[Pants-of-dog]

I don't see any premises in the bold from where you can infer via deduction that prices must always be high for healthcare. Please try again.

This is not what I argued, nor is it what you originally asked me to support.

I was asked to support the claim that the patient is the one on the hook for the price of medical care.

I have now supported that.

Please cite your source and explain how anything in quoted text contradicts my claim. Thanks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Please note that this describes a situathat is very far removed from a state of nature.

Feudalism also has a hierarchy wherein the people above you can seize your assets with impunity. This makes capitalism impossible since all banks and other places to store wealth (that can then be used for investment) did not exist at the time, and the few establishments that provided a similar function could be, and were, routinely emptied by the royalty.

False, even if demand remain at constant, that does not mean that supply does.

We can envision medical surpluses, indeed the opioid crisis is partly predicated on this fact in the case of pain-killers and morphine derivatives.

This idea is highly unrealistic because it assumes a case where there are so many doctors that they are competing for wages.

I don't really care what you consider, as I would consider most of things you likely consider to be "medical services" things I can do in my own home with a little study and practice.

Your apathy is irrelevant.

It is a fact that childbirth is not an injury nor an illness and does not require specialised knowledgeable or training.

Can you remove an appendix in your own home? How about administering chemotherapy? Do you know how to make penicillin?

[Victoribus Spolia]

I was asked to support the claim that the patient is the one on the hook for the price of medical care.

I never denied that the person purchasing a product or service is responsible for paying for those products or services.

Feudalism also has a hierarchy wherein the people above you can seize your assets with impunity. This makes capitalism impossible since all banks and other places to store wealth (that can then be used for investment) did not exist at the time, and the few establishments that provided a similar function could be, and were, routinely emptied by the royalty.

Hierarchies exist in nature among humans, even in tribes. Hierarchies are natural to our species because people are not equal.

You don't need banks in capitalism as the storage of capital or wealth is not necessary for the means of production and ownership to be private.

Since private ownership and free enterprise is all that is necessary for the definition of capitalism, feudalism provides no contradiction.

This idea is highly unrealistic because it assumes a case where there are so many doctors that they are competing for wages.

I don't see how, there was a time in the United States when teachers were in high demand and then people went to college in droves to become teaches and the market for teachers then proceeded to collapse (along with wages) because supply outpaced demand.

There is no reason to suppose such a scenario could not happen with doctors and we already know it happens with drugs.

Once again, your original arguments were entirely false.

Your apathy is irrelevant.

Ad-Hominem and Fallacy of Presumption. Not an argument.

It is a fact that childbirth is not an injury nor an illness and does not require specialised knowledgeable or training.

I of course agree, but you need to support this claim with some sort of argument and then proceed to differentiate between all services or provide a clear definition. The United States still, on the whole, treats pregnancy and child-birth as a medical procedure and the fact that it is covered by most medical insurances (and midwifery is not) supplies sufficient proof that your "views" are not shared by all.

Can you remove an appendix in your own home? How about administering chemotherapy? Do you know how to make penicillin?

With the proper training and equipment I don't see why not, though I would never use chemotherapy and I am very skeptical about our over use and abuse of antibiotics.

Once again, you need to provide some clear definitions or these sorts of discussions become futile volleys of opinion.

[Truth To Power]

I gave examples of exploitation in this post, as a reply to @SolarCross‘s request for a definition.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=176431&p=15001427&hilit=Exploitation#p15001427

Examples are not definitions. In particular, I see nothing in your examples that could be considered specifically characteristic of capitalism, or impossible under socialism. There is always going to be power (ability to control things that are important to others), and abuse of power.

[Pants-of-dog]

I never denied that the person purchasing a product or service is responsible for paying for those products or services.

Then one or both of us must have been confused. No matter.

Moving on..

Hierarchies exist in nature among humans, even in tribes. Hierarchies are natural to our species because people are not equal.

I am not sure that this is correct, but my point was that the hierarchical nature of feudalism stands in direct contrast to the anarchic aspects of anarcho-capitalism.

You don't need banks in capitalism as the storage of capital or wealth is not necessary for the means of production and ownership to be private.

Modern capitalism is not possible without banks. They are the way in which investments are made, wealth is stored, and are involved in almost all contract transactions.

The first private banks that were secure from royal pillaging (in western civilization) was in the 1700s or so in London, I believe.

Since private ownership and free enterprise is all that is necessary for the definition of capitalism, feudalism provides no contradiction.

And if there is no way of securing private ownership and free enterprise, and the rulers of the land can arbitrarily seize assets and regulate enterprise with impunity, is that capitalism?

Please note that by this definition of capitalism m crony capitalism is capitalism.

I don't see how, there was a time in the United States when teachers were in high demand and then people went to college in droves to become teaches and the market for teachers then proceeded to collapse (along with wages) because supply outpaced demand.

There is no reason to suppose such a scenario could not happen with doctors and we already know it happens with drugs.

Once again, your original arguments were entirely false.

Yes, it could magically happen. But it is not plausible in any capitalist country right now.

The only country I know of that has so many doctors that they export doctors is Cuba.

I of course agree, but you need to support this claim with some sort of argument and then proceed to differentiate between all services or provide a clear definition. The United States still, on the whole, treats pregnancy and child-birth as a medical procedure and the fact that it is covered by most medical insurances (and midwifery is not) supplies sufficient proof that your "views" are not shared by all.

Just because your country’s insurance companies have made some business decisions that regulate your life does not change facts. All that means is that insurance companies want you to do it in a hospital because the insurance companies can more accurately gauge the likelihood of costs in a controlled environment. It is not medically significant. It is interesting that the private system actually provides less choice than the public system.

Childbirth is neither an illness nor an injury. Medical professionals deal with illnesses and injuries.

Childbirth requires no specialized training or knowledge. Treating most injuries and illnesses requires both.

The cost of childbirth is insignificant. The cost of most treatments for injuries and illnesses is quite expensive.

With the proper training and equipment I don't see why not, though I would never use chemotherapy and I am very skeptical about our over use and abuse of antibiotics.

Yes, if you were a trained medical professional with years of education behind you, and your house was equipped with the same equipment as a modern hospital, you could do it at home.

This is completely implausible for almost all of us. Hence, this is why medical treatments will be scarce for the foreseeable future, and why demand will outstrip supply.

———————————

Examples are not definitions.

That is true.

If you really need a definition of exploitation:

Exploitation of labour (or labor) is the act of treating one's workers unfairly for one's own benefit. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry in a power relationship between workers and their employers.[1] When speaking about exploitation, there is a direct affiliation with consumption in social theory and traditionally this would label exploitation as unfairly taking advantage of another person because of his or her inferior position, giving the exploiter the power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour

In particular, I see nothing in your examples that could be considered specifically characteristic of capitalism, or impossible under socialism. There is always going to be power (ability to control things that are important to others), and abuse of power.

Yes, there will still be other ways to exploit people. Socialism is not supposed to be a panacea for all the world’s ills.

It is merely supposed to address economic exploitation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Double post, please ignore.

[Truth To Power]

If this is the case, then how can "extreme capitalism" (feudalism) only emerge with the collapse of a government as you also claimed?

I don't agree that feudalism is extreme capitalism. Feudalism is an economic system based on hereditary land-use contracts in which private landowners perform some of the functions of government. The European feudalism of the 6th to (roughly) the 12th century is most familiar, but feudalism also occurred in China, Japan, India, Russia, etc. when government power disappeared.

You never answered my request for you to resolved that conflict in your thought.

It's not a conflict, just a historical process. People get used to the idea that land is privately owned, and when the institution that created private land titles disappears, the titles remain, sort of like people still drove their Studebakers even after the company that made them went belly-up. The emergence of feudalism in Europe after the Western Roman Empire fell is an example: when Rome -- which had issued the titles to land within its empire -- was in decline and increasingly unable to provide security, the big landowners began to form and maintain standing private armies to do the job instead. When the Western empire collapsed in the fifth century, the private armies remained, and people still complied with land titles in the empire's absence because they were used to them, they made the economy feasible, and they had no means of resisting the private armies that then enforced the titles. But feudalism ultimately can't compete with capitalism because land rent must all be devoted to defending the land titles. There's nothing left to invest in infrastructure or producer goods. That's the Lesson of Feudalism: under feudalism, even kings are poor. A European feudal monarch often kept his entire fortune in a strongbox as he traveled from town to town and village to village, collecting land rents and using them to pay his soldiers and retainers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't agree that feudalism is extreme capitalism.

Then why did you call it that?

Feudalism is an economic system based on hereditary land-use contracts in which private landowners perform some of the functions of government. The European feudalism of the 6th to (roughly) the 12th century is most familiar, but feudalism also occurred in China, Japan, India, Russia, etc. when government power disappeared.

So its stateless and entirely privately owned (ancap), and you DID say that it was a type of capitalism, so if capitalism requires a state for the existence of property, then feudalism provides a contradiction to your thesis since you said that such emerges in the absence of state following a state's collapse.

Everything else in the quoted text above, I agree with.

It's not a conflict, just a historical process. People get used to the idea that land is privately owned, and when the institution that created private land titles disappears, the titles remain, sort of like people still drove their Studebakers even after the company that made them went belly-up. The emergence of feudalism in Europe after the Western Roman Empire fell is an example: when Rome -- which had issued the titles to land within its empire -- was in decline and increasingly unable to provide security, the big landowners began to form and maintain standing private armies to do the job instead. When the Western empire collapsed in the fifth century, the private armies remained, and people still complied with land titles in the empire's absence because they were used to them, they made the economy feasible, and they had no means of resisting the private armies that then enforced the titles. But feudalism ultimately can't compete with capitalism because land rent must all be devoted to defending the land titles. There's nothing left to invest in infrastructure or producer goods. That's the Lesson of Feudalism: under feudalism, even kings are poor. A European feudal monarch often kept his entire fortune in a strongbox as he traveled from town to town and village to village, collecting land rents and using them to pay his soldiers and retainers.

I generally agree with this analysis, but it doesn't change the fact that we have a form of capitalism (feudalism) that exists and owes its existence to something other than a state directly granting or securing land.

That is all that is needed to contradict your very specific and explicit claim that capitalism requires a state because land ownership can only exist due to a government granting and securing lands.

You have publicly admitted this as untrue, and hence we can say that some form of capitalism (as defined by merriam-webster) can exist without a state granting and securing lands.
(Namely, feudalism or anarcho-capitalism).

I don't see why you persist to disagree with this while also agreeing with it when you ever resolve to explain yourself.

You need to make up your mind because you are being confusing as fuck.

but my point was that the hierarchical nature of feudalism stands in direct contrast to the anarchic aspects of anarcho-capitalism.

Then you don't understand anarcho-capitalism; anarcho-capitalism does not define a "state" as a hierarchy like some ancoms do; rather, ancaps define states as third party monopolists of coercion; with the worst sort of states being those not privately owned.

We have no problem with heirarchies. In fact, the premier ancap scholar right now, Hans-Herman Hoppe, argues specifically in favor of "Natural elites" or those land-holding peoples who act as rulers via a natural hierarchy compatible with both consent and private property. In a word, feudalism.

Ancaps are pro-hierarchy and the literature supports this thesis.

Modern capitalism is not possible without banks

Modern capitalism is not pure capitalism, by the very definition of capitalism itself. So that is besides the point.

Everything else you said, though interesting, is irrelevant.

And if there is no way of securing private ownership and free enterprise, and the rulers of the land can arbitrarily seize assets and regulate enterprise with impunity, is that capitalism?

Yes (according to the definition), though this is historically and praxeologically untrue; just like the possession of nuclear arms by multiple nations that don't like each other does not necessarily guarantee nuclear holocaust, so too the ability to pillage one another does not necessitate that such will happen with impunity.

In both cases, the risk of mutual destruction and risk/costs associated with such generally force people to prefer peaceful trade to constant warfare.

Property does not necessitate a state to exist, just the will and means to protect it and this can and has been done via private means. There is neither a logical necessity nor a historical one, to say that private property requires a state and nor does the definition of capitalism require such a claim or position.

Yes, it could magically happen

If by magic you mean ordinary market forces, than yes.

But it is not plausible in any capitalist country right now.

Yes and it was impossible for Gas to go above $1.45 gallon in 1989 too.

Just because your country’s insurance companies have made some business decisions that regulate your life does not change facts. All that means is that insurance companies want you to do it in a hospital because the insurance companies can more accurately gauge the likelihood of costs in a controlled environment. It is not medically significant. It is interesting that the private system actually provides less choice than the public system.

Childbirth is neither an illness nor an injury. Medical professionals deal with illnesses and injuries.

Childbirth requires no specialized training or knowledge. Treating most injuries and illnesses requires both.

The cost of childbirth is insignificant. The cost of most treatments for injuries and illnesses is quite expensive

Childbirth at a hospital can cost upwards of $20,000.00, I paid a midwife in cash $3500.00

The former was financed by the state and all of the local hospitals which get state grants and accept obamacare charge these crazy prices.

Going to a midwife was an act of agorism on my part, market anarchy (grey markets) and it was the most cost effective. From my experience (which is perfectly admittable since you refuse to give technical definitions); capitalism apart from the state is far cheaper.

Similarly, pot that I get from my local dealer is far cheaper than what my parents pay from a government dispensery for medical marijuana.

Yes, if you were a trained medical professional with years of education behind you, and your house was equipped with the same equipment as a modern hospital, you could do it at home.

You would be surprised how easy this could be for anyone with a reasonable budget. I am currently making around $2K a month and looking to buy my own ultrasound equipment and my wife is going to be getting training next year is setting bones and stitching so that we have little to no reason EVER to leave the farm for so called "medical needs."

This is completely implausible for almost all of us.

That is not my problem and I don't see why I should pay and support your problems.

Hence, this is why medical treatments will be scarce for the foreseeable future, and why demand will outstrip supply.

Once again, not my problem and neither is it a problem with capitalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then you don't understand anarcho-capitalism; anarcho-capitalism does not define a "state" as a hierarchy like some ancoms do; rather, ancaps define states as third party monopolists of coercion; with the worst sort of states being those not privately owned.

I was not discussing the state at all. I was discussing hierarchy and how this is inherently contradictory to anarchy.

We have no problem with heirarchies. In fact, the premier ancap scholar right now, Hans-Herman Hoppe, argues specifically in favor of "Natural elites" or those land-holding peoples who act as rulers via a natural hierarchy compatible with both consent and private property. In a word, feudalism.

Ancaps are pro-hierarchy and the literature supports this thesis.

I am very aware of how ancaps ignore this inconsistency. If violent coercion is not done by the modern state, it is somehow acceptable even if it is qualitatively identical to state coercion.

Modern capitalism is not pure capitalism, by the very definition of capitalism itself. So that is besides the point.

Everything else you said, though interesting, is irrelevant.

Pure capitalism is a fantasy. Modern capitalism is a real thing that actually can be discussed empirically and upon which we can make verifiable claims.

And feudalism is neither.

Yes (according to the definition), though this is historically and praxeologically untrue; just like the possession of nuclear arms by multiple nations that don't like each other does not necessarily guarantee nuclear holocaust, so too the ability to pillage one another does not necessitate that such will happen with impunity.

In both cases, the risk of mutual destruction and risk/costs associated with such generally force people to prefer peaceful trade to constant warfare.

Property does not necessitate a state to exist, just the will and means to protect it and this can and has been done via private means. There is neither a logical necessity nor a historical one, to say that private property requires a state and nor does the definition of capitalism require such a claim or position.

If the state can arbitrarily seize all if your assets and that us perfectly legal in capitalism, then the USSR was capitalist.

And this is ridiculous, so this is not capitalism.

If by magic you mean ordinary market forces, than yes.

No, I mean completely implausible conditions that are utterly divorced from the reality of modern economies and is not going to happen without some sort of radical change in how medical resources are created.

Yes and it was impossible for Gas to go above $1.45 gallon in 1989 too.

The conditions for having medical supply outstrip demand are so unlikely as to be impossible with the current economic conditions.

The fact that you fantasise about this changing does not make it any less implausible.

Childbirth at a hospital can cost upwards of $20,000.00, I paid a midwife in cash $3500.00

The former was financed by the state and all of the local hospitals which get state grants and accept obamacare charge these crazy prices.

Going to a midwife was an act of agorism on my part, market anarchy (grey markets) and it was the most cost effective. From my experience (which is perfectly admittable since you refuse to give technical definitions); capitalism apart from the state is far cheaper.

I had my choice between doing it at home by ourselves, a midwife at home, a midwife at a hospital, or a doctor at a hospital. All of these options are free under the public system. And they are free to everyone where I live. If we look solely at our two systems, the public system is cheaper and provides more choice.

And you did not refute my point about how childbirth is qualitatively different from almost every other form of medical treatment.

Similarly, pot that I get from my local dealer is far cheaper than what my parents pay from a government dispensery for medical marijuana.

Since marijuana and health care are qualitatively different in terms of economics, this is a bad comparison.

You would be surprised how easy this could be for anyone with a reasonable budget. I am currently making around $2K a month and looking to buy my own ultrasound equipment and my wife is going to be getting training next year is setting bones and stitching so that we have little to no reason EVER to leave the farm for so called "medical needs."

As I said, affording all the equipment available in a modern hospital plus the necessary expertise to use it properly is impossible for most people.

The fact that you guys are doing a tiny fraction of that does not change this.

That is not my problem and I don't see why I should pay and support your problems.

Once again, not my problem and neither is it a problem with capitalism.

I am not discussing whether or not it is your problem.

The discussion was about whether or not medical supply could outstrip demand in the foreseeable future in capitalist countries.

The fact that the average medical consumer cannot spend the money to become an MD and equip their home with all the equipment they may possibly need is one of the reasons why supply will not outstrip demand.

[annatar1914]

Agreed, and this was the function of the church in the medieval (feudal period) and was also the function of the judges in the Old Testament prior to the monarchy. Same system and therefore the same model for anarcho-capitalism.

Social function, I would say, the primary being the salvation of souls-which is not un-connected by the way to society is developed, as a society that helps it's members reach eternal life or actively tries to inhibit one's eternal salvation...

In response to your caveat;

Namely, I would argue that both the ceremonial and civil law were abolished by Christ; however, the penalties for crimes against the moral law require Christians today to enact the same punishments for the same crimes as defined in Old Testament law because the law of God reflects His holiness.

Not saying i'd disagree, in fact i'm pretty sure that the punishments were the same or at the same level of mercy or severity, I'll check the Canons of the early Church and see. I think it's also depending on whether the Church is in a position to enforce compliance or not, if the surrounding society is non-Christian.

Given God's immutability, the severity with which he viewed any crime reflects His unchanging holiness; hence, the punishments for crimes in the New covenant era CANNOT change in severity unless God's holiness has changed. Since the latter is heresy, Christians are obligated to view the crimes as defined in the Old Testament as crimes today and whatever was punishable by death then, is punishable by death still. Romans 1 and other texts would also seem to confirm this as St. Paul mentions sins like homosexuality as still being worthy of death today.

Or the sin of the guy who was committing incest with his father's wife IIRC in Corinthians, that st. Paul discusses.

My position is that Christians without a state would live together in voluntary covenant communities; either between independent landowner, or in towns wholly owned by a single Christian proprietor (lord). At the age of confirmation, the children would voluntarily take the olbigations of covenant law upon themselves and at that time be viewed as the church as liable for criminal conduct and its penalties by consent.

Hence, if you have voluntarily agreed to the covenant obligations that come with communicate membership in the church, then you can be tried and punished for things like witchcraft, heresy, homosexuality, bestiality, etc (all capital crimes) via an ecclesiastical court with penalties being enforced by other members of the community or the landowner over the town, etc.

fairly reasonable I'd say. I'm reminded by this of my Russian history studies, reading of the pre-serfdom period, when the peasants had the opportunity on special days in the year (I think St. George's day if I remember right) to renew their fealty to the lord or pack up and leave to settle elsewhere. So what you're suggesting isn't a flight of utopian wishful thinking.

If this sounds like how it was done in medieval times, its because it is basically the same thing; voluntary, anarchist, propertarianism....Anarcho-Capitalism.

Sure, pretty close although I think the trend of course was towards Modern Statism over time. I have a somewhat novel theory though about how that developed that I'll share sometime, involving the Papacy, but that'll do for now except to say that it need not have come about the way that it did except under the influence of the Latins.

[B0ycey]

...and neither is it a problem with capitalism.

Actually this isn't true as the whole purpose of Capitalism is to make profit. I believe you are against monopolies and state protections which of course would help enhance supply and drive down costs. Nonetheless R&D is high investment and unless their is a high reward with state protections, the cost would have to go to the consumer in any case if their is no state due to the "Labor Theory of Value". But if your just talking basic healthcare like child birth and bandages, naturally that does not need to be expensive. Blame your insurance companies for that. Although Socialism would be just as effective or even better value in healthcare than feudalism due to profit no longer being a factor within production or services.

Nonetheless you have to explain why you are against a state but for monarchy/lords in terms of land property. I see no difference in paying taxes to a state or land rents to a lord within a social contract.

[SSDR]

@Victoribus Spolia Google and Webster are both American, capitalist enterprises, thus they are only opinionating in a non socialist psychology.

[B0ycey]

@Victoribus Spolia Google and Webster are both American, capitalist enterprises, thus they are only opinionating in a non socialist psychology.

Don't worry SSDR. VSs definitions from Google or Webster didn't contradict your statement about Capitalism protecting enterprise and currency. VS simply misunderstood you as he believes a state is not required to trade for profit. Which is true in theory, but wasn't what you wrote. He could question whether currency is required for capitalism or whether enterprises should have protection. But he can't question that capitalism as we see it today protects these functions as they are indeed being protected to allow finance to circulate and private property to legally exist - all be it by the social contract run by a state.

Nonetheless it needs to be said that capitalism is an economic system not a political system so whatever you class as "pure capitalism" can exist within any social structure.

[Truth To Power]

Except I am disputing them so they are clearly not "indisputably correct".

There is a difference between disputing, which would require facts or logic, and merely denying, which just requires refusal to know facts and logic.

Capitalism is private enterprise.

Nope. See dictionary definitions.

As a matter of fact most businesses rent the land they use, consequently they would not be any less private enterprise if they rented the land from a government rather than other private citizens.

True. The Empire State Building was built on rented land. But that would simply be private enterprise on the HK or China model, not capitalism.

Land ownership is originally acquired through claiming it

Nonsense. No land has ever become private property by claiming it, only by government forcibly depriving others of their liberty right to use it. You are just repeating a Lockean fabrication that has never had any factual validity. There is also a difference between mere use or occupancy of land, brute animal possession of land (territoriality) and ownership of land as private property.

and a government is not required for that though it may be a safer claim if a government will recognise it.

Only government can undertake forcibly to dispossess all other prospective users, which confers ownership. Mere forcible animal possession that is only defended by the possessor is not ownership.

Government emerges out of the need to organise martial activities: to raid, wage wars and defend against raiders and war-makers.

No, that just requires cooperation, and is quite routine among social animals from insects to chimpanzees. Government is an institution: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land.

Subsequently it also emerges very often as the mechanism by which laws and conventions are enforced since enforcement requires force and it has already that means from being a warmaker.

And from conferring ownership of land, which inherently requires force.

Pre-agricultural societies also had governance and arguably given they were often territorial even while being nomadic they did have land ownership of a sort.

No. There was no private landowning, and territoriality is not ownership.

As point of fact only a 80% of land in the UK is actually registered with the UK land registry so the UK gov in fact does not know who owns 20% of land though for sure it is owned by someone.

No, it is not necessarily owned by anyone but the Crown.

If the UK gov does not even know who owns some land how can they have "conferred" anything?

Records can be lost.

Your statements are silly, ideologically motivated and proven wrong.

My statements are objectively correct.

[SolarCross]

@Truth To Power
How about some evidence to go with your idiosyncratic claims?

[Truth To Power]

Then why did you call it that?

I said that what "anarcho-capitalists" actually advocate is feudalism. I do not agree that that is "extreme capitalism." The 19th century philosophers who originally noted the emergence of (and defined) capitalism considered it quite different from feudalism. Most particularly, feudalism tied peasants to the land through hereditary status and land-use contracts, while capitalism simply removed their rights to use land, creating the landless labor force dependent on capital-owning employers for wages and survival considered characteristic of capitalism.

So its stateless and entirely privately owned (ancap), and you DID say that it was a type of capitalism, so if capitalism requires a state for the existence of property,

Only of property in land, natural resources, and privilege. Property in the fruits of one's labor is natural, long antedates property in land, and does not require government.

then feudalism provides a contradiction to your thesis since you said that such emerges in the absence of state following a state's collapse.

Feudalism does emerge when states collapse and no government moves into the power vacuum. I wasn't clear enough in explaining how this relates to landownership. Landowning can survive the collapse of government in the sense that those who had legal title to the land retain possession of it and a social acceptance of their title, but the relation is no longer genuine ownership as it has to be defended by the landholder himself. True ownership is defended by third parties.

I generally agree with this analysis, but it doesn't change the fact that we have a form of capitalism (feudalism) that exists and owes its existence to something other than a state directly granting or securing land.

Feudal land holdings were originally conferred by government; what survives the demise of government is not true landownership, only forcible possession. I think I may have carelessly called it "ownership."

That is all that is needed to contradict your very specific and explicit claim that capitalism requires a state because land ownership can only exist due to a government granting and securing lands.

My claim depends on the distinction between actual ownership, which is defended by third parties (i.e., government, which as territorial sovereign is the only third party that ultimately defends exclusive land tenure), and mere territoriality (brute animal possession, which must be defended by the possessor).

You have publicly admitted this as untrue, and hence we can say that some form of capitalism (as defined by merriam-webster) can exist without a state granting and securing lands. (Namely, feudalism or anarcho-capitalism).

Maybe I am being over-particular, but that definition strikes me as equivocal. "The means of production" always historically encompassed both land (i.e., natural resources) and producer goods, which classical economics called, "capital". The historical phenomenon of capitalism always depended on a landless labor force dependent on wage employment, which can't be created until land is made into private property ("enclosed"), forcibly removing people's liberty right to use it.

You need to make up your mind because you are being confusing as fuck.

Is the argument above clearer?

Then you don't understand anarcho-capitalism; anarcho-capitalism does not define a "state" as a hierarchy like some ancoms do; rather, ancaps define states as third party monopolists of coercion; with the worst sort of states being those not privately owned.

Yes, but anarcho-capitalism is based -- absurdly -- on defining exercise of one's natural liberty to use land as "initiating force," and removal of people's liberty to use land by aggressive, forcible, physical coercion as "not initiating force."

We have no problem with heirarchies. In fact, the premier ancap scholar right now, Hans-Herman Hoppe, argues specifically in favor of "Natural elites" or those land-holding peoples who act as rulers via a natural hierarchy compatible with both consent and private property. In a word, feudalism.

IMO Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the most despicably dishonest "intellectual" to be found on either the right or the left.

Yes (according to the definition), though this is historically and praxeologically untrue; just like the possession of nuclear arms by multiple nations that don't like each other does not necessarily guarantee nuclear holocaust, so too the ability to pillage one another does not necessitate that such will happen with impunity.

Pillagers don't rely on impunity. They rely on force.

In both cases, the risk of mutual destruction and risk/costs associated with such generally force people to prefer peaceful trade to constant warfare.

But in fact, a large enough minority prefer warfare to trade to make it impossible for the rest to defend themselves as individuals or voluntary cooperatives. The imbalance of effectiveness between production and destruction is too great, and only increases with technological advance.

Property does not necessitate a state to exist, just the will and means to protect it and this can and has been done via private means. There is neither a logical necessity nor a historical one, to say that private property requires a state and nor does the definition of capitalism require such a claim or position.

Do you not know that property in the fruits of one's labor far antedates property in land for very good reasons?

If by magic you mean ordinary market forces, than yes.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
How about some evidence to go with your idiosyncratic claims?

Can we start with dictionary definitions?

[SolarCross]

Can we start with dictionary definitions?

Sure but I am looking for some evidence of the strange claims in this contradictory statement:

Nonsense. No land has ever become private property by claiming it, only by government forcibly depriving others of their liberty right to use it. You are just repeating a Lockean fabrication that has never had any factual validity. There is also a difference between mere use or occupancy of land, brute animal possession of land (territoriality) and ownership of land as private property.

[B0ycey]

Sure but I am looking for some evidence of the strange claims in this contradictory statement:

Are you aware that private property is a legal concept? Without laws you are left with possession.

Perhaps it is time to return blood feuds to settle land disputes. Is that the laws you accept when deciding who owns what?

[SolarCross]

Are you aware that private property is a legal concept? Without laws you are left with possession.

Perhaps it is time to return blood feuds to settle land disputes. Is that the laws you accept when deciding who owns what?

It was a human concept first. Laws reflect custom. Besides "governments" are not the only source of law. In fact in common law juristictions properly speaking governments don't produce laws at all only "statutes" which are said to carry the "force of law". Statutes are only policy not law.

Morals are the cause of laws not the other way around, just saying. If you don't have a moral compass I guess you wouldn't understand that.

[B0ycey]

It was a human concept first. Laws reflect custom. Besides "governments" are not the only source of law. In fact in common law juristictions properly speaking governments don't produce laws at all only "statutes" which are said to carry the "force of law". Statutes are only policy not law.

Morals are the cause of laws not the other way around, just saying. If you don't have a moral compass I guess you wouldn't understand that.

What are laws if not a human concept?

Nonetheless you preach for the use of definition but only when it suits you it seems. Private property is a legal concept and as such TtP is correct with everything he writes. What more evidence do you want than that?

Although it appears from your post that you are bending rules like the breaker of definitions would do. But to determine private property even VSs belief systems requires a form of third party to decide who owns what FYI. He requires morals within Gods law that are found in the bible and a system of practices that adhere to those laws by the populous to upheld. There isn't a right to anything by just claiming it even under Ancap.