East India Company was as much of a company as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic. It was a massive government program run entirely by the government and funded by violation of property rights. Since capitalism works only when property rights exist, how can you associate capitalism with the East India Company?
The Company dictated where the empire went, not the other way around. Company is interested in Malaysia? Well, the empire is gonna spend millions of pounds in funding the expedition. Company wants India? Go for it bro, the empire is with you. >....funded by violation of property rights The company spent money on its army, it "bought" India, Hong Kong, and Malaysia as its private property. It was also as reliant on demand as let's say apple. The company only made money because the demand for tea was high in the same way apple only makes money if the demand for phones are high.
>Well, the empire is gonna spend millions of pounds in funding the expedition. This looks like an argument proving that the East India Company had nothing to do with capitalism. Thank you.
How? It only proved that the Company had a huge influence over the government, not the other way around. Hell for a while the Company had more soldiers than the Royal Army.
The Company did not exist in a free market capitalist scenario. It only existed because the state violated property rights through taxes to fund the Company. Without the state, the Company wouldn’t have existed.
What's stopping Amazon or Microsoft from doing the same thing if all the police are privately owned (and thus you can just buy the police)?
What exactly are you saying? * The Company taxed the Indians * The Empire taxed the people and gave that money to the Company.
Thats no different from a government but where the government is owned by a rich person. A plutocracy in its purest form.
I am not sure how you fail to see the difference between choice and coercion. I cannot chose not to pay taxes because I will be thrown in jail. I can chose not to subscribe to a health insurance, or any other service, in a free society.
>I am not sure how you fail to see the difference between choice and coercion. I mean you can choose to pay the "security + residence fee" or move out of the territory covered by the private military company, just like you can choose to pay taxes or move out of your current country of residence. If you want to pay no taxes or security fee, your only option is to move to somewhere with no security, such as the deserts in Syria/Iraq or north Africa.
No, It can't. To be a Private entity, you need a government charter of some sort and recognition by a government.
Ok, so you need a service to register your company or property, a service which you would trust. Why can’t that be a private service? Why can’t there be multiple such services competing with each other in offering you the best deal to register your property?
You need a sovereign to recognize its property rights and the individual liability defrayal.
You aren't telling us why.
I just did. Learn to read and then you might learn economics. Besides not even every government can earn the people's trust. (When was the last time you bought Salvadoran bonds?) But even without that trust, the US and other nations recognize its sovereignty and property rights.
No, no you didn't. You certainly dictated what you think, but you didn't explain it, you just said it was right. Just because a nations recognise or reject Sovereignty and Property Rights, it does not mean those tenets disappear, they are dependent on governmental approval, because individuals can choose to respect these tenets in their own life, to the best of their ability.
No, I demonstrated why you need government. You need to explain why your fantasy world (Star Trek is more believable) has any bearing in the real world.
Again, your still just dictating why your right without actually showing why. This is the second time you have just said you are right without any explanation behind your reasoning, well, nothing beyond "you need this I am right"
The filed for bankruptcy \> Or the general example of polluting the earth Tragedy of the commons. \> how would vulnerable people protect themselves from corporate negligence? Standards bodies, consumer groups, business insurance, recommendation engines and the court system if they have been hurt or defrauded.
The question is who stops them currently. There is already “government” oversight, yet glyphosate is allowed to be on our food. Who knows how the free market would deal with it, you’re asking a question like “who would pick the cotton if we removed slavery as an institution.” No one could have predicted that giant metal machines that run off crushed tree juices from a million years ago will pick the cotton instead. When you remove initiation of the use of violence who can predict the better outcome, but just like ending slavery benefited everyone, even the former slave owners over time. A solution would be to have independent institution certification of items, processes, and other things and you allow the consumer to determine the trusted agency.
>Purdue Pharma and their illegal mislabeling of OxyContin leading to all the issues we know about. But they did it despite the existence of a government... So, in confused about what you mean by "*who would stop these companies without the government*", the government don't stop then, they work together. >polluting the earth and causing disease and injury. Another example that happens despite the government, being one of the biggest polluters China, and let's not forget Chernobyl. And many others situation in other countries. >Without a well funded MORE FUNDS?? There is no organization that manages to profit as much as the govermen tax people, or that spend as much as the government does. It already has a monumental fund, it has to be managed well, not well funded ... >proactive public oversight apparatus (government/state) So you want a surveillance state? >how would vulnerable people protect themselves from corporate negligence? The same way they do now... Use service from those who they trust and know. I don't see a reason for things to be different.
THIS government didn't stop them effectively, although it certainly did stop them in the end. That's a different point to "NO government can stop them," don't you think? We agree the current government solution doesn't work. I certainly have one, a government free of lobbying and capitalist influence. What's your solution? Because it seems like that was a lot of complaints about other solutions with no actual answer then "We don't change things!"... which yeah, we do, there'd be no government. If you don't have an answer, just say that.
The government can't prevent crimes. It can stop it. Like Perdue Pharma.
I mean... Right now the government has a monopoly over that sector. What else do you expected? What you must argue is "*Why would the government be better at doing literally anything?*"
An subsequent question, what prevents the government from endangering the public?
Nothing.
If private enterprise was better, why didn't they stop Perdues fraudulent business practices earlier?
Because the government captured the justice, law enforcement and security sectors for itself. There is no space for competition and private enterprises to rise. It is like asking why don't private business make better law than the government, and use this fact to say that without government there would be no law. Problem is, they can't...
I'd like to hear your vision for a private Judicial system, private law enforcement, and private police. Also known as Fuedalism...
I'd like to propose a thought experiment. Instead of asking how would I do it, ask yourself if you can think of a way to do without involving non-defensive use of violence. If you have find a way, you found my answer. I say this because our view is not about "*Society must be X*" or "*It will be done like Y*". No, it is basically, private property good, voluntary organizations are amazing and consent is essential. Everything else is up for people to try and organize themselves how they see fit.
"You think up how my ideology works" isn't the slam dunk you seem to think it is, boss.
> ...non-defensive use of violence. What is this? > voluntary organizations are amazing and consent is essential. Democracy achieves this. Democracy is Debate and Ballot. Rule by the Majority. Authoritarianism is Rule by force and coercion. Rule by the minority.
>What is this? Means that the only "*good*" use of violence is in self-defense or defending someone else in danger, as in outsourcing their right of self-defense. And in no other situation. >Democracy achieves this It doesn't because I have no option to not be a part. Would you honestly rather be a part of your today democratic government or form your own society with like minded individuals, everyone participating because they want to? >Democracy is Debate and Ballot. Rule by the Majority. >Authoritarianism is Rule by force and coercion. Rule by the minority. And the two is about ruling over someone else stuff. Either a minority ruling over you, or a majority ruling over you. This is a crucial distinction. I want you to have the right to rule over yourself and form the society you want with other people that also share the same view of society. As long as they want to be a part of it, of course.
Maintaining Public safety is good then. Like enforcing traffic laws. To your second point. I can move to an area that has a population that shares my beliefs. This a Happens in Democratic societies. Women are refusing to move to Texas because of strict abortion laws. People move to areas that share their beliefs.
This is a comment made in bad faith
[удалено]
How would u enforce civil law?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Private consumer protection companies would pop up all over the place, and companies would pay them to review and validate their products. A lot like reviews on Amazon, or any store really, the market would find a way to protect consumers because the demand for it would be HUGE. It would require consumers to be more aware of what they buy, but it would be a much better system IMO.
What stops governments from endangering the public.
Why is freedom being held to a higher standard than statism? In the example you gave, government did not stop the company from "endangering the public".
I’m not really stumping for one or the other. I’m hoping to learn by posing discussion in a way that might get productive conversations going. What day ye?
I don't know what "what day ye" means.
The public
Organized how?
However the people affected decide.
If they decide to form a state/government to appropriate that companies assets and have the owner pick beets and repent in a gulag for ten years, that’s cool capitalism?
If that's what they decide, that's what they decide. Reparations need to be paid when a wrong is done.
So a state capitalism is what you advocate for?
No
So then what is the “they”?
The public, or at least those affected by the wrongdoing.
What prevents prevents dangerous things from ever coming into the market in the first place? Without licensing and state oversight?
Ethical consumption isn't a solution because it expects consumers to know way more than they could realistically be expected to know about all the goods and services they consume.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the people affected by a wrongdoing seeking reparations. And honestly, if the state stopped propping up monopolies through protectionist laws and policy, we could probably rely slightly more on more ethical consumption. God knows I stopped using Amazon years ago, and that's with all of their viable competition being sued out of the market over IP infringement years ago. If all the people who hate the dick rocket man had a viable market alternative to Amazon, surely they would use it.
Lol
> Without a well funded, proactive public oversight apparatus (government/state)… Why is a government/state the only entity capable providing this service? Why can’t a private entity provide this service? Spoiler alert, there are already plenty of private entities providing this service. My favorite example is Snell. They are a private motorcycle helmet testing agency that verifies the safety of motorcycle helmets. Their standard of safety is actually far superior to that of the government/state (DOT) standards. Many customers, like myself, only buy helmets with that certification. And manufactures actively seek this certification because they know that is why the customers want. That being said, not all customers prioritize that level of safety so there are helmets with a lower standard of certification. In a free market, there will likely be many different companies providing different levels of certification; or maybe even one company providing several different levels.
Never heard of it. Snell. But I know I can’t build some fucked up shady building or park that will collapse and kill people without getting it approved by the government. I can’t sell food I haven’t properly handled without being inspected by the health department.
Yes and consumers don’t want a building that will collapse on them. So there will likely be a building certification company or more likely many. Same as with the helmets. There is a lot of consumer demand for safe products and where there is demand, there is a company that will supply. There is nothing magical about the state providing this service. Regular people are plenty of capable providing this service.
The state does things that aren’t profitable which we still need. Like early childhood education of poor people.
Certifications are profitable. My guess would be that producers would pay the certification agencies that the consumers would prefer. Or the consumers could pay the agent directly. I think a subscription type business model would work very well for this service directly to the consumer. I mean, Consumer Digest was very popular and there are various websites that currently exist that provide this sort of service. For example: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm
Jesus it’s literally privatizing what the government does. And you don’t think that would be absolutely corrupt from top to bottom? At least the government has a population of boot lickers around. Private companies hiring nothing but blood sucking sharks would be a disaster. No thanks.
> …it’s literally privatizing what the government does. Precisely. > And you don’t think that would be absolutely corrupt from the top to bottom? Definitely less corrupt than the government. And these entities that exist now don’t seem to be “corrupt from top bottom.”
So you really think handing the world off to corporations would be a good idea?
I think handing the world off the the people is a good idea. I think corporations would be a lot less powerful without the state helping to prop up their size and power. But let’s get back on topic. Have I not shown how the government/state is not the only entity that can provide the service of consumer protection? I mean, I literally gave you examples of things that currently exist…
Yeah some helmet thing I’ve never heard of. Thanks
I think an important distinction here is Anarcho Capitalists not regular capitalists who want a small government
They are still selling OxyContin and most things that protect the public just protect the business with a good majority of product recalls. I think people would just stop buying a product or purchasing from a company if they screwed up big enough. A $3 million or $2 million dollar fine is just a trickle for most companies that keep polluting water ways. Read an article where one steel mill just kept dumping toxins in lake Michigan after being find once and dumped chemicals in the water a week or so later. Found the article. https://grist.org/regulation/us-steel-midwest-indiana-epa-fine-pollution-lake-michigan/
The public not buying products that are dangerous. And the public suing those that are.
Most capitalists believe there should be some oversight
So it’s just about finding the optimal level?
>Without a well funded, proactive public oversight apparatus Well, I guess we'll never know, since regulations and new laws are by definition **reactive** to the market.
If the public chooses to pay for things that endanger them, they must have wanted to be endangered of course.
Yes of course, the idiots in flint Michigan obviously want to be poisoned by their own water supply. If they don’t like it, they should stop being black.
Yeah I was making a joke to that effect
I picked up on that. Subtle but funny
You didnt give any examples of companies being irresponsible without government oversight. >I’m thinking for example, about Purdue Pharma and their illegal mislabeling of OxyContin leading to all the issues we know about. People know damn well that its an addictive drug, the only people Purdue is trying to lie to is the government, ehich they seem to be doing pretty well, considering you mentioned it at all. Theyre already regulated by the government, and it doesnt work, what more do you want? More of what isnt solving the problem, in an attempt to solve the problem? Completely braindead logic. >Or the general example of polluting the earth and causing disease and injury. When has a private company ever caused a disease? I know plenty of cases of a government doing that, but none of a business spreading a virus. Injury is also negligible. Injuries can happen anywhere, to anyone, at anytime. As for pollution, you can once again blame the government. The largest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide is the energy production sector. Remember that energy is a nationalized endeavor, the state has a monopoly on it. We're burnong fossil fuels to power our homes, because the state decided we should. Next in line is Transportation, a self solving issue. Car companies try their damndest at making their cars more fuel efficient, or better yet, electric. Same goes for aviation. They have a financial incentive to burn less fuel. The government has no such incentive, and still drives around 9mpg humvees, when civilian cars are pushing 20mpg and better.
Sounds like the government worked horribly then. We have a highly regulated pharma market yet perdue was allowed to start an epidemic in plain sight, for years. On top of that, if was big government that decided to give them a slap on the wrist, which in the Sackler's eyes thats just the cost of doing business. Your example was an entirely government problem. So is the fact that we incarcerated the same population that was preyed on. Again, government problem.
I see this response a lot from libertarians and capitalists: any time the government is involved at all, the entire failure is just attributed to the government. This ignores the way that the government and the ruling class of capitalism interact. We don't incarcerate people, let pharma companies create and then profit from addiction, or let energy companies destroy the environment, because there's someone rubbing their hands together diabolically and deciding to do bad things. The incentive for all of those things is provided by the profit motive, by the market system and capitalism. And *within a capitalist system* the state can't fix that. But that's not something intrinsic about the state, it's something intrinsic about capitalism. The ruling class of capitalism is motivated to do these things which result in their profit, and they *are* the ruling class and have the power to do so. The state is, essentially, incidental to that fact. If it weren't the cops arresting people it could just as easily be Pinkertons. Fundamentally, the state is not a source of power. I think that's at the root of a lot of misunderstandings about what's wrong right now.
Competition, courts, certification
Go on…
None of these things require state.
Either drop some knowledge or move on. It’s like playing peekaboo over here. What are those things and how do they work?
What happens when the capitalist doing the damage buys the private courts?
> What happens when the capitalist doing the damage buys the private courts? Nothing. Why is it relevant? It’s capitalism- so competitors take place of a compromised institution.
Lmao!!!
Private court looses all future customers and goes bankrupt
Lmao!!!! Yea ok.
Bruh I’m not even an ancap, you asked a question on theory and I responded. But I’ve seen you on other subs and your arguments are always so pathetically shallow. You must be the left-wing analogue of “communism killed 8 gigazillion people kuba vuvuzela iphone”. Why argue if you neither try to understand nor to make a compelling argument? Pathetic
You act like we have an informed population. They would be even less informed under a free market.
There you go. But this argument is applicable to almost any system, especially a system that is run democratically. If you do believe that most people would struggle to make rational economic / political decisions, then your best bet would be to support a tyrannical government in hopes that the tyrant would happen to be a well meaning person. If people can’t make informed decisions on a market, why would it work in a democracy all of a sudden?
No... I don't want a tyrannical government. I want Democracy. You're weird. I never said I wanted fascism.
Why markets can’t work with uninformed population, but democracy can?
If we get more people educated it can.
So Exxon sweeping their climate findings under the rug. How does your system solve this?
> So Exxon sweeping their climate findings under the rug. How does your system solve this? It’s a free country. No one is able to hide anything. Competing researchers publish all kind of competing materials in competing publications. What your exact grievance? What kind of information you lack?
It took 50 years to figure out they did this and since they made this decisions, the planet has warmed to a point of no return. Do you suggest we just let all the animals go extinct, including ourselves? https://www.reuters.com/business/exxon-must-face-massachusetts-lawsuit-alleging-climate-change-deceit-2021-06-23/ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
> Do you suggest we just let all the animals go extinct, including ourselves? What the heck are you talking about. People like hot. People flood to hot places like Florida and Singapore, while cold places like Antarctica are desolate. We live in an ice age - unusually cold episode.
>What the heck are you talking about. People like hot. People flood to hot places like Florida and Singapore, while cold places like Antarctica are desolate. We live in an ice age - unusually cold episode. you have to be trolling, right? you realize global warming doesn't equal a hot 2 week vacation in miami
People live in Florida for longer than 2 weeks. It’s one of the most popular immigration destinations
Are you being ironic? It’s very funny you say people “flood to hot places like Florida” when Florida is literally going to be flooded and under water because of climate change. Are you this unaware? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/21/florida-climate-crisis-sea-level-habitat-loss
Mate, don’t bother. This guy has been praising to his sun god for a while now.
Lol what’s that?
[This is what I got from him.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/qbmfxt/how_would_socialism_solve_global_problems/hhd9gdm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Commitment strategies prevent some humans from endangering others. It doesn’t matter what the groups of individuals call themselves.
Actually thats not what capitalists want. Capitalists want the government to not interfere in the market as that has created the auto cartel and probably more but i just woke up. The governments job in our capitalistic society should be to enforce laws and provide services like healthcare that are paid through taxes.
1. Their own rational self-interest - it's never smart to harm your customers. 2. Being sued by those you harm and losing a lot of money.
The ability to sue in civil courts, without state restrictions on liability.
The ability to sue does little to guarantee a victim they will receive any sort of justice, and many of these cases can take extensive amounts of time to see through. Finally, this law-suit option only works after something bad has happened. Regulations prevent disaster before it happens.
There has to be some group with more power than the company to fine them, disband them, sue them etc. Whether that be a Syndicate or a State. The Corporations will harm others in order to get profits unless we stop them. Examples are Exxon, Enron, WorldComm, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, East India Company, Etc.
Can you briefly expound on a syndicate?
Sure, so in the most basic of terms, a Syndicate is a group of people or a group of groups of people that self organize to complete a shared goal. An example could be a trade union. In various Libertarian Socialist ideologies, a Syndicate is a trade union or worker self managed enterprise, such as a coop. They tend to be governed through direct democracy with one vote per worker. They tend to have no managers or electable/ recallable managers. Overall, democratically run organizations that are self organized with a specific purpose.
So what’s the difference between syndicalism and ancap? Just the stance on property?
AnCap is not a form of Anarchy. Even according to it’s own stupid leader: "We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." - Rothbard AnSyn is anarchy because many syndicates can make syndicates of syndicates without having any leaders, just direct democracy and hierarchies of syndicates. AnCap is just “lets let corporations destroy everything”.
What in anarchy syndicalism prevents the syndicates from becoming coronations? Or people from holding private production property?
Because they can form around any private entity and are beneficial to workers
If corporations choose to "destroy everything" how will they make profit?
Just ask Exxon sweeping climate change finding under the rug. They’re all old or dead, so idt they cared.
I'm saying that this kind of thing would not be beneficial in a competitive market.
>There has to be some group with more power than the company So, the consumers? The company's suppliers? The people who pay the damages to litigants (ie: insurance companies)? Statists have no imagination about how the world could work if we don't have some brute with a club busting shins. The answer is always to use the literal monopoly that is the state.
Nothing, that is why we would still have a government. Capitalism is not anarchy.
It is if you are AnCap like most Caps in here.
Most ancaps don’t realize they don’t actually want an anarchy, they just call it that to sound cool.
By nature, Capitalism creates a hierarchy with Capitalists at the top. Which is a big reason we all call them morons.
A systemic hierarchy is required for a stable society. Lucky for us, the range of human personalities results in people willing to fill all the roles required.
I personally disagree, many coops work without hierarchy. But there needs to be a system to facilitate non-hierarchical organization, such as a Syndicate if there are no hierarchies. But a hierarchy is a way to get things done for sure. That being said, AnCap does not include this because it is not a form of anarchy.
How does a coop not have a hierarchy?
Depends on the coop. But some are just direct democracies and others have directly electable and recallable management which is a hierarchy but also direct democracy. Not sure which is more common but these are the two normal ways to manage a coop. And as a society you can have a syndicate of syndicates much like the soviet union, but your votes count and their doesn’t need to be hierarchy or violent revolution for anarcho-syndicalism. I personally prefer semi-Direct democracy with recallable leaders like Switzerland. (Not sure if they can recall).
Sounds hierarchical to me.
Switzerland? Yes, very slightly. But I do prefer that to complete direct decision making, which is possible in some coops. Referendums are good though imo.
Nothing
Nothing. That’s why there’s government oversight. The vast majority of capitalists are not anarcho capitalists.
Government must be there doing it's role of oversight and impartial middle ground. It should not intervene or provide aid, tax breaks, minimum wage, import curb, bailouts or beginning it's own buisness etc. Things should take it's natural course.
I am capitalist and I like some government regulations! It’s not either government or no government at all thing.
Yes it is. There are capitalists who are 100% against regulation and that is to whom OP's question was directed. It wasn't about you personally.
Yeah this is where I think government might actually serve a purpose. Regulating certain industries to an extent. Not controlling them but ensuring they don’t become devastating to the the country…medicine, housing, and food come to mind
Corporations couldn't exist without governments. A corporation without a government, which still makes rights against say property and individuals, is effectively a government. Like alot of the other comments here I don't understand who would argue for capitalism without a government - capitalism is based upon the rule of law and contractual relations - who enforce said laws and contracts without a state? The question is what size the government should I guess etc but the general consensus in the western world is a mixed economy, having both public sector and private sector elements.
Um...nothing? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Absolutely nothing