For such a statement to be true or not, you've got to be more precise about what you mean by capitalism.
At it's heart, capitalism is about 1) private ownership of the factors of production through limited liability and tradeable claims; and 2) a separation of management of the firm from ownership of the firm.
I don't see that being replaced anytime soon. The idea that a top-down technocratic solution (of which I would consider socialism an enlightened example) would result in greater human thriving has not been borne out empirically, and in theory has problems that the information and feedback processes driving decision making are less efficient.
Why is socialism a top-down technocratic solution? What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production?
Also, what is “human thriving”? I find that capitalists use vague terms like this to mean “good”, and when you push them for a definition, they give you a contrived one which makes capitalism look good, but no satisfying justification or explanation for why this is should be what the structure of society should be optimised for.
Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down.
"Human thriving" can be defined any number of ways, including wealth, health, liberty (positive or negative), freedom, happiness, environmental factors, etc. Most capitalists define thriving as improvement in some or all of these areas. You are correct that a vague definition of "thriving" can be self-serving, but it is hard to find any factor which socialist countries have made more progress in than less socialist countries. Even a socialist country (i.e. China or India) which frees its markets and creates property rights sees a substantial gain in the rate of improvement of the lives of its citizens in almost every aspect.
> Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down.
No it's not? Property rights themselves can only be enforced through some agent of the state, hence they are top down. Abolition of private property means abolition of the state.
I mentioned this in another post in this thread, but take the example of a house you rent from a landlord. Under capitalism, it's not your house, even though you use it. It's the landlord's, because ultimately the landlord can use the coercive power of the state to remove you if you stop paying rent. If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use.
> If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use.
If you abolish the state, anyone can claim ownership over anything they want, they'll just have to muster their own force to enforce the claim since there is no state to impose force on behalf of any claimant.
This isn't borne out, though, by actual experience.
Plenty of economic goods are not secured by codified property rights, defined and enforced from above. Communities are able to self-organize to define a reasonable set of behavioral norms. Local knowledge can be leveraged to generate better outcomes, and locality allows different communities to experiment with what actually works best, making the system as a whole more fault tolerant.
See the work of Elinor Ostrom for several deeply investigated examples of this kind of organizing.
It actually is. While plenty of economic goods may not be secured by codified property rights and instead are secured through the application of community norms, when those norms are challenged community does have to apply force.
See: the majority of human history, particularly Pythagoras' attempt at community, every war for conquest, anarchic systems created in early Iceland/Scandinavia, normal people's experiences with bullies, etc.
> This isn't borne out, though, by actual experience.
Yes, actually, the fact that, in the absence of a state (and, in fact, even in the presence of a de jure state but the absence of an effective state), people are free to claim whatever, but their ability to enforce a claim is dependent on their ability to muster force to press it is well established by experience.
> Plenty of economic goods are not secured by codified property rights, defined and enforced from above.
I don't disagree with that, but its not relevant to anything I said.
> Communities are able to self-organize to define a reasonable set of behavioral norms.
Again, I don't disagree (in fact, that's what a democratic state is.)
> Local knowledge can be leveraged to generate better outcomes, and locality allows different communities to experiment with what actually works best, making the system as a whole more fault tolerant.
And, yet again, I don't necessarily disagree with that in general (though I do think it is an overgeneralization), and, again, it doesn't contradict anything I said.
This is not necessarily the case, and depends on your view of rights. If you believe in natural, self evident rights, (such as owning one's self,) then property rights can be derived in a number of ways. This is only one example, as there are a number of ways to establish property rights, some of which involve state coercion, and some of which do not.
> If you believe in natural, self evident rights, (such as owning one's self,) then property rights can be derived in a number of ways.
Whether or not you believe in such rights, they are different kind of thing than legal rights and (notably) cannot be abolished. Confusing natural (i.e., moral) rights and legal rights is the fallacy of equivocation (and is equivalent to conflating a fact proposition with a value proposition.)
Creation of legal property rights is always a top-down action by the State. It may be justified by a belief in certain inherent, unalterable moral rights (as, equally, can the abolition of legal property rights -- which is simply the State declining to continue to impose coercive means to uphold certain property rights), but that doesn't change that the mechanism by which they imposed is top-down, coercive action by the State.
It's not really the fallacy of equivocation, since legal rights follow natural rights and he's not confusing the two.
Property rights are not necessarily externally applied. As you can apply use to the area around you, you can use your natural rights in order to claim property and protect it through force. In this way you are innately a sovereign. When you join in a community, you give up some of your natural rights to the state, particularly as regards the application of force.
Legal rights, as I said previously, may be motivated by beliefs about natural/moral rights, but they are, purely and simply, a decision by the State to use coercive measures to exclude some actions. And they may also not be motivated by any belief about "natural rights". Natural rights, except as a rhetorical device to claim the moral high ground in arguments about what decisions the State should make in terms of imposing coercive power on behalf of one or the other conflicting claimants in a class of actual or hypothetical disputes, don't actually have any direct bearing on, really, anything.
> As you can apply use to the area around you, you can use your natural rights in order to claim property and protect it through force.
You can use your physical capacity to exclude people from actions (whether or not they relate to an entity in which you claim a property right, and whether or not any "natural rights" exist or have any bearing on the situation). You belief about the existence and scope of natural rights might have an impact on where you choose to exercise that physical capacity, but, again, that's pretty much beside the point.
> When you join in a community, you give up some of your natural rights to the state
That's a rather controversial claim; many of those who believe in the existence of "natural rights" also believe that a fundamental distinguishing feature of "natural rights" is that they are inalienable -- that is, they cannot be transferred or surrendered.
>Natural rights, except as a rhetorical device to claim the moral high ground in arguments about what decisions the State should make in terms of imposing coercive power on behalf of one or the other conflicting claimants in a class of actual or hypothetical disputes, don't actually have any direct bearing on, really, anything
And where, precisely, does the State come from? From where does it come by its power? What is the State? If there was no community, would a state still exist? Sort of; each of us would retain individual sovereignty, and most likely, begin to group together again for security of both our persons and our property.
The idea of the state of nature and natural rights is not to create said rights, but instead to illuminate the rights each of us already possesses.
>whether or not they relate to an entity in which you claim a property right
I don't know what this means. My point was pretty simple; if I pick a bunch of apples and you try to take them from me, I can say 'those are mine' and hit you. In effect, I am thereby claiming property and enforcing my right to said property through force.
>many of those who believe in the existence of "natural rights" also believe that a fundamental distinguishing feature of "natural rights" is that they are inalienable -- that is, they cannot be transferred or surrendered.
It's not that controversial. Only some natural rights are inalienable, not all. The right to enter into the state of war, for example, is both a natural right and one which a person may give up to the state or community.
I did not confuse anything, you left the type of right undefined. I assumed that the undefined right could be either moral or legal, whereas you interpret "right" to mean "legal right" unless explicitly stated otherwise. This has been an unfortunate misunderstanding.
No, the post I responded to was about the abolition of rights, which restricts it to the class of rights (legal, not moral) for which that phrase is meaningful.
Context matters.
> whereas you interpret "right" to mean "legal right" unless explicitly stated otherwise.
No, I interpret it to mean "legal right" when it is used in a context in which what is being discussed is only meaningful for legal rights.
If I hold something in my hand, it's practically my property. The state doesn't have to come in and say "that which you hold in your hand is yours", it's pretty much a given fact.
I would say that the enforcement of private property is what requires the top-down approach. Not the abolishment of private property.
e.g: If I would build my house at someones former vast private property (land). The property owner would somehow have to enforce he's or her's private property. Today this is done through the state.
And without the state I couldn't just have a few of my employees or friends burn your house down?
This whole argument of whether property rights or lack of property rights is due to a State is fundamentally misguided. The State is just force, and whether that force creates property rights or destroys common understanding of property rights depends upon how that force is applied.
Of course. I agree with you, hence the "Today" in the last sentence. Tomorrow it might be other kinds of states or similar entities. The first sentence was however badly formulated.
So it's true that a stateless society would need to defend against groups of thugs or similar just as we do today. This would probably be done in a decentralized manner rather than a paid centralized institution like today. The idea is to build a society that people would want to defend.
So hopefully people would organise against thugs that claim private property rights, or also risk being exposed to them themselves.
You have it completely backwards. Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property.
Let's say you're renting a house from some landlord. You live in this house, so it should be yours, right? The landlord already has another house that they live in. But it's not yours, it's the landlord's. Why is it the landlord's? Because if you stop paying rent, they can kick you out. How? Ultimately, by using the force of the state to remove you. If you get abolish private property (i.e., the state), then there is no “force” that makes the house the landlord's. It simply becomes your house.
Abolishing private property doesn't mean getting individuals to “give up” their property, it means people can no longer use force to claim ownership over that which they do not use.
>> Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property.
Really now? If the State ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think you and everyone you know would go on a killing spree, because no one would have "the right to live" anymore?
Without the State, would you and your friends go forcefully take everyone else's (non-)property because property rights would cease to exist? Or would everyone perhaps willingly part with all their belongings because they believed their property rights had vanished with the State?
Would you and your friends go rape all the women you could get your hands on, purely because without the State, people would no longer have the right to control their own bodies?
.. See what I'm getting at here? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider who's got it completely backwards?
Of course not many people will go on a rampage. But the right to life is an entirely different beast than the right to property. It seems obvious to me that private property (the "right" to sole use of property) exists merely by decree of laws and without it, it simply doesn't exist. In the natural state one can only own what they can successfully defend. The concept of private property outsources that defense to the state and thus one ends up capable of accumulating far more property than one could defend in the natural state.
>Without the State, would you and your friends go forcefully take everyone else's (non-)property because property rights would cease to exist
No, but in a scenario where a bank was attempting to evict me from my home and I had nowhere else to go, I would defend my claim to said property.
>> But the right to life is an entirely different beast than the right to property. It seems obvious to me that private property (the "right" to sole use of property) exists merely by decree of laws and without it, it simply doesn't exist
Do you need a law to tell you you're allowed to defend yourself if someone attacks you? .. Do you not have that "right" by virtue of being a human being?
Are you only allowed to defend your property if there's a government that says you have property rights?
>> in a scenario where a bank was attempting to evict me from my home and I had nowhere else to go, I would defend my claim to said property
Presumably, you'd have voluntarily signed a contract with the bank, and voluntary assumed the risks involved in it, yes? If your contract with the bank says they get your home if you can't pay back your loan, then it's no longer your property after the clause has been triggered.
If you did forcefully defend "your claim to said property" even when it's no longer your property, that would be a job for some kind of "dispute resolution organization".
The talk of 'rights' are muddying the issue. A 'right' necessarily entails responsibilities onto other entities. These responsibilities must be agreed upon beforehand for a 'right' to be said to exist. I know, it is common for discussions of natural rights as in collective responsibility that exists outside of any agreed upon framework. But careful examination of such a claim reveals it to be impotent. I have no reason to acknowledge your right to the sole use of 1M acres of land unless there was some mutually agreed upon framework beforehand. Once we reach the level of mutual agreement (and some enforcement clause) we have just invented government.
The only 'natural right' I agree with is the right to life and non-interference. Everything else requires an agreed upon framework and thus are purely by decree.
> If the State ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think you and everyone you know would go on a killing spree, because no one would have "the right to live" anymore?
You not having a right to something doesn't mean I don't have better uses for my time and effort than taking it from you.
To be more accurate, I'm simply pointing out that we all have the exact same rights regardless of what a government does/says, or whether one even exists at all.
Our rights manifest themselves in the way people naturally behave.
How is it that people "naturally" behave, exactly? Keep in mind that the way we behave in civilized society is a product of having been raised in civilized society. We have internalized social norms that have been codified into laws, and behave accordingly.
If you look at history, or at any place where the consequences of behavior are removed (e.g. the behavior of people to whom laws don't typically apply), you will find that for the most part, people often behave extremely poorly to each other. Indeed, you'll find that game theory and selfishness best predicts how people treat each other. Law of the jungle, and all that.
Technically, we give up some of our rights to the state; the right to enter into a state of war, for example. There are notable exceptions to this but it's really dependent on community norms in those cases.
>> Technically, we give up some of our rights to the state; the right to enter into a state of war, for example
No one ever asked me, and no one ever asked you either. Is it reasonable to think you've agreed to "give up" some of your rights when no one ever asked you? What about taxes? Can you be considered to have consented to taxation when no one ever asked you, and when you're taxed by force anyway - it's as if no one wanted to be taxed!
Not only that, but can you give up your rights?
Can you give up your right to own property? -How would that work? Would you solemnly swear never to have any belongings anymore? Never to hold anything in your possession? Never to oppose anyone taking something from you?
Yes, it is totally reasonable to have given up your rights when no-one ever asked you. But maybe you made it explicit anyway; have you ever said the pledge of allegiance?
No, you cannot give up your right to property, because you own your person.
>> Yes, it is totally reasonable to have given up your rights when no-one ever asked you.
Well, I guess you'll start sending say, 15% of all your income my way then? I never asked you, you never consented, but this "contract" is obviously binding anyway! That's how this stuff works, right? .. or do I need to have some kind of badge, wig, or uniform to make this "agreement" binding?
Naturally, I'll show up at your door and take my "fair share" by force, if necessary.
>> No, you cannot give up your right to property, because you own your person.
But the thing is, you did consent to be a part of your community and thus bound by the social contract. If you don't like it, that's fine, commit a felony. It's just that by doing something like that, you will no longer possess all the rights and protections a normal citizen does. But you'll have all your rights.
>> But the thing is, you did consent to be a part of your community and thus bound by the social contract.
Nope. Never asked. Never consented. Not. Binding.
This is exactly what I tried to illuminate earlier. It simply makes no sense to think that A and B can, among themselves, whip up a "contract" that binds C - let alone that A alone can impose a binding "contract" on B without B ever being aware of it.
Of course, I'm bound by the fact that if I don't pay taxes, violence will be inflicted on me. In fact, no one wants to pay taxes, but everyone knows that's how it works: don't pay --> go to jail. The idea of "the social contract" is meant to mask this reality of extortion on the ultimate scale.
>> If you don't like it, that's fine, commit a felony
Ooooh.. a felony! Sounds scary, doesn't it?
>> It's just that by doing something like that, you will no longer possess all the rights and protections a normal citizen does. But you'll have all your rights.
So I won't have all the rights but I will have all my rights, huh? How does that work?
You don't necessarily have to be asked to consent to something. Your not objecting to action for a certain period of time and in specific circumstances can be read as consent.
The social contract is not about A and B binding C to something. It's a contract between you and your community. What this actually means varies, but in the US it's pretty explicit.
Have you ever voted? If so, you've consented to being a part of this contract, as you even helped create its terms.
More specifically, the communal rights you are accorded will be removed, but your personal rights will be restored. You'll once more be your own sovereign. This means that you can do whatever you want, though you will have to bear the brunt of the consequences your actions bring.
>> You don't necessarily have to be asked to consent to something. Your not objecting to action for a certain period of time and in specific circumstances can be read as consent.
Bullshit. We grow up not having the faintest fucking clue that we're all tax-slaves. We're all brainwashed into believing in the system, and just accepting everything at face value.
If someone questions something, he's told he should just appreciate the services he's "using" and getting in exchange for paying taxes, as if paying taxes was voluntary and as if you wouldn't want to choose the service providers yourself.
Since everyone is brainwashed into "The Matrix" (!), what you said is comparable to raping someone who's in a coma and declaring that he consented to it because he didn't object.
>> More specifically, the communal rights you are accorded will be removed, but your personal rights will be restored. You'll once more be your own sovereign. This means that you can do whatever you want, though you will have to bear the brunt of the consequences your actions bring.
I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if you're (once again) referring to the consequences of disobeying the State, it's worth pointing out that punishing someone for not wanting to be a slave is kind of unreasonable.
We're not tax-slaves. All this stuff IS voluntary. You can choose not to do whatever you want.
The state of nature and any other system is not inherently better. Think about it. You're alone, you have no community ties, who protects you or your food when you sleep? What happens when someone bigger and stronger than you wants to take what you have, or hurt you?
If you have problems with the system in which you live, then change it. If you can't change it because you're in the far minority, then sorry, but the system we have is more about majority representation and minority protection than minority rule.
>I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if you're (once again) referring to the consequences of disobeying the State, it's worth pointing out that punishing someone for not wanting to be a slave is kind of unreasonable.
I'm saying that if you decide to leave the protection of the state, you sacrifice exactly that, protection. I'm not a slave, and I'd venture to guess you aren't either, but if you feel that way, then be free. Nobody is really stopping you but you.
>> We're not tax-slaves. All this stuff IS voluntary. You can choose not to do whatever you want.
There's a really easy way to find out whether taxation is voluntary: stop paying taxes and see what happens. But you already know what would happen: you would be hauled to jail, and tased, beaten or even shot if you resisted. Everyone knows this.
Next, don't tell me it's voluntary because I can just leave the country. So what? Exchanging one "prison" for another does not mean you're free. Extortion by Mafia B is no more moral than extortion by Mafia A. This is obvious too. The only question is whether you're capable of accepting the reality you actually live in.
>> The state of nature and any other system is not inherently better. Think about it.
Oh believe me, I have :p You know, we're all brainwashed into believing that the State is necessary to protect us, to maintain order in society, and to keep us safe against say, terrorists, foreign nations, evil corporations and so on.
>> You're alone, you have no community ties, who protects you or your food when you sleep? What happens when someone bigger and stronger than you wants to take what you have, or hurt you?
This is your brainwashing talking. Do you think everyone you know would go on a rampage if the State ceased to exist tomorrow?
Of course not. You'd still have your friends and family to lean on, just like before. But that was an extreme example.
The vast majority of people would just go on making a living just like before. Companies would not cease to sell their products and services to customers, and employees would not stop working for companies, and so on. In other words, people would still want (and need) to make money, to get by and to buy whatever they happen to want.
Do you think the only reason McDonald's isn't forcing people to "buy" its burgers is that there's a State and a police force preventing it? Well no, of course not. So why would that change without a government? In fact, it's the government that is actually forcing you to "buy" its services, like healthcare, "protection" and "education".
When I was in the process of letting go of the belief that governments should exist at all, the last straw of my brainwashing I kept clutching on to was this idea that governments keep us safe. But then I realized that even now, if someone wants to physically hurt me, a police officer will not materialize between me and my assailant and prevent him from harming me.
If someone wants to hurt me, it's already just a matter of evaluating the risks vs the "rewards" - if he thinks it's unlikely enough that he'd suffer any negative consequences, he'll just happily punch me in the face or whatever.
In other words, the only thing preventing someone from hurting me are whatever unpleasant consequences he might suffer as a result. But there's no reason why a free society could not arrange unpleasant consequences to those who harm others too, and much more efficiently than the current system to boot. For example, do you think police officers and judges (overall) actually give a flying fuck about you or whether you get justice? What about locking people up in a rape-cage for a decade for having a certain plant in their pockets? -Is that justice?
>> If you have problems with the system in which you live, then change it
You can't. Governments are full of sociopaths, and they are perfectly happy with the way things are going - they went there to exploit and manipulate other people after all. The whole system is based on the belief in authority - the belief that someone "has the right" to make decisions for millions of others and then enforce them. It's simply insane, but people believe it because they've been brainwashed all their lives.
>> I'm not a slave, and I'd venture to guess you aren't either
Nope. We're all slaves. Sure, there are some nuances, but think of it this way: someone else takes 100% of the fruits of a slave's labour. That's a full-on slave, right?
But what about if someone else takes 50% of the fruits of your labour? -Well, then you're a "50% slave". But does it really make a difference? -For example, can you rape a woman "only a little"? 50%-rape a woman? Well no, you either rape someone or you do not, and you either enslave someone or you do not.
Then there's the clear-cut slavery scenario of compulsory military service. In Finland we've got three options:
1) Slave-camp where you do as you're told, or you get punished.
2) Civil service, just another way to arrange forced-labour.
3) Jail.
They can't really make our slavery any more obvious than that, without too many people waking up from their programming.
But yeah, we are tax-slaves. The red pill is seriously fucking hard to swallow, but after you do, you're in a much better position to take care of yourself and to improve your own life. For example, you'll start thinking for yourself, figuring out what's really going on and why, protecting your assets and yourself, and so on.
If you live in the US, it's high time to get the fuck out - staying in an oppressive police state can fuck up decades of your life. There are plenty of examples in history, and since the problem was always the State existing at all, new oppressive regimes will keep coming and going as long as the problem persists.
Here's an easier way to see if something is voluntary; can you stop doing it at all?
There has only been one real society that I know of that succeeded in maintaining an anarchic system, and that was the vikings. However, there was a hell of a lot of death there; in a society like that, if you screw someone, they may kill you.
Why would capitalism be the default system with no state regulation? Wouldn't it be easier for the people with larger resources to take advantage of their new lack of regulation to actually enslave people, or force them to be serfs? It works pretty well for the people at the top.
What do I think would change without a government? Money and trade would be first. We use fiat currencies, so many people would begin producing their own. Lot's more people would lie about their product's efficiency, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some people would seize all the valuable land and resources; see what's going on in the CAR for a good example of all this.
In a slave scenario, I not only take 100% of the product of a slave's labor, but I also choose what they labor upon, if they can marry or have relationships, what they read or watch, where they can go and what they can do. I can also beat them without anyone saying anything.
If you feel that this is what your government does to you, then get the hell out.
I didn't really expect you to wake up this easily.
>> Here's an easier way to see if something is voluntary; can you stop doing it at all?
What I said still stands. If you want to claim taxation is voluntary, stop paying taxes and see how voluntary it actually is. But as mentioned before, you already know full well it's not.
>> However, there was a hell of a lot of death there; in a society like that, if you screw someone, they may kill you.
You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
>> Why would capitalism be the default system with no state regulation?
The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it. It's important to realize that capitalism is not some kind of "system" that would be imposed on people - it's what we do in any case.
Saving and investment is the basis of all human wealth, because without savings, there can be no productivity improvements. Higher productivity means it's just that much easier to save more, and the virtuous cycle continues.
>> Wouldn't it be easier for the people with larger resources to take advantage of their new lack of regulation to actually enslave people, or force them to be serfs?
Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary.
Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.
>> It works pretty well for the people at the top.
Huh? Enslaving other people works well for the people at the top? As in, the sociopaths in government who went there for that specific purpose? Well yeah, that's about right.
>> We use fiat currencies, so many people would begin producing their own.
People wouldn't use fiat currencies anymore, they'd use a currency that can't be manipulated by anyone, and that would be great for everyone. Have you got any idea how much of the dollar's purchasing power has evaporated during your lifetime? That shit wouldn't happen in a free market. Who does inflation hurt the most? -The poor, of course.
>> Lot's more people would lie about their product's efficiency, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
There would be independent, third party quality assurance services, and so on. And they'd all be responsible to their customers, unlike government agencies. The government is not responsible to anyone for what they do, and that's a massive factor in how fucked up everything is.
>> Some people would seize all the valuable land and resources
Or not? That's just a scaremongering assumption, like just about everything else you're saying. But even if that were true, would it be better to have a group of sociopaths (=government) seize anything and everything at will?
>> In a slave scenario, I not only take 100% of the product of a slave's labor, but I also choose what they labor upon, if they can marry or have relationships, what they read or watch, where they can go and what they can do. I can also beat them without anyone saying anything.
>> If you feel that this is what your government does to you, then get the hell out.
Tell that to someone in North-Korea. Doesn't seem all that convincing in that context, huh? Well, it's just another government, just another tax farm.
Here's the main difference between North-Korea and a democratic country of your choice: in North-Korea, the enslavement system is held together by fear, but in a democracy it's held together through propaganda.
See, the only thing the sociopaths in charge care about, is maintaining their own power and their ability to loot the general populace. In other words, the only thing they care about is maintaining their tax farm. Any time there's a threat to this model, they do everything they can to neutralize it. If a specific regime completely loses its credibility and "legitimacy" in the eyes of their tax cattle, then they have a choice: 1) step down, or 2) set up torture camps etc and rule by sheer terror.
But we've been through your pseudo-argument already. Being able to switch slave-masters does not mean you're free.
See, we clearly have different conceptions of what is and is not voluntary. Let's say you voluntarily decide to kick a glass window. It breaks, as a consequence of that action, and you are hurt. Does that mean not kicking in windows is involuntary, simply because it sets of a series of reactions?
Now, if you decide that it isn't worth it to you to do something because the consequences of an action are worse than the rewards you would gain, it doesn't mean that taking or not taking this action is involuntary, it means you're probably rational.
>>You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you disputing that there was more violence, saying that's not bad, or saying that this won't happen?
>>The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it.
It's actually not. Capitalism is associated with a religious calling, as in the 19th century it was common for Calvinists/some Baptists to equate hard work with being more likely to go to heaven, and more money as the proof of God's grace and favor. That's where the shift to capitalism really started, particularly as an influence on people's day-to-day lives.
>> Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary.
Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.
This would be totally valid if people didn't consistently make this choice, throughout history and today, and it's actually extremely rare for the people to rise up and successfully rebel against it. It's more likely that other powerful people want your power and attempt to take it from you, but the situation doesn't change much for normal people.
>>North Korea
Actually, the main difference is a combined lack of freedom and widespread starvation.
By the way, I don't think I have a slave-master. I pay taxes, this is true, but I get a lot out of that. Should there be tax reform? Sure. Does the existence of taxation make you automatically enslaved? I don't think so.
I'm not sure we're living in the same systems; in my experience, the government has trouble seizing anything at all, let alone whatever it wants for any reason. I think it's really funny that you talk about corporations being more responsible to their customers than the government because you mention that anyone taking power has a risk of being overthrown; do you think that doesn't apply to government?
Voluntary: done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice
-- Once again, you can easily find out whether paying taxes is voluntary by not doing so. But you know you'll be forcefully hauled to jail etc, and your property will be forcefully confiscated.
>> Let's say you voluntarily decide to kick a glass window. It breaks, as a consequence of that action, and you are hurt. Does that mean not kicking in windows is involuntary, simply because it sets of a series of reactions?
Quite the mental gymnastics going on there. Here's a much better question: "If you're severely punished for not paying taxes, does that mean paying taxes is not voluntary?"
Here's another: "If you're severely punished for attempting to keep your property, does that mean something immoral is going on?"
Yet another: "If you think there's nothing wrong with forcefully confiscating your property and punishing you for attempting to keep it, do you think you might have been brainwashed in some way?"
>> Now, if you decide that it isn't worth it to you to do something because the consequences of an action are worse than the rewards you would gain, it doesn't mean that taking or not taking this action is involuntary, it means you're probably rational.
You're (still!) talking about avoiding the negative consequences of not paying your taxes, which is certainly rational, but changes nothing about taxation being extortion. In the exact same way, paying off the mafia so that they won't hurt you is rational, but doesn't mean you're not being extorted, nor that extortion would be moral.
>>>You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
>>I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you disputing that there was more violence, saying that's not bad, or saying that this won't happen?
I'm saying that the vast majority of people are peaceful and won't harm you even if there are no governments.
>> It's actually not. Capitalism is associated with a religious calling, as in the 19th century it was common for Calvinists/some Baptists to equate hard work with being more likely to go to heaven, and more money as the proof of God's grace and favor. That's where the shift to capitalism really started, particularly as an influence on people's day-to-day lives.
Regardless of whether that's accurate or not, that's not where pursuing your personal gain started. Capitalism is just people doing exactly that, through voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. All the problems you associate with "capitalism" (in whatever Marxist way you happen to view it) are rooted in the State, a monopoly on violence that all the richest companies rush to bribe in order to gain competitive advantages and to erect barriers to entry.
Remember, McD doesn't force you to buy its burgers, and it has no army, no aircraft carriers, no police force, no secret "courts", and no nuclear missiles. Companies themselves have no power, but will of course buy it as long as it's available for purchase. If there's nothing to bribe, there is no bribery.
>> This would be totally valid if people didn't consistently make this choice, throughout history and today, and it's actually extremely rare for the people to rise up and successfully rebel against it.
Oh? Well, you're probably talking about "Crony-Capitalism" again, ie. the evils of the State + "Corporations" combined. Think "East-India Trading Company", Wall Street, etc.
Why do you think it's difficult to rebel against evil corporations that rape people with the help of the State's armies and police forces etc?
>> It's more likely that other powerful people want your power and attempt to take it from you
What power? The "power" to give assignments to my employees in exchange for paying them a salary?
Remember, money alone is not power. It's a means of exchange.
>> Actually, the main difference is a combined lack of freedom and widespread starvation.
Oh? Well what do you think causes and upholds both of those?
>> By the way, I don't think I have a slave-master. I pay taxes, this is true, but I get a lot out of that.
Imagine you go into a restaurant, and you've got $500 in your pocket. Right after you get in, someone comes to you and announces that he'll just take 50% of whatever is in your pocket now. Well that's a bit strange, but whatever, you give $250 to the guy - you're going to get food after all. Then you sit at a table, call for a waiter and order a nice steak, medium rare. You're told you can't have a steak, and that you'll be served a shit-sandwich instead. You protest, complaining about having just paid 50% of your wealth and that you should get your money's worth in return!
But the waiter remains adamant, and declares that you're just going to have to settle for a shit-sandwich, and that if you don't like it, you can go to another restaurant next door, where they'll take %30 of your wealth in exchange for another variety of a shit-sandwich. However, now that you've come in, you can never be outside of a restaurant anymore. So basically, all you've got left is a choice between different varieties of a shit-sandwich. If you want to switch to another restaurant, you'll first need to apply for permission to leave, which can be denied at will if the current restaurant happens to be displeased with you. In fact, if you make your restaurant angry enough, they'll just take you down to the basement and torture you to death.
Now, if you see any problems with this arrangement, you'll see the same problems with States.
>> Should there be tax reform? Sure.
How about reforming taxes to zero? Or how much do you think a shit-sandwich is worth?
>> Does the existence of taxation make you automatically enslaved? I don't think so.
Of course you don't. You've been brainwashed into not thinking so. I get that it's difficult to let go of your brainwashing, it took a while even for me.
>> I'm not sure we're living in the same systems; in my experience, the government has trouble seizing anything at all
Oh there are plenty of examples. Silk Road is a recent one. Have you noticed how it's always those naughty terrorists and child abusers that need to be stopped by cracking down on something and monitoring us all, and so on? I bet you have.
>> I think it's really funny that you talk about corporations being more responsible to their customers than the government because you mention that anyone taking power has a risk of being overthrown; do you think that doesn't apply to government?
Companies are responsible to their customers as long as paying for their services is voluntary. If a customer doesn't like what he's getting, he'll just take his money somewhere else. You do this all the time in your everyday life.
Governments can be overthrown, sure, but all throughout history, they've never been dismantled. One group of sociopaths has been replaced with another, over and over and over again. You see, as long as there's a throne to sit on, someone will sit on it, and the same insanity will continue. The solution is to completely disregard the throne and someone's imagined authority over you.
Besides, overthrowing a government is preceded by years or decades of people suffering under tyrannical rule, and requires lots of people suffering and dying in vain. Switching from an iPhone to an S4 is a tad bit easier.
That holds true for possessions, but not private-property. I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between private-property (e.g land, industry etc) and possesions (e.g one's house, car etc.).
I'm familiar with the concept of natural rights and it's claim to be some kind of objective rights, but I think it's fairly obvious that such a fought over topic is not even close to being objective.
>> I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between private-property (e.g land, industry etc) and possesions (e.g one's house, car etc.).
There are several sensible ways to define "property". One is that it's a representation of value that you want exclusive control over. This value can be in the form of an apple in your hand, or a factory under your control, even if it's a building.
The bottom line is, people produce value in order to benefit from it, and the "right" to control that value is required - otherwise people wouldn't produce anything.
But there's no need for a government here. As I said, everyone knows you can't just take someone else's stuff.
>> I'm familiar with the concept of natural rights and it's claim to be some kind of objective rights, but I think it's fairly obvious that such a fought over topic is not even close to being objective
Here's something objective: Treat others as you'd like them to treat you. This includes not taking control of their property, no matter what form it's in. Rights are just an idea, and "natural rights" are a version of it that aligns perfectly with The Golden Rule, and people's intuitive "common sense morality". Typically, your conscience tells you when you're doing something you shouldn't do.
Oh, and as for "objective", do you think a group of sociopaths ruling over everyone else is objective?
Why can't you come to terms with the obvious difference between those kinds of property? For some reasons it's basically impossible to get a straight answer from a property advocate on this.
It's not the same in any moral sense. That you seem to find it rational for one person to own vast amounts of land is what I would see as a pathological frame of mind. It's just aint just. I can't see how it's in any way morally more natural to uphold that persons property rights rather than abolishing such a concept and letting those who use the land own what they use.
"Treat others as you'd like them to treat you" for me is for example to not claim private-property rights of things that can be used to exploit others. You can't do that with your car, thus a possession. But in the case of land ownership you obviously can, thus property.
Well, strictly speaking, abolishing the state does not prevent the use of force - it simply removes a single arbitrator of force. If the state were abolished, then the landlord is free to use his own force to attempt to remove you. If this works or not / is a good idea or not for the landlord depends on the situation (ie does he believe that you can come back and retaliate with more force than he himself can muster).
> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production?
Inherently? Nothing. But that's the goal, and socialism is more than the goal, its the means: if you do that through the State, its "socialism". If you do part or all of it within a community by non-state means, its something else (anarcho-syndicalism, for instance.)
Since capitalist states tend to impose structural disincentives or barriers to effectively altering relationships in this way, it may in practice to make changes through the State to achieve to goals even if those seeking them are not in favor of State action as an ideal (e.g., you can, within a community subject to a State with a capitalist view of property rights, perhaps restrict the impact of private property rights between members of the group, e.g., by contract, but you cannot force the State to withdraw from imposing certain models of property without exercising power through the State to make the change.)
It's top-down, because to engage in any endeavor of size requires some sort of organization 1) to actually direct the organization and 2) to amass the necessary physical capital necessary for the enterprise.
Capitalism solves those two problems through the modern corporation which by selling tradeable claims on the profits (through shares) and the owners (shareholders) through an elected board hiring of directors hiring managers.
Other systems which we have seen through history solve those problems through taxation and either appointment from the political class or professional bureaucracy. That is why it's top down.
(While the latter system may seem appealing, it's feedback and informational characteristics are even worse than that for capitalist managers.)
At it's heart, capitalism is about 1) private ownership of the factors of production through limited liability and tradeable claims; and 2) a separation of management of the firm from ownership of the firm.
I don't see that being replaced anytime soon. The idea that a top-down technocratic solution (of which I would consider socialism an enlightened example) would result in greater human thriving has not been borne out empirically, and in theory has problems that the information and feedback processes driving decision making are less efficient.