If You're PRO Capitalism Do You Support BIG Government? Can capitalism exist without the other? A short thought exercise!
"I cant wait for the day the we return to a true capitalistic society. Our politicians are rapidly..."(sic)
This and countless sound-bytes like it (Such as the 'misunderstandings of capitalism' floating around the inter-webs (steem) is what inspired me to clarify that Big Government is a necessary product of Capitalism. In fact, the more capitalist we become, the bigger government we will get!
"No, that's not capitalism. That's cronycapitalism."
Yes, but who's the crony in capitalism?
Successful capitalists of course!
Capitalism
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." - Ayn Rand
Sure thing Ayn, but who is going to defend/secure this private property?
One cannot own more than one can physically use(or defend) without outsourcing this defense to a state element. Capitalism (ownership of property, and assets) inherently requires a state in order to defend said ownership.
"Well, that's not true... Wealthy capitalists could just hire armed guards (militaries) to defend all their private property which they just decided was theirs..."
Perfect, so you're proposing we devolve back to warring factions where the one with the most fire-power wins?!
The Inherent Flaws of Ownership
"In Short"
All ownership is predicated on a crime. Where at some point in history (not so long ago) resources and land that were never owned suddenly became owned. This crime is the foundation for our entire capitalist system. Ownership of stolen goods!
Kings once legitimized their right to own from the Gods. To what Gods do capitalists gain their legitimacy?
If we have a system that not only allows but promotes ownership and use of all forms of capital; in which this capital can be used to acquire more capital. Then we have a corruption/domination encouraging feedback loop! Where those who own, will own more and gain more power over the rest. This power can and is used to gain more power and more capital. This is what capitalism has successfully been doing since its inception!
That's it. There is no way around this. That is unless you want to set up a central body to prevent this from happening (we can call it a 'government')... but of course, then the government gets corrupted by the power wielded by the capitalists, and you end up with what we see today! Crony-capitalism where the big government supports big business in its quest to subjugate the world!
The system the founders of the U.S. created led to the by-product of what we have today. It was not an aberration. Merely an evolution. If we revert back to any previous system we have seen, it will result in bringing about the same problems we are seeing today!
There is no such thing as a "broken system", a system creates exactly what it's designed to do. If the outcome is qualitatively undesirable, then the system will need to be re-designed.
Rieki
Dedicated to Word-Smithing High-Quality, Detailed, Original Content
Fascinating post!
John Locke proposed the labor theory of property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property), but its very hard to this way justify private ownership beyond what you can maintain by hand. I sometimes have an understanding more akin to 'stewardship' , this is mine right now, or at least I pretend it is, and I'm going to take the best care of it while its in my care.
Interesting analysis. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the homesteading principle when it comes to claiming ownership of previously un-owned resources.
Simple, don't claim ownership... Stewarding land is different than owning land. Consuming resources to meet your needs and the needs of your community is part of the life cycle with land holding intrinsic value and ownership of its self. Land gives part of itself (you can call it a gift) to provide for the whole (animals, plants people etc) living on it. Just as we can give back to the land to improve on this life cycle (permaculture homesteads).
Giving the land 'person-hood' is one method of addressing this issue in our paradigm. Much like New Zealand giving person-hood to a river. That way, the land has inalienable rights as well.
I wrote something in more detail answering this question more fully by describing a system that can easily transition us out of our present paradigm.
https://steemit.com/libertarian/@rieki/introducing-exclusively-on-steem-our-neighbourgood-on-intentionally-creating-societies-designed-for-the-21st-century-and-beyond
Further, Homesteads using resources and land is a much different scale of use than that of owning hundreds of millions of acres by one wealthy individual. Or claiming to own entire mountains of resources. Or entire rivers of water. This is not stewardship, this is capitalism.
This distinction is further elaborated in the difference between "private property" and "personal property" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
I do agree that good stewardship of the earth and its resources is of utmost importance. When I refer to homesteading, I am talking about Rothbard's explanation in "The Ethics of Liberty" wherein a human can own land by homesteading it and utilizing it. For example, growing crops or mining for minerals, etc. Obviously there is a limit as to how much a person can physically homestead a property. According to this idea, it would be impractical for one wealthy person to homestead thousands of square kilometers as he cannot possibly maintain such a vast swath of land. That is why Queen Elizabeth has no moral claim on the vastly pristine lands of Canada. She is not working or utilizing that land at all, so how can she claim that it is Crown land?
A good example I like to use of homesteading in practice is the case of an outdoor concert. As the first to arrive I select an area of grass to sit on. It appears that I "own" the entire park. As others arrive, they naturally pick another spot on the grass, leaving me with less. This continues until the entire park is filled with people all claiming their own spot. I, as the first, cannot possibly argue that the entire grassy area is mine as my butt is not that big. It's interesting how humans can do this without some authority dictating where to sit and how much space to take up; it just happens naturally. Of course, this is just an example of the natural order of homesteading as neither I, nor the other concert goers, own the park, but I think you get the idea.
Lastly, I did read and enjoy your 'ON' article. It would be very interesting to see such a development unfold. One point though is that the plot of land that these 'neighbourgoods' are located in, does need to be claimed. Again, if I and 50 other homesteaders are setting up an 'ON', by definition we own that plot of land (whether solely or collectively through shares). As owners of this private property we choose (because it is in our best interest) to be good stewards of the land. Somebody else cannot make a claim on that same plot of land due to the homesteading principle (perhaps the adjacent land, but not the one in use by us). I do not see how land can have 'person-hood' as it does not have consciousness and thus cannot express its will or otherwise launch an objection.
Exactly! I love the analogy with a concert in the park. So, simple and elegant! Thank you :)
I was unfamiliar with "The Ethics of Liberty" or the homesteading principle (it seems). I just called it stewarding :) However, I am going to read up on that today! Thank you!
You will, I'm going to be sharing here the process of creating it. We're going to be launching it in Northland New Zealand or Bali next year. Fortunately, with the few people, we have on board we have enough capital to do it!
My distinction was the private vs personal property distinction. However, I like the term homesteading and may adopt that after reading more into it :)
This is done through representation by a lawyer, completely capable in our legal systems. :) There are plenty of quantifiable metrics we can gather to see what is harmful to an ecosystem and what is not. So, if we can measure harm, we represent that ecosystem in court. Although, this is only a temporary measure in our present paradigm, it would hold no value in the future systems i propose.
Exactly!! Beautiful eh?
So, you read it and you have so far been generous enough with your insight! Do you have any other critiques to offer? I know it was a surface explanation (it was meant for an audience entirely unfamiliar with the concepts) however, I am curious if you notice any flaws?
I'll be releasing more details of the systems as I make them steemit friendly. I have let myself get distracted by all the die-hard-ayn-rand-capitalists on this platform.
Thank you for reminding me what my true focus here is :)
It is my pleasure to share what I can. I will be reading more of your posts as I now follow you, so once I absorb more of the idea, I will definitely provide constructive feedback. It's fun to challenge the mind this way :)
If you are interested in Rothbard's work, a lot of it is available at the Mises website. The Ethics of Liberty can be found in PDF format: https://mises.org/library/ethics-liberty.
BTW, I did notice one of the homes that you featured in another article. Was that an Earthship? I recall seeing one constructed over 20 years ago in a remote Ontario town. I found it a very fascinating use of old tires and pop cans as part of the construction. I also like the off-grid nature of it all.
Best of luck with the ON venture. I'll be sure to read up more on it. Thanks for sharing this interesting information.
So true. The libertarian form of "capitalist" societies do exist on this planet in places like Somalia, Libya, and Syria. I am sure the people who live in those places would not mind the "tyranny" of government that is now fashionable to impugn in libertarian circles. Without government to establish legal arenas to settle disputes, neighbor would be eating neighbor in some twisted version of Dante's Inferno. It is human pride that asserts himself as the owner of a world he never created, envy that drives him to war against his neighbor, and greed that exploits all available resources his mind can grasp. I am surprised that we have not yet claimed ownership of the air we breath.
Exactly! A beautiful analogy (if terrifyingly accurate can be called beautiful...).
"I am surprised that we have not yet claimed ownership of the air we breath."
We own 'airspace'. Bottled air has been sold on line for years (at great profit). As we continue to see a decline in air quality, this trend may increase (unless we reverse our pollution).
It's interesting with a perspective on the outside (that was once on the inside). I was a die-hard capitalist many years ago with dreams of becoming a ceo of a fortune 500 to wield some of that power. Now I shudder to think how my life would be today had I followed that path. Watching our world unravel is like watching a twisted comedy. I'm almost detached from the outcome and watch it with a sort of awe...
In the meantime I'll continue building the systems that will replace it when it fails :)
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jul 19. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $12.86 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jul 19 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Do you think that a stateless society is an impossibility? If not, then in the absence of the state what's to stop people from freely exchanging goods and services with each other? What's to stop anyone from becoming an entrepreneur and provide others with goods and services they want? What's to stop people from selling his or her labour to another? Certainly, as everybody agrees, economic activity would not look the same in the absence of the state, but would we not still have economic activity? And wouldn't this economic activity be free?
"Do you think that a stateless society is an impossibility?"
Well, to what definition are we giving 'state'?
I'll keep it simple and say that in its base form it's a system of governance.
Ideally, I would have this system of governance be decentralized and voluntary. (see Our NeighbourGood for more details)
People would not be able to engage effectively (or at all) without some form of governance or system designed for said exchange. Rules for mediums, value creation. Even if the system is decentralized to the point of two people interacting there will still need to be a set of rules (governance) for that exchange.
So, under this particular definition, I do think that a stateless society is impossible (as it wouldn't be a society without).
Now, you may be asking about a different form of 'state' such as all the dominant states we see existing today. In short, I don't approve of any of them, as they are too centralized, too corrupt, involuntary and detached from natural ecosystems...
Without a state (a system of governing interaction) nothing would prevent "economic activity" from happening, it would cease to happen on its own from lack of structure. Today, it would be hard to imagine as we already have structures for people to revert to (so it would be very difficult to ever test this 'stateless' hypothesis).
If your definition of 'state' is simply country governments (somehow detached from the corporations within, [which they're not...]) then corporations would simply take the role of government (which they already have) if the 'state' were to be removed. Thus becoming the state...
Without a state, it would be very difficult for one man to sell another man property (for under what right does he own that property).
Our entire economic systems today are predicated on the states ability to enforce these interactions. We can't go from our society to a 'stateless' society. It's not about completely removing the state, it is about redesigning these forms of governance and systems that are better designed to meet our needs!
Interesting that you say that you want "governance to be decentralized and voluntary". I agree that decentralised governance is much to be preferred over centralised governance, but no governance is voluntary which is why I am against it.
You seem to confuse rules with rulers. I agree that we need rules, but rules can exist without rulers. What I am against is political authority.
If this was true, how do you explain the existence of so called "black" markets? This is economic activity taking place outside of state control, even despite states trying to shut it down.
"no governance is voluntary"
Really? Why? People voluntarily sign up for the military (to enter into its specific form of governance) I use that one as it is close to me. However, I could find hundreds of more examples of voluntarily entering into a governance situation. There are practical and beneficial purposes to governance that people would be willing to agree to... In fact, I have spent years co-creating governance systems that I would love to be a part of and others like me that have joined me in our cause!
"but rules can exist without rulers."
Okay, when did I say we needed 'rulers'? I also haven't advocated for political authority... So, I won't address these for fear of getting too far off topic and missing out on an opportunity for a beneficial dialog.
(Predicate: Found or base something on.)
Black markets exist as sub-economics on top of primary economics which require a state to enforce. Tell me, how would someone sell 'land' on a black market?! To which authority is this land owned?
How would someone create a mine on a black market? To which authority is defending his right to dig into that earth and take the ore?
The 'state control' you're referring to black markets evading is only minute aspects of the state (outside the realm of this conversation). But only evading taxes and what the state deems legal. While still operating on top of an economic system that demands state protections...
If all you mean by "governance" is a set of rules or institutions, then I agree that this can be both voluntary and beneficial. All I was saying is that the state /political authority is not, and it seems that you agree with this too.
Obviously "black" markets do not exist in a vacuum, but is part of overall society. But I still think such markets give us an indication that the claim that market activity requires the state is mistaken. The evidence is on the side of that market exchange is independent from and prior to the state, and can and would exist without the state.
A black market for land is hard because land is so visible and difficult to hide from the authorities.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by rieki from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.
cool
meep
I know this is an old post and my upvote is useless, and odds are you wont read this, but you awnsered questions here and provided more reading to better understand ppls ideas and views on this no goverment disscussion,
Thanks for the quality post. Followed aswell
Thank you for your support (financial rewards or not, it's appreciated).
Welcome to the discussion :)