(June 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: See, in my idea of a free market, law is a product of government....so why not allow the private ownership of the means of production? Won't they allocate that resource more efficiently..or some such?

Isn't the insistence that the government serve in some capacity to "level the playing field" (and be immune to the influence of the actors in that market) just welfare for poor business models? If they have a valid model or product, why can't they buy their own congressman- compete in the market of government on their own merits?

Anarcho-capitalism? I think that's pretty risky for civil rights.

Only if the benefits we're crediting to capitalism in any other market don;t hold once we invoke a market government. But why wouldn't they? Sure, some people would abuse the system, but aren't we expecting those people to get out-competed "somehow" by those who "do good" by the system?

As in, we might contend that a polluting company would go out of business if a non-polluting company offered a similar product at a similar price (assuming the public perceived "non-polluting" to be a valuable part of a product). Lets say said polluter captured a congressman - wouldn't the non polluter also be able to do the same, if our notions of how the relationship between producer and consumer play out hold?

---

Mind you, I'm not an advocate of this sort of thing, I;m just using it as a vehicle for discussing the notion that somehow when captialism is "working properly" all of this good stuff follows..but as soon as we see the bad shit it becomes "corporatism" - it isn't working properly. I'd say that corporatism is capitalism working very well indeed. Too well. The private ownership of a -very- important means of production...of a -very- important product.

I suppose it would be just as workable as football where the rules are up for grabs for whoever tackles the referee soundly enough. Since, football wouldn't be workable under such a system, it must mean football isn't fun.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I suppose it would be just as workable as a sport where the rules are up for grabs for whoever bribes the referee enough.

Which is an adequate summary of our recent history (re railroads and industrialization)

-there were winners and losers in that, a game was played. I don't see the problem?

(June 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Only if the benefits we're crediting to capitalism in any other market don;t hold once we invoke a market government. But why wouldn't they? Sure, some people would abuse the system, but aren't we expecting those people to get out-competed "somehow" by those who "do good" by the system?

nope.

Because consumers dont care over the ethical issues behind the products they consume. Just look at the history of products being produced through inmoral production methods. Look at Ryanair, Apple, Shell, Haliburton and others.

They all have bad reputations, some even have been convicted in courts of being involved in crimes. Yet they are all far from going down the toilet through low sales due to their reputation.

If you think that was a good thing, you'll have to find someone way more libertarian than me to agree with you.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you think that was a good thing, you'll have to find someone way more libertarian than me to agree with you.

Look, I don't, I'm just wondering how it conflicts with any part of capitalism - how it isn't (wasn't) a grand expression of a free market..of all of this stuff working very well.

I thought that sounded odd, coming from you. I'd say that capitalism is an economic system. It's just what you get when you don't put many barriers people from owning the means of production or engaging in commerce. It's not a guarantee of good outcomes. It has some outcomes that are good and some that aren't. Government, ideally, plays referee to minimize the damage of the bad outcomes while also minimizing reduction of the good outcomes.

I won't flat out say anarcho-capitalism can't work; but until I hear better answers for my reservations about it, I'd have to see it successfully implemented as proposed to believe it.

Addition: I think capitalism and governance are different means to achieve different ends. when they're too much in bed together...isn't that kind of the definition of fascism?

(June 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I thought that sounded odd, coming from you. I'd say that capitalism is an economic system. It's just what you get when you don't put many barriers people from owning the means of production or engaging in commerce. It's not a guarantee of good outcomes. It has some outcomes that are good and some that aren't. Government, ideally, plays referee to minimize the damage of the bad outcomes while also minimizing reduction of the good outcomes.

I won't flat out say anarcho-capitalism can't work; but until I hear better answers for my reservations about it, I'd have to see it successfully implemented as proposed to believe it.

Addition: I think capitalism and governance are different means to achieve different ends. when they're too much in bed together...isn't that kind of the definition of fascism?

Which brings me back to the question I asked earlier. If we use capitalism because it works to bring any of those benefits we might mention - why doesn't it bring those sorts of benefits if applied to government? Why -isn't- it the proper tool (or why can't businesses buy congressmen)?

Because it's an attempt to bypass competition by out-producing, out-selling, or otherwise providing something your competitors can't provide as well as you. The part of capitalism where it allocates resources efficiently? That is reduced when political favoritism is involved, whether it's a king or the more influential businesses themselves that institigate it. It's the cost of a reduction of efficiency without a corresponding desireable good to society that's worth the loss.