[SolarCross]

I am sorry. I forgot that some forum participants may not be familiar with certain jargon.

By "capital", I meant the system of capitalism and the people who seek to maintain it because it makes them wealthy and powerful.

OK and this "system" is it something other than innumerable people investing, working and trading? Is that what you oppose? What would you make all these people do instead if you could?

[Pants-of-dog]

OK and this "system" is it something other than innumerable people investing, working and trading? Is that what you oppose? What would you make all these people do instead if you could?

Stop asking what I support or oppose. I said it is irrelevant. I am not the subject of the conversation.

Do you agree or disagree that the state has enforced capitalism using oppressive measures often throughout history?

[SolarCross]

Stop asking what I support or oppose. I said it is irrelevant. I am not the subject of the conversation.

Do you agree or disagree that the state has enforced capitalism using oppressive measures often throughout history?

The state, meaning really the agents that operate that special kind of corporation called government which claims the the state as its property, has an interest in trade and investment but it is the same kind of interest in trade and investment that mafia bosses have in the local shopkeepers. Is this what you mean?

[Pants-of-dog]

The state, meaning really the agents that operate that special kind of corporation called government which claims the the state as its property, has an interest in trade and investment but it is the same kind of interest in trade and investment that mafia bosses have in the local shopkeepers. Is this what you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29

Do you agree or disagree that the state has enforced capitalism using oppressive measures often throughout history?

[SolarCross]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29

Do you agree or disagree that the state has enforced capitalism using oppressive measures often throughout history?

Why did you put that link, it doesn't have anything in it about capitalism being forced on people by the state?

[Nunt]

By "capital", I meant the system of capitalism and the people who seek to maintain it because it makes them wealthy and powerful.

I like this formulation. The state is indeed a system that seeks to maintain the priviledges of the wealthy and powerful. That is why I am against a state.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why did you put that link, it doesn't have anything in it about capitalism being forced on people by the state? :?:

You asked what I meant by "state".

Do you agree or disagree that the state has enforced capitalism using oppressive measures often throughout history?

-----------------------

I like this formulation. The state is indeed a system that seeks to maintain the priviledges of the wealthy and powerful. That is why I am against a state.

Since capitalism requires a state, it would be logical to assume that you are therefore anti-capitalist.

[Nunt]

Since capitalism requires a state, it would be logical to assume that you are therefore anti-capitalist.

Perhaps, but I am not against private property rights enforced by a polycentric legal order. Which would make me an anarcho-capitalist anti capitalist?

[Pants-of-dog]

Examples of polycentric legal orders died out before capitalism came on the scene. The main economic orders at the time were feudalism or whatever the Roman system was.

[Rich]

We have a poly centric legal order. It gave us WWI, WWII and the Cold War.

Right now Syria is experiencing the joys of a poly-centric legal order.

[Nunt]

Examples of polycentric legal orders died out before capitalism came on the scene. The main economic orders at the time were feudalism or whatever the Roman system was.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that an economically free society (im intentionally staying away from the term capitalism as many people believe the term to also mean some for of corporatism which I am not in favor of) cannot exist in a polycentric legal order.

We have a poly centric legal order. It gave us WWI, WWII and the Cold War.

Those are not examples of a polycentric legal order. A polycentric legal order means that different legal institutions coexist in the same space. The existence of different nationstates is not a polycentric legal order as each nation has a monopoly on its own territory.

[Beren]

Sure, it is, as civilization is inherently statist itself. As long as we live in class societies, we'll live in a statist world too, and capitalism will never change that. It's just the most recent mode of production in a world of inherently statist class societies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that an economically free society (im intentionally staying away from the term capitalism as many people believe the term to also mean some for of corporatism which I am not in favor of) cannot exist in a polycentric legal order.

Yes, it's possible, but it also seems highly unrealistic.

As to polycentric legal orders, I feel that private arbitration firms would be too easily influenced by large companies who give them lots of business and can include binding arbitration clauses in the fine print of contracts. This is already seem to some degree in the current controversy about these kinds of clauses in credit card contracts.

[Nunt]

Yes, it's possible, but it also seems highly unrealistic.

As to polycentric legal orders, I feel that private arbitration firms would be too easily influenced by large companies who give them lots of business and can include binding arbitration clauses in the fine print of contracts. This is already seem to some degree in the current controversy about these kinds of clauses in credit card contracts.

I am more optimistic. While some large companies may be the largest clients of arbitration firms, the largest market for arbitration will probably be individual households. Companies that cater to the masses are usually much larger and powerful than companies that cater to the elite.

Furthermore, we should try to think outside the classic: government vs for profit box. For example, insurance companies can be mutual or cooperative organizations. Some countries currently still have a strong tradition of mutual organizations. My current insurer is such an organization. It's shareholders are its clients. This is one of many possible solutions to problems caused by individuals being mistreated by big corporations.

I agree that in the insurance market there would be a lot of problems with for profit organizations. Clients don't really have a way to evaluate the serivices provided unless it is too late. A problem which does not pose when buying consumer goods because you immediatly know the quality when you pay. So I believe that many functions that the government is providing today such as schooling, security, charity will probably happen by not-for-profit institutions.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am more optimistic. While some large companies may be the largest clients of arbitration firms, the largest market for arbitration will probably be individual households. Companies that cater to the masses are usually much larger and powerful than companies that cater to the elite.

Then why do the arbitration firms find that the credit card companies who hired them are right 94% of the time? So often that the Minnesota Attorney General has told them they can't do it anymore?

Furthermore, we should try to think outside the classic: government vs for profit box. For example, insurance companies can be mutual or cooperative organizations. Some countries currently still have a strong tradition of mutual organizations. My current insurer is such an organization. It's shareholders are its clients. This is one of many possible solutions to problems caused by individuals being mistreated by big corporations.

Yes, we can all imagine all these wonderful possibilities. However, we should also see how likely any of these imaginings are.

I can also imagine communism without a state. Does that make communism not inherently statist?

I agree that in the insurance market there would be a lot of problems with for profit organizations. Clients don't really have a way to evaluate the serivices provided unless it is too late. A problem which does not pose when buying consumer goods because you immediatly know the quality when you pay. So I believe that many functions that the government is providing today such as schooling, security, charity will probably happen by not-for-profit institutions.

Historically speaking, charities have never been as successful as gov't programs when dealing with things like arbitration.

[Nunt]

Yes, we can all imagine all these wonderful possibilities. However, we should also see how likely any of these imaginings are.

We don't have to use our imagination. Not-for-profit institions are solving the kinds of issues that you raise today.

[Pants-of-dog]

We don't have to use our imagination. Not-for-profit institions are solving the kinds of issues that you raise today.

If we want to pretend that we can replace gov't with this, then yes, we are imaging possibilities without looking at how probable it is.

[Nunt]

If we want to pretend that we can replace gov't with this, then yes, we are imaging possibilities without looking at how probable it is.

Today we are far from a free society. But that does not mean it is not desirable and possible. It's not going to happen overnight and it will be difficult. I am in favor of a gradual transition away from government provision. Starting with the easy transitions this could go something like this:

1) non-government provision of goods and services such as: schooling, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc..
2) non-government provision of security: police and courts
3) non-government provision of lawmaking

[mum]

Today we are far from a free society. But that does not mean it is not desirable and possible. It's not going to happen overnight and it will be difficult. I am in favor of a gradual transition away from government provision. Starting with the easy transitions this could go something like this:

1) non-government provision of goods and services such as: schooling, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc..
2) non-government provision of security: police and courts
3) non-government provision of lawmaking

I would start with getting rid of all the ridiculous government services (and regulations) that even the lefties agree that have no benefit to society.

[Pants-of-dog]

Today we are far from a free society. But that does not mean it is not desirable and possible. It's not going to happen overnight and it will be difficult. I am in favor of a gradual transition away from government provision. Starting with the easy transitions this could go something like this:

1) non-government provision of goods and services such as: schooling, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc..

We had a society like this. We didn't like it. We disliked it so much we fought to have public health care systems, public schooling, and other social safety benefits. You are basically arguing that we should roll back the clock to the era of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

2) non-government provision of security: police and courts

So the rich could also have the power of violence over the rest of us.

3) non-government provision of lawmaking

And also the power of legislation over us.

------------------------

I would start with getting rid of all the ridiculous government services (and regulations) that even the lefties agree that have no benefit to society.

Please not the complete lack of actual examples.