Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lyonstt)
    Do you not think capitalism is a part of human nature? For example there are always people that are competitive etc.
    You can be competitive in many different things. There's also a difference between capital and capitalism. I think Lord Hysteria would be able to give you greater clarity but my problem with capitalism is that is the sole focus and measure of a person. Really, it shouldn't matter because all it really is is a substitute trading implement. And no, capitalism isn't a part of human nature because societies have existed without it, both prehistorically and in the present. There's a full list of anarchist communes on the first page actually.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lyonstt)
    Do you not think capitalism is a part of human nature? For example there are always people that are competitive etc.
    Well, for starters there's more to capitalism than competition, and actually I think there's much more to human nature than competition (to the extent that I think there's a thing that you can call 'human nature').
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lyonstt)
    Do you not think capitalism is a part of human nature? For example there are always people that are competitive etc.
    I will answer this question but note that there are classical anarchists (such as myself) who oppose capitalism and uphold a system of solidarity and free association and there are also capitalist anarchists who uphold a system of what will essentially be unfettered wage labour and private property.

    First of all, what is "human nature"? Humans can be kind, loving, co-operative, hard working and astute. On the other hand, they can be greedy, competitive, selfish, lazy and entirely unaware. This "human nature" 'tis a highly conflicting concept, no? In any case, has it not been the case for thousands of years that before society was industrialised the hunters and gathers would work together closely to gather food, build fires, secure shelter and hunt for food? Did we not work just as hard, if not harder together at a later stage to farm, collect harvest, maintain shelter and perform all the various back breaking tasks of agricultural life in order to provide for the local community?

    However, on the concept of competition, yes we would not supress competition as "to supress competition would be to supress liberty itself" - Proudhon.

    The question really is, won't humans compete to gain capital?

    Perhaps.

    However one must examine the consequences on which private accumulation of capital is actually possible. Under capitalism, private entities in the market are given the responsibility of calculating market values and organising the distribution of goods and services in a way that maximises profit. However this responsibility is entailed through private accumulation of capital which would not be possible without an entire system of legal contracts, i.e. "legitimate" state intervention in the market. Under capitalist anarchism, the "free market" system of legal contracts are protected by private protection agencies. If we remove this system of legal contracts, then who is to protect the system of legal contracts? Capital will automatically be socialised. Local industry will be the common ownership of the nearby community. The renewable energy sources will be democratised; the solar panel industry, the wind farms and the wave turbines will be owned by the people. Precious money will be saved from the consumption of an ever diminishing (and increasingly expensive) source of fossil fuel. The socially necessary labour time required to dig up, deliver and burn oil and natural gas will be cut dramastically. Again, it will be possible for the community to use the technology in nearby factories to make their lives drastically easier. Free associations of workers will co-operate (and perhaps compete) voluntarily on a national/international basis to fulfil their common economic and social goals. They are free to do so. With banks communalised, the money flow will be democratised, interest rates will fall, inflation will fall and risky investment will cease. Labour will be shared around the community in a rota fashion; those who do not contribute to society will not be entitled to the goods and services of society (with the exception of those genuinely unable to work). However the socially necessary labour time ought to be significantly diminished with the socialisation of the means of production (and hence common ownership of back-breaking labour saving technology).

    But what if I want to "compete", start up a factory and employ wage labourers?

    You may do so but (a) their will be no legal contracts to protect your private accumulation of capital in the first place, (b) you will need to come to an agreement with the workers building the factory (which will most likely become a worker's co-operative), (c) you will have to depend on a host of ready wage labourers (if you can participate in a system of economic democracy as outlined above, why become a wage labourer voluntarily?), (d) you will need supplies from the community for your factory to work.

    Before the the growth of the state in America and the subsequent taxation of its citizens and the state's endorsement of a system of private capital and , the vast majority of people were self-employed merchants, traders, farmers, jewellers and so forth. A relatively small percentage (20%) were wage labourers and (actual) slaves. When classical liberalism and individualist anarchism first arose, the country was in its pre-industrialised state; it had not fully gone through the historic stage of capitalism. The road to capitalism was opened and kept open by an enormous increase in continuous, centrally organised and controlled interventionism.

    However, it is not enough to just abolish the state and leave capitalism in tact and hope it will naturally transition into a voluntary federation of free associations of workers. It is most likely, that the state will become privatised in such a situation with the vast majority of wealth, technology and most importantly, arms in the hands of private market entities a new system will arise to enforce the status quo in one way or another. In the propertarian free market those with the most wealth have the most power and influence over private protection agencies and law courts which is undesirable for obvious reasons.

    (Original post by ANARCHY_)
    ...
    Ah. I thought that theocracy was a system where elites are chosen because they are considered to be a divine voice communicating the will of God. Christian anarchism is a very interesting ideology as expounded upon by the likes of Tolstoy, in fact I recall an article where he describes how the workers can act peacefully to achieve the goal of anarchy; the only authority will be God.

    I personally am opposed to religion as I oppose anything that brings man to his knees in humiliation to a divine authority but I would not propose that we use force to destroy religion since people should have the freedom to worship as they choose. I would only request that we put an end to organised religion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Ah. I thought that theocracy was a system where elites are chosen because they are considered to be a divine voice communicating the will of God. Christian anarchism is a very interesting ideology as expounded upon by the likes of Tolstoy, in fact I recall an article where he describes how the workers can act peacefully to achieve the goal of anarchy; the only authority will be God.

    I personally am opposed to religion as I oppose anything that brings man to his knees in humiliation to a divine authority but I would not propose that we use force to destroy religion since people should have the freedom to worship as they choose. I would only request that we put an end to organised religion.
    I thought theocracy was just a deference to God and God's will. However that is exercised is surely down to the people who believe that God exists. For example, in denominations of Christianity, the idea of a man talking to God is entirely alien and nothing is supposed to stand between you and your God. In this case, how could there be any hierarchy? I would like to read that Tolstoy article if you've got it anywhere. That seems like an interesting approach to anarchy.

    I don't agree that religion personally brings a man to his knees in humiliation (indeed, many would say God is a rewarding part of their lives and therefore not humiliating in any sense), rather the structure of it does. It is Roman Catholicism which demands unfounded and unreasonable unquestioning, not Christianity. It is the priests, the vicars, the Popes and the institutions which instil this in people, not the ideology of the religion itself which, after all, is only a set of morals which can ascribe to or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I thought theocracy was just a deference to God and God's will. However that is exercised is surely down to the people who believe that God exists. For example, in denominations of Christianity, the idea of a man talking to God is entirely alien and nothing is supposed to stand between you and your God. In this case, how could there be any hierarchy? I would like to read that Tolstoy article if you've got it anywhere. That seems like an interesting approach to anarchy.

    I don't agree that religion personally brings a man to his knees in humiliation (indeed, many would say God is a rewarding part of their lives and therefore not humiliating in any sense), rather the structure of it does. It is Roman Catholicism which demands unfounded and unreasonable unquestioning, not Christianity. It is the priests, the vicars, the Popes and the institutions which instil this in people, not the ideology of the religion itself which, after all, is only a set of morals which can ascribe to or not.
    Lol. You will have to excuse me for the "religion brings man to his knees" - I was just digging up a quote from the movie "King Arthur" for the heck of it. It was a specific reference to the act of prayer. I suppose it is how one interprets it and I agree that it is organised religion that is the real evil however the bible itself is full of despicable and contradicting messages: I suppose it is how one reads the underlying messages of religion personally that is important. Needless to say, I think in a post revolutionary society without organised religion, people will constantly be questioning the likes of religion and moral ethics in general; religion will naturally disintegrate overtime with the birth of anarchy. If it doesn't, it is not such a problem, mind.

    Here is the Tolstoy article. I'll get those images up too when I get a chance.

    For your benefit: Tolstoy speaks here of socialism but I prefer the more specific label of Marxism; Marx explained that revolution must occur in an industrialised (rather than agricultural) land such as Germany or Great Britain (which were the two greatest centres of capital in the world in Marx's time). Tolstoy criticises this position since it looks down on agricultural workers (the "peasants", if you will) from a great height and tells them they must first become industrial workers. Furthermore, he feels that this industrial transformation would degrade the worker in seperating him from the means of life (namely the land) - if we remember the vast majority of industrial work back then was much harder and dirtier. However, he simply describes this position as socialism (which I don't agree with but I suppose it doesn't matter).
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Lyonstt)
    Do you not think capitalism is a part of human nature? For example there are always people that are competitive etc.
    Hello there.

    I am an anarcho-capitalist. One of the very few ones on this thread. If you have any questions on anarcho-capitalism, or indeed Capitalism, then please quote me.

    Firstly, defining “Capitalism” seems to depend on who you are. Anarcho-syndicalists define Capitalism as a means of oppressions, and enslaving workers and so forth. Laissez-faire Capitalism – the kind I advocate - requires two elements:
    (1) the accumulation of private property;
    (2) the non-existence of coercive monopolies.

    As you can see from the second point, competition is absolutely central. We live in a universe with scarcity of all resources. Fact. All living things compete against each other for those scarce resources. Fundamentally, all humans act purposively. This is central axiom. But why? Humans act because they live on a scarce planet. If I don’t find food, I will die. Human action is a necessary condition of existence. Private property is a necessary condition for that human action. Without the institution of private property, humans (and other creatures) would not exist. That, in my view, would be an adequate definition of “human nature”. To arbitrarily pick other elements and define them as “human nature”, because you find it agreeable, seems quite silly. I am glad no one, after having said what that human nature had nothing to do with Capitalism, refused to identify what exactly is “human nature”.

    But what is Capitalism? Essentially, and fundamentally, it involves people meeting to trade. One person wishes to exchange a good for a more desirable one and the same for a different person.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    First of all, what is "human nature"? Humans can be kind, loving, co-operative, hard working and astute. On the other hand, they can be greedy, competitive, selfish, lazy and entirely unaware.
    You do realise that being kind, loving, co-operative, & hard-working reflects man’s “greedy” & self-interest.

    I am also going to assume you think self-interest is a trait humans have dissociate from themselves? Or do you think it should be levelled off at a certain “healthy” percentage? Is it a shameful act to wish to become a baker in a commune, not for other people, but because it pleases me.

    I am not sure why lazy has to be placed in comparison with competitive?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You do realise that being kind, loving, co-operative, & hard-working reflects man’s “greedy” & self-interest.
    Only people who take it as axiomatic that people act in their own interests all the time think that (so it's more an article of faith on your part than something you can prove).

    I am also going to assume you think self-interest is a trait humans have dissociate from themselves? Or do you think it should be levelled off at a certain “healthy” percentage? Is it a shameful act to wish to become a baker in a commune, not for other people, but because it pleases me.
    No one said that. Obviously people do have their own preferences - the question is how to satisfy those preferences without impugning on other people's preferences.

    But what is Capitalism? Essentially, and fundamentally, it involves people meeting to trade. One person wishes to exchange a good for a more desirable one and the same for a different person.
    That's a market, not capitalism. Capitalism is a set of relations regarding the ownership of productive property (i.e., capital - the clues in the name!). You can still have a capitalist system of ownership with largescale state intervention in the economy, like in most of Europe today.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    No one said that. Obviously people do have their own preferences - the question is how to satisfy those preferences without impugning on other people's preferences.
    I thought "doing as you wish as long as you don't interefere with anybody elses doing the same thing" was the "Friedmanite" consequentialist libertarian justification for laissez-faire capitalism (or perhaps even the early Mill/classical liberal justification for laissez-faire capitalism?).
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Only people who take it as axiomatic that people act in their own interests all the time think that (so it's more an article of faith on your part than something you can prove).
    I’m going to assume you don’t believe people act on their own interests? How about you substantiate it (perhaps with an example), instead of simply making assertions … If you genuinely, think I am wrong …

    And “Faith”? I’m just going to assume this your attempt to insult?

    No one said that. Obviously people do have their own preferences - the question is how to satisfy those preferences without impugning on other people's preferences.
    That’s the only logical conclusion. You think you’re entitled to intervene and command people to what kind of transactions they can and cannot undergo. It’s central planning. The only thing you dispute is what level of that central planning is required …

    That's a market, not capitalism. Capitalism is a set of relations regarding the ownership of productive property (i.e., capital - the clues in the name!). You can still have a capitalist system of ownership with largescale state intervention in the economy, like in most of Europe today.
    Capitalism is THE market. Capitalism is based on people owning their own property. If they own that property, they can do as they wish with it. Obviously, you don’t like that. You feel compelled to order people around to satisfy your vision of society.

    In any case, I spoke of Laissez-faire Capitalism in the post above the one you quoted. That would save me having to repeat myself endlessly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    I thought "doing as you wish as long as you don't interefere with anybody elses doing the same thing" was the "Friedmanite" consequentialist libertarian justification for laissez-faire capitalism (or perhaps even the early Mill/classical liberal justification for laissez-faire capitalism?).
    Classical Liberals are an odd bunch. Although they're often rolled out in defense of modern capitalism I don't know if they'd support it or not (I'm inclined to say no - there were rumblings against even early capitalism). As for Friedman, he's only concerned with violations to person or property, which is completely different to preferences. In a market economy, economic preferences are sorted out by markets and the price mechanism, which is why my desire to have a new mobile phone for christmas is rated as so much more important than the desire of the guy in the Congo or China who dug up the rare earths needed for my phone not to have his village drown in the toxic mining runoff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I’m going to assume you don’t believe people act on their own interests? How about you substantiate it (perhaps with an example), instead of simply making assertions … If you genuinely, think I am wrong …
    No, I know people do act in their own interests some of the time. I just don't think they do so *all* of the time.

    And “Faith”? I’m just going to assume this your attempt to insult?
    Well, unless you can prove what you said, that people always act in (presumably what they perceive to be) their own self-interest, all of the time, then it simply is just an axiom, which is basically the same as an article of faith. And no, I don't think 'faith' is an insult. It's just that in my opinion statements like that are the worst kind of historicism, right up there with e.g. orthodox marxism. I realise you don't like religion but maybe a little bit of Christian humility wouldn't go amiss, in this case.

    That’s the only logical conclusion. You think you’re entitled to intervene and command people to what kind of transactions they can and cannot undergo. It’s central planning. The only thing you dispute is what level of that central planning is required …
    I think the "central planning vs. free markets" dichotomy is a false one. I think having a horizontal system of distributing resources that isn't a market is possible.


    Capitalism is THE market. Capitalism is based on people owning their own property. If they own that property, they can do as they wish with it. Obviously, you don’t like that. You feel compelled to order people around to satisfy your vision of society.
    Oh, seriously? Not this again. ANY political economy (including, yes, laissez-faire capitalism) involves people all conforming to certain principles, because political economy affects absolutely everyone. This is a crap argument that's been refuted n times. Deal with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Classical Liberals are an odd bunch. Although they're often rolled out in defense of modern capitalism I don't know if they'd support it or not (I'm inclined to say no - there were rumblings against even early capitalism). As for Friedman, he's only concerned with violations to person or property, which is completely different to preferences.
    No lib supports modern capitalism either (or at least no lib should). Certainly Friedman didn't (D. Friedman doesn't either and I attribute the "Friedmanite" libertarianism to both) and very frequently he expressed his discontent with the capitalist system of his day (which he thought was getting more and more "socialist" and less and less liberal). I don't know (or care) about his followers though...

    The rumblings I assume you're talking about had, to my knowledge, mostly to do with things we (libs) care about like free trade, governmental subsidies, protections - i.e. mercantilism, free speech, freedom of the press, the legalisation of victimless crimes, etc etc (also, contrary to what some people, mainly leftists, believe we don't think that every aspect of the division of labour is awesome for if we did, we wouldn't support laissez-faire on the grounds that it can lift people out of poverty, offer better pay/jobs and give them more time to devote to things like the arts, education, family/friendships, etc).

    So I think it's entirely false to believe that the classical liberals succeeded in establishing their system (apart from, perhaps, a few spells of moderate Dutch and British laissez-faire) or that what you call "early capitalism" evolved towards their ideal (quite the opposite, I think). You acknowledged this in your earlier post to Hysteria ("You can still have a capitalist system of ownership with largescale state intervention in the economy, like in most of Europe today.") so I'm not trying to lecture you here . I'm just restating the obvious to say that the same old battles continue (even freedom of speech has yet to be established nevermind free trade or freedom of association) and I think if anyone can be thought of as carrying them out nowadays, it's the Libs.

    For instance, G.A. Cohen when asked about (or commented on) philosophy's influence on public policy said that only very recently did some countries started taking JS Mill seriously by rethinking their attitudes towards victimless crimes - seat belt laws in particular. Well, who's pushing for the abolition of such laws? maybe a lot of people who aren't libs do as well but if a single political group is to be chosen for it's consistent oppostion to "paternalism", it must be that of the libs.

    Now, I don't understand the "completely" part of your last sentence. Really? completely different? it's an extremely difficult objective to achieve (i.e. to have a system under which as many of the different individual preferences as possible are taken into account) and one which has "haunted" very smart people for centuries so a mediocre person like me is not going to pretend to know the answer but, it seems to me that individual rights have a lot do with preferences. In fact, I am wondering what makes you think they don't.

    You may disagree with whether or not lib rights respect different preferences sufficiently (or perhaps know a system which in your opinion is more effective in this task) but a libertarian who supposedly wants to maximise freedom, must also be seriously concerned with the fact that different individuals have different preferences which can only be accommodated if we allow for maximum freedom (to be sure, all these words are extremely unclear and open to interpretation but my beef here is with your arrogance and certainty in declaring that consq. libs completely ignore individual preferences). Ironically (in reference to your latest reply to Hysteria), I too am an admirer and adherent of Christian humility (despite my evil godlessness).
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    No, I know people do act in their own interests some of the time. I just don't think they do so *all* of the time.
    Do you have any reasoning to back-up that opinion. The only reason I come onto this site is so that people can challenge my views.

    People act. That is axiomatically true. They also act purposively. That is, by necessity, axiomatically true. But what does purposively mean? Well, it means that a man uses reason to choose to undertake a certain course of action to achieve a more desirable circumstance. Ergo, if all action is purposive, then man must choose a more desirable circumstance for every action he undertakes. The alternative is lunacy, or to pick any choice regardless of whether or not it allows the achievement of a more desirable circumstance. I don’t think any more discussion is needed on this point!?

    There is some confusion amongst a lot of people regarding the concept of “self-interest” on TSR. People tend to define actions as “benefiting” either the subject, or the object. If it benefits the subject, then it is a case of “self-interest”. If it benefits the object, then it isn’t “self-interest”. But as I described above, all action is based on self-interest. However, action can also benefit the object as well. So, a trade allows both parties to profit, and we both understand that that is grounded in self-interest. But, what about a man donating all his money to charity? He does it because he wants to – he chooses to do so. He is acting selfishly. He chooses between donating his money, and all the various other alternatives; and believes a donation will allow him to achieve a more desirable circumstance. You may say “well, other people benefit & he doesn’t – how can that be self-interest”. If that rich man values the happiness of others above his own happiness (temporary or otherwise), then he is choosing to fulfil a more desirable circumstance for himself. He is acting with regards to that which he values the most, and seeks to achieve it through action. The philanthropist is acting selfishly indeed.

    Well, unless you can prove what you said, that people always act in (presumably what they perceive to be) their own self-interest, all of the time, then it simply is just an axiom, which is basically the same as an article of faith. And no, I don't think 'faith' is an insult. It's just that in my opinion statements like that are the worst kind of historicism, right up there with e.g. orthodox marxism. I realise you don't like religion but maybe a little bit of Christian humility wouldn't go amiss, in this case.
    First of all, there are two types of faith. There is religious faith, and I don’t think that requires any explanation. And then there is “evidential faith” (or the scientific Pooper kind) whereby all senses are fallible and ultimate truths are articles of faith. If you mean the latter, then I am proud to have my “faith” and embrace scepticism, as opposed to absolutism. I am inclined to think you implied the former, but it doesn’t even matter now. Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing humble about Christianity! They believe the entire universe was created for them! I don’t embrace historicism either.

    Anyway, I think I dealt with self-interest sufficiently above.

    I think the "central planning vs. free markets" dichotomy is a false one. I think having a horizontal system of distributing resources that isn't a market is possible.
    Could you elaborate. I don’t understand your point.

    Oh, seriously? Not this again. ANY political economy (including, yes, laissez-faire capitalism) involves people all conforming to certain principles, because political economy affects absolutely everyone. This is a crap argument that's been refuted n times. Deal with it.
    No no no no.

    With respect, you don’t understand what I am saying.

    It is not about “conforming to certain principles, but HOW they do so. For the umpteenth time, did they choose how to act, or did you force them? That makes all the difference in the world! That is the root of the whole damn thread!

    Libertarianism is founded on the non-aggression principle. Anarcho-capitalism is a political system whereby all economic agents tend to transactions that involve as little use of force as possible (non-aggression). And why? The important question. Because it is in their interest. They were free to choose. I didn’t force anyone to comply with my vision of how the world ought to be run. I wouldn’t even dream of it. It is ironic that you refer to “Christian humility” earlier …
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    So I think it's entirely false to believe that the classical liberals succeeded in establishing their system (apart from, perhaps, a few spells of moderate Dutch and British laissez-faire) or that what you call "early capitalism" evolved towards their ideal (quite the opposite, I think).
    Out of interest, what is the “British laissez-faire”?

    Ironically (in reference to your latest reply to Hysteria), I too am an admirer and adherent of Christian humility (despite my evil godlessness).
    Barh. If it is a virtue, it is one of the most over-rated. Only a religious cultural mindset, would convince people that they have to be quiet about their success and live in a humble manner. Erh, how horrible!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Out of interest, what is the “British laissez-faire”?



    Barh. If it is a virtue, it is one of the most over-rated. Only a religious cultural mindset, would convince people that they have to be quiet about their success and live in a humble manner. Erh, how horrible!
    I mean the period after the repeal of the corn laws (1840s-). And I mean the Dutch Republic of the 17th and 18th centuries.

    Also, what success? I'm talking about intellectual humility. But feel free to add what's wrong with being humble about your success.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    I mean the period after the repeal of the corn laws (1840s-). And I mean the Dutch Republic of the 17th and 18th centuries.

    Also, what success? I'm talking about intellectual humility. But feel free to add what's wrong with being humble about your success.
    Oh I see. I thought you may have been referring to the Industrial revolution.

    Isn't "intellectual humility" simply scepticism? I find something distasteful about being humble generally in life. I see it as a Christian dogma of some form that has latched onto society. Anyway, I digress.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You do realise that being kind, loving, co-operative, & hard-working reflects man’s “greedy” & self-interest.
    Indeed (I agree). Furthermore when I mentioned those traits I didn't mean to suggest they were "good" or "bad"; I only meant to suggest that they were different from one another, hence "human nature" is a confusing concept because, to be rather blunt, it simply doesn't exist.

    I am also going to assume you think self-interest is a trait humans have dissociate from themselves?
    No, not at all.

    Or do you think it should be levelled off at a certain “healthy” percentage?
    No, of course not.

    Is it a shameful act to wish to become a baker in a commune, not for other people, but because it pleases me.
    I don't believe in altruism anymore than I believe in egoism. Furthermore it can be a self-fulfilling act to behave in a way which behaves benefits all of humanity. People will feel a sense of self-enlightenment when they act in a voluntary manner to enhance their community as they will also be satisfied in a more "selfish" way when they are permitted to take their fair share from the local produce.

    I am not sure why lazy has to be placed in comparison with competitive?
    Its not meant to be in comparison with competitive. I'm just listing the numerous traits a human may possess.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Laissez-faire Capitalism – the kind I advocate - requires two elements:
    (1) the accumulation of private property;
    (2) the non-existence of coercive monopolies.
    From a learning perspective, how do you propose we protect private property laws without the utilisation of monopolies on coercion - private protection agencies or the state itself.

    p.s. did you see that post I made a few pages back about delegative democracy and the rota system of work roles?

    (Original post by Gremlins)
    That's a market, not capitalism. Capitalism is a set of relations regarding the ownership of productive property (i.e., capital - the clues in the name!). You can still have a capitalist system of ownership with largescale state intervention in the economy, like in most of Europe today.
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Capitalism is THE market. Capitalism is based on people owning their own property. If they own that property, they can do as they wish with it. Obviously, you don’t like that. You feel compelled to order people around to satisfy your vision of society.
    Gremlins is right; captalism is not, by definition, a free market system, rather a system based upon private accumulation of capital where decisions in the market are enacted by private entities. People may trade their goods under socialism if they want; does this make it capitalism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    ...
    Bourgeois, an interesting post and I have something of admirance for the early classical liberals since when they first appeared on the scene, there was no real welfare state as such, rather most state intervention seemed to benefit the traditional elites, the capitalists and the landlords. However the neoliberalism of today (where there is a definite welfare state), I don't have such high regards for; they are essentially arguing for a free market capitalist society where current gains are historically based on the theft of the means of life from the early working classes. These "historical circumstances", if you will almost distinguish the early classical liberals as being to the left of the economic liberal spectrum, if you see what I mean. I think that most neoliberals will argue that this earlier system was mercantilism and so forth which is perhaps true but it is what gave way to the present system of capitalism. Perhaps if they were so concerned about state intervention, they would not be so eager to support legal contracts enforcing the private accumulation of capital so readily. In short, arguing for voluntary trade now is like a man walking into a room and robbing the personal possessions of all the people inside the room before arguing for a fresh new system of voluntary trade, arguing that the free market will effectively re-allocate the goods to them in good time. So in short, I believe that the full fruition of free trade will only be placed into effect after the capital has been socialised and is in the hands of the population (and this ought to inevitably result in a communist economic system, at least theoretically. If not, capitalism will arise and justly so but from a fresh turn of the leaf rather than an economic system built upon theft and expropriation). It is perhaps interesting to note that before the rise of mercantilism in the US, 80% of the population were self-employed.

    So, to conclude my argument, perhaps economic liberalism had more relevance before the state began to intervene in the domestic and economic realms of life.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Indeed (I agree). Furthermore when I mentioned those traits I didn't mean to suggest they were "good" or "bad"; I only meant to suggest that they were different from one another, hence "human nature" is a confusing concept because, to be rather blunt, it simply doesn't exist.

    No, not at all.

    No, of course not.

    I don't believe in altruism anymore than I believe in egoism. Furthermore it can be a self-fulfilling act to behave in a way which behaves benefits all of humanity. People will feel a sense of self-enlightenment when they act in a voluntary manner to enhance their community as they will also be satisfied in a more "selfish" way when they are permitted to take their fair share from the local produce.

    Its not meant to be in comparison with competitive. I'm just listing the numerous traits a human may possess.

    From a learning perspective, how do you propose we protect private property laws without the utilisation of monopolies on coercion - private protection agencies or the state itself.

    p.s. did you see that post I made a few pages back about delegative democracy and the rota system of work roles?

    Gremlins is right; captalism is not, by definition, a free market system, rather a system based upon private accumulation of capital where decisions in the market are enacted by private entities. People may trade their goods under socialism if they want; does this make it capitalism?
    Hello anarchistnutter,

    I am not sure if there is no such thing as human nature. Homosapiens certainly seem to have traits unique to them, and those traits are perhaps the reason why we are the greatest species to have ever walked the planet – so far, at least.

    Unfortunately, I am a bit busy thesedays so I don’t get much chance to really read stuff. I only seem to post in this thread, and a few other ones. Could you link me to the post on delegative democracy and the rota system of work roles.

    I am not sure what you mean when you ask how I propose we protect private property in a stateless world. How do you protect yourself against theft? You lock your door, and make sure all windows are also locked. Do you need a government to do that for you? If you can protect your own house, why can’t you protect a factory or a business? I am not sure what you’re really asking here.

    Lastly, under Capitalism you are free to choose. That is the point. Under central planning, the freedom to choose has been arrogated to a single human being. Yes, it is true that a business has to make choices about what it thinks its consumers want. Of course it does. It is life – we all make choices. But equally, and even more importantly, the consumers make choices about what they want to buy and from whom. I may very well choose to sell condoms in a children toy store. But my choosing to do that, has no effect on the consumer – other than being angry and never coming to my store again. They are free to purchase toys in one of my competitor’s shops. The only thing a business chooses is how to please its consumers.

    Happy New Year
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.