The only moral obligation...

Although I'm on your side here, you're venturing past capitalism into anarchy if you want no law whatsoever.
Privatized law. It is a kind of anarchy (anarcho-capitalism). Privatized law allows for absolute freedom.

In capitalism the government
... has no place.
should maintain law and order, enforce contracts, and defend the shores.
Private institutions can provide law and order and defense. The only thing I agree with you on is enforcing contracts, which I don't know how it could be done without an entity to recognize the contracts and property rights, but that would be all "government" is, then.
All interactions between individuals should be voluntary, and to their mutual benefit. The state should only step in when one person violates another's rights (ie by commiting an act of violence, theft, etc).
Even here, the only purpose of this government is to recognize that a "crime" (as in, a property crime) has taken place. "Justice" would be privatized.
No, not even capitalism allows that much freedom. I.e., if you want to eat, you must pay the price that the food vendors set for their food. That's not YOUR freedom, it's theirs! See?
Yes...but that's not what "freedom" is. Freedom is being able to do as you please; of course, you must be capable but that is your responsibility. In capitalism I could buy the food, find another vendor, or choose not to buy his food, grow my own food, and use my money from that for whatever I please.

Oh, you say, "Just grow your own food!"? Okay, that's fine, but then you not free of toiling in the dirt, are you? You give up doing what you want in order to eat. See? You aren't free.
It's your CHOICE to do this.

Because they serve self-interest..
Not my self interest, nor yours. You can't speak for everyone. For the people who want to be ruled, they can do that without forcing others to be.
 
Not my self interest, nor yours. You can't speak for everyone. For the people who want to be ruled, they can do that without forcing others to be.

So you want the benefits but not the drawbacks ?
You can't have one without the other man.
 
So you want the benefits but not the drawbacks ?
You can't have one without the other man.

Benefits and drawbacks of what? I want no government at all. I am willing to accept the fullest implications of this, too, if it means my absolute freedom.


All humans are, always, absolutely free; at least, the only limit is your own strength and wit.
 
Benefits and drawbacks of what? I want no government at all. I am willing to accept the fullest implications of this, too, if it means my absolute freedom.


All humans are, always, absolutely free; at least, the only limit is your own strength and wit.
Oh, but you won't be free at all. Your freedom will be impaired by other, stronger and more powerful, people, without society doing anything about it.
 
I think you'll regret that.

It isn't a matter to regret. It simply is the natural way of things. We are free, but we need to back our freedom and achieve it more fully. And so the fittest survive. This is the only freedom that is absolutely free, unrestricted; at least, the only way you can potentially have unrestricted freedom.

It is up to you to make sure you are free.

Even if that means I wouldn't "survive", I still agree in principle
 
In capitalism I could buy the food, find another vendor, or choose not to buy his food, grow my own food, and use my money from that for whatever I please.

What do you eat while your food is growing? What do you eat when it's winter when crops don't grow?

See how idealistic your views are? Far, far too idealistic. Freedom is impossible in any form in any society on any planet. Yours is just words without meaning, without examination. There is no freedom ...it's an ideal.

Baron Max
 
What do you eat while your food is growing? What do you eat when it's winter when crops don't grow?

Baron Max

Nothing, then you die. But how is that my problem?

It's your responsibility to make sure you have food to eat, just as it is mine for me. It's not about idealism. That's not what capitalism is about. Capitalism just allows you to do what you want if you can sustain and support it, and it is your responsibility to be able to if you really want it. You can't force others to pay for your food, for instance.
 
If everyone is looking out for themselves, with no government where does money come from?
 
Value. People will naturally agree upon some standard of currency, voluntarily.
Agreed.
So long as you remember that 1 of my dollars is worth 10 of yours.
That's the standard, you see.
Anything else would be bowing down to others.
 
Nothing, but that would be voluntary. That's the beauty of it. If there is a widely used currency, there's still room for others to emerge; you don't have to work. You don't have to do anything. It's voluntary. You can even have whatever community you like, as long as it's your property and voluntary.
 
Pure idealism, of any form or about any form, is seldom worth discussing ....and damned sure not worth arguing about.

Baron Max
 
It is not my obligation to care for 99.9999 percent of the population. Only those I care about and myself.

Exactly - the ones you care about.

You can't care for everyone, but you should care for those who you can reasonably care for, such as your friends and your family.
 
Exactly - the ones you care about.

You can't care for everyone, but you should care for those who you can reasonably care for, such as your friends and your family.

Ah, yes, but that brings up the issue of the progression of friends and family. If we keep adding in people that you care about, and those that they care about, we've pretty soon used up all the people on Earth!

Your friend cares about someone else, who cares about someone else, who cares about someone else,.............. And you wouldn't want to hurt your friend, would you? Or see her/him hurt?

Baron Max
 
Norsefire
I don't follow

You admit that economy requires conflict, yet you say there is no requirement for justice

No I admitted no such thing. Economy requires needs and desires, and that MIGHT have conflicts, but not necessarily so.
given that there are absolutely no examples of economic development that do not have issues of conflict at their core, it's not clear why the word "might" deserves uppercase letters.

perhaps I should have used the word "uniform" instead of "centralized"

The market might assume an unofficial consumer code, why not?
sure
but the chances of it being uniform are close to zero unless it has some centralized agency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization

It's just the choice of individuals that influence this. If the consumer demand for a uniform consumer code is there, it'll happen, as businesses arise because of this to meet this demand, but unlike bureaucracy, it isn't set in stone and it can change.
that's the point
there is no uniform consumer demand ..... much less when you talk about a uniform consumer demand for justice



I am suggesting that unless there are uniform codes to deal with things like theft, murder, etc, you won't have a stable production base for anything ...

Again, there can be unofficial consumer codes for such agencies. If the majority of people find it wrong, and want to do something about it, they can, without setting it in stone
t
yeah, but the distribution of power may not be so democratic

1 man in 1 tank = 4 000 students

he success of such measures will be determined by the degree of justice ... if you are going to talk about a system without jails you have to talk about how you plan to deal with issues of justice ..... even to entertain such musings as a bounty hunter or private court, its not clear what they would do with an offender in a jail-less society

What is "justice"?
the value that determines the resolution of a conflict - if there is a no "justice" the conflict continues (or alternatively, one of the opposing parties dies ..... aka "dark ages")

First, I never meant a bounty hunter that captures
you
what else would you expect a bounty hunter do with a person who has no assets yet is responsible for stealing many of them?
And next, prisons? Do you know what has more power than prisons today?

Credit companies. You can resist paying back for a crime, but then your credit will be crippled by whatever private institution you choose to associate with, and if you don't associate, you might not necessarily receive service
credit companies only have clout if you have assets


I think that was in vogue during the dark ages

No, that was more like "let's let god sort it out"
superficially or perhaps the religious ideology was like that .... but politically it was the biggest and the hairiest being the rightest


But people realized that change has to come from THEM. Survival of the fittest is natural.
and lo and behold, part of that change involved a more refined sense of justice and order

and I could burn your rape and pillage your village .... which might affect the local production scene dramatically

In which case I could hire a protection agency.
Being the hire protection agency I just decided it was more profitable to simply take your assets by force
that doesn't necessarily provide for a wonderful social environment for production and labour for the oogling capitalists however

That isn't my obligation or my problem, though.
if you want to pay for another hire protection agency to keep me in check, it could well be
:D

hehe
yes but if the moral imperatives are relative to capital, you have a radical definition of compassion for the taking

The moral imperatives are yours to decide, and you use capital to further your already-present wishes.
don't you get it?

The moral imperatives are for the deciding by the rich (or as in the case of your now looted village, for deciding by the brutish)

well yeah ... if they can afford to choose

If they can't it isn't my problem or yours
don't complain when your village is in flames

work or starve

nice choice

Worker unions? Those work. No, really. Then, businesses will be forced to be fairer.
hehe
forced by who exactly?

well actually we must first talk about what qualifications are required to evidence god first, ... just like a discussion on evidencing an electron might require a few qualifications in the field of physics

A lack of rationality is required, so yes, I'm sorry but I'm not qualified.
on the contrary, a lack of rationality appears to be required to establish your social policy
if you espouse capitalism as the solution for the world, indirectly, yes

Capitalism isn't about giving people good lives, it's about allowing them to give themselves a good life.
hehe

actually its about giving people money ........
 
Back
Top