• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not Sure/Rootabega

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Total voters
    28

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,654
Reaction score
58,021
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Does Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Please ignore my grammar in the thread title. :3oops:
 
Last edited:
Yes it does, capitalism is not total freedom of the markets, nor total freedom from regulation and other gov't activities. Without a government there's no printed currency, no quality control(ie people don't trust each other's products), no one to keep total anarchy out, without a gov't its total lawlessness.

Capitalism is about a loose framework around the economy, but a framework nonetheless, which is build by laws created by governments.
 
How many capitalist anarchist societies have ever existed? Strangely, Somalia's complete lack of government hasn't done much for local economy. Capitalism requires the state to provide the foundation about which commerce relies to operate. At the bare minimum you need the state to protect against bandits, prevent fraud, and enforce contracts. If you want actual wealth and a successful economy, you need a lot more than that.
 
I don't think I adequately asked the question that I have posed in my head since I am having trouble finding the proper words. So I think we should let this thread die.
 
Does Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Please ignore my grammar in the thread title. :3oops:

Absolutly, some of the most important parts of economic growth is.
1. Property rights. Pretty much every single poor country in the world has a bad history protectng property right. Even some of them (zimbabwe) the government has taken property from white people and given it to black people. This scares off people who want to invest in the country.
2. Protection - Keeping the country safe is important. Inteligent people don't want to live in a country where they risk getting raped or killed every single day. Also, the government needs to make sure that corruption is not common.
3. It also helps a lot if the government makes a clear system that business can work in.

Without these three above, you won't get economic growth. Hence, you need a government.
 
Capitalism needs the state in order to function. It needs the state to enforce contracts protect property, enact and enforce intellectual property rights etc. The very core of capitalism is private property rights and these only exists as long as there is a legal system to protect them.

Capitalism is a government programme.
 
If by "is" you mean "does", then yes. Private property ownership can only be assured by a government of law. This is the basic assumption of libertarianism and why anarchism is not libertarianism.
 
Does Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Please ignore my grammar in the thread title. :3oops:

Technically no, capitalism does not require government to function and exist. However, for capitalism to survive and not following the path to anarchy and then something resembling very un-free, it needs government regulation.
 
Yes it does, capitalism is not total freedom of the markets, nor total freedom from regulation and other gov't activities. Without a government there's no printed currency, no quality control(ie people don't trust each other's products), no one to keep total anarchy out, without a gov't its total lawlessness.

Read Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism anyone? As per your example the printed currency of the Fed (which in actuality is partly privatized to begin with) we could go back to the days when private individual banks printed their own currency, as paper money used to just be a receipt for gold which could be turned in at a later time in exchange for the gold deposited into the bank at a later time.

"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." -- Rothbard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Free_market_money

Rothbard believed that the monopoly which government has over the issuance and distribution of money was actually a bad thing and that it would be economically beneficial to return to a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking"]free banking system[/ame].
 
Last edited:
how do you figure?

Trading for perceived higher value goods has existed since man learned to craft/cultivate things.
Some people built a kind of wealth with this trading.

You'll notice that in areas where government is scarce or non existent, that people still function like this but instead of using money as a means of trade. They use cows, pigs and other things as a measure of wealth.

It still happens to this day.
 
How many capitalist anarchist societies have ever existed? Strangely, Somalia's complete lack of government hasn't done much for local economy. Capitalism requires the state to provide the foundation about which commerce relies to operate. At the bare minimum you need the state to protect against bandits, prevent fraud, and enforce contracts. If you want actual wealth and a successful economy, you need a lot more than that.

This is interesting.
It could be that Somalia has retrogressed to where many nations were hundreds of years ago.
Somalia would make an interesting study, much as man studies insects and animals; but I doubt is this "study" would be allowed by the people of Somalia.
And I think that Somalia does have government, but only on a local basis, possibily bad for them, a local government that we may see as being "criminal".
Was our own government ,hundreds of years ago, that much better???
Ask the "tea baggers"..
 
Trading for perceived higher value goods has existed since man learned to craft/cultivate things.
Some people built a kind of wealth with this trading.

You'll notice that in areas where government is scarce or non existent, that people still function like this but instead of using money as a means of trade. They use cows, pigs and other things as a measure of wealth.

It still happens to this day.
Chickens for "health care" :roll::mrgreen:
 
Technically no, but I believe that minimal government protection is needed for a more prosperous society.
 
Capitalism needs the state in order to function. It needs the state to enforce contracts protect property, enact and enforce intellectual property rights etc. The very core of capitalism is private property rights and these only exists as long as there is a legal system to protect them.

Capitalism is a government programme.

But that means capitalism is socialism, according to some of the people on this board! :)
 
Does Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Technically, no... because barter and trade existed before currency and goods had non-fixed value based on individual transactions.

I would say that the advent of corporatism is what necessitated more government.

Capitalism is just an economic philosophy. How people choose to act it out depends on sociocultural factors.
 
How many capitalist anarchist societies have ever existed? Strangely, Somalia's complete lack of government hasn't done much for local economy.

Failed State =/= Anarcho Capitalism.

Capitalism requires the state to provide the foundation about which commerce relies to operate. At the bare minimum you need the state to protect against bandits, prevent fraud, and enforce contracts. If you want actual wealth and a successful economy, you need a lot more than that.

No actually you don't, you can still have voluntary private police forces and courts. The rights of collective and individualistic self defense would not be abridged. You don't need a state to determine that someone has violated the non-aggression principle by perpetrating fraud, violating contract, raiding villages etc.
 
Last edited:
Failed State =/= Anarcho Capitalism.



No actually you don't, you can still have voluntary private police forces and courts. The rights of collective and individualistic self defense would not be abridged. You don't need a state to determine that someone has violated the non-aggression principle by perpetrating fraud, violating contract, raiding villages etc.

A voluntary police and court would be so open to corruption and power abuse, it would probably be more like a mafia. And how would these courts have any power if they had no basis for enforcement, if there's no gov't no one can make me listen to whatever the court says. A court exists to judge people's actions against laws and force its will on others, thats called a government.
While collective and individual self-defense would still be allowed, since there's no gov't obviously, but you'd have a hard time convincing me its more efficient to constantly be defending yourself from other people, not to mention other states, rather than have a police or military.

Actually you do need a state to decide who has violated non-aggression principles, or has committed fraud, contract violation, etc. If you have a system which punishes people for these actions, then you have laws against them, then you have a government, that is the exact definition of one. The definition of sovereignty is a monopoly on violence in a particular area and via this monopoly of violence the gov't can make and enforce laws, this is exactly what you are talking about here.

You are arguing that a gov't doesn't need to exist to monitor people because people can just form a gov't to monitor themselves.
 
A voluntary police and court would be so open to corruption and power abuse, it would probably be more like a mafia.

Why would it be any more open than a private police or court system which is already like the mafia except that there's only one crime family in charge which you know as the state which has granted for itself a monopoly of the use of force which it uses for armed robbery every day in the form of taxation.

And how would these courts have any power if they had no basis for enforcement, if there's no gov't no one can make me listen to whatever the court says.

It would function mostly the same as a public court system, if you were guilty of a criminal type offense then the voluntary police force would arrest you and throw you into a privately owned prison or jail which we already have to a large extent. If it was a civil type offense I would portend that it would be handled the same as any other civil type case. You can't be arrested for refusing to pay a debt, you can't be arrested for failing to pay up in a lawsuit etc, in fact about the only thing you can be arrested for refusing to pay is taxes. The only difference here is there would only be one overarching law and that would be to not violate the non-aggression principle.

A court exists to judge people's actions against laws and force its will on others, thats called a government.

No it would be different from the state in that there wouldn't be a single source for this authority for the use of force which the state assumes it has. Moreover, payment for these services would be offered on strictly voluntary grounds.

While collective and individual self-defense would still be allowed, since there's no gov't obviously, but you'd have a hard time convincing me its more efficient to constantly be defending yourself from other people, not to mention other states, rather than have a police or military.

Oh I would say you're quite right it would be much less efficient, you would have no more people rotting in prison for 20+ years who have never in their life violated the non-aggression principal in that they have never harmed or violated the natural rights of anyone and as to the military we currently have an all volunteer army which due to it being controlled by state often finds itself in violation of the non-aggression principle.


Actually you do need a state to decide who has violated non-aggression principles, or has committed fraud, contract violation, etc.

No you could have a private court determine these things, we already have private arbitration in this country for just these type of situations.

If you have a system which punishes people for these actions, then you have laws against them, then you have a government, that is the exact definition of one.

You wouldn't need statutory law, all you would need is to bring the two parties in front of a private arbitrator who would determine if either was in violation of the non-aggression principle.

For example fraud would be a violation of that principle in that it would violate that persons right to property, under anarcho-capitalism one of the highest principle is self ownership so murder, battery, rape etc would likewise fall under a property crime. Sentences would be handed out based on reasonable guidelines set forth using community standards which would in time create precedent.

The definition of sovereignty is a monopoly on violence in a particular area and via this monopoly of violence the gov't can make and enforce laws, this is exactly what you are talking about here.

You are arguing that a gov't doesn't need to exist to monitor people because people can just form a gov't to monitor themselves.

Except that in the contractual society found in anarcho-capitalism, it is the individual and not the state which is the sovereign, under the anarcho-capitalist model each individual has the right of self ownership, the state has no right to force them to do anything. No other individual has the right one to force another to do anything unless they violate that persons property rights or a contractual agreement entered into voluntarily by both parties. The punishments for the latter would actually be found in the contracts themselves.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism requires increasing state intervention and the continual expansion of the bureaucracy of the executive to survive. These are features inherent to it.
 
Capitalism requires increasing state intervention and the continual expansion of the bureaucracy of the executive to survive. These are features inherent to it.

Why does capitalism require the state? Corporations that would have failed in a free market might get bailed out by the state through the theft of the general populace, however, without that intervention capitalism would survive and would actually prosper without the competition hindering corporatist system.
 
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. And worse than its a dictatorship as a company president is not answerable to the people that he's enforcing these laws over.
 
Back
Top Bottom