Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Capitalism is the defacto state of any economy where people are not forced to do things, beyond the bare essentials

It requires no government for someone to trade their surplus wheat for someones surplus lumber

A government can however make such transactions more efficient by creating and maintaining the transportation system to get the wheat to the people with the lumber and the lumber to the people with the wheat. It can also make trading more efficient, as bartering is quite inefficient. Money is a very efficient means of trading, as people can use it to buy the actual things they need rather then haggle with multiple groups in order to get what they want or need

A government can also ensure an effective dispute resolution system (civil law) which encourages longer term contracts to be signed and honoured. Without which it would be harder and generally more wastefull to resolve contract disputes.

Overall while capitalism does not require a government to exist and function, it certainly will be better off with a government to provide a fair number of services

I view the relationship between government and economic system as symbiotic. Capitalism as a form of economic system, especially a non laissez-faire system with regulation and the like, requires some form of government to enforce the rule of law.

A more interesting question to me is "Does a liberal constitutional republic require a capitalist economic system to exist and function?"

The govt is there to protect justice.

Lord Tammerlain said:

A government can however make such transactions more efficient by creating and maintaining the transportation system to get the wheat to the people with the lumber and the lumber to the people with the wheat.

Click to expand...

And why wouldn't a private enterprise (probably the lumber company itself) see fit to create its own road system?

It can also make trading more efficient, as bartering is quite inefficient. Money is a very efficient means of trading, as people can use it to buy the actual things they need rather then haggle with multiple groups in order to get what they want or need

Click to expand...

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:

"Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative." -- Murray Rothbard

Click to expand...

(See Rothbard and [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking]Free banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame])

A government can also ensure an effective dispute resolution system (civil law) which encourages longer term contracts to be signed and honoured. Without which it would be harder and generally more wastefull to resolve contract disputes.

Click to expand...

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.

reefedjib said:

I view the relationship between government and economic system as symbiotic. Capitalism as a form of economic system, especially a non laissez-faire system with regulation and the like, requires some form of government to enforce the rule of law.

A more interesting question to me is "Does a liberal constitutional republic require a capitalist economic system to exist and function?"

Click to expand...

I believe it does unless you can think of a Liberal Democracy which has existed without being capitalist (rather a mixed economy). I believe that this is because without inherent property rights it is impossible to maintain liberty, even in these mixed economies we still have limited self ownership leading to limited freedom but in actual socialist states (eg Cuba not Canada) the concept of individual property rights is thrown by the wayside so certainly self ownership would be out of the question.

American said:

The govt is there to protect justice.

Click to expand...

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.

Wiseone said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Agent Ferris said:

And why wouldn't a private enterprise (probably the lumber company itself) see fit to create its own road system?

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lord Tammerlain said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.