View Poll Results: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 75.00%
  • No

    6 21.43%
  • Other

    0 0%
  • Not Sure/Rootabega

    1 3.57%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    The govt is there to protect justice.
    The state is inherently unjust. It assumes from the start that it has an inherent monopoly on the use of force and then proceeds to use that monopoly to violate the non-aggression principle and trample on the rights of the individual at every turn.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    You canont say there is no state or gov't while at the same time saying there should be courts, police, laws, and taxes. I don't care if the group running all these things and the systems involved is called a corporation, its still a government.
    Um no because a state asserts that it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, in fact that is how the dictionary defines the state; whereas, in an anarcho-capitalist society it is the individual and not the state which is the sovereign and the individual only has the right to the use of force in defense of person or property lest he break one of the two only maxims IE each person is entitled to self ownership and the non-aggression principle. Moreover, these courts and police forces would not have a monopoly on the use of force as they would be privatized and in competition with one another and they would not violate the non-aggression principle either as they would be strictly voluntary services, one would not be compelled to join or pay for them.

    And worse than its a dictatorship as a company president is not answerable to the people that he's enforcing these laws over.
    Um no if the company President running the police force decided to start using that police force for tyrannical means the people would have the right to simply not continue to pay for that companies services, if that President attempted to compel payment he would be in violation of the non-aggression principle, the individuals right to self ownership, and most likely in violation of the voluntary contractual agreement entered into between the security company and the individual who opted to use its services.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    And why wouldn't a private enterprise (probably the lumber company itself) see fit to create its own road system?
    It could if it had the resources to do so. It may have had a difficult time in getting the land it would have required to build it. After all some private land owners could have held it up if they didnt want to sell. Secondly the lumber company is unlikely to build roads that do not directly benifit it. Meaning roads from the mine to the market would not be built, or from the farms etc would not be built by the lumber company. The lumber company may also (most likely would) prevent other enterprises from using its road network, without rather high tolls being charged
    This too can be done with private banks, it used to be that in this country banks would print their own paper currency, currency used to simply be a receipt to be used to reclaim the gold held by the bank but now we have what is known as a fiat currency in which the currency isn't really worth the paper its printed on:



    (See Rothbard and Free banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
    Yes private institutions can set up their own currency and have it recognized as being legitamate by a great number of enterprises. You just have to ensure that those you are trading with recognize that unit of currency.
    I don't see why a private arbiter as we currently have already would be any less efficient, in fact I can see reasons why it would be more efficient as the private sector is almost always more efficient than government bureaucracies.


    Enforcement, and jurisdiction issues.

    If enterprise A ripped off enterprise B, how will a private arbiter enforce its decision, and underr what jurisdiction will it be enforceable. Will private "security" companies be hired to enforce the decisions? What would prevent enterprise A from hiring its own to prevent the decision of the private arbiter from being enforced

    As I said capitalism would exist without government, but the government will provide services that will make capitalism more productive when provided by a common universal system.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    It could if it had the resources to do so. It may have had a difficult time in getting the land it would have required to build it. After all some private land owners could have held it up if they didnt want to sell.
    And that's their right as individuals, to violate that right is to violate the non-aggression principle and the individuals right to self ownership and I would see getting an individual to agree to a voluntary mutually beneficial land sale contract as a lot less difficult than say getting the federal government to allow for oil drilling in a national preserve. Furthermore; unowned land could be used by anyone.

    Secondly the lumber company is unlikely to build roads that do not directly benifit it. Meaning roads from the mine to the market would not be built, or from the farms etc would not be built by the lumber company.
    Actually they would because the individual upon seeing a demand for said roads would build them at his own expense and charge tolls for their use.

    The lumber company may also (most likely would) prevent other enterprises from using its road network, without rather high tolls being charged
    And then another company would move in, build their own roads and undercut the lumber company. As in other markets competition would drive costs down.

    Yes private institutions can set up their own currency and have it recognized as being legitamate by a great number of enterprises. You just have to ensure that those you are trading with recognize that unit of currency.
    Which is why the Gold Standard or a modern equivalent would have to be implemented, I would assert that a good alternative to what I perceive as a useless chunk of rare metal would better be replaced by say an energy standard.


    Enforcement, and jurisdiction issues.

    If enterprise A ripped off enterprise B, how will a private arbiter enforce its decision, and underr what jurisdiction will it be enforceable.
    Well first of all the greatest enforcement mechanism would be enterprise A's reputation in that once it was learned how enterprise A does business other enterprises would naturally no longer want to enter into contracts with them and enterprise A would go out of business in due course.

    Will private "security" companies be hired to enforce the decisions? What would prevent enterprise A from hiring its own to prevent the decision of the private arbiter from being enforced
    Because company A's security company would not want to have damage done to their reputation. Moreover, a collective of enterprises could come together and agree to no longer do business with company A until their financial obligations are met to company B.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •