Oh not this bullshit again. Look: by your reasoning, only catholics are christians because catholicism predates protestantism. Clearly, that’s wrong. Just as your reasoning re: libertarian is wrong.
And yet we have government-run garbage. Explain how that exists in capitalism. Remember: capitalism doesn’t require the state, so you’re going to have a real problem attempting to justify your lie that it does require the state.
By that definition, the examples you’ve given of “anarchism” simply aren’t. “Anarchism” has never existed.
This may have been true in the 19th century, but capitalist enterprise has lately been able to operate in multiple states concurrently, thus spreading the risk of one state defaulting on its ability to provide security, and giving the capitalists enormous leverage on the state’s operations.
It may even be possible for some capitalists to self-produce security, but only the really big ones.
This.
Again, the challenge is for you to prove that the anarcho-capitalist mods of this forum are pro-state.
It is not a theory in any sense of the word but a logical conclusion. A theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has passed the beggining stages of scientific testing. There is no testing done here, our conclusions are not created from statistics as yours is.
Austrian’s come at it a priori, not a posteriori as you do. Your using emperical evidence to attempt to prove something, all you’ve proven is that fascism has existed in the past and does exist, but it does not prove that fascism is a necessary component of capitalism.
In free trade two parties can meet without a state and freely trade. Bert presents to you the logical argument which you ignored.
You have to prove logically that in all instances a state, or party acting the roll of state, is logically necessary for this trade to occur, this is how you can validate your argument. You cannot do this however logically, without re-defining terms which you have done.
Empirical hypothesis’s are more often then not found to be misleading. For example, the rising sales of icecream in NYCity correlates with rising homicides in the summer. Therefore icecream sales must increase homicide incidents.
You make a hypothesis that flipping a coin will land heads 70% of the time based on your empirical research. The Austrian’s refute you by pointing out that a coin of equal weight of both sides has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails on each toss. You can ignore the logic and go about doing more empirical evidence, and you will find different results each time. You may contend to us that if you only did 10 more coin tosses you could prove otherwise. The joke however would be on you and the empirical evidence you provided.
Historically speaking people have argued that slavery has always been, therefore it will always be. Manarchy has always been, so it will always be. Democracy has always been ect. But several parts of history has changed. Just because something appears to have always been, does no mean it always will be. The whole argument is devoid of logic
In order for your argument to be true you have to explain to us, logically, why two parties can voluntarily meet and exchange items without state intervention. Unless you can explain this your thesis is falsified.
Accept that a market is anarchy by it’s very nature. And a state is the opposite of free human action. A state is the manipulation of free human action which is the fundamental opposite of what a market is. A market is freely moving human actors, goods, services ect…
Your only evidence that Free trade necessarily implies the state is historical, but it ignores the fact that a state creates the exact opposite environment of free-trade.
One thing is for sure, freedom of trade is entirely compatible with anarchy. Statism is not. It would make more sense to argue that state-capitalism is more of a contradiction in terms. That is unless you’ve redefined capitalism which is very customary for communists. The problem with re-defining terms is parties argue past each other instead of address the fundamental points of contention they have. KoB has pointed this fallacy out already below.
And nandnor hits the nail on the head with history. All history is bias, so are all staticics and all empericel evidence. We don’t mean that in a negative way it’s just the nature of things. A man who chose to study WW2 over WW1 showed bias towards WW2. Somehow in his reasoning he chose WW2 over WW1. His historical research is bias in that sense.
And Spidey and Angurse are right. We won’t get far in this discussion untill you define what you mean by capitalism. We may find we have more to agree then disagree. If I understand your innuendo’s correctly you seem more concerned with fascism than capitalism.
[:)]
Leninism was indeed true communism; 100% public ownership over the means of production.
Labor, by its very definition, earns wages. Before capitalism only those who already owned land and capital, either by virtue of some hereditary title or state decree, could produce. Those who produced did not earn a wage but rather income, that is, wage + interest (what businessmen and Marxists call profit). The division of labor and of capital is the main source of economic prosperity, and it requires disseminated private ownership over the means of production. Laborers voluntarily engage in exchange with capitalists because without capital the former is forced towards unremunerative and very direct productions. Stealing the capitalists property and giving it to laborers is the definition of social injustice and theft. Furthermore, there’s no reason to do this, since the cooperation between the two parties is (a) mutually beneficial and voluntary, (b) the source of economic growth (already mentioned), and (c) the laborers are free to save and become capitalist themselves–a phenomenon which happens very often.
There are countries today that are fairly close, and the United States was once close itself. Either way, this statement is meaningless–we are progressives who wish to move in a better direction. If you want to talk about which system is better, then talk about political theory and economics; rely on logic. If this is “real capitalism” then Maoism was “real socialism,” in which case, “real capitalism” is a far freer and prosperous system when compared to the latter.
History is quite clear: the socialist elements of any society only exist because they are able to leech off of the fruitful market and liberal economy. The public sector grows and grows, continuously devouring the productions of voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange, until the system collapses. From this, it seems that socialism is not only undesirable, but can’t survive on its own. This is because “society” is nothing more than individual actors engaging in either cooperative exchange (productive market activities) or coercive exchange (ruinous taxation, wars, special interests, ect).
Since ‘the reason’ this thread was started, just posted the same nonsense assertion again, without having addressed this still. I’m bumping.
… yawn
Any advanced society will have a government to settle disputes and provide legal order. So basically he is right.
Wrong.
Fixed.
Capitalism versus Statism - MNR
To Leviathan:
What are the major elements of capitalism that you oppose? Likewise, I’ll fill you in on why I oppose communism/collectivism: even though you may recieve security and welfare from the community, you give up the opportunity to fulfill your own economic objectives. It’s like gaining a safety net that you can rely on for support, but also gaining a glass ceiling that restricts your individualist potential, but lets you imagine what it would be like. Collectivism is a scary thought, at least for many of us that hold liberty as an important moral value (if I don’t represent your ideas correctly, Mises community, please let me know).
Will they? Would a society that has a governmental system, be it voluntary or not, be more advanced than an individualist system in all possible scenarios?
They’d be far more advanced at initiating physical aggression against persons and private property, in particular - providing scope for injustice, death & destruction.
There are no individualist systems in the possible scenarios.
Tell me today’s lotto numbers and I will take what you say seriously.
Suppose no individual or organization told anybody what to do. Isn’t that an economy run by individual sovereignties?
He said possible scenarios. This is not realistic.
My definition of possible is any probability above 0. At least to me, it doesn’t have to be “realistic” to be possible.