Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikdc5)
    Exactly- no one does. That's because any theory of original fair acquisition is just a bullshlt lie. We know how property was actually originally acquired. It was taken with force. Capitalism is not a system based on any grand economic theory. The theory grew from the fact that the most important thing that a capitalist state must do is protect property rights. It does this first with force, and second with bourgeois apologist philosophy.
    You've kinda missed my point - I'm saying that if Nozick has no good theory of acquisition, that is, how it is legitimate for a person or group to initially acquire land and forcibly exclude others from interacting with it, then no one does. If you agree with that then you're implicitly saying that no one can legitimately exclude any other person from any natural resource whatsoever. If you really believe that, then fine - but it's pretty obvious that if it was consistently carried out, mankind would be extinct through starvation. So it seems to me that if you want to avoid this pretty undesirable consequence, you're going to have to come up with a theory doing almost exactly what Nozick's theory did - justifying how some people can forcibly exclude other people from parts of the earth. Anything else is an attempt to dodge the issue.

    You can defend capitalism by claiming that maybe for the most part it works. I would disagree with that, but I can see the case. But to pretend it has anything to do with desert or morals is nonsense. Socialism, and redistribution, are coercive. But at least the aim is fairness. Capitalism is coercion disattached from morality. I know which one I prefer.
    I'm not sure I'd defend capitalism at all, but I certainly would defend free markets, private property, and voluntary exchange because they are the only consistently moral institutions. Hell, libertarianism even follows from a lot of leftist principles - all we want is to end exploitation.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    You've kinda missed my point - I'm saying that if Nozick has no good theory of acquisition, that is, how it is legitimate for a person or group to initially acquire land and forcibly exclude others from interacting with it, then no one does. If you agree with that then you're implicitly saying that no one can legitimately exclude any other person from any natural resource whatsoever. If you really believe that, then fine - but it's pretty obvious that if it was consistently carried out, mankind would be extinct through starvation. So it seems to me that if you want to avoid this pretty undesirable consequence, you're going to have to come up with a theory doing almost exactly what Nozick's theory did - justifying how some people can forcibly exclude other people from parts of the earth. Anything else is an attempt to dodge the issue.
    I don't think the use of something is contingent on its acquisition.


    I'm not sure I'd defend capitalism at all, but I certainly would defend free markets, private property, and voluntary exchange because they are the only consistently moral institutions. Hell, libertarianism even follows from a lot of leftist principles - all we want is to end exploitation.
    (Original post by DrunkHamster, elsewhere)
    (Asserting your way to victory is fun!)
    :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    I don't think the use of something is contingent on its acquisition.
    It depends what you mean by acquisition; as far as I see it, the heart of the problem is justifying the legitimacy of some people forcibly excluding others from parts of the earth. This seems to be a reasonable approximation to the project Nozick was engaged in, and a reasonable approximation to what he has been attacked for since then. But socialists have precisely the same problem, because they need to justify precisely the same phenomenon occurring - some people forcibly excluding others from parts of the earth. Saying that socialists don't recognise ownership is absolutely a way of dodging the question, because with regard to the fundamental problem of justification, there is no qualitative difference between a capitalist excluding people from using a factory which he owns and a bunch of workers excluding people from using a factory which they 'occupy.'

    :p:
    Well, it's not like I've written quite a few posts on here actually arguing for this conclusion, is it :cool:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    You've kinda missed my point - I'm saying that if Nozick has no good theory of acquisition, that is, how it is legitimate for a person or group to initially acquire land and forcibly exclude others from interacting with it, then no one does. If you agree with that then you're implicitly saying that no one can legitimately exclude any other person from any natural resource whatsoever. If you really believe that, then fine - but it's pretty obvious that if it was consistently carried out, mankind would be extinct through starvation. So it seems to me that if you want to avoid this pretty undesirable consequence, you're going to have to come up with a theory doing almost exactly what Nozick's theory did - justifying how some people can forcibly exclude other people from parts of the earth. Anything else is an attempt to dodge the issue.



    I'm not sure I'd defend capitalism at all, but I certainly would defend free markets, private property, and voluntary exchange because they are the only consistently moral institutions. Hell, libertarianism even follows from a lot of leftist principles - all we want is to end exploitation.
    I utterly agree that control of resources is a difficult issue. The whole of economics and a good deal of politics is devoted to it, and I won't fix it with a couple of sentences on a student forum. If I was going to solve it though, it would be through democratic control of resources. By having delegative democracies, with the lower councils having control of the land in their ward and all people in the ward allowed to vote on how it is used, with higher councils having the right to over-rule to prevent clansmanship. That all would be a bit difficult to institute in the short term, so to reform land at least a little bit I would make all land deeds non-permanent and non-heritable, and make control of land for living in, i.e. a house or flat, a fundamental right of all citizens whether they can afford it or not.

    Lands that contain natural resources that could be mined or farmed would be distributed to cooperatives or individuals on the basis of medium term contracts based not on profit but on who could extract the most social value out of the resource- by which I mean, whose project would be good for the environment, produce necessary products, provide employment to the most people, and so on. If an enterprise didn't live up to its side of the bargain, it could then be removed with relatively little pain.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Referee)
    Capitalist with a social conscience.
    isnt that an oxymoron?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    isnt that an oxymoron?
    Maybe, up to a point...but it's the easiest way to describe my viewpoint.

    I'm a capitalist in the sense that I believe the the individual should be able to earn as much as they are able to, I believe in low tax economy (with minimal state intervention - although some is necessary) and I don't agree with mass wealth re-distribution, limits on earning potential (as has been suggested in the past) or punitive taxation level over a certain level of earning. I have been privately educated and have private medical and dental cover...I believe those who can afford it should be able to access these things. Don't tie business up with over-complex regulation and taxation - you'll make it so it's not worthwhile staying here!

    As you can see, fairly typical capitalist views!

    That said:

    I believe in the NHS - I think it needs a complete overhaul in the way it's managed and a few layers of red tape and targets removed - but I believe in the concept of access to health care, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of means. I believe in the right to a good quality education for all. I believe in law and order - I also think it's a shame that the police spend more time trying to reach targets and filling in paperwork than they do catching criminals! I believe in having strong armed services. I believe in making sure that pensioners and the (genuinely) disabled get a respectable standard of living (which many currently do not!). I have no problem in paying taxes for these things.

    I begin to have a major problem when public money is being wasted on targets, quangos, NGO's, people who won't work (as opposed to can't work - those who lose their jobs should be given maximum support to get new jobs though and sensible benefits in the mean time), people who think that having children at regular intervals is a career option, supporting failed asylum seekers (send them straight home), nonsensical tax/credit strategies (give them a different tax code - don't take the money just to give it back!).

    As you can see, I don't fit into either bracket!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am a centrist, i dont like this 'them and us' philosophy in politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Centrist.
    Debating the merits of both ideologies is fun, but in the end i want someone in government who will take the best of both worlds.
    Offline

    13
    Libertarian minarchist capitalist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    simple question i'm sure. Are you a poverty creator or a wealth creator?

    I'm a capitalist. A real liberal not like the crap namby pamby imitations we have today who mistook liberalism for populism. IMO socialists are outright idiots and almost always peasants.
    Capitalism sounds great. Much better than what we have now!

    This is a trick question. I like capitalism, but over all, I think people should be allowed to do as they choose with their person and property, and that of consenting others. If this means start communes and co-ops, sharing resources, and distributing their products "to each according to need," that's fine by me. I'm not sure it would usually work very well, but I am aslo pretty sure that in a fully private society, a laissez faire society, many things would be arranged collectively or communally, like neighbourhood associations, or block associations, establishing deed restrictions to join and contribute to organisations to help maintain local infrastructure and other "public goods," for instance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    I am a centrist, i dont like this 'them and us' philosophy in politics.
    Ah, so you are an anti-"them-and-us"-ist, as opposed to a pro-"them-and-us"-ists!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Capitalism sounds great. Much better than what we have now!

    This is a trick question. I like capitalism, but over all, I think people should be allowed to do as they choose with their person and property, and that of consenting others. If this means start communes and co-ops, sharing resources, and distributing their products "to each according to need," that's fine by me. I'm not sure it would usually work very well, but I am aslo pretty sure that in a fully private society, a laissez faire society, many things would be arranged collectively or communally, like neighbourhood associations, or block associations, establishing deed restrictions to join and contribute to organisations to help maintain local infrastructure and other "public goods," for instance.
    i must admit, The Beach is a ******* awesome movie. I do think that is not a bad suggestion....but it would be very hard in practise to have it co exist with capitalism.....unless governments allocated parts of the world but even then it would be very hard to make it viable. but, in a perfect world i think it would be nice if people could choose to live in whatever kind of state they wanted....but considering it's only practical to have one i think it's better that it is one that expands your liberty rather than contracts it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    i must admit, The Beach is a ******* awesome movie. I do think that is not a bad suggestion....but it would be very hard in practise to have it co exist with capitalism.....unless governments allocated parts of the world but even then it would be very hard to make it viable. but, in a perfect world i think it would be nice if people could choose to live in whatever kind of state they wanted....but considering it's only practical to have one i think it's better that it is one that expands your liberty rather than contracts it
    Why would it not be able to coexist with capitalism? Don't people start communes and things now?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    My view as an economics student, shared by the vast majority of fellow students i know, is that the overwhelming majority of socialists are totally economically uneducated and most people tend to become more capitalist the more they learn about economics. So, sorry but i honestly think that, although they might not be thick, the majority of socialists, when it comes to economics, are totally flawed
    Maybe that's because almost all economic theory has been designed to defend capitalism and takes certain institutions for granted (e.g. private property)?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    If Nozick has no convincing argument for how property can originally become fairly acquired, then no-one does. This line of criticism is irritatingly common amongst people who offer no alternative theory of acquisition, and who, if we take their arguments seriously, would be forced to deny that any person or group can legitimately exclude any other group from any natural resource whatsoever.
    I think it's more a case of socialists highlighting the exploitative nature of private property, as it exists now. The way we have structured private property law is totally arbitrary and you can’t really deny that it benefits some people vastly more than others and certainly not in proportion to the work they put in. I just can’t see how people can be fine with the idea of Mr Gradgrind inheriting seven factories from his Dad and never having to lift a finger in his life while growing absurdly rich off the backs of thousands of workers. Furthermore, people say that the horrific exploitation of the 19th century has disappeared thanks to the glorious growth and development provided by capitalism, but really this has moved abroad. We still have child labour and 16 hour days! The only reason the poorest in countries like Britain can still afford TVs is because we have economic slaves in other countries working virtually every hour of their lives. Could our standard of living really be extended over the whole world? I thought I heard somewhere that we need six planets to continue our current trends of consumption to the end of this century – imagine how much worse the situation would be if the whole world lived as well as us! Surely capitalism requires some borderline-destitute work force to produce all of the material goods cheaply for the wealthier?

    Now, there's virtually nobody who thinks we should go back to a Neanderthal free-for-all world in which nobody legally owns anything. However, I can certainly see a libertarian socialist's arguments for establishing worker control of factories. It really does make sense, surely? Seems pretty obvious to me in many ways that those who work in factories and produce all the real wealth ought to have a greater claim to the proceeds.

    Ah, I just don't know sometimes. I have so much sympathy with socialist ideas . . . .but then I read Animal Farm and it evaporates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    My view as an economics student, shared by the vast majority of fellow students i know, is that the overwhelming majority of socialists are totally economically uneducated and most people tend to become more capitalist the more they learn about economics. So, sorry but i honestly think that, although they might not be thick, the majority of socialists, when it comes to economics, are totally flawed
    There is more to politics and a free and fair society than economics. Wealth creation is all well and good, but if it's only being created for the wealthy then how does that help the 2 million pensioners and the 3 million children in poverty. If the wealth created does not also reach those areas that need it most, if it is done at the expense of people, if it leads to the move of the vast majority of resources, influence and power to a tiny minority, and prevents social mobility and aspiration for the majority who work hard for it, then how is that good for society?

    I believe in a mixed economy, I believe in private enterprise, I believe in certain essential public services such as transport and water/gas being in the hands of the public not individuals or state, I believe in state education and the NHS, I believe in a more progressive welfare state, I believe we as a society should ensure that no one lives in poverty, I believe in choice and responsibility.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    I think it's more a case of socialists highlighting the exploitative nature of private property, as it exists now. The way we have structured private property law is totally arbitrary and you can’t really deny that it benefits some people vastly more than others and certainly not in proportion to the work they put in. I just can’t see how people can be fine with the idea of Mr Gradgrind inheriting seven factories from his Dad and never having to lift a finger in his life while growing absurdly rich off the backs of thousands of workers. Furthermore, people say that the horrific exploitation of the 19th century has disappeared thanks to the glorious growth and development provided by capitalism, but really this has moved abroad. We still have child labour and 16 hour days! The only reason the poorest in countries like Britain can still afford TVs is because we have economic slaves in other countries working virtually every hour of their lives. Could our standard of living really be extended over the whole world? I thought I heard somewhere that we need six planets to continue our current trends of consumption to the end of this century – imagine how much worse the situation would be if the whole world lived as well as us! Surely capitalism requires some borderline-destitute work force to produce all of the material goods cheaply for the wealthier?

    Now, there's virtually nobody who thinks we should go back to a Neanderthal free-for-all world in which nobody legally owns anything. However, I can certainly see a libertarian socialist's arguments for establishing worker control of factories. It really does make sense, surely? Seems pretty obvious to me in many ways that those who work in factories and produce all the real wealth ought to have a greater claim to the proceeds.

    Ah, I just don't know sometimes. I have so much sympathy with socialist ideas . . . .but then I read Animal Farm and it evaporates.
    i'd rather see some kids getting rich of daddy if that freedom logically allows my home to be my castle....rather than have the kind of feee for all you see in socialist theory.

    capitalism for me is not just about wealth creation...it is about freedom. How on earth can a state which has the power to, and will, intervene to forcibly repossess and inherit all your possessions on your death and which will force my modest home to be a public right against my will permit me more freedom than the capitalist situation we have now?

    I know capitalism is not perfect and allows some inequalities....but tbh, as a poorer member of society (i know i have repeated this a lot...but i think it's relevent so my views dont get dismissed as that of an upper class toff) i couldnt care less if some kids get rich off daddy....doesnt effect me in any way so i dont care. let them be and they are very lucky people. end of. if these people, who i dont consider a problem...but then i dont cuffer from envy...are the price of me having the choice to have my own private space, shops to shop at, being allowed to utilise the social mobility that capitalism allows to try and become better off then i'll take it thanks

    and as for the wealth ''only benefiting the wealthy'' that is not true. if there were no massive margins to be made in business there would be no shops to shop at, no markets, no international trade...where would people go for food? grow it? not everyone has that skill....it's no coincidence that starvation became less common after the dawn of capitalism....it provides people an incentive to allocate goods to people. although many workers view themselves of victims of the economy...they are actually not...they may hate their job and consider the shop a rip off....but if it wasnt for these they might not have a life anyway. and capitalism allows them to use their liberty to find s way out

    economics aside....my main issue with socialism is the fact that (despite that ******** from marx...about the state withering away....what. a. retard. lol) it would require a pretty startlingly large state to work. That is a potnentially massive threat to our freedom...add to that the fact socialism allows no social mobility at all and you find your self trapped like a sardine in a tin....totally within the govts totalitarian rules. just look at the soviet union...socialism by nature needs to be totalitarian...which considering the ''godd natured'' facade of most socilists is ironic
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    I think it's more a case of socialists highlighting the exploitative nature of private property, as it exists now. The way we have structured private property law is totally arbitrary and you can’t really deny that it benefits some people vastly more than others and certainly not in proportion to the work they put in. I just can’t see how people can be fine with the idea of Mr Gradgrind inheriting seven factories from his Dad and never having to lift a finger in his life while growing absurdly rich off the backs of thousands of workers. Furthermore, people say that the horrific exploitation of the 19th century has disappeared thanks to the glorious growth and development provided by capitalism, but really this has moved abroad. We still have child labour and 16 hour days! The only reason the poorest in countries like Britain can still afford TVs is because we have economic slaves in other countries working virtually every hour of their lives. Could our standard of living really be extended over the whole world? I thought I heard somewhere that we need six planets to continue our current trends of consumption to the end of this century – imagine how much worse the situation would be if the whole world lived as well as us! Surely capitalism requires some borderline-destitute work force to produce all of the material goods cheaply for the wealthier?
    Well there's obviously a lot to say about this. 'The way we have structured private property is totally arbitrary' - I certainly didn't structure it, and I don't know if you did but I'm doubtful. It's of vital importance for clarity of thought that we keep the "we's" to a minimum. Who, exactly, is supposed to have structured private property in this way? If you're saying that historically some people have unjustly confiscated the private property of others who have legitimately acquired it (the Scottish Enclosures are a reasonable clear case of this) then I agree with you, and I deplore it alongside you. But note that without the coercive ability of the state to make these confiscations, this would not have been possible. Is it totally arbitrary at this point? Maybe, but to believe that it would be any less arbitrary if we listened to the socialists and gave the government the sole job of allocating resources according to its discretion is an illusion. Do you really think that wealth would be allocated on the basis of the proportion of work people put in, or would it be based on favouritism and political connections? To ask the question is to answer it.

    Let's go back to the idea of awarding income to people on the basis of the proportion of work they put in. Is there a uniformly agreed upon standard of comparison between jobs? Is there a scientific method of working out that, say, a doctor on average works 7.4 times as hard as a nurse? No, of course not. So what does this theory of yours mean, in practice? It means that the decisions about who gets what will be at the absolute discretion of a central planner, and well-meaning ideas about a 'fair' distribution of income get turned into a recipe for total discretionary authority placed in the hands of a small and select group of administrators. In other words, it's a recipe for disaster, both in terms of economic well-being and in terms of freedom.

    Do I have a problem with some being rich and others being poor? No. I can see why people think that, but I recognise, at the end of the day, that such emotions are based essentially on envy and are ultimately incompatible with the kind of free society which allows everyone to benefit. You are, however, making a fundamental mistake if you think that the only way for people to get rich is off the backs of the poor - this zero sum attitude towards economic interaction is probably the least well supported and most harmful attitude that anyone can hold today. Voluntary exchanges and transactions only take place because both parties think that they will be better off as a result. Please, please repeat that to yourself a couple of times - it's such a fundamentally important principle. For instance, since 1950, the world GDP per capita has increased 3.5 times. In the West, the figure is less - which shows that GDP per capita in the developing world has grown at a higher rate.

    Now, there's virtually nobody who thinks we should go back to a Neanderthal free-for-all world in which nobody legally owns anything. However, I can certainly see a libertarian socialist's arguments for establishing worker control of factories. It really does make sense, surely? Seems pretty obvious to me in many ways that those who work in factories and produce all the real wealth ought to have a greater claim to the proceeds.
    Not really; you seem to have fallen for the Marxist claptrap of forgetting that capital and capitalists play a vital role in the production of wealth. There are very good reasons why workers don't, in general, own factories - one of them is risk. If some reasonably rigid pattern of worker ownership arises, there are very good reasons why it would not be sustained. Here's one: imagine you are a worker in the automobile industry. You live in some left-libertarian paradise, and so instead of being paid a salary directly, you are a part-owner of your factory, and you recieve a share of the profits. Now, what happens if the demand for automobiles falls? Your factory's profits fall, as does your income. Most people don't want this to happen, and, more importantly, do not want to place all their eggs in one basket: your income is far more secure if it comes from a variety of different industries than if it comes from only one, because a single industry may well fluctuate in ways which whole economies do not - and of course, security of income is important to a lot of people. So what do you do? Well, if it's up to you, you swap some of your share in your company with your next door neighbor who works in the computer industry; that way, you are more protected from any sudden fluctuations. But why stop there? Eventually, if left up to people, a burgeoning stock market will emerge. Now, some people will be lucky, or skillful, and make better investments than others - they will become richer, and be able to invest some of their profits. With some of these profits, they might well build new factories, and, instead of giving the workers a share in the company (which they would just sell anyway), the entrepreneurs might just pay them a standard salary. And before you know it, you're back to free market capitalism.

    There's a great bit on this in The Machinery of Freedom, I'll see if I can dig it out when I get home.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    those backward, unevolved socialists should go to hell. Capitalism is the ONLY way.



    SUCK IT SOCIALISTS
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Well there's obviously a lot to say about this. 'The way we have structured private property is totally arbitrary' - I certainly didn't structure it, and I don't know if you did but I'm doubtful. It's of vital importance for clarity of thought that we keep the "we's" to a minimum. Who, exactly, is supposed to have structured private property in this way? If you're saying that historically some people have unjustly confiscated the private property of others who have legitimately acquired it (the Scottish Enclosures are a reasonable clear case of this) then I agree with you, and I deplore it alongside you. But note that without the coercive ability of the state to make these confiscations, this would not have been possible. Is it totally arbitrary at this point? Maybe, but to believe that it would be any less arbitrary if we listened to the socialists and gave the government the sole job of allocating resources according to its discretion is an illusion. Do you really think that wealth would be allocated on the basis of the proportion of work people put in, or would it be based on favouritism and political connections? To ask the question is to answer it.

    Let's go back to the idea of awarding income to people on the basis of the proportion of work they put in. Is there a uniformly agreed upon standard of comparison between jobs? Is there a scientific method of working out that, say, a doctor on average works 7.4 times as hard as a nurse? No, of course not. So what does this theory of yours mean, in practice? It means that the decisions about who gets what will be at the absolute discretion of a central planner, and well-meaning ideas about a 'fair' distribution of income get turned into a recipe for total discretionary authority placed in the hands of a small and select group of administrators. In other words, it's a recipe for disaster, both in terms of economic well-being and in terms of freedom.

    Do I have a problem with some being rich and others being poor? No. I can see why people think that, but I recognise, at the end of the day, that such emotions are based essentially on envy and are ultimately incompatible with the kind of free society which allows everyone to benefit. You are, however, making a fundamental mistake if you think that the only way for people to get rich is off the backs of the poor - this zero sum attitude towards economic interaction is probably the least well supported and most harmful attitude that anyone can hold today. Voluntary exchanges and transactions only take place because both parties think that they will be better off as a result. Please, please repeat that to yourself a couple of times - it's such a fundamentally important principle. For instance, since 1950, the world GDP per capita has increased 3.5 times. In the West, the figure is less - which shows that GDP per capita in the developing world has grown at a higher rate.



    Not really; you seem to have fallen for the Marxist claptrap of forgetting that capital and capitalists play a vital role in the production of wealth. There are very good reasons why workers don't, in general, own factories - one of them is risk. If some reasonably rigid pattern of worker ownership arises, there are very good reasons why it would not be sustained. Here's one: imagine you are a worker in the automobile industry. You live in some left-libertarian paradise, and so instead of being paid a salary directly, you are a part-owner of your factory, and you recieve a share of the profits. Now, what happens if the demand for automobiles falls? Your factory's profits fall, as does your income. Most people don't want this to happen, and, more importantly, do not want to place all their eggs in one basket: your income is far more secure if it comes from a variety of different industries than if it comes from only one, because a single industry may well fluctuate in ways which whole economies do not - and of course, security of income is important to a lot of people. So what do you do? Well, if it's up to you, you swap some of your share in your company with your next door neighbor who works in the computer industry; that way, you are more protected from any sudden fluctuations. But why stop there? Eventually, if left up to people, a burgeoning stock market will emerge. Now, some people will be lucky, or skillful, and make better investments than others - they will become richer, and be able to invest some of their profits. With some of these profits, they might well build new factories, and, instead of giving the workers a share in the company (which they would just sell anyway), the entrepreneurs might just pay them a standard salary. And before you know it, you're back to free market capitalism.

    There's a great bit on this in The Machinery of Freedom, I'll see if I can dig it out when I get home.
    Wow. That's a great post. :p:

    I still have a couple of questions though:

    1. In an anarcho-capitalist world, what would be done about child labour? Wouldn't it be in the interests of companies to let working conditions go to hell? Surely you can't be fine with that?

    2. What about support for those out of work? You can't possibly argue that everyone would get by on private charity. That certainly wasn't the case before unemployment benefit was introduced, was it? Are they just left to rot? What about homeless people?

    3. I can imagine companies committing fraud on a huge scale. How would you stop companies making cars that were secretly unsafe? Ford would no longer be obliged to put air bags in their cars, for example. There would be no quality control for food and things like that.

    4. An age old question is that of monopolies. The power of these companies would be almost limitless.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.