Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It is a 6 way blend of hash. Without it I lack the total disregard for inane discussions needed for me to post in this section.View attachment 3407921
Extra points for use of the word inane.
Can we have a meaningful discussion about the effectiveness of capitalism?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Extra points for use of the word inane.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No you don't.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Thank you for not judging me. I can use some extra points.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Prove it.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Speaking of inane...
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When this happens, what would you call it....
One private self owned individual makes a consensual trade with another private self owned individual. No government was asked, no government was involved.
You got something you valued, in exchange I got something I valued, both of us are happy with the exchange.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
But privatization is only possible through gov't.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
The Oil Co. that paid no tax (when we need it most during a war) turns around and sell it's share of Iraq oil to China........
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/iraq-exxon-idUSL4N0GO1Y020130823
which makes this easier.........
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/29/us-wal-mart-stores-china-idUSKBN0NK02C20150429
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/29/us-wal-mart-stores-china-idUSKBN0NK02C20150429
And then of course the Dept of Energy feels we, the "Navy" no longer needs Oil.
http://energy.gov/articles/let-s-try-again-selling-teapot-dome-oil-field
It's a global economy with Industry in control. At least here in the US.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
You are assuming I want to use our current system. I think a lot of thought and research can go into better forms of economy. Also, not everyone is a peaceful citizen, so what happens when you have someone taking what they want? How does a nation of self governing individuals deal with that eventuality?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Good question. You are right, not everybody is peaceful.
First we should acknowledge that in the present there is already "somebody" taking what they want. If you are automatically encompassed in a given government without your individual consent hasn't something already been taken from you?
The answer is a system of competing courts / arbitration service providers could deliver justice better than a court that holds a monopoly (what presently exists) . In the present those ahem "justice providers" are immune from having to respond to consumer feedback, because they hold a coercive monopoly. What you fear is already here.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
But who is going to enforce the judgements handed down by a system of competing courts and arbitrators? If nobody has a right to impose anything on anyone, then how can a person who has been victimized expect any justice? It's a slippery slope, and if everyone were to agree to be civil and peaceful then I would venture to say it's a great idea. The reality is, not everyone will play by the rules. Even what rules there are in this system are broken daily. But for the type of freedom you suggest, one would certainly be sacrificing security. I don't see people around the world giving up what little security they think they have for a shot at pure freedom.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He's talking about privatization of the apparatus of government.
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
Yea, but if he truly believes people should control their own lives, then how do you advocate for the privatization of the same institutions you see as fundamentally unjust?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't advocate that. I'm saying he does. Anarchocapitalism is just an oxymoron that they made up to describe neofeudalism.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're better off making up hypothetical bullshit and calling it proof.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Who enforces judgments now? Aren't many (most?) of those judgments issued now nothing to do with a real crime or restituting a real victim?
Nobody has a right to impose on others, but EVERYBODY has a right to seek justice or restitution when they have been wronged.
There will not be a time when everybody will agree to be peaceful and civil, so why use a single system that is based in the arbitrary and systemic use of nondefensive force without recourse to any other mode?
Competition among justice providers / dispute arbitrators would be as easy to institute as any other service that could be provided in a free market. For instance when people make a contract or a business agreement, they could name who and how they will arbitrate in the event of a disagreement. A customer base that is able to chose among several service providers will ensure that the businesses providing the service do a good job or they will not be in business long. In the present, a monopoly exists, they don't have to do a good job and you are stuck with them. like it or not.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
