4 ms·

Pure capitalism has no government that would suppress armed pushback

coldtea 8y ago
Pure capitalism relies on government to enforce contracts. There's no capitalism without government, that would be anarchy. Whether it's big government (with welfare, education, etc) or not, is another thing. But capitalism, pure or not, requires police, army, courts, and so on, and by extension, a tax system to fund their operation. Else, it's just might that enforces anything it wants, and there are no contracts other than between people of equal power (since the more powerful can just steal whatever people with less power have).
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. It's much more complex, I recommend you to read something by Ludwig von Mises, he answers what you said on top of saying why it'd be more fair etc. And yes, pure capitalism is anarchy but that doesn't mean there would not be order. Of course these terms were redefined a lot during the last 100 years. We might simply misunderstand each other because each of us uses a different definition made by another person and taught by another school of thought as well as different university/professor. Anyways even if there was a government and law enforcement etc, in pure capitalism having more money would not help, government would be strictly neutral and the civil law minimal. If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. Doesn't make sense to have private courts since anybody with a large enough power (e.g. hired thugs) can take them over. If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting (and presumably there would be some way to settle how those courts/police would operate too, which might end up as a contract itself, but people will have to agree to its terms first, so there's some voting there too). >If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is. How that makes it anything more than wishful thinking though? If the government officials pocket money to favor one company, that's fully compatible with the greed and egoism that's essential for capitalism (according to Adam Smith and co “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"). What would prevent them to do it under the table, aside from morals?
    - skidd0 8y ago
      >If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting Actually, there is voting. Those individuals are voting with their money. But, this is more direct market signaling rather than being relayed to a "representative" in our "republic".
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >Those individuals are voting with their money. In that case, a person with more money will have more influence over that police/court etc to favor them. How's that different (except cruder) than the current scheme, where the do it through influencing government first? It just makes it more explicit and removes any counter-balances.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        You're thinking about it on a too small scale, but there are many more factors - it's not just a single transaction! Consider what happens to stocks when a company does something unpopular. I reiterate my recommendation of Ludwig von Mises. His books are really good and it's worth a read even if you completely disagree (just like I read Marx). He tried to answer every question you've written here and definitely more in detail and better than I ever could. There are even individual texts online (taken out of his books) where you can read about a single issue - the texts are not even that long, 20 minutes a piece.
        coldtea 8y ago
        I'll have a look, thanks. As for that though: >You're thinking about it on a too small scale, but there are many more factors - it's not just a single transaction! Consider what happens to stocks when a company does something unpopular. Their success might not depend on popular demand or any stock market. They might have control over something valuable like oil or water supplies, which is not very elastic in its demand.

Pure capitalism relies on government to enforce contracts. There's no capitalism without government, that would be anarchy. Whether it's big government (with welfare, education, etc) or not, is another thing. But capitalism, pure or not, requires police, army, courts, and so on, and by extension, a tax system to fund their operation. Else, it's just might that enforces anything it wants, and there are no contracts other than between people of equal power (since the more powerful can just steal whatever people with less power have).

TomMarius 8y ago
Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. It's much more complex, I recommend you to read something by Ludwig von Mises, he answers what you said on top of saying why it'd be more fair etc. And yes, pure capitalism is anarchy but that doesn't mean there would not be order. Of course these terms were redefined a lot during the last 100 years. We might simply misunderstand each other because each of us uses a different definition made by another person and taught by another school of thought as well as different university/professor. Anyways even if there was a government and law enforcement etc, in pure capitalism having more money would not help, government would be strictly neutral and the civil law minimal. If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. Doesn't make sense to have private courts since anybody with a large enough power (e.g. hired thugs) can take them over. If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting (and presumably there would be some way to settle how those courts/police would operate too, which might end up as a contract itself, but people will have to agree to its terms first, so there's some voting there too). >If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is. How that makes it anything more than wishful thinking though? If the government officials pocket money to favor one company, that's fully compatible with the greed and egoism that's essential for capitalism (according to Adam Smith and co “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"). What would prevent them to do it under the table, aside from morals?
  - skidd0 8y ago
    >If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting Actually, there is voting. Those individuals are voting with their money. But, this is more direct market signaling rather than being relayed to a "representative" in our "republic".
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Those individuals are voting with their money. In that case, a person with more money will have more influence over that police/court etc to favor them. How's that different (except cruder) than the current scheme, where the do it through influencing government first? It just makes it more explicit and removes any counter-balances.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        You're thinking about it on a too small scale, but there are many more factors - it's not just a single transaction! Consider what happens to stocks when a company does something unpopular. I reiterate my recommendation of Ludwig von Mises. His books are really good and it's worth a read even if you completely disagree (just like I read Marx). He tried to answer every question you've written here and definitely more in detail and better than I ever could. There are even individual texts online (taken out of his books) where you can read about a single issue - the texts are not even that long, 20 minutes a piece.
        coldtea 8y ago
        I'll have a look, thanks. As for that though: >You're thinking about it on a too small scale, but there are many more factors - it's not just a single transaction! Consider what happens to stocks when a company does something unpopular. Their success might not depend on popular demand or any stock market. They might have control over something valuable like oil or water supplies, which is not very elastic in its demand.