Political Crossfire Forums

Poon · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3760 Location: US

bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected? The way them hillbillies do it was sitting on the porch with a shotgun across the lap...

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected?

contract

Free Thinkr · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject:

TwinkieDP wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected? The way them hillbillies do it was sitting on the porch with a shotgun across the lap...
Then that is what your society will beget. The most vicious hillbillies with the best aim will have whatever they please, the less vicious or worse aiming will have nothing.

Poon · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3760 Location: US

LeopardPM wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected?
contract
A contract is just a piece of paper. Without something to back up the agreement, thats all it will ever be...

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Free Thinkr wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected? The way them hillbillies do it was sitting on the porch with a shotgun across the lap...
Then that is what your society will beget. The most vicious hillbillies with the best aim will have whatever they please, the less vicious or worse aiming will have nothing.

except for the fact that it is more efficient to contract out services of protection, bind together with other folks and all agree upon respecting property rights so as to engage in meaningful trade, and refrain from using violence as it is costly and ultimately inefficient. It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.

If hillbillies desire to provide protection for themselves, fine by me, but I have better things to do and will thus be more efficient and grow my wealth faster which in turn will afford me more opportunity to purchase better protection. Hillbillies acting thus are equivalent to a person insisting upon barter when money is readily available.

Free Thinkr · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject:

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected? The way them hillbillies do it was sitting on the porch with a shotgun across the lap...
Then that is what your society will beget. The most vicious hillbillies with the best aim will have whatever they please, the less vicious or worse aiming will have nothing.

except for the fact that it is more efficient to contract out services of protection, bind together with other folks and all agree upon respecting property rights so as to engage in meaningful trade, and refrain from using violence as it is costly and ultimately inefficient.
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...

Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Free Thinkr wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...
you make a big leap there.... government is different than specific voluntary contract: competing protection services, competing arbitration services (courts), even market pricing for levels of protection/'laws'

Government is one-size-fits-all which fits none AND it forces all folks within a geographic area to subscribe (monopoly force).

Quote: Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.
government IS force - it is institutionalized force on a grand scale. Give me a market anytime - you can keep your government and worship thereof.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

TwinkieDP wrote: LeopardPM wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected?
contract
A contract is just a piece of paper. Without something to back up the agreement, thats all it will ever be...

a contract also usually includes provisions for agreed upon 'punishment' for contract violations. In essence, it is an agreement to subject oneself to defensive violence in the case of contract violation. Besides, defensive violence is justified and moral - it is correct to use violence to protect one from aggression.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7581 Location: Tampa, FL

LeopardPM wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: LeopardPM wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected?
contract
A contract is just a piece of paper. Without something to back up the agreement, thats all it will ever be...

a contract also usually includes provisions for agreed upon 'punishment' for contract violations. In essence, it is an agreement to subject oneself to defensive violence in the case of contract violation. Besides, defensive violence is justified and moral - it is correct to use violence to protect one from aggression.
Surely the thief signed no contract with the diamond owner?

Free Thinkr · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject:

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...
you make a big leap there.... government is different than specific voluntary contract: competing protection services, competing arbitration services (courts), even market pricing for levels of protection/'laws'
In such a scenario, people will get unequal justice, and tyranny will result.

Quote: Government is one-size-fits-all which fits none AND it forces all folks within a geographic area to subscribe (monopoly force).
Necessarily so. If you employ cops who subscribe to one theory of property, and I another, what could possibly result but bloodshed? Where's the order in that?

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.
government IS force - it is institutionalized force on a grand scale. Give me a market anytime - you can keep your government and worship thereof.
There is no market without government. Security is vital for trade.

sapphire7 · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject:

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...
you make a big leap there.... government is different than specific voluntary contract: competing protection services, competing arbitration services (courts), even market pricing for levels of protection/'laws'
In such a scenario, people will get unequal justice, and tyranny will result.

Quote: Government is one-size-fits-all which fits none AND it forces all folks within a geographic area to subscribe (monopoly force).
Necessarily so. If you employ cops who subscribe to one theory of property, and I another, what could possibly result but bloodshed? Where's the order in that?

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.
government IS force - it is institutionalized force on a grand scale. Give me a market anytime - you can keep your government and worship thereof.
There is no market without government. Security is vital for trade.

Seems like breaking from government economically must be ineffective in keeping fairness, security, and order in property ownership, which eventually leads back to the creation of a government... that is fascinating; I wonder if that has ever happened in history, and even if it hasn't, it probably would happen anyway. Can't seem to escape the creation of order, I guess, due to our inhereted habit of establishing order and civilization by means of a government.

Now, about the original topic on capitalism, I share the opinion of econimic_reform's judgment of capitalism. The result of capitalist practices has divided the nation and has caused a good chunk (12.7% and probably higher if Comrade Dave is correct) of our country to fall into poverty. If the government controlled certain aspects of our economy (provided the people can, in emergencies, influence their control on it if such aspects aren't adequately regulated by a less than benevolent government), then we wouldn't have private businessmen trying to get profit from our needs (health care is a big one on my list).

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...
you make a big leap there.... government is different than specific voluntary contract: competing protection services, competing arbitration services (courts), even market pricing for levels of protection/'laws'
In such a scenario, people will get unequal justice, and tyranny will result.

Quote: Government is one-size-fits-all which fits none AND it forces all folks within a geographic area to subscribe (monopoly force).
Necessarily so. If you employ cops who subscribe to one theory of property, and I another, what could possibly result but bloodshed? Where's the order in that?

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.
government IS force - it is institutionalized force on a grand scale. Give me a market anytime - you can keep your government and worship thereof.
There is no market without government. Security is vital for trade.

So the free-market can't have defense forces?

Free Thinkr · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:46 am Post subject:

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...
you make a big leap there.... government is different than specific voluntary contract: competing protection services, competing arbitration services (courts), even market pricing for levels of protection/'laws'
In such a scenario, people will get unequal justice, and tyranny will result.

Quote: Government is one-size-fits-all which fits none AND it forces all folks within a geographic area to subscribe (monopoly force).
Necessarily so. If you employ cops who subscribe to one theory of property, and I another, what could possibly result but bloodshed? Where's the order in that?

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.
government IS force - it is institutionalized force on a grand scale. Give me a market anytime - you can keep your government and worship thereof.
There is no market without government. Security is vital for trade.

So the free-market can't have defense forces?
It can and does. But it can't exist without government in the first place. A free market requires order and some sort of justice system.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Free Thinkr wrote: In such a scenario, people will get unequal justice, and tyranny will result.

Quote:
There is no market without government. Security is vital for trade.

please give this thought a good 'think' on your part: Is there a market for security then?

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

sapphire7 wrote:
Seems like breaking from government economically must be ineffective in keeping fairness, security, and order in property ownership, which eventually leads back to the creation of a government... that is fascinating; I wonder if that has ever happened in history, and even if it hasn't, it probably would happen anyway. Can't seem to escape the creation of order, I guess, due to our inhereted habit of establishing order and civilization by means of a government.
your conclusions are wrong here - order is created on the market, not necessitating government

Quote: Now, about the original topic on capitalism, I share the opinion of econimic_reform's judgment of capitalism. The result of capitalist practices has divided the nation and has caused a good chunk (12.7% and probably higher if Comrade Dave is correct) of our country to fall into poverty.
capitalism 'caused' poverty? Gee, is there poverty in non-capitalistic countries? Thi is a common misunderstanding of socialists - they think the 'cause' of poverty is lack of wealth - that is the definition of poverty, not its cause. The cause of lack of wealth can be due to many factors, some controllable, some not. The factors controllable are: productivity, thriftiness, resposible decision making, oppression (usually in the form of government, but also includes private such as robbery, assualt, murder, etc), etc. Uncontrollable factors might include: weather/natural disasters, disease or other illnesses, etc.

Quote: If the government controlled certain aspects of our economy (provided the people can, in emergencies, influence their control on it if such aspects aren't adequately regulated by a less than benevolent government), then we wouldn't have private businessmen trying to get profit from our needs (health care is a big one on my list).

OMG! The absolute horror of the fact that my 'needs' might induce someone else to cater to them in search of profit!!!! Gee, unless people were willing to all be my slave and provide for my needs without compensation (wait! this is socialism in a nutshell: slavery!), then profit sounds like a natural solution to my dilema (the dilema being that I have a need that I would rather have someone else take care of....).

So, healthcare is a 'big one' on your list? Are you saying that just because a person is alive and human, that other people must provide for their health? At the first level, this would make doctors slaves, demanding they labor without compensation. If the situation is abstracted a bit (just enough to blind the socialists), and doctors are compensated but not by the person requesting the service, but by some government who in turn enslaves its population to raise the compensation, it is STILL an immoral situation! A 'need' on my part does NOT constitute an obligation on your part (or anyone else's part for that matter). We all have 'needs', and it is our responsibility to provide for these needs ourselves through our own labors or through other methods (like friends, family, mutual aid societies, etc).

What is it about 'profit' that you don't seem to like? Do you realize that every action you take, you do so in search of 'profit'? (sometimes its a psychic profit like alturism, or love, or the feeling of satisfaction, or reputation, or honor, or friendship, or respect, etc - but there is always a profit else you wouldn't take any action at all.) Would you get up from your easy chair where you were nice and comfortable to expend the labor to go to the fridge and get yourself a beer (or other favorite beverage) if you didn't think your situation would be improved from doing so (profiting)? You make it sound like a dirty word, and the truth is totally opposite, profit is what we all desire. Don't get all caught up in thinking of profit in terms of money (which has its own bad stigma from the phrases like 'money is the root of all evil'), profit has a wide and varied definition which is not evil, nor bad, or even undesirable.

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

Free Thinkr wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea. We could even assign specific individuals to represent us, and pass "laws" which other specific individuals would enforce. Wait a minute...
you make a big leap there.... government is different than specific voluntary contract: competing protection services, competing arbitration services (courts), even market pricing for levels of protection/'laws'
In such a scenario, people will get unequal justice, and tyranny will result.

Quote: Government is one-size-fits-all which fits none AND it forces all folks within a geographic area to subscribe (monopoly force).
Necessarily so. If you employ cops who subscribe to one theory of property, and I another, what could possibly result but bloodshed? Where's the order in that?

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is in the best interests of everyone involved to agree (contract) to respect property rights and then contract for protection against those few who would continue to commit violence and/or fraud.
Agreed. Hence government.
government IS force - it is institutionalized force on a grand scale. Give me a market anytime - you can keep your government and worship thereof.
There is no market without government. Security is vital for trade.

So the free-market can't have defense forces?
It can and does. But it can't exist without government in the first place. A free market requires order and some sort of justice system.

So the free-market can't provide justice?

Free Thinkr · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:40 am Post subject:

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It can and does. But it can't exist without government in the first place. A free market requires order and some sort of justice system.

So the free-market can't provide justice?
No. Justice is a prerequisite for a free market.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Free Thinkr wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It can and does. But it can't exist without government in the first place. A free market requires order and some sort of justice system.

So the free-market can't provide justice?
No. Justice is a prerequisite for a free market.

hold on there, hoss! cart before the horse...

'justice' is a good and a service, most times it has been monopolized by government to provide, but, it is not necessary (government) to do so. A market works without 'justice' because any justice desired within the market will be brought about by the market itself. There IS a market for 'justice', for protection, for security... and like all other goods and services, a government is not the best or most efficient method of producing these things.

Free Thinkr · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject:

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It can and does. But it can't exist without government in the first place. A free market requires order and some sort of justice system.

So the free-market can't provide justice?
No. Justice is a prerequisite for a free market.

hold on there, hoss! cart before the horse...
No, it is you who puts the cart before the horse. How can you have a free market in a society where freedom isn't defined nor secured?

Quote: 'justice' is a good and a service, most times it has been monopolized by government to provide, but, it is not necessary (government) to do so.
Justice is a concept. It's the difference of me taking your stuff and buying your stuff.

Quote: A market works without 'justice' because any justice desired within the market will be brought about by the market itself. There IS a market for 'justice', for protection, for security... and like all other goods and services, a government is not the best or most efficient method of producing these things.
Anarchist BS. If the "market" provides justice, there will inevitably be many competing definitions of "justice." I think it's justice that you pay me $50 a week that I don't set your building on fire. Maybe you can afford to buy better protection, maybe you can't; with no agreed upon arbiter and enforcer of justice, you just have to live with it. Can a market that would operate in such as society be described as "free?" Hardly.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It can and does. But it can't exist without government in the first place. A free market requires order and some sort of justice system.

So the free-market can't provide justice?
No. Justice is a prerequisite for a free market.

hold on there, hoss! cart before the horse...
No, it is you who puts the cart before the horse. How can you have a free market in a society where freedom isn't defined nor secured?
in such a society, government couldn't secure these things either.

But, in reality, every human desires to be free from violence against himself, from theft against himself, etc. These desires lead to organizing and respect for each others 'rights' to these. People, without government, come together everyday with like purposes in mind to draw upon the strength of the group. Why do you assume that people would all be at each other's throats? Hobbesian worlds do not exist by the mere fact that government is a construct of humans and would entail the same features which the people within it have. I know that I have no desire to commit violence against my neighbor unless they targeted me first, and I would guess that this is true for you, as well as just about everyone you know. Am I 'held back' by government laws in this regard? No, it is not government which instills me with a tendency to abhor violence - first and perhaps foremost it is the high cost of committing such violence... the risk of my own life in the process, not to mention the general social response I would receive from such acts. Sure, there are folks with no ingrained ability to determine 'right' and 'wrong', or who have a propensity towards violence due to perhaps chemical imbalances. But the overwhelming majority of folks are not of that type.

Quote: Quote: 'justice' is a good and a service, most times it has been monopolized by government to provide, but, it is not necessary (government) to do so.
Justice is a concept. It's the difference of me taking your stuff and buying your stuff.
...and such an action is deemed immoral and wrong by just about every human on earth - why then don't you think that people would join together to voluntarily protect against such actions?

Quote: Quote: A market works without 'justice' because any justice desired within the market will be brought about by the market itself. There IS a market for 'justice', for protection, for security... and like all other goods and services, a government is not the best or most efficient method of producing these things.
Anarchist BS. ha!

Quote: If the "market" provides justice, there will inevitably be many competing definitions of "justice." I think it's justice that you pay me $50 a week that I don't set your building on fire. Maybe you can afford to buy better protection, maybe you can't; with no agreed upon arbiter and enforcer of justice, you just have to live with it. Can a market that would operate in such as society be described as "free?" Hardly.
have you even read the theories or literature surrounding private law/justice/courts? David Friedman is one of the most knowledgable that I know of and his stuff is quite intriguing. Here is his website: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ and a direct link to some online articles by him: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Academic.html

Sorry, don't have the time to get into the specifics as to how private law would/could work, and don't mean to drop links as any sort of argument, just wanted to give you some avenues to explore what others have responded to your very same positions and beliefs as to how private law would fail.