A Conservative view of Government.

[NED funded]

Capitalism is a real ideological system, you can't claim Capitalism is the literal mechanics of trade. Capitalism is after all an -ism. Originating after the 14th century and after the historical conflict between a landed aristocracy and serfs.

Capitalism is just leting problems be solved by the free market. And you only need property rights on it and anti-trust laws. The first one does not necesarily need to be provided by the goverment. So if the guy asks me for a cow in exchange of a sweater I do it.

[Theodarzna]

Capitalism is just leting problems be solved by the free market. And you only need property rights on it and anti-trust laws. The first one does not necesarily need to be provided by the goverment. So if the guy asks me for a cow in exchange of a sweater I do it.

I suppose Capitalism is everything if you ignore all history, definitions and literature.

Having "Property Rights," and "Anti-Trust Laws," implies someone with power to define what is property and what isn't and break up trusts, anyone with that sort of power would invite an ever expanding need for them to intervene in human social processes and interaction.

[Dezerte]

Capitalism is just leting problems be solved by the free market. And you only need property rights on it and anti-trust laws. The first one does not necesarily need to be provided by the goverment. So if the guy asks me for a cow in exchange of a sweater I do it.

What if I smack him in the head and take the sweater.

[Theodarzna]

You're confusing or flat-out ignoring external extinction level events that usurp entire Biomes or Ecosystems from Apex species. Theoretically a consistent, balanced environment could sustain itself within the confines of corporation (or simply don't eat all the food at once) while massive ecological upheavals essentially pull the carpet out from underneath the feet of all included. There is no "Clock" that nature has for apex species; it doesn't sweep-in after sometime and say "Hey times up, give the primates a shot."

I am simplifying my answer, but the line of reasoning here is also kinda simple.

TLDR:You can sit on the throne all you want for as long as you want, but when a giant meteor smacks you in the face, all bets are off, yet without it, you would rule forever (until something bigger than you comes along...which happens, but not because your time is up).

Those events happen, the very fact that they happen is the point. Something gets you in the end, nobody lives forever, nothing grows forever, there is always the grave waiting and the reaper will come to collect one way or another.

- - - Updated - - -

What if I smack him in the head and take the sweater.

What if I don't recognize the ability of one to sell a cow? What if the entire group owns the cow and there is no specific person with the right to give it away or trade it.

The problem MysticSnow is having is assuming the laws, culture and social structure of capitalism was set on high from Gods or something.

[Total Crica]

this is only about when state power can be exercised against an individual.

When people have the freedom to defend doing so because people are the state.

- - - Updated - - -

What if I don't recognize the ability of one to sell a cow?

Then the guy who wants to sell the cow smacks you in the head and sells it to someone who does.

Again, the ability to defend your freedom to do what you want always comes first.

[Theodarzna]

My view is that self-determination (so long as it is not harming others) should be an absolute(as far as that is possible). That leaves things like loyalty to a cause/ideal, or valuing some things over others a choice to be made by the conscious agent.

So if someone wishes to live their lives free of control of experts, that should be a choice one can make. If someone chooses to live a strict authoritarian hierarchical life (say in the army) that should likewise be their choice. If someone's worldview matches some state/government, etc, they should be able to choose that institution freely, and follow its laws.

The (social) law in an ideal society would be based on the Harm Principle of John Stuart Mill: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The full idea:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. — John Stuart Mill

Self-Determination is a good start, but we run into tricky problems in real life. For example, what of the problem of children? One community may for example teach children an objectively religious cosmology, they may even teach them something you or I might find objectionable. Should the State intervene? Does the State have a right to intervene?

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalists want government in order to help further their own cause. The more government intervention they push, the closer you get to corporatism. If I can get a guy with a gun (which is all government really is) to do my bidding for me, so that I can make more money, that sounds like a sweet deal. Once again, that's exactly how we wind up with so much government in our lives. Everyone wants someone else to do the dirty work.

Humans will push for it because its objectively the best way to win.

In any game of D&D one can have a character that does very well in the game by rule lawyering, bribing the DM, or being the person fucking the DM.

- - - Updated - - -

Then the guy who wants to sell the cow smacks you in the head and sells it to someone who does.

Again, the ability to defend your freedom to do what you want always comes first.

The person with the cow in this story also has no conception of selling the cow. The cow isn't his to sell, no individual actually owns it in any conventional sense that an American AnCapper would understand.

[NED funded]

What if I smack him in the head and take the sweater.

It's a failed system, much like socialism. People are really confusing me describing what is necessary to have capitalism to me advocating for ancap.

[Dezerte]

Then the guy who wants to sell the cow smacks you in the head and sells it to someone who does.

Again, the ability to defend your freedom to do what you want always comes first.

I smacked him first, he never saw it coming. Also I got the Hulk.

[Total Crica]

I think cities/states should have ultimate decision power in such matters

What they should have and what their ability to have are two different subjects.

Small committees will never have the power to defend their freedoms, just as individuals will never have power to defend their freedoms.

[NED funded]

I suppose Capitalism is everything if you ignore all history, definitions and literature.

Having "Property Rights," and "Anti-Trust Laws," implies someone with power to define what is property and what isn't and break up trusts, anyone with that sort of power would invite an ever expanding need for them to intervene in human social processes and interaction.

Ok provide a definition of capitalism we can work with.

[Total Crica]

I smacked him first, he never saw it coming. Also I got the Hulk.

You won't see it when I come for you! "Care for some tea, bro?" I R Ninja!

[Total Crica]

someone with power to define what is property

The person(s) able to defend their freedom is(are) the person(s) with the power to define what is "property".

[Glorious Leader]

It's a failed system, much like socialism. People are really confusing me describing what is necessary to have capitalism to me advocating for ancap.

Force is necessary for capitalism. Their is no capitalism, their is no property without violence. If you tell me where i can and cannot tread (on the grounds that you "own" the land) and back this up with a gun then you have done violence to my freedom and liberty.

[Total Crica]

Right, but that is why we have an overarching federal government, which was meant to be there mainly for protection.

No man is an island, we depend on society. But the further you get away from the local life, the more generic things have to be in order to accommodate all communities (which is what the Fed is trying and failing to do).

Texas should be left alone to be as Conservative as it wants to be. CA should be left alone to be as Liberal as it wants to be. And we should all work together when we (as a country) are under attack.

Should and ability to. That is where you are getting lost.

[Machismo]

Self-Determination is a good start, but we run into tricky problems in real life. For example, what of the problem of children? One community may for example teach children an objectively religious cosmology, they may even teach them something you or I might find objectionable. Should the State intervene? Does the State have a right to intervene?

- - - Updated - - -



Humans will push for it because its objectively the best way to win.

In any game of D&D one can have a character that does very well in the game by rule lawyering, bribing the DM, or being the person fucking the DM.

- - - Updated - - -



The person with the cow in this story also has no conception of selling the cow. The cow isn't his to sell, no individual actually owns it in any conventional sense that an American AnCapper would understand.

Then you are asking for the exact thing you desire to prevent.

[Total Crica]

Force is necessary for capitalism. Their is no capitalism, their is no property without violence. If you tell me where i can and cannot tread (on the grounds that you "own" the land) and back this up with a gun then you have done violence to my freedom and liberty.

Your freedoms end where mine begin.

- - - Updated - - -

The ability to is dependent on the people living there, and the country as a whole. At some point we will either have a second civil war (with the way things going that is a possibility), or we all calm down and vote to shrink the Fed, so that the states have more power to accommodate for the people living there.

That will increase self sorting, and ultimately that may be for the best.

Voting doesn't give you the ability to defend your freedom.

[Total Crica]

The army does.

Bingo. They have the ability defend your freedom. Or more precisely, the military.

[Dezerte]

Your freedoms end where mine begin.

Without him respecting that, or through threat of force of your own, that probably means nothing to him.

[Total Crica]

And we chose to give them that power

Everyone who chooses that does so because they don't have the ability to defend their own freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Without him respecting that, or through threat of force of your own, that probably means nothing to him.

I have no idea what anything means to him at this point, honestly lol.

[Total Crica]

Right... and? I am not sure how this goes against the Harm Principle.

I would join whatever organization if their ideals/ideas/goals aligned with mine.

Never said it does go against it. I said that if you don't have the ability to defend your freedom, your principles are not going to matter.