Should People Be Forced To Buy Things They Don't Want or Need? (revised version) - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14986846
Pants-of-dog wrote:If that is your definition of capitalism, then crony capitalism is a form of capitalism.


I would argue that there's no such thing as crony capitalism. In my view, what you call Crony Capitalism, is simply just Capitalism. :lol: :hmm: :| :*(

In that respect, I would say, yes, you do not need a state for capitalism to exist. I guess that's what Anarcho Capitalism is all about. They basically claim, the true capitalism shouldn't have the state involved.
#14986847
SolarCross wrote:Okay so what? Do you acknowledge then that capitalism can and does exist without "states"? I hope I don't need to mention the black market.


If your defintion was correct, then maybe.

But that would mean that mercantilism is capitalism. And communism is capitalism. And so is the Haida gift economy.

Are you actually arguing that all economic systems are capitalism?

———————————-

Rancid wrote:I would argue that there's no such thing as crony capitalism. In my view, what you call Crony Capitalism, is simply just Capitalism. :lol: :hmm: :| :*(


This does seem to be historically accurate!
#14986854
Pants-of-dog wrote:If your defintion was correct, then maybe.

But that would mean that mercantilism is capitalism. And communism is capitalism. And so is the Haida gift economy.

Are you actually arguing that all economic systems are capitalism?

Communism isn't real and will never happen but sure mercantilism is a sub-type of capitalism. But note the definition of capitalism is that most economic activities are "private" rather than "public". It could be argued then that totalitarian societies did not have capitalism.
#14986862
Pants-of-dog wrote:So Cuba is capitalist?

It may be socialist, isn't most economic activity controlled directly by the government?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feudalism is capitalism?

Sure if you think of lordships as military-agricultural enterprises. No if you think of them as mini-governments. In some ways the distinction between "private" and "public" is arbitrary.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The Haida gift economy is capitalism?

I don't know enough about it to say, but probably.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I guess the USSR never happened?

The USSR was totalitarian and thus socialist if not communist, it was not capitalist.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You really need to align your views with historical reality.

That is advice you should follow yourself.
#14986866
SolarCross wrote:It may be socialist, isn't most economic activity controlled directly by the government?


How does this relate to your assertion that simply having two people swapping goods is capitalism? People are swapping goods, so it is capitalism, according to your weird definition.

Sure if you think of lordships as military-agricultural enterprises. No if you think of them as mini-governments. In some ways the distinction between "private" and "public" is arbitrary.


So the fact that royalty and nobility had the legal right to seize your assets with impunity is not a factor?

I don't know enough about it to say, but probably.


So you are making assertikns that this is capitalism without knowing anything about it.

The USSR was totalitarian and thus socialist if not communist, it was not capitalist.


So you acknowledge that your previous defintion was incorrect and that the definition also needs to look at things like provate versus ownership.

Cool.

Now, since crony capitalism has private ownership, it is a form of capitalism.
#14986870
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this relate to your assertion that simply having two people swapping goods is capitalism? People are swapping goods, so it is capitalism, according to your weird definition.

The definition of capitalism is economic activity being privately owned and operated as given above. Two people swapping goods is just an example.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So the fact that royalty and nobility had the legal right to seize your assets with impunity is not a factor?

What matters is whether we should consider them to be "private" or "public".

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are making assertikns that this is capitalism without knowing anything about it.

No I said I don't know. But I don't see why a "gift" economy isn't just a "trade" economy by another name, trade implies diverse and thus private ownership of goods. If everything is owned by dear leader and his cronies then what can be traded?

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you acknowledge that your previous defintion was incorrect and that the definition also needs to look at things like provate versus ownership.

Cool.

No are you retarded?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, since crony capitalism has private ownership, it is a form of capitalism.

sure, but so what?
#14986872
SolarCross wrote:The definition of capitalism is economic activity being privately owned and operated as given above. Two people swapping goods is just an example.

What matters is whether we should consider them to be "private" or "public".


So we understand that the precious (edit: this should say previous, but I find it an amusing typo) definition of merely having two people swapping goods is inadequate.

There has to be private ownership.

Now, if the state (such as a monarch) can arbitrarily seize your private goods and maje them public, and the law supoorts that, is it capitalism?

No I said I don't know. But I don't see why a "gift" economy isn't just a "trade" economy by another name, trade implies diverse and thus private ownership of goods. If everything is owned by dear leader and his cronies then what can be traded?


So when you made the claim that two peole swapping is capitalism, you did not know if this was actually the case.

And you now acknowledge that there are other economic systems that allow for two people to exchange hoods that are not capitalism.

No


This is amusing, because you said no and then agreed with me.

sure, but so what?


Because you and @Victoribus Spolia were arguing that modern capitalism is not capitalism.

Now we agree that it is.
#14986873
I am supposed to be on my weekend, but I wanted to clarify one thing before I come back and settle the matter in full next week.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because you and @Victoribus Spolia were arguing that modern capitalism is not capitalism. Now we agree that it is.


I was extremely specific in my point, given the definition of capitalism provided by @SolarCross; My argument was that the MEANS or INFRASTRUCTURE of our CURRENT system is not capitalist; even if capitalism still exists in some sense wherever private property and free exchange occurs.

So, to be clear, The mechanism of our current crony system (namely; the state) is neither privately owned nor is it freely exchanged; thus this infrastructure (your word) or mechanism (my term) for this current system is not capitalist because it FAILS to meet the definition given by @SolarCross. Because this is the case; regulated markets are corrupted by the state and are no longer pure; which is why the mainstream view of Ancaps is that the most preferable markets to engage in against the state (the purest ones); are the grey and black markets.

Thus; even in a totalitarian socialist state; capitalism can still take place on black markets or in places where the state is unable to properly manage markets at all , people, and resources (e.g. Zomia); however, that does not make the state capitalist or even pro capitalist, and the fact that these processes often happen in spite of the state is only proof that they don't require the state in the first place; as they are themselves a means of peaceful resistance against that state as such a state outlaws such things as private property and free exchange in the first place; this capitalist-resistance being what might be called agorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_(region)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

I have agreed with @SolarCross's other remarks thus far; but would be more definitive in my opinion that feudalism is stateless capitalism wherever there was no third-part monopolist of coercion; or where monarchies had bound their lords via voluntary contract (arguably what occurred under the Frankish model under Charlemagne).
#14986883
Let us look at the relationship between the economic system and the mechanism (we can just use your word).

There is the economic system itself, which is capitalism, and then there is the mechanism that supports it and allows it to exist, which is the state.

The mechanism is not the economic system. To say that the mechanism is not capitalist is true, but meaningless. Capitalist economies have existed in all sorts of states, from liberal democracies to military dictatorships. The definition of capitalism does not discuss the mechanism that supports capitalism because the economic system we call capitalism can exist with all sorts of different mechanisms.

So, Pinochet would be an authoritarian capitalist.
The US is a democratic version of capitalism.
And the imagined form of capitalism that has no state support would be anarcho-capitalism.

Black market transactions are not capitalism. There is no way to enforce contract law or even private ownership, for example.

Finally, it seems that the Zomi region is a collection of diverse groups, and there is no indication that they are all capitalist, or even share a single economic system.

Edit: I did find this:
http://www.zogam.org/policy-programme

    The ZRO adopted the following Policy and Programme, formed with the objective of bringing together – in mind, body and spirit - all the children of Zo, for ultimate re-unification. For this re-unification, the ZRO, if need be, shall walk the extra mile, build as many bridges and cement as many bonds as required to create a living, growing, vibrant and dynamic Zo brotherhood where all are equal. Towards this noble end, the ZRO while following its promulgated Policy and Programme is always open to suggestions and ideas, even to the extent of a complete re-formation, as long as the once scattered Zomi can come together and live in peace and prosperity in their own homeland! Thus -

    [A] The Organization believes in the principle of non-violence, peaceful co-existence and mutual respect for all within the Zomi fold and without, amongst the neighbouring nationalities. As such, the spirit of an enlightened and evolving democracy that is humanistic, socialist, secular and concerned about the environment shall guide all its thoughts, policies and actions.
#14986953
Victoribus Spolia wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:
Please provide evidence for these claims. Thanks.

How about you bother opening any of the books that you are supposing using to teach your own children? :lol:

How do think this shit got paid for? Charlemagne's Frankish empire didn't tax and had no concept of social contract or Keynesian deficit spending. If the tech and people were available, he wouldn't have been able to afford them. The systems were completely different, its not just a matter of tech and population.

Nonsense. Even tiny militant groups and terrorist groups today can be extremely deadly, certainly more deadly than the same handful of people would have been 500 years ago with bow arrows and sword. The same is seen but at a much larger scale when government armies come into place as they have access to the most powerful war machine in history, arguably we reached a peak point between WWII and Vietnam war and now that we have more technology and precision uneven wars such as Big Empire vs Shitty country (e.g. US vs Afghanistan) can be less bloody than what it would have been 20 years ago. The same cannot be said if we had big empire vs big empire (e.g. US vs China) in which weapons of mass destructions would come into play.
First of all, i'll tell you whatever the fuck I want son. :lol: :lol:


No, they will get actual punishment, not crony wrist-slaps. I advocate for actual justice, the current system is not justice at all.

Justice is not just about punishment.
Justice is about striving and maintaining fairness. Punishment is only a tiny part and arguably the most important thing for a just system is to prevent those actions that trigger the punishment as much as possible.
A system in which big company A does not run rampant putting cyanide in the water you drink is more just than a system that allows company A to put cyanide but then decapitates the CEO of said company. :lol:
Like I alluded earlier "do whatever you want, and if you do bad I'll punish you" is a stupid justice system. One that even the most idiot parent can realize is a shitty way to raise a kid much less a system to maintain a just civilization.

Red herring. Nothing in that article has anything to do with comparative military violence.

No red herring. You falsely claimed "arguably the most violent, bloody, and crime-ridden of any we have recorded in human history" which plentiful of evidence provided in that link clearly debunks.
#14987334
Pants-of-dog wrote:@SolarCross

Please explain how the black market has an independent judicial body that interprets contract law when there is a dispute in a business deal.

As far as I can tell, there is no such system and whoever has the most leverage simply wins.


First you need to explain why the definition of capitalism includes a independent judicial body or formal contract law because the actual definition does not. NOTE if we change the definition of "capitalism" to include an independant judicial body then we need a new word for the actual capitalism of the real definition in the real world which like the black market very often operates without an independent judicial body.
#14987352
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that the black market has no way of enforcing or creating comtract law.

No, obviously not because violence is a thing. Are you really that dumb that you don't understand even that? My guess is yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, how do you reconcile trafficking in stolen goods with respecting private ownership?


No one cares about everyone. Criminals aren't that different from most people in that respect, they care about their own private property not everyone's private property.

--------

NOW SHOW ME WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM THERE IS A MENTION OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND FORMAL CONTRACT LAW.

Chairman Schiff Statement on Trump Reportedly Dec[…]

Hello good folks of PoFo

Welcome back!

Trump and Russiagate

Einstein is famous for believing in the "Spi[…]

Pro and Anti EU - The Arguments

I think Steve_American point is about like the EU[…]