Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[neverforgetlol]

if there is capitalism, there will be a state it colludes with. stateless capitalism is a myth.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
stateless capitalism is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what?

[neverforgetlol]

so that makes anarcho-capitalism kind of silly, don't you think?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
so that makes anarcho-capitalism kind of silly, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Men on the moon was a myth not too long ago. That makes men on the moon kinda silly, eh?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
so that makes anarcho-capitalism kind of silly, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]
It makes it untried in full form. The theory behind it is sound in my mind, so no, I don't think it's silly. Is it likely? More likely than your mutualist society. I wish you'd ignore this thread and discuss more issues in the mutualist thread!

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that if you redistributed all the wealth in the world evenly, that it would eventually concentrate like this again. Some people are just not as good with capital/wealth/money/whatever as others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this really another way of saying that human nature is irredeemably corrupt?

Doesn't it also beg the question of how good you can be with money when you've never had it, and how bad you really have to be with it when you've got lots, before it even matters?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the capitalists use the state to squash new competition? There was article linked in this thread, for example about someone trying to startup and sell milk cheaper and the corporations passed laws to get it shut down.

capitalists in general lobby for and get a lot of privileges that makes it pretty hard for a new coop to compete.


And you and I both know the unregulated free market has never existed in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some capitalists will try to lobby the state for favors and protectionism. Not all. Ever heard of James Hill? Your argument is great against having a central state capable of handing out favors to businesses, but not a good one against capitalism itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually everybody pushes for virtually everything they can get, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, deservedly or undeservedly, in surfeit of what they need or just to keep from dying.

If you think otherwise, you kind of are arguing against capitalism itself.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
You think that because I think your one moral principle is neither universal nor absolute I think that the Holocaust was A.O.K.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. So far your entire defense of democracy as far as i can tell comes down to having a "vested interest" which makes it acceptable, or that it is currently accepted makes it aceptable. You have given no other clues as to how you think people should approach ethics and morality. Is forcing me to go to medical school instead of becoming a teacher acceptable if society deems there aren't enough doctors? Where is the line for acceptable and unacceptable group behavior, what guidlines should be used to figure it out?

[ QUOTE ]
You really need to stop making analogies because you're just not good at it

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I can point to dozens of situations where mas murder, enslavement and degradation of minorities has been supported by majorities. Where people get elected running on segregationist platforms, or garner wide support calling for the destruction of Isreal or a dozen others. So far as i can tell you refuse to justify why what is currently going on is acceptable other than the fact that it currently goes on. Well allthese other things would currently go on in countries if they had the opportunity, and in many countries has happened over the past 20-30 years. That is why you have to justify the status quo, because in many places things you vehenmently disagree with ARE the status quo and those people would disagree with your approach as strenuously as you disagree with theirs.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
having capitalists would create a hierarchical society again, which is what anarchy isn't. it's supposed to be classless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcho Socialism is supposed to be classless, Anarcho Capitalism strives for a minimum of coercon.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this really another way of saying that human nature is irredeemably corrupt?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it has more to do with people's natural abilities and tendencies. You could use poker as an example (though it is a bit of a poor one since poker is negative sum and capitalism is usually not). If you confiscated all the poker money and evenly distributed it amongst all the players, certainly you'd agree that many, many people would wind up losing quite a bit and the pros would be back on top. Also, IIRC, this happens to many people who win the lottery. They wind up back where they started or worse.