5 ms·

Because it requires the literal use of government force to suppress market forces, ie to prevent the slaves from refusing to work and running away to find bette

Because it requires the literal use of government force to suppress market forces, ie to prevent the slaves from refusing to work and running away to find better opportunities.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
No, it doesn’t. It requires only private force and the absence of government force used to prevent the use of it.
- cloverich 4y ago
  Do you have examples of widespread slave economy that did not require a government framework to support it? All examples from modern civilization i can think of involved laws specifically blocking slaves from participating as equals in the market economy, ie anti capitalist?
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Regulation is not anti capitalist, it is a necessity for the existence of a market. Zero regulation is not capitalist, it is anarchy. Which of those modern civilizations do you believe are not capitalist? Are you counting trafficked slave labor today as an example?
- kenjackson 4y ago
  That doesn't work. You're effectively saying that if I create an army and simply steal from you, that is capitalism because its my own private army. It violates many tenets of capitalism. Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. That said, even if you simply view the slaves as property with no agency of their own, my original point was more that you can't compare the net worth of the slaves against the slave owners in terms of value created.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    I'm not saying that and it is unreasonable to imagine that I am. That said, I have no idea what your second sentence means.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    >Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. Can you go into this a bit. In general sellers can acquire materials (oil say) by invading a country and mining it. If that seller then sells the oil acquired thus, I can't see how the buyers and sellers are not acting voluntarily? Is war/violence antithetical to Capitalism in some way that I'm not aware of?
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
People sell themselves into slavery too. But, enforcing ownership rights on property is surely part of regular capitalism?

Because it requires the literal use of government force to suppress market forces, ie to prevent the slaves from refusing to work and running away to find better opportunities.

lazyasciiart 4y ago

No, it doesn’t. It requires only private force and the absence of government force used to prevent the use of it.

cloverich 4y ago
Do you have examples of widespread slave economy that did not require a government framework to support it? All examples from modern civilization i can think of involved laws specifically blocking slaves from participating as equals in the market economy, ie anti capitalist?
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Regulation is not anti capitalist, it is a necessity for the existence of a market. Zero regulation is not capitalist, it is anarchy. Which of those modern civilizations do you believe are not capitalist? Are you counting trafficked slave labor today as an example?
kenjackson 4y ago
That doesn't work. You're effectively saying that if I create an army and simply steal from you, that is capitalism because its my own private army. It violates many tenets of capitalism. Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. That said, even if you simply view the slaves as property with no agency of their own, my original point was more that you can't compare the net worth of the slaves against the slave owners in terms of value created.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  I'm not saying that and it is unreasonable to imagine that I am. That said, I have no idea what your second sentence means.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  >Buyers and sellers must act voluntarily and enslavement against the will of the slaves, certainly seems to violate this. Can you go into this a bit. In general sellers can acquire materials (oil say) by invading a country and mining it. If that seller then sells the oil acquired thus, I can't see how the buyers and sellers are not acting voluntarily? Is war/violence antithetical to Capitalism in some way that I'm not aware of?

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

People sell themselves into slavery too. But, enforcing ownership rights on property is surely part of regular capitalism?