4 ms·

what is your definition of a capitalist economy then?

som33 6y ago
He's uneducated, capitalism as the upper class preaches from the universities has never existed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY
- oDot 6y ago
  You're attacking a straw man. I did not say pure capitalism existed before, but that the US is less capitalist today than before.
oDot 6y ago
An economy that is void of coercion (in the sense of violence or threat of it) Clarification edit: Coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property, you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced. We need some way make sure there's no coercion in the market.
- som33 6y ago
  Property is naturally coercive, why don't we have the right to repair and own our software? The last 20 years has the videogame industry hacking and stealing videogames en mass since the rise of the internet. I know because I lived through it. Games before steam and client-server based rpg's that were designed to trick gullible consumers to give up PC game ownership.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >Property is naturally coercive, why don't we have the right to repair and own our software? Many (most?) hardcore libertarians actually oppose intellectual property, because it's not justified under the reasoning used to justify normal property. If someone puts a gun to your head and steals your car, they're clearly using violence to force you to do something you don't want to do (give them your car). If someone downloads a copy of a game you published and shares it with their friends, they're not doing any violence against you or making you do something you don't want to do. They may be making it less likely for other people to pay you money for that game, but under that minimalistic libertarian framework nobody has the obligation to pay you for a game just because you made it.
    - oDot 6y ago
      Yes that is correct. It really depends on the approach to libertarian law, but protection boils down to contractual limitations that come with purchasing a copy. I also know of some libertarians that do not oppose IP itself, but claim that any system to enforce (and definitely our current patents system) is worse than no system at all.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  What would happen in such non-coercive society if a poor, homeless person occupies an empty house?
  - oDot 6y ago
    Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person. Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >It will be within their right to evacuate that person. But that would require coercion, since that person doesn't want to leave.
      - oDot 6y ago
        I have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.
        krapp 6y ago
        You can redefine terms any way you like, but coercion in response to coercion is still coercion. That's not an "economy void of coercion", just one where the monopoly on violence has been replaced by a free market of violence. After all, if the person squatting on what you consider to be your property doesn't recognize your claim of ownership, it would seem that you pose a greater threat to them than they do to you, especially if you're trying to remove them from the property when they're not presenting an immediate threat of physical harm.
        eeZah7Ux 6y ago
        That's a quite an arbitrary definition of self defense
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
- WilliamEdward 6y ago
  This is not true. Capital requires the use of laws and state violence to enforce a claim upon it.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    It just requires violence to enforce laws, it doesn't require a entity with a monopoly on violence.
- pinkfoot 6y ago
  Are food and construction standards cooercive? Are you seriously arguing for an economy where anyone can build a skyscraper out of any material?
som33 6y ago
IMF energy subsidies. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew0...

He's uneducated, capitalism as the upper class preaches from the universities has never existed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY

oDot 6y ago
You're attacking a straw man. I did not say pure capitalism existed before, but that the US is less capitalist today than before.

oDot 6y ago

An economy that is void of coercion (in the sense of violence or threat of it) Clarification edit: Coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property, you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced. We need some way make sure there's no coercion in the market.

som33 6y ago
Property is naturally coercive, why don't we have the right to repair and own our software? The last 20 years has the videogame industry hacking and stealing videogames en mass since the rise of the internet. I know because I lived through it. Games before steam and client-server based rpg's that were designed to trick gullible consumers to give up PC game ownership.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Property is naturally coercive, why don't we have the right to repair and own our software? Many (most?) hardcore libertarians actually oppose intellectual property, because it's not justified under the reasoning used to justify normal property. If someone puts a gun to your head and steals your car, they're clearly using violence to force you to do something you don't want to do (give them your car). If someone downloads a copy of a game you published and shares it with their friends, they're not doing any violence against you or making you do something you don't want to do. They may be making it less likely for other people to pay you money for that game, but under that minimalistic libertarian framework nobody has the obligation to pay you for a game just because you made it.
  - oDot 6y ago
    Yes that is correct. It really depends on the approach to libertarian law, but protection boils down to contractual limitations that come with purchasing a copy. I also know of some libertarians that do not oppose IP itself, but claim that any system to enforce (and definitely our current patents system) is worse than no system at all.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
What would happen in such non-coercive society if a poor, homeless person occupies an empty house?
- oDot 6y ago
  Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person. Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >It will be within their right to evacuate that person. But that would require coercion, since that person doesn't want to leave.
    - oDot 6y ago
      I have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.
      - krapp 6y ago
        You can redefine terms any way you like, but coercion in response to coercion is still coercion. That's not an "economy void of coercion", just one where the monopoly on violence has been replaced by a free market of violence. After all, if the person squatting on what you consider to be your property doesn't recognize your claim of ownership, it would seem that you pose a greater threat to them than they do to you, especially if you're trying to remove them from the property when they're not presenting an immediate threat of physical harm.
      - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
        That's a quite an arbitrary definition of self defense
- quickthrowman 6y ago
WilliamEdward 6y ago
This is not true. Capital requires the use of laws and state violence to enforce a claim upon it.
- logicchains 6y ago
  It just requires violence to enforce laws, it doesn't require a entity with a monopoly on violence.
pinkfoot 6y ago
Are food and construction standards cooercive? Are you seriously arguing for an economy where anyone can build a skyscraper out of any material?

som33 6y ago

IMF energy subsidies. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew0...