You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Property as Theft: The Libertarian Socialist Critique of Property (Part 1)
So capitalism good or bad all this just kinda catches me then throws me back I get lost so capitalism is good correct?
So capitalism good or bad all this just kinda catches me then throws me back I get lost so capitalism is good correct?
Capitalism has multiple, conflicting definitions. Actually existing capitalism is bad. Capitalism as defined by its critics (rule by capitalists) is bad. But others have used the term to mean "a pure free market" (i.e. "capitalism the unknown ideal"), and that sort of capitalism isn't necessarily bad, but it also doesn't exist, has never existed, and never will exist.
true capitalism as in free markets have existed and can easily exist native Americans had pure free markets. The beginning of america had a true free market, In till we let government expand by loosing the civil war and Lincoln the protectionist started interfering in markets, and then other presidents continued.
Native Americans believed in usufructuary rights and collective ownership of natural resources.
Usufructuary rights:
It is a completely different economic system than the usual free-market libertarians that allow for the infinite monopolistic accumulation of land in the hand of the few, charging rent for others to live there.
If anything, their usufruct right is a better evidence for anarcho-socialism
preference for usufruct rather than the ancap's 'free-market' rights to possess anything and everything.
This is a somewhat interesting article by a voluntaryist that refuses to be called anarcho-capitalist:
The benefit of the competitive and free market is also not solely of interest to right-wing free-market libertarian/anarcho-capitalists/etc. Left-libertarians in the forms of geolibertarians, bleeding heart libertarians, left-wing market anarchism, etc, for example, want a free market and recognize the benefit of the existence of a market, but also want to ensure a healthy and non-exploitative competition so that the market will benefit everyone rather than being exploited by lazy and environmentally destructive capitalist landlords/bosses/etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism
So, no one should use the existence of any untaxed market whatsoever as some evidence for right-wing libertarianism success, as it is insufficient. Usufruct right is also quite contradictory to the anarcho-capitalist's form of free market, and closer to the left-libertarian, anarcho-socialist, etc conceptions of rights to posession.
free markets are the best way to make sure that the people get what they want land should be owned by individuals just like native Americans sure they were a group but they owned it as a group. The market benefits everyone when its left to the people to voluntarily decide whats best for them.
Yes. I personally like the idea of having a monetary system and the concept of the free market. I sometimes argue with anarcho-communists/communists/etc about the necessity of money and the benefit of the market system, which are particularly apparent when we consider scarce luxury goods that are in demands. However, there's a lot of places where we can go from there as far as details and implementation go.
Some people think a market is freer when it allows continual exploitations of labor forces by landlords/etc and through monopolization of natural resources, while left-libertarians (e.g. leftist geolibertarians, bleeding heart libertarians, etc) believes that's not as free of a market. They also tend to believe that people are more deserving of being rewarded for their labor, rather than when they profit from exploiting others. :)
Geolibertarianism is about self-ownership and having a free-market economy. It's about how people should not be rewarded for monopolizing natural resources, but about the product of their own labor. It's about how they should be free to spend the money that they acquired through labor rather than exploitation as they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm others:
https://sites.google.com/site/justindkeith/home/geolibertarian-faq
Native Americans didn't have free markets. In North America, they were mostly Nomadic, hunter and gatherer, or agrarian with gift economies. Certain groups developed extensive trade, like the Anasazi in North and the Maya and Inca in South America, but those groups didn't have free markets, as their markets were based on conquering other tribes and civilizations and stealing their wealth. Those groups were constantly at war and even tended to engage in canibalism. No free trade utopia there. And the United States never had free trade. The government incurred huge debts during the Revolutionary War and then bought a whole bunch of land out West (Louisiana Purchase), then had to finance that through tariffs, etc. Commerce was regulated from the beginning. There was a central bank too, with currency controlled by the State. That was abolished by Andrew Jackson, but he's no Saint of Free Trade either. Under his guidance, the federal government stole the land, as well as all the personal belongings, of well over 100,000 people. Your belief that free markets ever existed is based on a lack of knowledge of history.
well its not a Utopian idea thats for sure free markets are when governments are left out of it if thats a utopia then everything is and anarchy would be a utopia as well. I guess I just want to believe that we can have a society built on voluntary transactions.