There Cannot Be Capitalism Without A State (And Vice Versa)

[Philosphorous]

If you want agriculture, you first need to find an arable piece of land. If there are creatures on it, they will need to be killed or removed.To effectively work the Earth, you need metals.If you want metals, you have to have a mine. If you have a mine, you have to hire security to keep people away from it. (Look around; the police stand in front of everything somebody needs.) Mining is miserable work, so there will most likely be oppressed people doing it from land that the mine is on. Don't worry; they will be abundant since, after destroying their way of life via agriculture and domesticaiton, they will have no choice but to work. Bosses will keep them in line. Plus, in a few generations, they will forget that they were once independent and call their, "just the way it is".Agriculture means more food at first, so more people will have children. That means more agriculture, which means more metals. More smelters. More security. More houses built. Take more land to build those houses. Kill off nature or animals on those land. Cut down the trees. That requires more metal. More mining. More workers. More mines. If the people on the land with the new mine don't want to give it up, you'll have to "convince" them.More resources now available means more babies, which means people spread out, which requires more transportation, which needs more infrastructure. That requires more metal. More workers to do miserable work. More security to guard the infrastructure, agriculture, smelters, property and mines. More exploitaiton of nature. More death.Eventually you will run into more people and animals who don't want to give up their land. They will fight back. You now need an army. You need the strongest person with the most stuff keeping people in line. You don't want anyone not dependent. It will threaten your way of life.

 

You need to create fictional justifications of why people are better off as domesticated under the new agriculture system. Call it "progress" and demonize the ancestors who lived under the old way. You'll need leaders to repeat this over and over again until people believe it. Tell them that they just have to be nice to people. Don't aggress. But nature is not people. It is here for us to use.You will encouter rough terrain. You need technology--chainsaws, ploughs, etc. More comes out of the Earth. The humans living on the land above the resources don't want to give it up. Send in the military. Create propaganda to justify it. Leaders emerge to tell the new generations that this is the way it should be. They hire security to keep people in line. Without that security, the system breaks down.More layers of control develop. People spread out. That means regional leaders. They want more land. More resources. That means more workers. The workers are now hopelessly dependent on the system that exploits them. Any that speak out need to be dealt with. That requires a miltiary and police, plus leaders to tell everyone why it is okay.The military makes capitalism possible. Without their guns, we wouldn't be able to get or transports the raw materials to make stuff that makes our way of life possible. And we wouldn't want to go back to how those savage idiots lived who didn't sell everything would we? The ones who created technology to preserve their land. That would be ridiculous. After all, then we wouldn't have smart phones, indoor plumbing or ice cream 24 hours/day. And everybody knows that is the only way to live.

 

[Kevin Beal]

I was practicing capitalism as a child before I even knew what the state was. My friends and I didn't need any military, or to exploit anyone.

 

Maybe there are better ways to live, then you can lead by example. Shuck the computer and your modern technology and show us how great it is. But if you aren't willing to lead by example, then I'm not likely to take this seriously.

 

I wanted to get the people in my life interested in bitcoin, and so I invested heavily in it, bought cool things, donated to people and watched the relative value go up and down. When I made the value proposition (with the help of the FDR video) I was much more compelling that way.

 

When I wanted to wanted to show people the value of honesty and reporting the facts of my present experience, I started actually doing it myself, learning how to do it in a way that felt my own and slowly other people in my life started adopting similar approaches.

 

You need to actually do what you advocate. Can we at least agree on that much?

[PatrickC]

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, because you are a donator. However, it's not unoticable that you have clocked up a -25 rep after only 40 posts, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

Before you wrote this leftist screed, had you bothered to read Stefans 'free' books on anarchism? Rather than making a lot of adjectives, please make some arguments.

[Philosphorous]

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, because you are a donator. However, it's not unoticable that you have clocked up a -25 rep after only 40 posts, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

Before you wrote this leftist screed, had you bothered to read Stefans 'free' books on anarchism? Rather than making a lot of adjectives, please make some arguments.

 

I watched the videos. I tried reading the books but they're very wordy.

 

Anarchy/NAP concerning humans is great if you're a human. How about literally everything else? Also, control over people is not always direct control. If a company builds a factory that destroys the landbase of humans who don't hold it as property (like primitives), those people are then forced to either leave or work for that company.

 

He cited this laughable "non-sadistic principle" against animals. He also created a sustainability video that talked about cutting down trees since a business owns them. What about the animals that lived there and the trees themselves? What about people who might depend on that land? Where's the non-initiation of force in that scenario?

 

This all takes control, security and propaganda, which requires some form of authoritarianism.

[PatrickC]

I watched the videos. I tried reading the books but they're very wordy.

 

Are they really?

 

I know I can be far more wordy than Stefan frankly.. Personally, if you're seriously interested (and only if).. I would start with his philosophy series on YouTube. Post back about any details you don't understand. Because you wont get any traction with this community with the statements you've already made.

[Alan C.]

Nowhere in your initial post is 'capitalism' defined. You make preposterous assumptions such as police, workers, and oppressed people magically appearing out of nowhere to fill roles in your narrative. It looks like psychological projection to me given your duplicity (eg. embracing technology while you vilify it).

 

Under anarcho-capitalism, capitalism refers to an 'order of production' (as explained by Austrian economics) rather than a political system.

[Xtort]

You can have both capitalism and socialism with or without a state.  The question is, why would you want to?

[Existing Alternatives]

I read your post twice – I noticed there were no questions, only direct abrasive statements. In other words, everything you said there must be pure truth. But then your very title is questionable: capitalism is a fairly new concept (a couple of centuries, max), state has been around for millennia, so, by definition, the whole “vice versa” thing is not possible.

 

You might have something with the “nature and animals” bit, but on this forum we are trying to build free human society. Until we figure that one out, the best we can offer to the animal world is “non-sadistic principle”. That sounds like a fair compromise, no?

 

Finally, you seem to ignore @Kevin’s question about your personal practices - I assume because you refuse to give up at least computers and other benefits of this Capitalism / State cabal you are so adamantly against. You also dismiss Stefan’s books as “wordy” – hardly an argument against an idea.

 

So, what are we talking about here?

[Philosphorous]

You might have something with the “nature and animals” bit, but on this forum we are trying to build free human society. Until we figure that one out, the best we can offer to the animal world is “non-sadistic principle”. That sounds like a fair compromise, no?

 

 

I've already addressed the credentialism argument again and again in other threads. But no, that is NOT a fair compromise. Fair to who? Humans? So until then--if it ever happens--humans can continue to kill and exploit animals in whatever capacity they see fit so long as they don't "torture" them--whatever that means?

 

Why? Because animals and plants don't fight back? Tell me then--why doesn't the non-sadistic principle apply in the same way to children and mentally disabled adults? Why are they spared and gifted with the NAP instead? This is a BS human supremacy argument.

 

This is the crux of why anarcho-capitalism is a cruel proposal. It takes capitalism as a given and... oh yeah; it would be great if we could be nice to all the non-humans if we can ever get around to it. And perhaps if there's clean air and water that would be good too.

Are they really?

 

I know I can be far more wordy than Stefan frankly.. Personally, if you're seriously interested (and only if).. I would start with his philosophy series on YouTube. Post back about any details you don't understand. Because you wont get any traction with this community with the statements you've already made.

 

I have this challenge for anyone: if you can make it through this, you can then talk to me about the NSP and other non-human exceptions to NAP. Hell, if you can finsih an hour of it, then let's talk.

 

You want me to watch a video series--you watch this. Post back with any questions.

 

http://youtu.be/ce4DJh-L7Ys

 

Good luck.

[PatrickC]

You want me to watch a video series--you watch this. Post back with any questions.

 

Good luck.

 

 The complete opposite of what I asked.. But my breath revived thank you.

[Philosphorous]

 The complete opposite of what I asked.. But my breath revived thank you.

 

You asked me to watch a video series; I asked you to watch a video. Again, please watch it, as it shows more than I could ever put into words. Anyone who says they favor humans over animals really should watch it. (I'm not saying you said this, by the way.)

[nathanm]

Can't watch the video, too many pictures.

[Existing Alternatives]

Why? Because animals and plants don't fight back? Tell me then--why doesn't the non-sadistic principle apply in the same way to children and mentally disabled adults? Why are they spared and gifted with the NAP instead? This is a BS human supremacy argument.

 

NAP is designed specifically for humans, capable of making ethical decisions. Children and mentally-disabled are often excluded from it (depending on the school of thought). There probably is a room for even more universal principle covering all ‘earthlings’, maybe even rocks, air, etc. But it is important to understand that we are nowhere near there yet. NAP itself is nowhere near to be accepted among the humans, how can we expect something more universal to gain acceptance?

 

Take US Constitution as an example of a universal principle, which was great, but explicitly excluded women, Natives and other non-white races. But it allowed for groundwork to be laid for something more universal which eventually included all US citizens (while still excluding those pesky illegal aliens).

 

I would call on you to help us build NAP now and we will help you expand it further in the future. How does that sound?