Topic: My doubts about anarchy - page 6. (Read 18182 times)

It will stay that way, when there is only one person left.

Otherwise, we will group together in groups based on many varying factors. (Beliefs seemingly the most prevalent, nationality, race, etc...) It is the natural way. 

I don't think capitalism is a system, either. It's simply what tends to happen when people are left to behave in a certain way. I don't think discussing capitalism here is very fruitful. Using that moniker makes it seem like people are talking about the same thing, but looking at the discussion above, I don't think that's the case.

Anyway, this was a thread about anarchy, wasn't it? I'm sorry if my careless choice of words ("anarcho-capitalism") diverted the discussion. I still haven't received anything even resembling an explanation of how a free, individualistic society would manage to stay that way...

You really need to stop and think about what you mean to say, before you type.  Capitalism is simply a concept that pulls together several economic laws under one word.  Laws in the "natural" and "God created them" kind.  The first being, the individual has a right to the fruits of his labor. (i.e. the capital) and he also has a right to trade it freely without coercion.  The value of the two items being traded don't have a set value, the value of each thing is subjective to the perspectives of he who trades.  The law of supply and demand also comes into play; as these two could be trading things on the (original) Silk Road, one trading silk from China and the other trading whatever it is that Europe made that Chinese people wanted.  Each item is moving from a region that has more of it, and therefore it's market value is lower, to a  region where there is less of it, and therefore it's market value is higher.  That's called 'arbitridge'. Another law that you don't know is comparative advantage.  Go google "the island trading game".

What you think is capitalism, is corporatism, and a far cry from capitalism.  A free market, by definition, is capitalist in nature; but that does not mean that capitalism only exists in a free market.  As has been noted by another, capitalism exists always and everywhere, it's just illegal under certain political conditions.

Are they of equal value, the exchange had a built in profit. "The Margin". What does the Wheel Maker do with 10 Spears? He is only one guy.

He doesn't need 10, he is saving his profit for later. (His profit margin).

Under your argument he would only exchange what he needs.

The problem with your thinking is that things can have some sort of intrinsic "value".  All value is imputed by individuals and changes not only from individual to individual, but also in time.  Nothing has inherent value.  If you disagree please explain how something has intrinsic value, and where that value comes from.

So a voluntary exchange between two parties never involves things of equal value.  If A didn't value what B has more than what he has to offer there would be no exchange (assuming no coercion).  For a willing exchange between two parties both members have to value more what they are getting than what they are giving. 

With your example of B taking the product of A's labor there are only two cases.

1) A agrees to the trade with B
2) A does not agree and is coerced by B

1) is capitalism.
2) is theft.

Thoughts?

A simple exchange between two parties of things of equal value isn't capitalism. Both parties gain as much as they lose and therefore do not experience profit.

However, if party B takes the product of A's labor without giving back something of equal value, we have capitalism in the exchange and a state in the reason behind B's privilege. Perhaps it's B's perceived strength or holiness. Perhaps B has the backing of a more powerful authority. Without such a reason, there is no state and A won't consent to such a deal.

Huh... It has. The neanderthal guy who made the stone wheel for 10 spears, wasn't aware of the "Capitalist Pig" government, but amazingly used a capitalist supply/demand to initiate a trade.

Of course, if every individual never traded anything and was completely self sufficient, yea, your statement would be correct. But I am not holding my breath for that day.

Yes it can.

Capitalism as an economic model cannot function without a government of some kind.

Power is elusive and complex based on many factors, Government Model (democracy, dictatorship, blood line, etc...) but all model boil down to public acceptance.  One might have power one day, and be an outcast the next. (i.e. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, etc...)

The one who controls "the Mob" has power. But it never lasts because "the Mob" changes quicker than those with Power.

Cardinal Richelieu probably had the best model for retention of Power. (most don't even know who he was).

But even he, in the end, succumb to the change of Power.

Hating capitalism is like hating profit and loss, wages, opportunity costs and the law of economic.

It's nowhere close to a reality. It's a subjective anomaly. Anything affecting another sentient organism could be considered an act of power. Its true meaning is subjectively defined.

Power is not something that is decided on philosophical considerations.   It is not a social contract.  It is an empiric reality.

I couldn't of said it any better.

Ditto, What ^-He-^ says.

Capitalism is a foundation for all economic models irrespective of political models. Any model that does not incorporate a supply/demand as its foundation, fails and falls.

Liberalism, Socialists, etc... only exist on the backs of Capitalists no matter what country one comes from.

Name any country, I can show Capitalism at work.

Oh, for Pete's sake!

Capitalism isn't a political ideology!  It's an economic model!  Capitalism is indifferent to the ideologies!

edit.

The biggest problem I have here is I can't see how you'd transition to a voluntarist system and keep coercion out of it for any significant amount of time. People have different resources at their disposal. Some individuals have vast resources, to the point that it would be difficult for any group of individuals I can see agreeing with each other to defend themselves against them. So what I think would happen if you removed the current coercive state apparatus is that another would simply spring up in its place, in the form of private armies or something analogous.

Voluntarism is fine if everyone has more or less equal capabilities, but even if the playing field was even to begin with, wealth would eventually accumulate in the hands of a minority, giving them the opportunity to use coercive force against others once they had enough resources.

Unfortunately.  However, two examples don't make a universal rule.  Additionally, those societies were not anarcho-capitalist societes, but rather Murrary Rothbard provided them as examples of historical societies that had some *elements* of anarcho-capitalism.  It does good to study these historical examples so we can learn from them to know better why they failed.  Primarily what was lacking was a commonly understood and accepted philosophical opposition to the initiation of violence and failure to build enough decentralized voluntarily-funded defense agencies strong enough to, collaboratively, resist statist aggression.  Oh yeah, and they didn't have bitcoin back then to protect individuals against (most) taxes .  So while I do not necessarily agree with the maxim "might makes right", I do acknowledge that it is important to defend what you believe is important.

Perhaps your paper will deal with this, but didn't both Iceland and the Old West fail to protect themselves against centralization of power?