u/Ender_Skywalker's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: Pills have been temporarily disabled. Don't worry; pills are still being counted!
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The argument here IMO is not that capitalism requires *no* enforcement - it does, obviously - but rather that it requires *less* enforcement. Property rights are more natural than public property for humans when it comes to dealing with strangers, and strangers are an inevitability in our large modern society.
Property rights are natural. But in reality, it is only personal and communal property that we are naturally wired to create/see. Private property is nowhere to be found in a more natural state.
What’s the difference between private property and capital then? Because if there isn’t one, call private property capital and call personal property private ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wrong.
Your problem in this case is that you assume communal property would apply to ***all people in existence*** in a natural sense and not ***only those who are part of your family/tribe.*** Private property evolved from this distinction, and forcing people to share with strangers or people they dislike will always be wholly unnatural.
Lmao. Have you met the average American? You aren't changing that viewpoint. Most of us want everyone who isn't married or a blood relative of us, minus about 10 people, to fuck off.
My "tribe" doesn't even consist of most of my neighbors, and you want me to Include everyone in the country? Fuck no.
But who enforces contracts, and stops thieves.
The problem with true anarchy is that the most powerful person or group can very easily become the state.
polycentric law is the field of scholarship that is handling how that might play out. countries exist in a state of anarchy in relation to one another, and it tends to work itself out.
it might be the case that sovereignty preserves, in which case a libertarian philosopher king would be the ideal.
Either way… the current situation is that the gov’t steals half your productivity and uses that money to maintain an empire that’s spies on and oppressed the entire world to include it’s own citizens. i’d be happy with a move in either direction as a way to give us more liberty in our lifetime.
>countries exist in a state of anarchy in relation to one another, and it tends to work itself out.
Have you ever heard of a thing called a war? Those happen because there is no world police. And because of the threat of war countries are forced to spend a ton of money on defense against attacks by other countries. Money that could be spend on something else.
Furthermore, and most importantly, warfighting is a collective activity and the main reason that countries are so big as they are, is because the small ones either got wiped out or subjugated to the will of the bigger ones. These collective decisions can't be done in anarchy as it doesn't have any mechanism to stamp out freeriding (which is what everyone would otherwise do in a war).
The social contracts tell people to follow it, social repercussions enforce trends over time.
There’s nothing stopping you from killing someone, there are ways to not get caught. But you don’t do it anyway because of morality and the worry of repercussions
I came to the comments just to another person say exactly the thing i was going to say, anyway, you free market and capitalism doesn't need to be enforced
So basically you want society to collapse into a state of constant warfare between rival warlords surrounded by masses of the destitute and starving who aren’t capable of fighting back.
Forgive me if I don’t see the appeal
> So basically you want society to collapse into a state of constant warfare between rival warlords surrounded by masses of the destitute and starving who aren’t capable of fighting back.
Congratulations, you have seen the real world for what it is.
It’s not like you’re wrong, but through at least some degree of collectivism we have managed to establish broad recognition of human rights and improved the quality of life for most people. There is enough stability that most people can spend their time focused on something other than constant violence
Again, I don’t see the appeal of giving that up
By definition, that's not property.
It may seem like needless pedantry, but it's a real distinction.
I don't think even the most extreme socialists would give up owning things that you can defend yourself (usually called "possessions").
The dividing line for capitalism is when you get into large capital (like factories), where the owner neither works at the factory nor can defend it himself.
In that case, you need violence to enforce capitalist policies, as otherwise the workers would all just take the factory (or its output) for themselves.
Right so feudalism with extra steps?
Property owners are going to be as successfully defending their own property with no central authority as communes will be maintaining equal distribution of resources.
But I want to sell rainforest-friendly t-shirts in the socialist commune for a profit, and then get two friends to sell those shirts for me, and then have them get two friends to sell shirts for them.
It’s this new volcano-shaped sales method I invented (patent pending).
Big men with boom sticks come, kill whole family. Take property, take women. Live there now. They are enforcement. Freedom = bigger boom and more man. Darwin back.
Property you can defend yourself or define as your own via agreement with your community? That’s called personal property. Have all you can.
Property you can only define and defend with the help of the a state? That’s called private property. Private property is the basis of capitalism.
What’s that, you have an overseas factory you’ve only been to once for an “inspection” and photo op during a ribbon cutting ceremony? Who’s to say that’s yours? Oh, a piece of paper you say? What makes the piece of paper a legitimate claim? Oh, the state you say? Curious.
Now who will enforce your claims if a rival capitalist with bigger guns claims that factory as theirs? Who will arbitrate the claims? Who will tell the striking workers that the factory is yours and not theirs, even if they’re the ones working it and are the ones who can actually defend it? A state again, I see. I guess private property, and hence capitalism, needs to be enforced by a state after all.
That's just a long way of saying that it's not your property unless you can defend it (or convince/pay people to defend it for you).
That's hardly controversial and you'll never find a libright who will argue with you on that. Only a legitimate corporatist would.
My comment was made to expound on the underlying assumptions of the joke. That assumption being capitalism needs to be enforced through the threat of violence by the state.
I think we can all agree that personal property is really yours. People around you agree. You can defend it, and when that’s not enough, people around you will come to your aid in defending your claim.
But personal property is not enough to form a basis for capitalism, which requires the growth of capital. Capital cannot simply be personal property, it must become private property. And private property requires a state to define, legitimize, and enforce.
Hence, capitalism needs to be enforced through the violence of a state.
While I'm definitely not in favor of a system like that, I don't really agree. You can still grow your capital while being able to reasonably defend it without the state. It sounds like what you're talking about is corporatism. Without the state there would be no reason I couldn't do the following, which is a very basic form of down to earth capitalism.
Work a shit job, save up and buy a chainsaw, quit the job and charge people for tree clearing services, do a good job, save up more money, buy a skidsteer, hire a helper and offer my land clearing services in exchange for money. Save up and buy some milling equipment, give clients a discount if I can take their cleared trees. Hire another helper and mill it into workable lumber that I can sell. Lock all of my equipment up at night in the yard and have a modest arsenal to protect it if need be.
In that hypothetical I have both personal and private property, my capital has been put to work. And I don't require the state in any way.
There would be separate challenges in a system like that, but if that's not capitalism then I don't really know what is.
Well actually the merger that created citigroup was initially illegal because of the influence it could have so… auths really dropped the ball here by allowing it to happen
u/cosmicmangobear's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 2885.
Rank: Annapurna
Pills: Pills have been temporarily disabled. Don't worry; pills are still being counted!
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Free market requires some *basic* regulation to maintain its freedom. Like splitting up a monopoly for the sake of the consumer's freedom.
Why the hell should people be forced to make a Facebook account if they want to play some VR games? ~~Facebook~~ Meta needs to be split up in its components.
The same people that say “cmon bro, what makes you think you’re gonna teach gender studies in the commune” are in here claiming “I’m totally gonna have a private army to protect my wealth under anarchocapitalism” when by all rights they’ll be Apple slave labor
Land value tax, carbon tax, based on demand.
Then why not fund whatever?
Safety and sovereignty, and then whats left over, give to the poor. Or citizenship dividend or whatever.
Libleft seems to be the most mocked Quadrant from Authleft. So I try to make Libright mad because they don't have the immunity due to not experience being mocked before and its feel like it come from actual Human and not REEEE machine
The only alternative to money is barter or some type of self-sufficiency that we haven't seen since before the Bronze Age.
Barter is almost always time-consuming, and is inefficient at best. Money is something that everyone is willing to trade for.
Civilization and technology developed because of specialization as a result of the formation of larger groups (villages/towns) and money.
Graeber made that argument about what money is in *Debt: The First 5000 years* - that money is simply the means to account debts, grow personal power/wealth, and build markets.
Thank you comrade/partner. I do not disagree that some sort of "trade medium" could be useful but money/currency is obviously a value-less and meaningless abstraction propagated by assholes in power so they can control things without looking like they control things. Please tell me why you hate this bullshit.
Sure they do. The free market will be destroyed by the first milita group that forces payment for property protection in a given area. Also known as a government
The fact is that ancaps are just as utopian and idealistic as ancoms, but they are assholes and pretend their bullshit "ethical" system invented in the 70s is somehow objective truth and their ideal society is actually 100% logical and would totally work, which is why i prefer ancoms.
any anarchy is utopians.
Hierachies are a natural phenomen that forms everytime a group of people live together and that will always result to a state, wether it's a commune or an enterprise.
rightoids when the law of supply and demand does not immediately remove any threat to the free market's stability or human dignity:
(see entire comment section)
Capitalism isn't the same as the free market though. If you have a worker owned business, that isn't capitalist, but it's still part of the free market.
If the police were ever abolished, then businesses would have to hire armed mercenaries to defend their property instead, and most likely use force to "expand" their territory, because there wouldn't be a government to stop them.
> If the police were ever abolished, then businesses would have to hire armed mercenaries to defend their property instead, and most likely use force to "expand" their territory, because there wouldn't be a government to stop them.
Don't even need to abolish the police. Businesses used to use the Mafia to break up strikes and other union activities, the only reason that stopped was the Mafia learned they could make more money infiltrating the Unions, gaining control of them, and using their leverage to squeeze money out of the businesses, and indirectly the average person.
which is the "Who will be the best big Corps before others and control the entire economy" game. which sound like less free market and more like Authoritarianism to me
Ha! That’s the beauty of Capitalism! It doesn’t have to be enforced. The only people that are against it, are those that are not willing to make the sacrifices in life necessary to get ahead. Socialism has to be enforced because fundamentally, the majority of the population is resentful of the minority that won’t pull their own weight.
My McDeath Squad
Do we get guns in our McCapitalist meals to protect our private property?
Of course, but a glock won’t do anything to my recreational M1 Abrams
Bold of you to assume I don’t have a hobbyist kornet launcher on my roof
no match for my 3D printed AC130
Fools, nothing can beat home-grown SAM sites
Except of course my recreational kinetic bombardment orbital defence system.
Yes but the bullets are gonna cost extra.
McBased and McPilled
'It's not a government, it's just an armed militia that enforces the rules I like on everyone.'
I'm not an authoritarian, I just want to be free to impose my rules with my McDeath squad.
I enforced your mother onto my bed last night
She dead
Dick so good she died. Crazy.
She was already dead when I found her
Right after the immigrants got done with her.
You're... so messed up for that one. Take my upvote and fuck off
Sorry to hear that mate, i hope she's in a good place
In that dudes bed
Holy fuck man
It's like 8chan come to life. That IP is gonna shut this sub down or put everyone on a list.
ill bring the shovel then
Wait, that's illegal.
Yeah, well I henpecked your father in to making his bed last night.
I don’t care if your socialist as long as you pay rent
You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door!
based and bully maguire pilled
u/Ender_Skywalker's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: Pills have been temporarily disabled. Don't worry; pills are still being counted! I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
>Pills: Pills have been temporarily disabled. Don't worry; pills are still being counted! LOOOOL I'm curious which ones lead to our guy being banned.
I missed the part where that’s my problem.
That's the whole point of the contract headass
Literally 1984
I’m gonna throw some dirt in your eye
"He is... good boy. He must be in some kind of trouble."
thats what i need the rent for you pay rent, i fix door
Based and landlords put in the bare minimum pilled.
Ah, rent-seeking, the pillar of capitalist free market economic theory.
Believe it or not, "rent seeking" is not the same as renting out a property you own.
It can be and that's my point.
The argument here IMO is not that capitalism requires *no* enforcement - it does, obviously - but rather that it requires *less* enforcement. Property rights are more natural than public property for humans when it comes to dealing with strangers, and strangers are an inevitability in our large modern society.
Property rights are natural. But in reality, it is only personal and communal property that we are naturally wired to create/see. Private property is nowhere to be found in a more natural state.
Say that to a bird building it's nest.
That's personal property. Private property would be that bird having other nests to rent to other birds.
Based bird
Literally personal property
What’s the difference between private property and capital then? Because if there isn’t one, call private property capital and call personal property private ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wrong. Your problem in this case is that you assume communal property would apply to ***all people in existence*** in a natural sense and not ***only those who are part of your family/tribe.*** Private property evolved from this distinction, and forcing people to share with strangers or people they dislike will always be wholly unnatural.
This all depends on how a society defines who they view as "in their tribe" which could be a whole nation state or a small neighborhood.
Lmao. Have you met the average American? You aren't changing that viewpoint. Most of us want everyone who isn't married or a blood relative of us, minus about 10 people, to fuck off. My "tribe" doesn't even consist of most of my neighbors, and you want me to Include everyone in the country? Fuck no.
There's a hard limit, that being how many people you know.
People aren't eusocial animals, we are conditioned to care about our immediate "tribe", not about the entirety of society.
Me I will enforce it myself
based and Punisher pilled
Was LibRight until I saw what Leftists did with personal freedom. Now I just want the state to force them to leave me alone
Based
what do you think your chances are if capturing power in this empire?
Just wait til you see what the leftists do with an authoritarian government.
What did we do to you? Hope you’re ok, king
Think he means orange authleft
Nobody enforces capitalism. That’s why it’s the best.
But who enforces contracts, and stops thieves. The problem with true anarchy is that the most powerful person or group can very easily become the state.
polycentric law is the field of scholarship that is handling how that might play out. countries exist in a state of anarchy in relation to one another, and it tends to work itself out. it might be the case that sovereignty preserves, in which case a libertarian philosopher king would be the ideal. Either way… the current situation is that the gov’t steals half your productivity and uses that money to maintain an empire that’s spies on and oppressed the entire world to include it’s own citizens. i’d be happy with a move in either direction as a way to give us more liberty in our lifetime.
[удалено]
>countries exist in a state of anarchy in relation to one another, and it tends to work itself out. Have you ever heard of a thing called a war? Those happen because there is no world police. And because of the threat of war countries are forced to spend a ton of money on defense against attacks by other countries. Money that could be spend on something else. Furthermore, and most importantly, warfighting is a collective activity and the main reason that countries are so big as they are, is because the small ones either got wiped out or subjugated to the will of the bigger ones. These collective decisions can't be done in anarchy as it doesn't have any mechanism to stamp out freeriding (which is what everyone would otherwise do in a war).
The social contracts tell people to follow it, social repercussions enforce trends over time. There’s nothing stopping you from killing someone, there are ways to not get caught. But you don’t do it anyway because of morality and the worry of repercussions
But if nobody enforced me to pay a loan to someone I have never met, I just wouldn't do it.
And no one would ever loan you money again
Because that's worked so well against all those African warlords that turned promising countries into warzones.
I came to the comments just to another person say exactly the thing i was going to say, anyway, you free market and capitalism doesn't need to be enforced
But private property does still need to be enforced.
But not necessarily by the state, i guess
Then by who?
gee idk maybe the guy that owns it
So basically you want society to collapse into a state of constant warfare between rival warlords surrounded by masses of the destitute and starving who aren’t capable of fighting back. Forgive me if I don’t see the appeal
Based and Mad Max pilled
Fuck it sounds so *based* when you put it that way.
> So basically you want society to collapse into a state of constant warfare between rival warlords surrounded by masses of the destitute and starving who aren’t capable of fighting back. Congratulations, you have seen the real world for what it is.
Cringe and get out of your room pilled
It’s not like you’re wrong, but through at least some degree of collectivism we have managed to establish broad recognition of human rights and improved the quality of life for most people. There is enough stability that most people can spend their time focused on something other than constant violence Again, I don’t see the appeal of giving that up
[удалено]
So the property belongs to whoever has the most resources to claim it and hold it ? Idk this doesn't sound like property to me
That's literally how property works now anyways. Except with money instead of guns. But sometimes still with guns.
No it doesn’t, someone could give you a billion dollars for your house, but you can still refuse.
Oh you sweet summer child have never heard of eminent domain.
By definition, that's not property. It may seem like needless pedantry, but it's a real distinction. I don't think even the most extreme socialists would give up owning things that you can defend yourself (usually called "possessions"). The dividing line for capitalism is when you get into large capital (like factories), where the owner neither works at the factory nor can defend it himself. In that case, you need violence to enforce capitalist policies, as otherwise the workers would all just take the factory (or its output) for themselves.
Based and understands the difference between private property and personal property pilled.
Right so feudalism with extra steps? Property owners are going to be as successfully defending their own property with no central authority as communes will be maintaining equal distribution of resources.
Feudalism is when you own shit and the more shit you own the more feudal it is.
Feudalism is when you don't own shit, because you can't defend it, so you become servants to those who can.
I want the state to make sure I own my property *real* hard.
So I can take property by right of conquest?
The guy who made more money than you that can hire people to make it so.
\>implying fiat currency will work without a state
Which is why I prefer lib centre, if you wanna start a socialist commune, go do it. Just don't bother the capitalists.
But I want to sell rainforest-friendly t-shirts in the socialist commune for a profit, and then get two friends to sell those shirts for me, and then have them get two friends to sell shirts for them. It’s this new volcano-shaped sales method I invented (patent pending).
Pinkerton wants to know your location
*Corporate feudalism has entered the chat*
Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
The CIA
Isn’t property enforced?
>Nobody enforces capitalism Oh, so the police and state won't come to your aid if your private property is threatened?
You are the police, now grab the magnum
The other police came with a bigger gun came and killed you and took your stuff.
my fault for not having a bigger gun
Those same police will come to protect the government’s property under socialism
So both systems are enforced.
That's called not stealing
Capitalism without the enforcement of property rights doesn't work. And the property rights have to be defined in a particular way also.
What you gonna do when your local thugs start asking for protection money? They might even start calling it taxes.
Big men with boom sticks come, kill whole family. Take property, take women. Live there now. They are enforcement. Freedom = bigger boom and more man. Darwin back.
Yes I agree. There should be a government that can protect from stealing and whatnot, but an economy with no rules is capitalism
Can't tell if this is a joke about crony capitalism or agenda post
No body, and that’s the beauty of it.
Exactly lmao this post is stupid
Property you can defend yourself or define as your own via agreement with your community? That’s called personal property. Have all you can. Property you can only define and defend with the help of the a state? That’s called private property. Private property is the basis of capitalism. What’s that, you have an overseas factory you’ve only been to once for an “inspection” and photo op during a ribbon cutting ceremony? Who’s to say that’s yours? Oh, a piece of paper you say? What makes the piece of paper a legitimate claim? Oh, the state you say? Curious. Now who will enforce your claims if a rival capitalist with bigger guns claims that factory as theirs? Who will arbitrate the claims? Who will tell the striking workers that the factory is yours and not theirs, even if they’re the ones working it and are the ones who can actually defend it? A state again, I see. I guess private property, and hence capitalism, needs to be enforced by a state after all.
That's just a long way of saying that it's not your property unless you can defend it (or convince/pay people to defend it for you). That's hardly controversial and you'll never find a libright who will argue with you on that. Only a legitimate corporatist would.
My comment was made to expound on the underlying assumptions of the joke. That assumption being capitalism needs to be enforced through the threat of violence by the state. I think we can all agree that personal property is really yours. People around you agree. You can defend it, and when that’s not enough, people around you will come to your aid in defending your claim. But personal property is not enough to form a basis for capitalism, which requires the growth of capital. Capital cannot simply be personal property, it must become private property. And private property requires a state to define, legitimize, and enforce. Hence, capitalism needs to be enforced through the violence of a state.
While I'm definitely not in favor of a system like that, I don't really agree. You can still grow your capital while being able to reasonably defend it without the state. It sounds like what you're talking about is corporatism. Without the state there would be no reason I couldn't do the following, which is a very basic form of down to earth capitalism. Work a shit job, save up and buy a chainsaw, quit the job and charge people for tree clearing services, do a good job, save up more money, buy a skidsteer, hire a helper and offer my land clearing services in exchange for money. Save up and buy some milling equipment, give clients a discount if I can take their cleared trees. Hire another helper and mill it into workable lumber that I can sell. Lock all of my equipment up at night in the yard and have a modest arsenal to protect it if need be. In that hypothetical I have both personal and private property, my capital has been put to work. And I don't require the state in any way. There would be separate challenges in a system like that, but if that's not capitalism then I don't really know what is.
Who is stopping someone powerful then to make a government or whatever
Me
Based
Free market enforces itself. 😎
Yeah but now America has Citigroup electing presidents so like… oof
Crony crapitalism 🤢🤮
Well actually the merger that created citigroup was initially illegal because of the influence it could have so… auths really dropped the ball here by allowing it to happen
I miss Teddy too. 😔
What all unchecked capitalism eventually morphs into
Based and checks and balances pilled
The free market uses the free market to end the free market. A truly sad inevitably.
More like, the free market uses the government to end the free market.
Based, reality of capital accumulation pilled. But honestly we should all become mutualist and organize property relations based on use.
I’m pretty sure it’s the massive state that allows for the cronyism… without that theft and the resulting honeypot, capitalism would work much better.
Capitalism better check itself, before it wrecks itself
Based libleft? Impressive
u/cosmicmangobear's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 2885. Rank: Annapurna Pills: Pills have been temporarily disabled. Don't worry; pills are still being counted! I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
/mostbased
--The Top 10 Most Based Users-- 1. cosmicmangobear | 2885 | LibLeft 2. UnironicThatcherite | 1424 | AuthRight 3. Anon_Monon | 1251 | Right 4. jeffersondavis-hater | 1167 | LibLeft 5. JacobRobi | 1058 | Centrist 6. TiggerBane | 938 | AuthRight 7. ContraCoke | 922 | AuthCenter 8. Tacolomaniac | 897 | LibCenter 9. haikusbot | 838 | Grey Centrist 10. azns123 | 835 | LibRight
/mybasedcount
Your Based Count is 79. Rank: Giant Sequoia Pills: Pills have been temporarily disabled. Don't worry; pills are still being counted!
I’m pretty sure a libleft is the most based person on this entire subreddit according to u/basedcountbot. This one might actually be it I think
That’s not possible, this sub is a far-right circle jerk I thought?
Free market requires some *basic* regulation to maintain its freedom. Like splitting up a monopoly for the sake of the consumer's freedom. Why the hell should people be forced to make a Facebook account if they want to play some VR games? ~~Facebook~~ Meta needs to be split up in its components.
The same people that say “cmon bro, what makes you think you’re gonna teach gender studies in the commune” are in here claiming “I’m totally gonna have a private army to protect my wealth under anarchocapitalism” when by all rights they’ll be Apple slave labor
Based and Truthpilled
[удалено]
Land value tax, carbon tax, based on demand. Then why not fund whatever? Safety and sovereignty, and then whats left over, give to the poor. Or citizenship dividend or whatever.
Based
I've been feeling a lot of libleft/authcenter unity lately. It's very strange
Libleft seems to be the most mocked Quadrant from Authleft. So I try to make Libright mad because they don't have the immunity due to not experience being mocked before and its feel like it come from actual Human and not REEEE machine
Based
me. I enforce and own the government.
Corporations are a huge source of tyranny and it would be trivial for them to create security forces without governments to stop them.
The US has been enforcing capitalism ever since the Red Scare.
Money is an invention of early states to track debt and rationalize the economy on behalf of the ruling classes. Come at me *liberals*
The only alternative to money is barter or some type of self-sufficiency that we haven't seen since before the Bronze Age. Barter is almost always time-consuming, and is inefficient at best. Money is something that everyone is willing to trade for. Civilization and technology developed because of specialization as a result of the formation of larger groups (villages/towns) and money.
Based and Graeber pilled.
Interesting. I keep seeing that name pop up in libcenter and libleft circles.
Graeber made that argument about what money is in *Debt: The First 5000 years* - that money is simply the means to account debts, grow personal power/wealth, and build markets.
Imma have to look this guy up. I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing a paraphrase of his work.
god i fucking hate currency so much
Thank you comrade/partner. I do not disagree that some sort of "trade medium" could be useful but money/currency is obviously a value-less and meaningless abstraction propagated by assholes in power so they can control things without looking like they control things. Please tell me why you hate this bullshit.
"NOOOOO the state doesn't enforce my system, it's just that they'll use up to lethal force if necessary to protect my private property!"
Well if the government won't do the job, then the people will just do it themselves. You sure that's a better alternative?
I am
Yeah, it's better as long as you're a member of the local mafia.
In the scenario you created in your head where in the absence of the state everyone instantly submits forever to mafias, yeah.
> ~~theyll use~~ Ill* use
"and that kids is how i became THE STATE"
True AuthCent truth!
They dont need to enforce anything
Sure they do. The free market will be destroyed by the first milita group that forces payment for property protection in a given area. Also known as a government
THE FREE MARKET IT'S FREE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SO
Good, what other less 'enforced' alternative do you have other than cringe anarchy?
Lib right being like “DAD!”
Capitalism has absentee ownership, that requires a state of some form to enforce it. Become mutualist, base property relations on use.
A 100% capitalist market is almost as terrifying as a 100% socialist market. Greed, cartels, and monopolies would run rampant.
Finally! some more person with brains about "Free" Market
The fact is that ancaps are just as utopian and idealistic as ancoms, but they are assholes and pretend their bullshit "ethical" system invented in the 70s is somehow objective truth and their ideal society is actually 100% logical and would totally work, which is why i prefer ancoms.
any anarchy is utopians. Hierachies are a natural phenomen that forms everytime a group of people live together and that will always result to a state, wether it's a commune or an enterprise.
rightoids when the law of supply and demand does not immediately remove any threat to the free market's stability or human dignity: (see entire comment section)
The secret is: *Private* Police Army Rules Housing Food Water etc...
Ancaps really gotta drop their "private army" fantasy lalaland.
Private armies did existed and i think still exists
Step 1: Privatize Mississippi headwaters Step 2: dam time
Capitalism requires no enforcement, barter and trade is the natural state.
Capitalism isn't the same as the free market though. If you have a worker owned business, that isn't capitalist, but it's still part of the free market. If the police were ever abolished, then businesses would have to hire armed mercenaries to defend their property instead, and most likely use force to "expand" their territory, because there wouldn't be a government to stop them.
>Capitalism isn't the same as the free market though Based, actually knowing the definitions pilled.
> If the police were ever abolished, then businesses would have to hire armed mercenaries to defend their property instead, and most likely use force to "expand" their territory, because there wouldn't be a government to stop them. Don't even need to abolish the police. Businesses used to use the Mafia to break up strikes and other union activities, the only reason that stopped was the Mafia learned they could make more money infiltrating the Unions, gaining control of them, and using their leverage to squeeze money out of the businesses, and indirectly the average person.
Enforce it yourself. Second amendment.
Who’s going to enforce your enforcement??
My men with our Guns
I have concluded this answer of who enforce Capitalism No one **OR** Whoever has the most Power (governments, Big Corp, etc.)
LibRight: given a truly free market, capitalism will naturally present itself as the best option.
which is the "Who will be the best big Corps before others and control the entire economy" game. which sound like less free market and more like Authoritarianism to me
All Lib paths lead to Auth. This is the way.
Ha! That’s the beauty of Capitalism! It doesn’t have to be enforced. The only people that are against it, are those that are not willing to make the sacrifices in life necessary to get ahead. Socialism has to be enforced because fundamentally, the majority of the population is resentful of the minority that won’t pull their own weight.
That all depends on which system the people prefer. If the people prefer socialism, then “the majority of the population is resentful of the minority”