[J_D]

Could you give me an example of a pure unfettered capitalism?

Sure.

There are any number of failed African states but the best example of unregulated capitalism in action is the Black Market.

[ninurta]

As I said, even that's a little off.

Dan, how old are you? just curious. You don't have to say. But I just want to get an idea of what you mean when you say i am young, do you even know how old I am? I am not a teenager anymore.

I am aware that capitalism has for a real long time not been completely unfettered by other forces such as political powers. But from what we can see, the less government involvement, the better off people are.

This is one reason I look to anarchy and say that it can work, but I am still not for it for defense reasons. When people are left alone to do their own thing, they usually do their best.

[DubiousDan]

As I said, even that's a little off.

Dan, how old are you? just curious. You don't have to say. But I just want to get an idea of what you mean when you say i am young, do you even know how old I am? I am not a teenager anymore.

I am aware that capitalism has for a real long time not been completely unfettered by other forces such as political powers. But from what we can see, the less government involvement, the better off people are.

This is one reason I look to anarchy and say that it can work, but I am still not for it for defense reasons. When people are left alone to do their own thing, they usually do their best.

No secret there. I passed my three score and ten over four years ago. That means I’ve spent the last four years with a lapsed warranty and it shows.

Come to think of it, I’m not sure what gave me the idea that you were young. I would guess less than thirty, and that’s young to me. Notice however, that I added hopefully before the young.

I am a little puzzled by the remark about capitalism being unfettered by government powers. I assumed that capitalism required a government for it to work. Capitalism requires contracts. Money is capital, and for the purpose of capitalism it’s a little difficult to say how capitalism could work with out it. Oh, come to think about it, this topic is about money in Anarchism. You don’t need governments to create money. It helps, but you don’t need them. In gold rush mining towns, gold dust was used as a medium of exchange. Company script is often used. Casinos issue their own script and coins.
Without governments, a private company could stamp out gold or silver coins with the weight specified. Naturally the company would have to sell them at a profit, but it would be worth it not to have to weigh out the metal every time you used. Actually, the first paper money in Europe were gold promissory notes issued by goldsmiths as I recall.

However the real need for governments is for enforcement of contracts and property rights. It’s a little hard to see how capitalism would work without that.
There are two kinds of property. The kind you have to prove is yours if it gets out of your hands and the kind that the state assigns to you. A pocket knife, for example, is what I call personal property, you lose it and it’s the old possession is nine points of the law bit. On the other hand, if you have had a house in you family for three generations and somebody comes up with a deed that the state recognizes, he gets the house. The real in real estate comes from the Latin meaning real as derived from law. Real property in that sense derives from the state, while personal property comes from possession.
Hunter gatherer folks only have property by possession. That’s why they really don’t have a concept of the legal ownership of land. That’s a common excuse for civilized folks to ignore them while taking the land on which they live. This didn’t apply to most of the Amerindians because they practiced agriculture. That didn’t stop the Whites from lying about it.

However, in order to have real property, you have to have law, to have law, you need a government. Capitalism by and large deals with real property, therefore it needs government. Since contracts and deeds to property have to be enforced, you have to have coercive government, and coercive government and anarchy are mutually exclusive sets by definition.

Got a bit long winded there, but this seems to be a point overlooked by some folks.

Naturally I agree with your point about leaving folks alone, since after all, I am an Anarchist. I also agree with the problem of defense. For that you need the stateless state, and so far, no one has come up with that one. I have some theories, but until something has worked in the real world, it is only speculation. It’s not that Anarchists can’t defend their territory, they did it in the past, but they can’t defend it against modern states.

Creating an Anarchism at this state of social evolution is no simple task. Most folks try to do it by naming things Anarchisms that aren’t. To create the real thing, you have to destroy civilization. That doesn’t mean destroy the civilized. You have to have people in order to have an Anarchism. That’s the real big job. Doing it by violence will be counter productive. It has to be a voluntary transition. As I said, no simple task. Doable, but doable in the time we have left, not likely.

[DubiousDan]

Sure.

There are any number of failed African states but the best example of unregulated capitalism in action is the Black Market.

You are confusing commerce with capitalism. Part of the definition of capitalism is operating in a free market. Black markets and free markets are mutually exclusive sets. If you have a free market, then how can you have a black market?

[J_D]

Simple In theory what you say is quite true but in proactice ,the free market has no regulation (self-regulating) while the Black Market ignores them and is therefore self regulating also. It is, in effect, unregulated.

[ninurta]

No secret there. I passed my three score and ten over four years ago. That means I’ve spent the last four years with a lapsed warranty and it shows.

Come to think of it, I’m not sure what gave me the idea that you were young. I would guess less than thirty, and that’s young to me. Notice however, that I added hopefully before the young.

I am young, just not as young as some take me to be. You probably think I am young because of PVB's posts constantly invoking the age he thinks I am. I am in my 20's.

I am a little puzzled by the remark about capitalism being unfettered by government powers. I assumed that capitalism required a government for it to work. Capitalism requires contracts. Money is capital, and for the purpose of capitalism it’s a little difficult to say how capitalism could work with out it. Oh, come to think about it, this topic is about money in Anarchism. You don’t need governments to create money. It helps, but you don’t need them. In gold rush mining towns, gold dust was used as a medium of exchange. Company script is often used. Casinos issue their own script and coins.
Without governments, a private company could stamp out gold or silver coins with the weight specified. Naturally the company would have to sell them at a profit, but it would be worth it not to have to weigh out the metal every time you used. Actually, the first paper money in Europe were gold promissory notes issued by goldsmiths as I recall.

However the real need for governments is for enforcement of contracts and property rights. It’s a little hard to see how capitalism would work without that.
There are two kinds of property. The kind you have to prove is yours if it gets out of your hands and the kind that the state assigns to you. A pocket knife, for example, is what I call personal property, you lose it and it’s the old possession is nine points of the law bit. On the other hand, if you have had a house in you family for three generations and somebody comes up with a deed that the state recognizes, he gets the house. The real in real estate comes from the Latin meaning real as derived from law. Real property in that sense derives from the state, while personal property comes from possession.
Hunter gatherer folks only have property by possession. That’s why they really don’t have a concept of the legal ownership of land. That’s a common excuse for civilized folks to ignore them while taking the land on which they live. This didn’t apply to most of the Amerindians because they practiced agriculture. That didn’t stop the Whites from lying about it.

However, in order to have real property, you have to have law, to have law, you need a government. Capitalism by and large deals with real property, therefore it needs government. Since contracts and deeds to property have to be enforced, you have to have coercive government, and coercive government and anarchy are mutually exclusive sets by definition.

Got a bit long winded there, but this seems to be a point overlooked by some folks.

Naturally I agree with your point about leaving folks alone, since after all, I am an Anarchist. I also agree with the problem of defense. For that you need the stateless state, and so far, no one has come up with that one. I have some theories, but until something has worked in the real world, it is only speculation. It’s not that Anarchists can’t defend their territory, they did it in the past, but they can’t defend it against modern states.

Creating an Anarchism at this state of social evolution is no simple task. Most folks try to do it by naming things Anarchisms that aren’t. To create the real thing, you have to destroy civilization. That doesn’t mean destroy the civilized. You have to have people in order to have an Anarchism. That’s the real big job. Doing it by violence will be counter productive. It has to be a voluntary transition. As I said, no simple task. Doable, but doable in the time we have left, not likely.

Don't forget, the first forms of currency you used to by resources were your resources.

[DubiousDan]

Simple In theory what you say is quite true but in proactice ,the free market has no regulation (self-regulating) while the Black Market ignores them and is therefore self regulating also. It is, in effect, unregulated.

No, the black market does not ignore regulations, it evades them, sometimes. The fear of being caught is what makes the Black Market possible. It that fear did not exist, there would be no need to go to the Black Market. If regulation could be ignored, then everyone would do it. If only some people can do it, then it’s not a free market. No, the Black Market exists because of regulation, and it is not a free market, nor is it capitalism.

[DubiousDan]

Don't forget, the first forms of currency you used to by resources were your resources.

I’m confused by that mainly because my post was irrefutable evidence of advanced dementia. I think I established that Anarchies can have money, and therefore that they can be capitalisms in respect to that factor. That may not be what I set out to prove, but that’s where my argument ended up. The rest got a bit convoluted.
That may be what you are referring to. That I established that anarchies can have money. They can, some did. It wasn’t what we think of as money today, but it was money.

I once wrote a novella, never even submitted it for sale that I recall, which dealt with a Capitalism in the context of an Anarchy.

Remember, I believe I began this by stating that capitalism and socialism didn’t work, only a mix of the two.

You replied that unfettered capitalisms did work.

I asked for an example. There are lots of states that are a mix of capitalism and socialism, it’s hard to find one that isn’t.

Both capitalisms and socialisms have utopias where they work, but not in the real world.

In theory, you can have capitalism without government. As I said, I even wrote a novel based on that. Of course, they had external protection for the stateless state so it wasn’t a pure Anarchism.

However, when you try to have a market economy without a government, you run into a few problems. So far, no one has solved them. Once you have a government, you have law, and law is regulation.
Libertarians, of which I believe you to be one, believe that government is essential to their form of capitalism. I don’t agree with their opinion of the amount of personal freedom that would permit, but then, what do I know?
Actually, Capitalism is similar to Anarchism in that respect. Since civilization began, neither one has really existed in a practical form in a civilized social order.

I believe both Capitalism and Anarchism can work, Anarchy did before civilization, but not since, at least in a civilized social order. People bought and sold before civilization, whether it was capitalism, who knows? However, as of now, neither work in the real world, and as far as I know, neither have worked since the beginning of civilization in a civilized social order.

Of course I am referring to capitalism as a theoretical principal, not as a propaganda slogan.

[ninurta]

Remember, I believe I began this by stating that capitalism and socialism didn’t work, only a mix of the two.

And I disagreed, look at China, USA, and European countries, they occupy every end of that spectrum as a mix. Look at vietnam, zimbabwe, and even germany before Hitler rose to power, we know what happens when the government involves itself in the economy. While they didn't all express socialist views, they did some socialist things like inflate their currencies to save their economies and everytime it failed.

There is a saying, that madness is trying the same thing over and over hoping to achieve a different result. Socialism, and the continual persuit to make it work, is utter madness. Though I know you are an anarchist and not the government type, unless you have some alternative to the usual kings of people run socialism where people don't interfere with the currency and the economy, then its going to fail.

You replied that unfettered capitalisms did work.

I asked for an example. There are lots of states that are a mix of capitalism and socialism, it’s hard to find one that isn’t.

And I am still looking. If there isn't one, then it wouldn't hurt to try a new idea now would it?

Both capitalisms and socialisms have utopias where they work, but not in the real world.

Where they sound good, but not work, as they don't exist in human societies, such is impossible.

However, when you try to have a market economy without a government, you run into a few problems. So far, no one has solved them. Once you have a government, you have law, and law is regulation.
Libertarians, of which I believe you to be one, believe that government is essential to their form of capitalism. I don’t agree with their opinion of the amount of personal freedom that would permit, but then, what do I know?

Actually, government is a seperate entity from form of capitalism. Libertarians, at least in principle, believe the government is only to be involved when it comes to disputes and court cases. Other than that, there is no government involvement.

Actually, Capitalism is similar to Anarchism in that respect. Since civilization began, neither one has really existed in a practical form in a civilized social order.

My form of capitalism is close to many forms of anarchy yeah, but that's because there is no one to rule the economy.

I believe both Capitalism and Anarchism can work, Anarchy did before civilization, but not since, at least in a civilized social order. People bought and sold before civilization, whether it was capitalism, who knows? However, as of now, neither work in the real world, and as far as I know, neither have worked since the beginning of civilization in a civilized social order.

Of course I am referring to capitalism as a theoretical principal, not as a propaganda slogan.

Me too, though I sound like i am just spreading propaganda because of how I love capitalism

[DubiousDan]

And I disagreed, look at China, USA, and European countries, they occupy every end of that spectrum as a mix. Look at vietnam, zimbabwe, and even germany before Hitler rose to power, we know what happens when the government involves itself in the economy. While they didn't all express socialist views, they did some socialist things like inflate their currencies to save their economies and everytime it failed.

There is a saying, that madness is trying the same thing over and over hoping to achieve a different result. Socialism, and the continual persuit to make it work, is utter madness. Though I know you are an anarchist and not the government type, unless you have some alternative to the usual kings of people run socialism where people don't interfere with the currency and the economy, then its going to fail.

If you are saying that government control of the economy is socialism, you are wrong. I would prefer not to post a definition. They are a bit messy.
In Civilization, the government always controls the economy. Can you think of a nation in the history of Man that did not control the economy?
In socialism, the government operates the economy. Naturally there is no truly socialistic country, just as there is no truly capitalistic country. However, if the government takes over a section of the economy and operates it, that is socialism. For example, it used to be that in France, the country owned and operated the TV and radio stations. I believe the same is true in Switzerland. This could be called socialistic. In the United States, the government regulates TV and radio stations. This is not socialism. As Thomas Jefferson said, more or less, the regulation of commerce is one of the few legitimate concerns of government.
All governments regulate commerce.
As for currency, that is almost a natural function of government. After all, that is what fiat means and most currencies, if not all today, are fiat currencies.

I suggest a little more study on the subject of socialism. After all, if you going to be against something, you should know what it is.

[ninurta]

I do know what capitalism is, it is either the government or public control over the means of production, and often times as a result the economy.

[DubiousDan]

I do know what capitalism is, it is either the government or public control over the means of production, and often times as a result the economy.

Socialism:
From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary CD version 3.0

Main Entry:so£cial£ism
Pronunciation:*s*sh**liz*m
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s

1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property *trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community— W.E.H.Lecky* — compare INDIVIDUALISM b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state — compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work

First, check your post before posting. Secondly read carefully and understand what you are reading. Own and control doesn’t mean the same as own or control. It means both own and control.

Ownership and operate doesn’t mean the same as ownership or operate.

I used the word operate for simplicities sake. I was in error, I concede the mistake.
Don’t jump to conclusions. That doesn’t mean that socialism is government control of the economy. It has to own the means of production first.
I realize that you may be confused because every time a government regulation is put in place some ignoramus on Fox News will scream socialism. Regulation is not socialism. Ownership with control is socialism.

[ninurta]

Don’t jump to conclusions. That doesn’t mean that socialism is government control of the economy. It has to own the means of production first.

My point was that the means of production is the backbone of the economy, so if you can control that, couldn't you control the economy?

I realize that you may be confused because every time a government regulation is put in place some ignoramus on Fox News will scream socialism. Regulation is not socialism. Ownership with control is socialism.

I don't watch tabloid (Fox) rumors (news), nor do I watch cable news, I prefer to look for better sources of information. I just simply misunderstood the definition some, I do accept that I made that mistake.

[DubiousDan]

My point was that the means of production is the backbone of the economy, so if you can control that, couldn't you control the economy?

And my point which I have to reiterate ad infinitum is that the government controls the economy anyway. Only some governments don’t own and operate the economy.
See if this helps. You have a restaurant and the guy from the Health Department comes in and tells you to get rid of the cockroaches or he is going to shut you down. That’s control.

Next scenario. You are working as a manager in a restaurant which you don’t have because it’s owned by the government. A guy from the Department of Health comes in and tells you that you have to get rid of the cockroaches or he is going to report you to somebody upstairs who will get with somebody else who will get with your boss and your boss will chew on your ass. That’s socialism.
Do you get the difference?

I don't watch tabloid (Fox) rumors (news), nor do I watch cable news, I prefer to look for better sources of information. I just simply misunderstood the definition some, I do accept that I made that mistake.

Hey, I watch Fox News (oxymoron). Not every day, but now and then. It's informative. You just have to know what the Hell you're doing. That's true of any source. The National Geographic has its biases and so does the Scientific American. I still read them. You live in a social order where the bottom line rules. Know it. That's reality. The best liar tells the truth now and then. If you get real good, you can tell when he's lying and when he's telling the truth some of the time. That's the best you can do. Some people are pretty good at it, and others aren't so good. I think I'm a little better than average at it.
The smart man learns from smart men, he learns from average men, and he learns from fools. The fool doesn't learn from anybody.

As for making a mistake. That's the main reason I'm on the forum, to find my mistakes. I've found out beliefs that I've held for fifty years were caca. That's a winner. That's better than finding out something new.

[ninurta]

I'm not stupid, I know that's what the health department does. I see very little difference in who goes to who to get on your case about the cockroaches, in each case, they do the same. I still think Fox is just not for me.

[DubiousDan]

I'm not stupid, I know that's what the health department does. I see very little difference in who goes to who to get on your case about the cockroaches, in each case, they do the same. I still think Fox is just not for me.

You shouldn't say that so often. It will get people wondering why you keep saying it.
Actually they didn’t quite do the same. That’s because in one case, it was the state versus the individual. In the other case, it was the stare versus the state. Tends to make things more complex.
In the essential element of control, yes, there was control, that was my point. In both cases, the state controlled. However, in only one case, was it socialistic.

As for Fox, I think you can survive without watching Fox. After all, I doubt if it would be quite as entertaining for you as it is for me.

[Cookie Monster]

How can money, a non valuable currency, exist if there is nothing to secure its value?
There needs to be an authority which validates and secures its value. Or else it cannot exist.

For us it might seem very simple, but to take the step to actually trust something non valuable as valuable is a huge leap.

[DubiousDan]

How can money, a non valuable currency, exist if there is nothing to secure its value?
There needs to be an authority which validates and secures its value. Or else it cannot exist.

For us it might seem very simple, but to take the step to actually trust something non valuable as valuable is a huge leap.

How can you have currency which has no value? I think what you meant to say is currency without any intrinsic value. Fiat money, for example.
Fiat money is the creation of government by definition, so without government, you can’t have fiat money.
However, folks got along for a very long time without fiat money. Money which had intrinsic value was the norm for most of history. Actually, historically fiat money has a very bad record. The Chinese had the longest experience in it’s use, and it was quite a disagreeable experience for the average Chinese. Eventually, the Chinese gave it up and the people were quite happy about that. Today, with the World wide use of fiat money, it has returned to China. However, today, the dollar is the underpinning of the World wide acceptance of fiat money. Right now, the dollar is sinking, but at a still acceptable rate. Still, we have had fiat money for less than a century in the US, so it is a little bit early to declare it a success.
The idea that money has to depend on states is not accurate. Gold has been accepted by governments as a standard form of payment even when its use was prohibited to individuals.
In the old West, in mining areas, scales were a standard feature in stores and saloons so that payment could be made in gold dust. Private companies have script which can be used as money by their employers and private contractors.
Primitive societies used some items of universal value as currency such as sea shells. In the recent past, 22 long rifle cartridges were used as a medium of exchange in the backwoods of Mexico.
Without governments, a private firm could coin currency using gold or silver which would be quite usable. Naturally, the firm would make a profit, but then, so did governments.

This money would have intrinsic value, and I would consider that an improvement over the paper that we now use. The intrinsic worth of a dollar is its value as toilet paper, and it really is a little slick for that use.

Actually, today, the Krugerrand and other coins are non-governmental currency in use. The Krugerrand has no face value, its value is the value of a troy ounce of gold, which the Krugerrand contains. There are other gold coins of a similar nature on the market, and if there are not silver ones, there could very easily be such. I might point out that people who bought Krugerrands twenty years ago have done far better than those who bought any national currency then in existence.

Yes, you will have to stop at a bank to exchange it before use, however, I doubt if you will ever starve if you have a few Krugerrands on hand.
Unlike many gold coins the Krugerrand was made for use. It is a durable coin.

[J_D]

Fiat money is the creation of government by definition, so without government, you can’t have fiat money.

I could understand it if you had said that Fiat money was just another form of regulation but I think it's drawing a longish bow to say that it is government by definition. I can see the connection but I don't think the two are the same. The existence of money is really not very different to say, the existence of the metric system. It provides a means of measurement. It creates a relative worth.

It's also important to remember that paper currency used to be a simple IOU from the government which theoretically meant you could go to the Reserve Bank and claim the equivalent amount in gold. Of course, we no longer have a gold standard as we used to so the value is measured by the amount in circulation, the performance of the economy of whatever state it is and interest rates, etc.

I think that even in a Libertarian or Anarchist society (not that I see a lot of difference), there would still be a level of informal measurement going on and it may exist at multiple levels.

[ninurta]

How can money, a non valuable currency, exist if there is nothing to secure its value?
There needs to be an authority which validates and secures its value. Or else it cannot exist.

This is why I suggested that it should be based on or be natural resources. People will want more natural resources, that will secure its value. No authority necessary.

Fiat currency is worthless in an anarchist setting, any selfpercieved authority would have quite the trouble regulating any currency in such a setting.