NationStates Jolt Archive

Arguably, but I believe their needs to be an initiative to change the system, a la TR and the Progressives. Whether or not China and Russia develop this is questionable.


Also, is there another country or region that went through the same growing pains if you will?

EDIT: C'est la mienne!

The other day I read an article about the kleptocracy that filled the vaccum (vacuum?) left by the Soviet Union. This, along with China's explosive and slightly unstable growth, reminded me strongly of what the US was like in the late 19th century.
So here's my question: is this era of robber barons just a vital part of capitalist evolution? In other words, forty or fifty years from now, will China, Russia, and many of the ex-Soviet bloc nations have mellowed to the more or less happy medium the US achieved in the 20th century, or should we be worried about the unregulated, polluting, and inequal prosperity of these nations?

Actually, the Baltic states are already there. They've been seeing 7-10% economic growth, low inflation, low income inequality and low corruption since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their performance, along with that of many other former Soviet satellites (with a few exceptions such as Belarus, Ukraine, and former East Germany) has been remarkable and free from much of the corruption and decay which plagues Russia.

Remember, those "robber barons" in the Soviet Union were merely extrapolating the endemic corruption in the system that had been approaching critical mass since the mid-1970's anyways. There was a saying in the mid and late 1980's, "Komsomol* is a school of capitalism" (ironically paralleling Lenin's "trade unions are a school of Communism"), that reflected the use of the organization as a way of getting in to the nascent capitalist enterprises of the perestroika period. The entire situation in the post-Soviet era is intertwined with the decay of the CPSU in the late 1970's and 1980's; to attempt to draw any kind of true distinction between the two massively understates the sheer corruption of the Brezhnev era and beyond. And, of course, a lot of it is simply reflective of a changing culture; previously, corruption was not publicized or even visible in the country because it would tarnish the propaganda image of socialist utopia, and so was either kept hidden (via the careful hiding of official privilege) or any potential reports on that corruption suppressed.

*Komsomol was the Communist Union of Youth, sort of like the Freie Deutsche Jugend in the GDR.

The corruption in the US was a direct result of the introduction of market capitalist mechanisms into the economy, including the right to hire and fire, so-called 'socialist profit' and a downplaying of the need for industrial development. These 'reforms' were the result of traitors such as Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

The Soviet economy stalled under Brezhnev but that was only because the dude wanted to use state resources to fund his private empire. Brezhnev's daughter was running a largest diamond smuggling op. And under Brezhnev, state resources got converted into feeding luxury & exclusivity to a select elite- the govt officials & Brezhnev's circle.
Under Brezhnev times, exporters got paid for executing a PO (Purchase Order)- in full- for 3 years- in advance....and when they delivered the goods to the local port trust, nobody ever picked up the produce- which goes on to say the logistical resources that were supposed to be picking up the produce were allocated somewhere else. But they still got paid.

So "officially"- the products arrived in the USSR, but in reality, they didn't. In this small example, the officiation was provided to give legitimacy to the local audits that the logistical resources (airplanes, ships etc) were picking up what they are / were supposed to. Do this on a nationwide scale and you got a pretty skull fucked economy.

Under socialism with Stalin, the economy steamed along with an average industrial yearly development rate of +291.9%. This is what happened when the workers were liberated and the soviets had complete control over the means of production, it wasn't until the introduction of capitalist 'reforms' that the economy went down hill.

Under socialism with Stalin, the economy steamed along with an average industrial yearly development rate of +291.9%. This is what happened when the workers were liberated and the soviets had complete control over the means of production, it wasn't until the introduction of capitalist 'reforms' that the economy went down hill.
Why do you insist on glorifying Stalin? There were plenty of better socialists who also had the distinction of not being responsible for the deaths of millions.

*snip*
That makes sense, the collapse of the USSR was not a sudden thing. But what about a country such as China, or Vietnam? Both seem to be moving towards capitalism in all but name: is this just a stage they have to go through to enter the more moderate form that exists in the Western world today, or is this step avoidable?

EDIT: C'est la mienne!

Vous avez oublié ", salope !".

That makes sense, the collapse of the USSR was not a sudden thing. But what about a country such as China, or Vietnam? Both seem to be moving towards capitalism in all but name: is this just a stage they have to go through to enter the more moderate form that exists in the Western world today, or is this step avoidable?

I think it depends. Unlike the USSR or the rest of Eastern Europe, the transition to a market economy in China and Vietnam has been very gradual, with a steady divestment of state-owned assets and liberalization of trade, investment, and tax laws rather than the sudden all-collectives-must-go of 1992 Russia.

As a result, the country has acclimated to capitalism rather than be forced to learn it and develop an ad-hoc market economy. Each successive generation has been exposed to an increasing degree of capitalism, allowing it to better deal with the changes and to avoid falling in to many of the pitfalls that would undoubtedly have beset these countries were their systems to collapse rather than gradually reform.

The other day I read an article about the kleptocracy that filled the vaccum (vacuum?) left by the Soviet Union. This, along with China's explosive and slightly unstable growth, reminded me strongly of what the US was like in the late 19th century.
So here's my question: is this era of robber barons just a vital part of capitalist evolution? In other words, forty or fifty years from now, will China, Russia, and many of the ex-Soviet bloc nations have mellowed to the more or less happy medium the US achieved in the 20th century, or should we be worried about the unregulated, polluting, and inequal prosperity of these nations?

Yes, actually I was debating that earlier today. It seems like such a robber barron era is necessary for economic growth, especially in a large, infrastructureless nation like China. Unfortunately, the same doesn't appear to be happening in Russia. They're controlled by oligarchs alright, but there is no economic growth.

Yes, actually I was debating that earlier today. It seems like such a robber barron era is necessary for economic growth, especially in a large, infrastructureless nation like China. Unfortunately, the same doesn't appear to be happening in Russia. They're controlled by oligarchs alright, but there is no economic growth.

More accurately, the economic growth that is happening is basically what you'd see in an underdeveloped country; it's based centrally on the production and export of raw materials, with imports consisting mostly of finished goods. It's good for raising living standards and funding development, but not sustainable or capable of driving the kind of growth necessary for a developed country to sustain itself.

Vous avez oublié ", salope !".

Ma seule pensee etait si le mot serait masculin ou feminin. :p (Desole pour les accents manque)

Why do you insist on glorifying Stalin?

'Cause Stalin was t3h ub3r for AP. Remember millions are only a statistic.

More accurately, the economic growth that is happening is basically what you'd see in an underdeveloped country; it's based centrally on the production and export of raw materials, with imports consisting mostly of finished goods. It's good for raising living standards and funding development, but not sustainable or capable of driving the kind of growth necessary for a developed country to sustain itself.

You are referring to Russia, right? China has precious few natural resources to fund said development.

'Cause Stalin was t3h ub3r for AP. Remember millions are only a statistic.

:D

You are referring to Russia, right? China has precious few natural resources to fund said development.

China has some coal, I believe. Besides that, even a country with limited resources that is the size of China can get what it needs.

Also, is there another country or region that went through the same growing pains if you will?
The US, Britain, to a lesser extent France. Basically, most industrialized countries that did not have an absolute dictator.

EDIT: C'est la mienne!
You foreign devil!

You are referring to Russia, right? China has precious few natural resources to fund said development.

Yes, although China does have three very, very useful resources: coal, iron and a lot of hydroelectric power capacity.

The robber barons didn't have to do with laissez-faire; they had to do with a Republican party that helped its political allies by employing subsidies, tariffs, special protections for banks, the use of military (government) power, and later regulation to smash these friends' competitors (such as the ICC protecting the extremely uncompetitive Union Pacific against such people as the price-cutter James J. Hill, or Roosevelt smashing 'bad' (non-Morgan) trusts while leaving 'good' (Morgan) trusts alone.) Yeltsin's favoritism towards political allies resembles the Gilded Age, and ironically enough his 'reforms' were largely promoted by the IMF, in which the United States is quite dominant. But rather than being a natural progression of capitalism, business-state cooperation is just one of countless other alliances that the state makes for its own aggrandizement.

But rather than being a natural progression of capitalism, business-state cooperation is just one of countless other alliances that the state makes for its own aggrandizement.

Well, just look at the CPSU; it's hardly coincidental that the majority of the country's oligarchs had ties to the party in some form or another (especially the aforementioned Komsomol) that gave them the edge in the privatization rush of the early 1990's.

But rather than being a natural progression of capitalism, business-state cooperation is just one of countless other alliances that the state makes for its own aggrandizement.

Given many similiar cases among capitalist nations it would appear to be a natural progression of capitalism as a historical phenomenon, otherwise we have to conclude that capitalism has never existed thus making it of extremely limited use when describing actual economies.

Well, just look at the CPSU; it's hardly coincidental that the majority of the country's oligarchs had ties to the party in some form or another (especially the aforementioned Komsomol) that gave them the edge in the privatization rush of the early 1990's.

Not to mention that many of the uninformed people who received only a tiny fraction (1/300th) of the stock of state industries unknowingly placed their sliver of capital in enterprises that had little market value, and simply ended up in the hands of informed state insiders when they were forced to default. Not to mention that Yeltsin basically sold many enterprises to his friends for their political support, and gave them subsidies in raw materials.

Given many similiar cases among capitalist nations it would appear to be a natural progression of capitalism as a historical phenomenon, otherwise we have to conclude that capitalism has never existed thus making it of extremely limited use when describing actual economies.

This kind of economy is no more a progression of capitalism than the rotting of a corpse is the progression of a human being; government intervention always interferes with the free market as the state finds more and more ways to expropriate and redistribute property rights from those on the political periphery to those aligned with Power. Indeed, capitalism cannot be used to describe the economies of the world, as institutionalized banditry of countless flavors crowds out free exchange.

This kind of economy is no more a progression of capitalism than the rotting of a corpse is the progression of a human being; government intervention always interferes with the free market as the state finds more and more ways to expropriate and redistribute property rights from those on the political periphery to those aligned with Power. Indeed, capitalism cannot be used to describe the economies of the world, as institutionalized banditry of countless flavors crowds out free exchange.

Okie doke. So capitalism wasn't created to describe actual existing economies. :rolleyes:

But if we take capitalism to mean private ownership of capital (which would obviously include right of possession), then there is no truly capitalistic economy, as legislatures have it within their power to expropriate and redistribute property rights as they wish.

That doesn't matter. There is nothing about capitalism that necessitates the recognition of property as "natural" and independent of state establishment and regulation.

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of capital. The fact that this ownership is established and protected by the state doesn't change its private character... the management and the profits are in the hands of the private owners.

-snip-

Only if you bastardize the hell out of the term, which is exactly what has happened. But if we take capitalism to mean private ownership of capital (which would obviously include right of possession), then there is no truly capitalistic economy right now, as legislatures have it within their power to expropriate and redistribute property rights as they wish. In effect, the economies of these countries dictate that all property is a de facto leasehold from the state which the monopoly of jurisdiction may alter at any time; the state is the only de facto owner.

Under socialism with Stalin, the economy steamed along with an average industrial yearly development rate of +291.9%. This is what happened when the workers were liberated and the soviets had complete control over the means of production, it wasn't until the introduction of capitalist 'reforms' that the economy went down hill.

A rate of industrial growth that was radically exaggerated due to misreporting, overreporting and inaccuracy. Not to say that growth didn't happen, it did, and it occurred at a rapid pace (due to the simple fact that there was virtually nothing in Russia to begin with. It's easy to get high growth rates, when very little progress is required to do so) but the annual growth rate was, in reality, not 291.9%. Not only that, but the human cost of the mega-projects, such as the Dnieper Dam, Magnitogorsk (which was modeled on Gary, IN...who the fuck in their right mind would model anything on Gary?) and the White Sea Canal. The primary goal of all of these projects was their prestige value. They were carried out despite the technical opposition from professional engineers (who were called "wreckers" because of their technical opposition to the decided political decisions from Moscow), and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and were faced with tremendous inefficiency, poor planning, and logistical struggles.

The Dnieper Dam, for example, would never make enough electricity to match the value of the farmlands lost in the flooded areas. It would be plagued by technical problems, and the transmission costs would remain immense. Engineers proposed a series of smaller dams, akin to the American Tennessee Valley Authority, that would have a lessened environmental impact, be less expensive, and allow for more efficient transmission and local electrification.

Magnitogorsk was phenomenally short-sighted. It was located nowhere near rivers and far away from coal, which had to be brought in by rail. While the supply of iron from the "Magnetic Mountain" seemed plentiful, it did not last forever. To keep the mills running, because there was no immediate access to rivers, the Soviet government had to import iron by rail, a far less efficient method. Further, even into the seventies, the workers of Magnitogorsk were never provided with proper housing, especially for the environment they were forced to live in. Tent cities remained common, around the plant, tucked in amongst mounds of slag.

The White Sea Canal was a true human disaster. Hundreds of thousands of individuals pressed into Slave labor died digging, essentially, a ditch by hand. It was poorly constructed, poorly sited and only was able to serve small vessels, barely even river craft in the United States. It was never even able to service ocean-going vessels.

Only if you bastardize the hell out of the term, which is exactly what has happened. But if we take capitalism to mean private ownership of capital (which would obviously include right of possession), then there is no truly capitalistic economy right now, as legislatures have it within their power to expropriate and redistribute property rights as they wish. In effect, the economies of these countries dictate that all property is a de facto leasehold from the state which the monopoly of jurisdiction may alter at any time; the state is the only de facto owner.

Marx, who I believe coined the phrase, used it to describe actual existing economies, with Great Britain as the the epitome I think. Also in the popular sense few nations aren't capitalist. What source are you using for the term?

Marx, who I believe coined the phrase, used it to describe actual existing economies, with Great Britain as the the epitome I think. Also in the popular sense few nations aren't capitalist. What source are you using for the term?

Ludwig von Mises, and also dictionary.com's definition (though I disdain using the vulgar dictionary for political terms.) And few nations aren't capitalist because the popular usage of the term can be applied to describe the systems of those who want it to be described as such. Seeing as how the state has institutionalized the abrogation of the rights of private ownership, and if capitalism is the system of the private ownership of capital, then none of the modern economies can truly be described as capitalist. Also, I believe it was the Italians (capita = head) who first used the term to describe the exchange of heads of cattle.

While the "Robber Baron" style of capitalism has somewhat mellowed in the western world, I think juxtaposition between, say, the US and Chinese or Russian markets tend to be very exaggerated. True, the hard and naked exploitation of the working class within the United States, Canada, Britain, and other western "free market" states seems to be (sort of) a thing of the past at first glance, but not because we all "grew out of it". We've simply exported all that is un-sexy about capitalism to Latin America and Asia. As they say, "out of sight, out of mind."

Marx, who I believe coined the phrase, used it to describe actual existing economies, with Great Britain as the the epitome I think. Also in the popular sense few nations aren't capitalist. What source are you using for the term?

Although, I'd say there's been a significant amount of work done in making the term more fully applicable since then, and the term has come to bear more meanings than just an original one to describe the industrial system of Great Britain.

Magnitogorsk was phenomenally short-sighted. It was located nowhere near rivers and far away from coal, which had to be brought in by rail. While the supply of iron from the "Magnetic Mountain" seemed plentiful, it did not last forever. To keep the mills running, because there was no immediate access to rivers, the Soviet government had to import iron by rail, a far less efficient method. Further, even into the seventies, the workers of Magnitogorsk were never provided with proper housing, especially for the environment they were forced to live in. Tent cities remained common, around the plant, tucked in amongst mounds of slag.

Not to mention that it never saw a major retooling, despite the pleas of Alexei Kosygin and others in the 1960's when it became clear that it would make economic sense. As a result, for its entire history it used technology from the 1930's and 1940's to produce steel, with all of the corresponding pollution, inefficiency, and waste.

Of course, that's what happens when your incentives are based on raw output without any controls for quality or externalities. I wouldn't be surprised if they had just ended up producing one gigantic nail to fill their quota...

Not to mention that it never saw a major retooling, despite the pleas of Alexei Kosygin and others in the 1960's when it became clear that it would make economic sense. As a result, for its entire history it used technology from the 1930's and 1940's to produce steel, with all of the corresponding pollution, inefficiency, and waste.

Of course, that's what happens when your incentives are based on raw output without any controls for quality or externalities. I wouldn't be surprised if they had just ended up producing one gigantic nail to fill their quota...

The construction of Soviet refrigerators is a classic example of the point of view that was expressed in Magnitogorsk, a plant tasked to this job was required to use x amount of steel per year, so, instead of producing more fridges, they just stuck more steel onto the same number as they'd always made in the past. As a result, they didn't make as many of this quite basic consumer good, and the ones they made were so heavy, as to be practically immobile. The "scientific" ordering of industry and the economy was a most ridiculous proposition.

If you get a chance, take International Studies 554 with Lewis. Science and Technology in the Soviet Union, it's a great class.

Ludwig von Mises, and also dictionary.com's definition (though I disdain using the vulgar dictionary for political terms.) And few nations aren't capitalist because the popular usage of the term can be applied to describe the systems of those who want it to be described as such. Seeing as how the state has institutionalized the abrogation of the rights of private ownership, and if capitalism is the system of the private ownership of capital, then none of the modern economies can truly be described as capitalist. Also, I believe it was the Italians (capita = head) who first used the term to describe the exchange of heads of cattle.

I don't see anything on dictionary.com's definitions that would by necessity need the abolishment of the state for capitalism to exist and since Ludwig von Mises belived states should retain a monopoly on force I don't think he'd need the state to cease to exist for capitalism to exist either.

Although, I'd say there's been a significant amount of work done in making the term more fully applicable since then, and the term has come to bear more meanings than just an original one to describe the industrial system of Great Britain.

My point was that neither in the word's inception nor in popular modern usage does capitalism mean lack of state interference in the economy.

I don't see anything on dictionary.com's definitions that would by necessity need the abolishment of the state for capitalism to exist and since Ludwig von Mises belived states should retain a monopoly on force I don't think he'd need the state to cease to exist for capitalism to exist either.

That's because they aren't taking it to its logical conclusion. So long as a monopoly on jurisdiction exists, one cannot truly own anything, not even one's body, within its borders, as it may change the terms at any time. This is inherently opposed to the notion of private ownership, as the true ownership is in the hands of the state and not the individual.

My point was that neither in the word's inception nor in popular modern usage does capitalism mean lack of state interference in the economy.

In the popular modern usage, it can mean anything, and so it means nothing. Taken to its logical conclusion of free exchange from the days of cattle herding, it means that the state cannot expropriate any rights or else it will not be a system of free exchange but rather one of force. Private ownership precludes the state, which as a monopolist on jurisdiction inherently owns everything within its borders.

Given many similiar cases among capitalist nations it would appear to be a natural progression of capitalism as a historical phenomenon, otherwise we have to conclude that capitalism has never existed thus making it of extremely limited use when describing actual economies.
Right. It's not a feature of laissez-faire societies, which are almost nonexistent, but of countries that are remotely capitalist.
In fact, truly capitalist, free-market governments are at least as rare as truly Communist governments.

EDIT: That's kind of what this entire thread has become, making the above comments completely superfluous. Oh well.

That's because they aren't taking it to its logical conclusion. So long as a monopoly on jurisdiction exists, one cannot truly own anything, not even one's body, within its borders, as it may change the terms at any time. This is inherently opposed to the notion of private ownership, as the true ownership is in the hands of the state and not the individual.

You're funny.

In the popular modern usage, it can mean anything, and so it means nothing. Taken to its logical conclusion of free exchange from the days of cattle herding, it means that the state cannot expropriate any rights or else it will not be a system of free exchange but rather one of force. Private ownership precludes the state, which as a monopolist on jurisdiction inherently owns everything within its borders.

Language is a shared medium used to transmit information between different people. Words have no inherent meaning except what people give them. Because Language's purpose is to transmit information definitions have to be shared to have value.

Also what is your source for cattle and capitalism. I typed in "capitalism coined Marx" to Google and mostly got sites that say Marx or 19th century socialists, or the Left coined the phrase capitalism.

Language is a shared medium used to transmit information between different people. Words have no inherent meaning except what people give them. Because Language's purpose is to transmit information definitions have to be shared to have value.

By this definition, the word 'capitalism' in the vernacular has little value and is dysfunctional to the concept of language, as it can include the economic system of the speaker at his whim. There is some vague concept of it being private ownership, thus preventing it from being entirely worthless, but seeing as how popular speech includes those systems that routinely rape private ownership (like the Gilded Age interventionist Republican system) it is obvious that the term is relatively meaningless.

Also what is your source for cattle and capitalism. I typed in "capitalism coined Marx" to Google and mostly got sites that say Marx or 19th century socialists, or the Left coined the phrase capitalism.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Capitalism_-_Etymology/id/1298433. Capitu = Head. It is also why we have a 'stock' market (i.e. the place where we sell animals.)

Actually Marx rarely used the term capitalism, apart from his direct critiques of capitalism as used by the bourgeois itself. Marx noted that bourgeois intellectuals accuse communists of wanting to do away with private property, which is entirely false seeing as true private property only exists for the top tier bourgeois who actually control the means of production. The conclusion he made was not that the bourgeois intellectuals were criticizing Communists for the intention(falsely) of wanting to do away with private property, but their critique was based on selfishness (that their property was under threat). Thus Marx concluded that those liberal abstractions the bourgeois use ultimately come from the top of the bourgeois, but these ideas can be taken on and actually believed by mostly petty-bourgeois or intellectuals, even the middle-lower classes, thus the 'white libertarian man' phenomenon in the US but not existing anywhere else in the world. I would encourage a read of this quote by Marx:

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Libertarians ultimately espouse freedom for the few to exploit the many.

By this definition, the word 'capitalism' in the vernacular has little value and is dysfunctional to the concept of language, as it can include the economic system of the speaker at his whim. There is some vague concept of it being private ownership, thus preventing it from being entirely worthless, but seeing as how popular speech includes those systems that routinely rape private ownership (like the Gilded Age interventionist Republican system) it is obvious that the term is relatively meaningless.

Ummm,,,, you change the definition of capitalism to suit your whims. All the meanings of words are basically based on consensual agreement. You're definition of capitalism needing the abolishment of the state would be recognized by few others. Milton Friedman, a self avowed libertarian and capitalist, allows for numerous state interventions in his ideal capitalist government including central banking, education vouchers, compulsory emergency healthcare insurance, even welfare. Yet few, if any, would call him anti-capitalist.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Capitalism_-_Etymology/id/1298433. Capitu = Head. It is also why we have a 'stock' market (i.e. the place where we sell animals.)

My search showed William Thackery to have first coined the phrase capitalism quickly snatched up by Marx and other socialists using it to describe actual existing economic systems. (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/capitalism/etymology.html)

Ummm,,,, you change the definition of capitalism to suit your whims. All the meanings of words are basically based on consensual agreement. You're definition of capitalism needing the abolishment of the state would be recognized by few others. Milton Friedman, a self avowed libertarian and capitalist, allows for numerous state interventions in his ideal capitalist government including central banking, education vouchers, compulsory emergency healthcare insurance, even welfare. Yet few, if any, would call him anti-capitalist.

With all due respect (may he rest in peace), I would call him an anti-capitalist, even if his anti-capitalism is mild (His policies support expropriation and redistribution of property rights through a legal monopoly on money and a perpetuation of the public education system, along with militarism and maintaining government's involvement in education.) The simple fact is that you cannot call yourself an advocate of private ownership of the means of production if you simultaneously support policies that destroy private ownership. It's called a contradiction. Since the popular perception of the word includes even de facto anti-private property systems, the hoipoloi have agreed on a definition so broad as to be almost entirely useless.

My search showed William Thackery to have first coined the phrase capitalism quickly snatched up by Marx and other socialists using it to describe actual existing economic systems. (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/capitalism/etymology.html)

Yes, but mine indicates it originates with the trading of livestock, which has to do with private ownership and free exchange. Marx's take to include systems of the expropriation of private property, which would conflict with the notion of private ownership, would have diluted the meaning of the term so as to make it virtually useless. Hence why everyone and their grandmother can claim that their economic system is capitalist, since the popular perception of the word is so incredibly broad.

With all due respect (may he rest in peace), I would call him an anti-capitalist, even if his anti-capitalism is mild (His policies support expropriation and redistribution of property rights through a legal monopoly on money and a perpetuation of the public education system, along with militarism and maintaining government's involvement in education.) The simple fact is that you cannot call yourself an advocate of private ownership of the means of production if you simultaneously support policies that destroy private ownership. It's called a contradiction. Since the popular perception of the word includes even de facto anti-private property systems, the hoipoloi have agreed on a definition so broad as to be almost entirely useless.

Your definition is so narrow its useless. It usefulness is also limited by how few recognize your definition.

Yes, but mine indicates it originates with the trading of livestock, which has to do with private ownership and free exchange. Marx's take to include systems of the expropriation of private property, which would conflict with the notion of private ownership, would have diluted the meaning of the term so as to make it virtually useless. Hence why everyone and their grandmother can claim that their economic system is capitalist, since the popular perception of the word is so incredibly broad.

Yours indicates the word capital comes from the italian word for cattle. It does not show how capitalism is associated with private ownership and free exchange without any state infterference and given that it comes from medieval times when most crafts were controlled my monopolistic guilds and town councils set prices (http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gbetcher/373/guilds.htm) I doubt the "free market" had much to do with cattle sales.

Your definition is so narrow its useless. It usefulness is also limited by how few recognize your definition.

It is narrow because a system of private ownership necessarily precludes a monopoly on jurisdiction, which dictates the terms for property and thus is its de facto owner. A system of private ownership must mean a system of private ownership of property, just the same as an insect must have six legs and not thirteen. Anything else is downright contradictory. Your insistence that it must mean something else because 'everyone else thinks it's this way' is nothing but an argumentum ad populum, as unreasonable as the extreme broadness of the term in the popular vernacular.

-snip-

Quite frankly, this semantic debate is entirely pointless. Either it is a system of private ownership, or it is not. Hence, systems that disrespected private ownership such as the Gilded Age government cannot be a stage in the capitalist system due to their disrespect for private ownership through war and economic control, just the same as hot cannot be a stage of cold.

It is narrow because a system of private ownership necessarily precludes a monopoly on jurisdiction, which dictates the terms for property and thus is its de facto owner. A system of private ownership must mean a system of private ownership of property, just the same as an insect must have six legs and not thirteen. Anything else is downright contradictory. Your insistence that it must mean something else because 'everyone else thinks it's this way' is nothing but an argumentum ad populum, as unreasonable as the extreme broadness of the term in the popular vernacular.

Words have meaning only what people give them. Most people call the current economic systems capitalism. Since words are used to transmit meaning between individuals the definiton has to be shared. The popular usage is the meaning that is most shared. Your insistence that they are using the wrong definitions does not change how words are defined or the purpose of language

I ask you for sources, and you give Mises, who believed that capitalism required a state, and a definition that includes every nation in the world where the means of production and most property is privately owned that includes all nation that popular usage deems capitalist.

Quite frankly, this semantic debate is entirely pointless. Either it is a system of private ownership, or it is not. Hence, systems that disrespected private ownership such as the Gilded Age government cannot be a stage in the capitalist system due to their disrespect for private ownership through war and economic control, just the same as hot cannot be a stage of cold.

Property rights and private onership existed is the Gilded Age and exist now in the current era.

Words have meaning only what people give them. Most people call the current economic systems capitalism. Since words are used to transmit meaning between individuals the definiton has to be shared. The popular usage is the meaning that is most shared. Your insistence that they are using the wrong definitions does not change how words are defined or the purpose of language

Our situation is like calling a spider an insect, or like calling a sea star a fish. Regardless of what the popular vernacular may deem it, the popular vernacular is still wrong and thus irrelevant. So it is even moreso for those who call anti-private property systems private property systems.

I ask you for sources, and you give Mises, who believed that capitalism required a state, and a definition that includes every nation in the world where the means of production and most property is privately owned that includes all nation that popular usage deems capitalist.

But they are not de facto systems of private ownership, for the power of government can redefine the terms of the various resources of the nation at their whim; this is the characteristic of an owner, and as such whatever rights one may hold can be considered leaseholds that are given at the pleasure of the state. This is a system of public ownership, not private. The fact that the contradictory popular perception says otherwise is irrelevant.

Property rights and private onership existed is the Gilded Age and exist now in the current era.

Nominally? Yes, but certainly not in practice with a government that can take what it wants at the stroke of a pen. While there may have been some rights (leaseholds) that remained in private hands, they were subject to the continuing approval of the political elite who are effectively the owners (how can they not be the owners if they may do with an object, including other humans, what they wish?) The anti-private property institutions of these systems inherently place them apart from a system of private property, just the same as hot and even warm are separate from cold. Once more, a set of anti-private property institutions cannot be a stage of a system of private property just the same as atrophy cannot be a stage of muscle growth.

In fact, truly capitalist, free-market governments are at least as rare as truly Communist governments.
I don’t think there’s ever been a truly market fundamentalist state; to my knowledge every single nation since the Industrial Revolution has used some form of protectionism.

I don’t think there’s ever been a truly market fundamentalist state; to my knowledge every single nation since the Industrial Revolution has used some form of protectionism.

Somalia?

*runs*

:p

The other day I read an article about the kleptocracy that filled the vaccum (vacuum?) left by the Soviet Union. This, along with China's explosive and slightly unstable growth, reminded me strongly of what the US was like in the late 19th century.
So here's my question: is this era of robber barons just a vital part of capitalist evolution? In other words, forty or fifty years from now, will China, Russia, and many of the ex-Soviet bloc nations have mellowed to the more or less happy medium the US achieved in the 20th century, or should we be worried about the unregulated, polluting, and inequal prosperity of these nations?

I know everything about kleptomania. In fact, you might want to check your wallet. *runs*

I don’t think there’s ever been a truly market fundamentalist state;

Yes, because a truly market economy is incompatible with any kind of state.

Our situation is like calling a spider an insect, or like calling a sea star a fish. Regardless of what the popular vernacular may deem it, the popular vernacular is still wrong and thus irrelevant. So it is even moreso for those who call anti-private property systems private property systems.

You seem to have little grasp of languages and the fact that the using the word "insect" to signify insects is arbitrary. You are arguing that there is some authority that defines words, rather than recording how a word is defined or was defined in the past by the population at large.

But they are not de facto systems of private ownership, for the power of government can redefine the terms of the various resources of the nation at their whim; this is the characteristic of an owner, and as such whatever rights one may hold can be considered leaseholds that are given at the pleasure of the state. This is a system of public ownership, not private. The fact that the contradictory popular perception says otherwise is irrelevant.

Ummm.... in a customary law society or an anarchist free market society the terms of various resources changes whenever customs or market forces realign. Customs and market forces being a product of many people under your terms they would be systems of public ownership.


[QUOTENominally? Yes, but certainly not in practice with a government that can take what it wants at the stroke of a pen. While there may have been some rights (leaseholds) that remained in private hands, they were subject to the continuing approval of the political elite who are effectively the owners (how can they not be the owners if they may do with an object, including other humans, what they wish?) The anti-private property institutions of these systems inherently place them apart from a system of private property, just the same as hot and even warm are separate from cold. Once more, a set of anti-private property institutions cannot be a stage of a system of private property just the same as atrophy cannot be a stage of muscle growth.[/QUOTE]

Government elites usually can't do whatever they want to property and people within their jurisdiction. If they try then they lose elections, are subject to riots, assasinations, and whatnot. All regimes need some perceived legitimacy to function. Since this legitimacy depends on the actions of the government the government is necessarily constrained to some extent. This is especially true when a strong civil society of businesses, churches, unions, and whatnot of groups outside the state.

In customary societies and market anarchist ones property rights are defined by customs and market forces. Basically the whim of the public. You do not escape this fact therefore even you wish to set up anti-private property institutions.

You seem to have little grasp of languages and the fact that the using the word "insect" to signify insects is arbitrary. You are arguing that there is some authority that defines words, rather than recording how a word is defined or was defined in the past by the population at large.

Using words to describe things that do not pertain to the definition, like calling an arachnid an insect, is dysfunctional to the entire purpose of communication, regardless of whether or not a lot of people use the word mistakenly. As such, it is an error and must be avoided and corrected. Just the same as if I were to conflate the number one with the number five would only result in confusion and chaos, so is your insistence on an entirely contradictory definition for capitalism.

Ummm.... in a customary law society or an anarchist free market society the terms of various resources changes whenever customs or market forces realign. Customs and market forces being a product of many people under your terms they would be systems of public ownership.

They realign, yes, but they realign without the use of force. There is a mutual agreement if I were to buy a hamburger from McDonald's, and the McDonald's cannot force my money from me nor can I take the burger from them without their consent, because we have some title to the tangible object in question. Whereas the state may take my money in taxes without my consent (and I will never consent to their invariably bloodthirsty desires), because legally they are my de facto owner and I am not allowed legal recourse against them.

Government elites usually can't do whatever they want to property and people within their jurisdiction. If they try then they lose elections, are subject to riots, assasinations, and whatnot. All regimes need some perceived legitimacy to function. Since this legitimacy depends on the actions of the government the government is necessarily constrained to some extent. This is especially true when a strong civil society of businesses, churches, unions, and whatnot of groups outside the state.

Yes, but according to their own legal code that they made would still be in the right, and the reactions of others would be 'criminal.' This is because the government is the de facto owner of all property within its borders, and may redistribute leaseholds as it wishes. And by manipulating crisis and promising part of the loot to supporters, it can easily overcome virtually any resistance that might be posed.

In customary societies and market anarchist ones property rights are defined by customs and market forces. Basically the whim of the public. You do not escape this fact therefore even you wish to set up anti-private property institutions.

Again, wrong. The difference between a system of customary law and statism is that when I make an agreement with McDonald's they must give me my hamburger and I must give them my money, and we have legal recourse if either of us defaults; we cannot legislate and change our contract at a whim. Whereas the government may tax me, conscript me, regulate me, imprison me, execute me, etc. regardless of whether or not I want them to. There is no contract, only brute force.

Using words to describe things that do not pertain to the definition, like calling an arachnid an insect, is dysfunctional to the entire purpose of communication, regardless of whether or not a lot of people use the word mistakenly. As such, it is an error and must be avoided and corrected. Just the same as if I were to conflate the number one with the number five would only result in confusion and chaos, so is your insistence on an entirely contradictory definition for capitalism.

There is no authority that determines the meanings of words. Definitions are determined by how people use words. Dictionaries record how words are used by people currently or how they were used in the past. If people called "insects" arachnids then the definition of arachnid has changed.

They realign, yes, but they realign without the use of force. There is a mutual agreement if I were to buy a hamburger from McDonald's, and the McDonald's cannot force my money from me nor can I take the burger from them without their consent, because we have some title to the tangible object in question. Whereas the state may take my money in taxes without my consent (and I will never consent to their invariably bloodthirsty desires), because legally they are my de facto owner and I am not allowed legal recourse against them.

People in customary law forces and protective insurance agencies can both use force. There is nothing stopping them from using force other than customs or market forces. If customs are changed or maket forces align properly you will be just as dead as if a state executed.

Yes, but according to their own legal code that they made would still be in the right, and the reactions of others would be 'criminal.' This is because the government is the de facto owner of all property within its borders, and may redistribute leaseholds as it wishes. And by manipulating crisis and promising part of the loot to supporters, it can easily overcome virtually any resistance that might be posed.

And customs and maket forces can deem anything criminal in your society thus making the public the de facto owner and you there property


Again, wrong. The difference between a system of customary law and statism is that when I make an agreement with McDonald's they must give me my hamburger and I must give them my money, and we have legal recourse if either of us defaults; we cannot legislate and change our contract at a whim. Whereas the government may tax me, conscript me, regulate me, imprison me, execute me, etc. regardless of whether or not I want them to. There is no contract, only brute force.

Customary law societies can use force to constrain voluntary behaviors. If one's customs are for arranged marriages a woman who is assigned to be married to a man against her will who then consensually sleeps will another man will be executed by stoning if said customs allow, I will look up where it say this in the Bible if you wish for a source. Or If I mix my labor with property that is deemed a communal resource and try to restrict access to it then others will take my property. Or if homosexuality/witchcraft/whatever is deemed an excutable offense by custom then there is nothing stopping a mob

There is no authority that determines the meanings of words. Definitions are determined by how people use words. Dictionaries record how words are used by people currently or how they were used in the past. If people called "insects" arachnids then the definition of arachnid has changed.

No, it hasn't. If scientists do not call arachnids insects, but the hoipoloi do, then the hoipoloi is wrong because they are not using the word in accordance with the definition. Any argument to the contrary is an argumentum ad populum.

People in customary law forces and protective insurance agencies can both use force. There is nothing stopping them from using force other than customs or market forces. If customs are changed or maket forces align properly you will be just as dead as if a state executed.

You fail to realize that customary law exists as a means of establishing cooperation and is maintained by trust. Under a private property ethic, reciprocity would dictate that anyone who decided to abrogate his contracts would quickly face sanction and ostracism (hence why Dawkins noted in Nice guys finish first that cooperative people would survive by congregating together while property-right violators would drive their associations into extinction.) The chances of a customary law system executing me is slight to nil, not only because violence is expensive and killing me outright would prevent any kind of restitution but also because an act of aggression would endanger the aggressors as they lose trust, i.e. are reciprocated for their harm.

The statist, however, responds not to a system of law that is based upon mutual cooperation and reciprocity through private property but through violent expropriation and redistribution, and as such they are able to force others to work under them as the monopolist on jurisdiction and may harm me if they find it politically advantageous- which, in fact, they constantly do.

And customs and maket forces can deem anything criminal in your society thus making the public the de facto owner and you there property

And then, having taken this step towards a monopoly on jurisdiction by using coercion against me, they will be a state. However, most likely the rules of reciprocity and trust will result in their very quick reformation or extinction, as the public will be recalcitrant towards stealing form others as they know it will open the floodgates to being robbed themselves.

Customary law societies can use force to constrain voluntary behaviors. If one's customs are for arranged marriages a woman who is assigned to be married to a man against her will who then consensually sleeps will another man will be executed by stoning if said customs allow, I will look up where it say this in the Bible if you wish for a source. Or If I mix my labor with property that is deemed a communal resource and try to restrict access to it then others will take my property. Or if homosexuality/witchcraft/whatever is deemed an excutable offense by custom then there is nothing stopping a mob

These are statist aspects mixed in with precepts of customary law system, as they entail a violation of property titles, i.e. the right of ultimate decisionmaking over an object is taken by an authority; a purely customary law system would be something akin to the Merchant Law which depended entirely upon voluntary boycotts and ostracism and hence did not use stonings or burnings. As violence and death are expensive, while people become more future-oriented (i.e. there is a greater stock of present stock and the law of margins depresses the rate of future-valuation) they will realize the problems of such violence and end it. This can be observed in the Kapauku Papuans making the penalties for adultery less severe when they became richer.

No, it hasn't. If scientists do not call arachnids insects, but the hoipoloi do, then the hoipoloi is wrong because they are not using the word in accordance with the definition. Any argument to the contrary is an argumentum ad populum.

You're appealing to authority. One which does not exist. There is no definer of words or one true language. The Spanish can call the number one uno just as English speaker calls it the number one. Neither is wrong. The word is different but what it signifies isn't. A word and what it signifies are two different things.

You fail to realize that customary law exists as a means of establishing cooperation and is maintained by trust. Under a private property ethic, reciprocity would dictate that anyone who decided to abrogate his contracts would quickly face sanction and ostracism (hence why Dawkins noted in Nice guys finish first that cooperative people would survive by congregating together while property-right violators would drive their associations into extinction.) The chances of a customary law system executing me is slight to nil, not only because violence is expensive and killing me outright would prevent any kind of restitution but also because an act of aggression would endanger the aggressors as they lose trust, i.e. are reciprocated for their harm.

The statist, however, responds not to a system of law that is based upon mutual cooperation and reciprocity through private property but through violent expropriation and redistribution, and as such they are able to force others to work under them as the monopolist on jurisdiction and may harm me if they find it politically advantageous- which, in fact, they constantly do.

Customary law is law that comes from customs whether these are violent or not. A group can further cooperation within itself yet prey on outsiders. One can see this in the tribal tendency to group people in terms of "us" versus "them".

And then, having taken this step towards a monopoly on jurisdiction by using coercion against me, they will be a state. However, most likely the rules of reciprocity and trust will result in their very quick reformation or extinction, as the public will be recalcitrant towards stealing form others as they know it will open the floodgates to being robbed themselves.

Ummm,,, there are few if any customary law societies. More likely the state would survive. Anyway as long as they are either a group of people or multiple agencies a monopoly of jurisdiction isn't formed so no state is formed.

These are statist aspects mixed in with precepts of customary law system, as they entail a violation of property titles, i.e. the right of ultimate decisionmaking over an object is taken by an authority; a purely customary law system would be something akin to the Merchant Law which depended entirely upon voluntary boycotts and ostracism and hence did not use stonings or burnings. As violence and death are expensive, while people become more future-oriented (i.e. there is a greater stock of present stock and the law of margins depresses the rate of future-valuation) they will realize the problems of such violence and end it. This can be observed in the Kapauku Papuans making the penalties for adultery less severe when they became richer.

They are laws whose legitimacy is derived from customs, thus customary law. Steven Pinker's book the Blan Slate shows evidence that the murder rates on hunter-gatherer groups, governed by customary law, usually have murder rates that would be that are higher than the most violent inner cities in modern America. Its just that in absolute numbers the amount is small.

You're appealing to authority. One which does not exist. There is no definer of words or one true language. The Spanish can call the number one uno just as English speaker calls it the number one. Neither is wrong. The word is different but what it signifies isn't. A word and what it signifies are two different things.

How am I appealling to authority if I am simply saying that words have certain meanings and often times people misuse them (such as for capitalism)? It is incorrect to say that a spider is an insect, because (for example) a spider has eight legs and an insect has six. Unless an arachnid is that which has six legs and simultaneously that which does not have six legs, then it is obvious that the vernacular use of the word 'insect' is incorrect. Words have correct and incorrect usages, and to say that the word is being used correctly because a lot of people do it regardless of its conformity with the definition is, again, an argumentum ad populum.

Customary law is law that comes from customs whether these are violent or not. A group can further cooperation within itself yet prey on outsiders. One can see this in the tribal tendency to group people in terms of "us" versus "them".

True, and these first inklings of statist attitude, of imposing one's rule on others regardless of their own consent (no group would have a custom by which they allow others to conquer them) often results in a stronger monopoly on jurisdiction. However, other customary law systems, i.e. those with a greater stock of present goods, such as Law Merchant lack these kinds of authoritarian traits that are antithetical to choosing one's own mediator and arbiter.

Ummm,,, there are few if any customary law societies. More likely the state would survive. Anyway as long as they are either a group of people or multiple agencies a monopoly of jurisdiction isn't formed so no state is formed.

Where did I say "there are a lot of customary law societies?" Also, I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your last sentence. Also, regardless of what group of people or what number of agencies there is, if it engages in regular expropriations (i.e. gives itself rights over the property of others without their consent) then it has given itself a monopoly on jurisdiction. What size or division there is is irrelevant.

They are laws whose legitimacy is derived from customs, thus customary law. Steven Pinker's book the Blan Slate shows evidence that the murder rates on hunter-gatherer groups, governed by customary law, usually have murder rates that would be that are higher than the most violent inner cities in modern America. Its just that in absolute numbers the amount is small.

Firstly, I have never used hunter-gatherer groups as an example at any point in time. Secondly, there are other systems of customary law, such as those that have existed in various points in time in the United States, that proved quite effective in preventing crime and allowing for the peace. Naturally, in a system with few present-goods the law of margins dictates that there is more of an emphasis on attaining each present good instead of future returns of present goods, which would explain killing a person now and taking his stuff over the benefits of long-term cooperation. That the state has similar rates of crime to extremely present-oriented societies shows how greatly it has increased present-orientation due to an acceptance of a culture of free entry into an institution of systematic aggression despite the countervailing civilizing effect of material wealth. As such, the statist system cannot be trusted.

And while there may be some statist aspects in very early customary law that allow for some exercise of a monopoly on jurisdiction (such as some taking on a monopoly on jurisdiction over a homosexual to kill him despite his not giving consent), ceteris paribus these customs will fall out of favor as the stock of present goods increases and people realize the long-term costs of systematic aggression (so that we end up with a law like that in the early US or Law Merchant. In fact, given our wealth that allows for an even further level of foresight, most likely an even better code of law.)

How am I appealling to authority if I am simply saying that words have certain meanings and often times people misuse them (such as for capitalism)? It is incorrect to say that a spider is an insect, because (for example) a spider has eight legs and an insect has six. Unless an arachnid is that which has six legs and simultaneously that which does not have six legs, then it is obvious that the vernacular use of the word 'insect' is incorrect. Words have correct and incorrect usages, and to say that the word is being used correctly because a lot of people do it regardless of its conformity with the definition is, again, an argumentum ad populum.

You are appealing because you do not recognize that definitions are arbitrary and laguages are fluid. Thus some authority must deine words rather than the usage of words. Words do not have incorrect or correct usages per se just usages. If insect was used to refer to both insects and arachnids future dictionaries would note how it is currently used and how it was used in the past. I am not appealing to what is popular because the definitions of words are shared definitions especially popular usages.

True, and these first inklings of statist attitude, of imposing one's rule on others regardless of their own consent (no group would have a custom by which they allow others to conquer them) often results in a stronger monopoly on jurisdiction. However, other customary law systems, i.e. those with a greater stock of present goods, such as Law Merchant lack these kinds of authoritarian traits that are antithetical to choosing one's own mediator and arbiter.

The Merchant Law existed in times of more or less statist societies. If modern businesses, who use mediation outside the state, are any example they would go in bed with the state whenever is suited there purposes and used oustide mediation when it didn't.


Where did I say "there are a lot of customary law societies?" Also, I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your last sentence. Also, regardless of what group of people or what number of agencies there is, if it engages in regular expropriations (i.e. gives itself rights over the property of others without their consent) then it has given itself a monopoly on jurisdiction. What size or division there is is irrelevant.

That there are few was more of a reasoning that since there are so few of them yet so many states, states are more resilient than customary law societies.

Alos given mutiple agencies there is not a monopoly of force because other groups can use legitimate force, thus no monopoly and no state.



Firstly, I have never used hunter-gatherer groups as an example at any point in time. Secondly, there are other systems of customary law, such as those that have existed in various points in time in the United States, that proved quite effective in preventing crime and allowing for the peace. Naturally, in a system with few present-goods the law of margins dictates that there is more of an emphasis on attaining each present good instead of future returns of present goods, which would explain killing a person now and taking his stuff over the benefits of long-term cooperation. That the state has similar rates of crime to extremely present-oriented societies shows how greatly it has increased present-orientation due to an acceptance of a culture of free entry into an institution of systematic aggression despite the countervailing civilizing effect of material wealth. As such, the statist system cannot be trusted.

And while there may be some statist aspects in very early customary law that allow for some exercise of a monopoly on jurisdiction (such as some taking on a monopoly on jurisdiction over a homosexual to kill him despite his not giving consent), ceteris paribus these customs will fall out of favor as the stock of present goods increases and people realize the long-term costs of systematic aggression (so that we end up with a law like that in the early US or Law Merchant. In fact, given our wealth that allows for an even further level of foresight, most likely an even better code of law.)

I never said you used hunter-gathers as an example of customary law societies but they are socities that lack states and are run by customary laws.

I don't see much evidence for your assertions given that your examples are either ones that survived for brief periods of time or ones that exist within larger statist systems.

-snip-

Since you seem hell-bent on saying that words do not mean anything and you can use them however you want, I will not argue this point anymore with you. Feel free to say that hot is cold and anti-private property and pro-private property are the same all you like.

The Merchant Law existed in times of more or less statist societies. If modern businesses, who use mediation outside the state, are any example they would go in bed with the state whenever is suited there purposes and used oustide mediation when it didn't.

First of all, saying that Merchant Law works because there is a state is a cum hoc fallacy; in fact, the state undermines customary law because it allows the monopolist on jurisdiction to change contracts as he wishes. Without the state, people would be bound to their contracts, but with the state they may abrogate them so long as they have the state power. (You noticed this but failed to note the significance.)

That there are few was more of a reasoning that since there are so few of them yet so many states, states are more resilient than customary law societies.

Yet states are far more aggressive and destructive; even today they are the greatest cause of human suffering. With the greater growth of present goods available today that would allow for increasingly far-sighted procedures and laws (due to a relatively greater focus on future returns), customary law societes would quickly eliminate statist tendencies due to their deleterious effects on long-term growth and crush external states due to the state's adverse effects on future returns (hence why it is the liberal states like America and England that dominate, and not historically autocratic states like Turkey or Spain.)

Alos given mutiple agencies there is not a monopoly of force because other groups can use legitimate force, thus no monopoly and no state.

Yes, there is. Monopoly is not defined by number of actors, but by a barrier on legal entry into an industry. A lone store in a town will face entirely different incentives if there is the threat of entry into the market than one which has dominance over a market by threat of force. So will the multiple agencies that have a monopoly on jurisdiction, as their incentive will not be to liberalize law to accept homosexuals or be outcompeted by a more tolerant firm that homosexuals will turn to, but rather to continue to punish them and any sympathizers for the benefit of the politically connected. (Or do any kind of redistribution for political supporters, as all states do.)

I never said you used hunter-gathers as an example of customary law societies but they are socities that lack states and are run by customary laws.

OK, sure. But seeing as how modern states, with all of their wealth and power, have as much violence going on in their cities as poorer, less materially secure hunter-gatherer societies shows the impotence of the state in defending its people; rather, it will harm them as much as it can for the benefit of the political elite.

I don't see much evidence for your assertions given that your examples are either ones that survived for brief periods of time or ones that exist within larger statist systems.

You don't see much evidence because you are depending upon a cum hoc fallacy that customary law societies need to cooperate with the state, rather than the state damaging the efficiency of customary law, and you also do not realize that many people have even today turned away from authoritarian statist law to customary law through private security (there are more private police than public police, after all), arbitration and mediation to avoid costly and time-consuming courts, and that the state faces overwhelming incentives to be wasteful, inefficient, and even corrupt due to their non-price system of rationing.

Since you seem hell-bent on saying that words do not mean anything and you can use them however you want, I will not argue this point anymore with you. Feel free to say that hot is cold and anti-private property and pro-private property are the same all you like.

I'm saying words have no innate meaning. Their only meaning is the inormation that is recognized by two or more parties. If I call the US's economy a capitalist one and people understand what I mean what say that then that is the definition of capitalism at that point in time.

First of all, saying that Merchant Law works because there is a state is a cum hoc fallacy; in fact, the state undermines customary law because it allows the monopolist on jurisdiction to change contracts as he wishes. Without the state, people would be bound to their contracts, but with the state they may abrogate them so long as they have the state power. (You noticed this but failed to note the significance.)

I'm saying Merchany Law existed in a time and location where states or state like organizations existed. Thus the use of force was not among the tools available to merchants, though given that modern businesses are use both voluntary mediation and state coercion for their goals it is likely the merchants in the past did the same. Likely they engaged in monopolistic guilds and lobbyied town councils.



Yet states are far more aggressive and destructive; even today they are the greatest cause of human suffering. With the greater growth of present goods available today that would allow for increasingly far-sighted procedures and laws (due to a relatively greater focus on future returns), customary law societes would quickly eliminate statist tendencies due to their deleterious effects on long-term growth and crush external states due to the state's adverse effects on future returns (hence why it is the liberal states like America and England that dominate, and not historically autocratic states like Turkey or Spain.)

Nonstatist societies came before statist societies and statist ones became dominant. Likely customary societies would revert back to statist ones given time.



Yes, there is. Monopoly is not defined by number of actors, but by a barrier on legal entry into an industry. A lone store in a town will face entirely different incentives if there is the threat of entry into the market than one which has dominance over a market by threat of force. So will the multiple agencies that have a monopoly on jurisdiction, as their incentive will not be to liberalize law to accept homosexuals or be outcompeted by a more tolerant firm that homosexuals will turn to, but rather to continue to punish them and any sympathizers for the benefit of the politically connected. (Or do any kind of redistribution for political supporters, as all states do.)

Monopoly is defined by the number of actors, at least if we can call organizations actors in an abstract sense. Anyway I did not posit a scenario where other firms were unable to legally enter the protection industry, just one where market forces marginalize homosexual friendly firms. Thus no monopoly is formed yet violence is still used against a minority.



OK, sure. But seeing as how modern states, with all of their wealth and power, have as much violence going on in their cities as poorer, less materially secure hunter-gatherer societies shows the impotence of the state in defending its people; rather, it will harm them as much as it can for the benefit of the political elite.

No, Modern states have less violent crimes than hunter-gatherers. Steven Pinker even looks at WWII and deems that to have less death than huntergathers, in the percentage of deaths caused by violence.

You don't see much evidence because you are depending upon a cum hoc fallacy that customary law societies need to cooperate with the state, rather than the state damaging the efficiency of customary law, and you also do not realize that many people have even today turned away from authoritarian statist law to customary law through private security (there are more private police than public police, after all), arbitration and mediation to avoid costly and time-consuming courts, and that the state faces overwhelming incentives to be wasteful, inefficient, and even corrupt due to their non-price system of rationing.

I'm saying that customary law societies need to be ones which dont have a state. People and businessed that use nonstate services still exist within states. If the states that exist now ceased to exist the very same people who use the nonstate services would create new states.

I'm saying words have no innate meaning. Their only meaning is the inormation that is recognized by two or more parties. If I call the US's economy a capitalist one and people understand what I mean what say that then that is the definition of capitalism at that point in time.

But if you end up broadening the word so much that it loses any real meaning, i.e. if the acts of the public sector are ascribed to the the private sector in the case of the bastardization of the word capitalism, then that vernacular definition has become dysfunctional to the communicative and informative purpose of language. Surely you realize that?

I'm saying Merchany Law existed in a time and location where states or state like organizations existed. Thus the use of force was not among the tools available to merchants, though given that modern businesses are use both voluntary mediation and state coercion for their goals it is likely the merchants in the past did the same. Likely they engaged in monopolistic guilds and lobbyied town councils.

Merchant Law was constructed to get around the deadweight of varying statist laws in order to settle contract disputes with as little cost as possible; they weren't a PAC. In the end, though, royal courts in England did finally decree that law merchant was under their jurisdiction so that some merchants could use the monopoly on jurisdiction to decide cases in their favor, which just goes to show you how the state is inimicable to with the production of better and less costly justice. (Though thankfully for your economic welfare and mine, the nature of competition between courts meant that the English common law courts at least had to maintain parts of the precepts of Law Merchant.)

Nonstatist societies came before statist societies and statist ones became dominant. Likely customary societies would revert back to statist ones given time.

Any reasoning for this non-sequitur, other than an appeal to novelty? Since the state interferes with the production of less costly and better quality justice, and since less costly and better quality justice means that one can be more secure about the future and thus there is less risk meaning a greater future orientation, modern customary laws would be self-reinforcing.

Monopoly is defined by the number of actors, at least if we can call organizations actors in an abstract sense. Anyway I did not posit a scenario where other firms were unable to legally enter the protection industry, just one where market forces marginalize homosexual friendly firms. Thus no monopoly is formed yet violence is still used against a minority.

No, that definition of monopoly is the neo-classical definition, which is not so much a scientific definition as one for political convenience. (If we were to say every sole supplier of a good is a monopolist, you, too, are a monopolist because you are the only one who can supply goods and services by Tech-gnosis, and I am a monopolist too for the same reason. Obviously, such a definition does not tell us anything at all.) The better definition is the older one in the classic liberal tradition, wherein a monopolist is one with legal privilege over a market, as such a political marketeer has completely different incentives concerning his enrichment than a marketeer without legal privilege.

As for your example, a monopoly would be more and more necessary for such violent behavior to be perpetuated, as there is little incentive for homophobes to pay a great deal of money to have someone kill homosexuals for only some psychic benefit/income, but a great deal of cost to those who might want to make exchanges with homosexuals now and in the future for their mutual benefit. However, with a monopolist on jurisdiction that could externalize costs from homophobes to non-homophobes there would be strong incentives to continue such repression for the statists and their homophobic political supporters.

No, Modern states have less violent crimes than hunter-gatherers. Steven Pinker even looks at WWII and deems that to have less death than huntergathers, in the percentage of deaths caused by violence.

But you just said that they have the same rate of violence as inner-cities. That takes place in a modern state. Regardless, the fact remains that since so many people are killed in modern states despite all of the possibilities of preventing it through modern wealth, the hunter-gatherer society is relatively better given their material poverty and resulting present-orientedness and less capital to devote to law and order.

I'm saying that customary law societies need to be ones which dont have a state. People and businessed that use nonstate services still exist within states. If the states that exist now ceased to exist the very same people who use the nonstate services would create new states.

Unlikely. The end of states would mean that the idea of a monopoly on jurisdiction had been delegitimized to the point that physical disruption on the part of most people that the state would have been rendered inoperable. An attempt by the political elite to reestablish a state would come under immense resistance by those who they attempt to expropriate for their own benefit, as they would see such an attempt as being illegitimate. This would be greatly enhanced by the future-orientation enhancing nature of private law and order over present-orientation enhancing public so-called law and order that anyone who attempted to become a rogue statist would be quickly neutralized by a united front wary of the possibility of possible future incidents.

But if you end up broadening the word so much that it loses any real meaning, i.e. if the acts of the public sector are ascribed to the the private sector in the case of the bastardization of the word capitalism, then that vernacular definition has become dysfunctional to the communicative and informative purpose of language. Surely you realize that?

I would recognize that definitions can become so broad that their meanings have negligible value as communicative media, but I don't believe that has happened yet with the vernacular meaning of capitalism.

Merchant Law was constructed to get around the deadweight of varying statist laws in order to settle contract disputes with as little cost as possible; they weren't a PAC. In the end, though, royal courts in England did finally decree that law merchant was under their jurisdiction so that some merchants could use the monopoly on jurisdiction to decide cases in their favor, which just goes to show you how the state is inimicable to with the production of better and less costly justice. (Though thankfully for your economic welfare and mine, the nature of competition between courts meant that the English common law courts at least had to maintain parts of the precepts of Law Merchant.)

I never said they were a PAC or a medevial version of one, I merely pointed out that no society was governed by Merchant Law and that given the modern versions of the medeival merchants, businesses, they would not have been averse to using the state when it served their purposes.

Any reasoning for this non-sequitur, other than an appeal to novelty? Since the state interferes with the production of less costly and better quality justice, and since less costly and better quality justice means that one can be more secure about the future and thus there is less risk meaning a greater future orientation, modern customary laws would be self-reinforcing.

You said that customary law societies would "quickly eliminate statist tendencies due to their deleterious effects on long-term growth and crush external states due to the state's adverse effects on future returns". I merely pointed out that statist tendencies formed under customary law societies and when the two came head to head statist societies dominated. Empirically your assertions have not proven true.


No, that definition of monopoly is the neo-classical definition, which is not so much a scientific definition as one for political convenience. (If we were to say every sole supplier of a good is a monopolist, you, too, are a monopolist because you are the only one who can supply goods and services by Tech-gnosis, and I am a monopolist too for the same reason. Obviously, such a definition does not tell us anything at all.) The better definition is the older one in the classic liberal tradition, wherein a monopolist is one with legal privilege over a market, as such a political marketeer has completely different incentives concerning his enrichment than a marketeer without legal privilege.

There was no legal privilege in my example, thus no monopoly under either definition. Do you have an example where two or more agents were given legal access to an industry while entry was barred to all others?

As for your example, a monopoly would be more and more necessary for such violent behavior to be perpetuated, as there is little incentive for homophobes to pay a great deal of money to have someone kill homosexuals for only some psychic benefit/income, but a great deal of cost to those who might want to make exchanges with homosexuals now and in the future for their mutual benefit. However, with a monopolist on jurisdiction that could externalize costs from homophobes to non-homophobes there would be strong incentives to continue such repression for the statists and their homophobic political supporters.

I'm taking a stituation where people have high preferences against homosexuals. With this comes market power so that those who would deal with homosexuals would face greater costs if they associated with homosexual than if they didn't. Also, to sweeten the pot, those who use violence against homosexuals would be able to seize their property and have it recognized as theirs. All a result of market forces and customs. No monopoly no state but lots of coercion.

But you just said that they have the same rate of violence as inner-cities. That takes place in a modern state. Regardless, the fact remains that since so many people are killed in modern states despite all of the possibilities of preventing it through modern wealth, the hunter-gatherer society is relatively better given their material poverty and resulting present-orientedness and less capital to devote to law and order.

If you look back on my post I said hunter-gatherer groups usually faced higher murder rates. How are they better off when more of them die by violence?

Unlikely. The end of states would mean that the idea of a monopoly on jurisdiction had been delegitimized to the point that physical disruption on the part of most people that the state would have been rendered inoperable. An attempt by the political elite to reestablish a state would come under immense resistance by those who they attempt to expropriate for their own benefit, as they would see such an attempt as being illegitimate. This would be greatly enhanced by the future-orientation enhancing nature of private law and order over present-orientation enhancing public so-called law and order that anyone who attempted to become a rogue statist would be quickly neutralized by a united front wary of the possibility of possible future incidents.

What end of states? I dont see evidence of them leaving any time soon and given historical disasters such as war, economic collapse, the destruction of states, whatnot they are remarkably robust.

I would recognize that definitions can become so broad that their meanings have negligible value as communicative media, but I don't believe that has happened yet with the vernacular meaning of capitalism.

It has, hence why public sectors get to pin all of their failures and atrocities onto the private sector as supposed faults of capitalism.

I never said they were a PAC or a medevial version of one, I merely pointed out that no society was governed by Merchant Law and that given the modern versions of the medeival merchants, businesses, they would not have been averse to using the state when it served their purposes.

So what if they weren't a society? They produced superior and cheaper law than the state, and when the state dipped its toes into that body of law it ruined it like it does every other system of justice. Why support the state if it just ruins everything it touches?

You said that customary law societies would "quickly eliminate statist tendencies due to their deleterious effects on long-term growth and crush external states due to the state's adverse effects on future returns". I merely pointed out that statist tendencies formed under customary law societies and when the two came head to head statist societies dominated. Empirically your assertions have not proven true.

The only reason that the statist tendencies won out was either A.) There was a larger state that managed to convince the customary law society to join it with the promise of externalizing costs or B.) There was not a quick enough growth rate to raise the present good stock sufficiently that these deleterious customs would fall out of favor due to their rejection by a more future-oriented population. However, if we were to have a modern customary law society alongside a statist society of equal size, the customary law society would beat its statist counterparts just as less statist states (England, United States) beat their more statist enemies (Spain, Turkey, etc.) Customary law enhances long-term growth and makes a people more defensible, hence why systems with less statist law and more customary law were the more dominant due to their better institutions which allowed for greater economic growth and therefore greater power.

There was no legal privilege in my example, thus no monopoly under either definition. Do you have an example where two or more agents were given legal access to an industry while entry was barred to all others?

Yes, the salt duopoly in England is one example. Public utilities in the United States are also an example where multiple companies reap the benefits of legal barrier to entry in which other firms are excluded. And you would need a legal monpoly in order to perpetuate homophobic violence in the long-term, because without a way to externalize costs and with only the benefit of psychic income despite the greater costs to everyone else the homophobes would cease and desist in their aggression.

I'm taking a stituation where people have high preferences against homosexuals. With this comes market power so that those who would deal with homosexuals would face greater costs if they associated with homosexual than if they didn't. Also, to sweeten the pot, those who use violence against homosexuals would be able to seize their property and have it recognized as theirs. All a result of market forces and customs. No monopoly no state but lots of coercion.

The natural tendency would be away from such a custom, as it has damaging long-term effects for growth as the emphasis turns from economic production to finding homosexuals to kill and steal from, which far-sighted people would be averse to and find ways to prevent so as not to suffer long-term damages. In fact, it is likely that people would be wrongly accused of being homosexuals in order to expropriate, thus increasing resistance to such a policy as a second-comer ethic is recognized as being nothing more than naked aggression. I also seriously doubt that such a boycott would be sustainable, as there would only be some psychic income while there is a great deal of material cost from losing productive members of society. The only way to perpetuate such a policy would be for the homophobes to establish a monopoly on jurisdiction so as to externalize their costs so that their psychic income becomes relatively more valuable versus their material losses of enforcing such laws.

Not only is this theoretically true, but Dawkins said that in the long-term those who cooperate (i.e. do not believe in killing and stealing) will drive cheaters (i.e. those who do believe in killing and stealing) to extinction, as those who do not believe in killing and stealing will congregate together and enjoy prosperity while murderers will congregate together and find excuses to ruin one another and eventually do themselves in. This applies even when the cooperators are a vast minority compared to a large majority of cheaters. Whereas a state prevents this rectification by way of forcing cooperators to associate with cheaters, and it is really only under the state that long-term aggression can be sustained.

If you look back on my post I said hunter-gatherer groups usually faced higher murder rates. How are they better off when more of them die by violence?

Sorry, I misread you. But I was indicating that they are relatively better off. It is inevitable that, with present-orientation that focuses on the benefits of killing someone and taking his stuff over the long-term costs on losing human capital and less capital to devote to security due to relative material poverty, they would inherently have higher murder rates, but the customary law system is the best of their alternatives. Crime has a general tendency to fall as people become more far-sighted and develop better procedures, and have more wealth to devote to preventing crime. Whereas the spike in crime in the modern era that coincides with the explosion in state power shows that, though we have the potential to squash crime with our abundance, we have had institutions imposed that are far less conducive to our well-being than other possibilities, as they encourage short-sightedness and aggression despite our power to stop violence.

What end of states? I dont see evidence of them leaving any time soon and given historical disasters such as war, economic collapse, the destruction of states, whatnot they are remarkably robust.

If the trends towards shunning public services in police, arbitration, and mediation continue as the state consistently fails to deliver on any of its promises while engaging in fiscal and monetary irresponsibility show anything, it is that the state will likely do itself in. Regardless, I was referring to the fact that, once a state is eliminated through a loss of legitimacy, it is unlikely to ever be resurgent again.