How to get everyone wealthy: unregulated capitalism

I disagree, Endfedthe. The United States took on some corporatist tendencies during the Roosevelt administration and at no time since becoming a world power has resembled anything close to laissez-faire capitalism.

Now specifically in regards to anarcho-capitalism, there would be no state, constitution, anti-trust laws, taxation, official currency, public military or police forces, etc. All goods and services would be provided by entrepreneurs and/or privately-owned organizations. Advocates of such an order at times argue based on the non-aggression principle, which I have heard best summarized as: no person can rightfully initiate force or coercion against any other, nor can they interfere in the peaceful projects of others.

But what the anarcho-capitalist seems to assume is people will behave in such a manner that firms and other private interests won't be permitted to pose a significant danger to the rights and liberties of individuals, and the uninhibited markets will serve in the best interests of all. I do not think consumers in such an order would be organized, driven, and well-informed enough to coordinate their efforts to boycott and thus exert an impressive measure of soft power against companies which are engaged in morally reprehensible practices. Likewise, I do not see how all privatized police forces or militias could be trusted not to eventually use force to influence the behavior of other people much like the state does.

What I argue is not that a pleasant anarcho-capitalist system is impossible. Rather, I am saying such a system would require the people and a lot of organizations to generally behave in accordance with certain values and principles of conduct which cannot reasonably be expected to present in all (or even most) countries where one takes a liberal democracy with a capitalist economy and gradually abolishes the state. Rather than everyone becoming rich and happy, it seems far more likely that some folks would become extremely well-off, some people would die as a result of there no longer being any sort of social insurance scheme, and most of the institutions of the U.S. that currently serve to enforce constitutionally-codified rights and liberties would cease to exist - much less be enforced.

In regards to your example of Hong Kong, it does not have entirely laissez-faire markets and Freedom House points out that it has problems these days with sex slavery, discrimination against South Asians and women and union affiliates in the labor market, self-censorship in and some suppression of freedom for the press, and tension amongst the people over increasing socioeconomic inequality and the expensiveness of property.

While I think you and I can agree that easing regulation can at times be very beneficial for the public and individuals alike, I contend that having no regulation at all will do more to threaten than secure individual freedom. I care more about the qualities of life experienced by individuals than the economic performance of the collective. A brisk growth rate for a country as a percentage of its GPD or high GDP per capita figures are almost meaningless to me if they do not come with rights to the basic necessities of life and an income inequality GINI coefficient of 0.1 - 0.25 or so.

 

USA - 47m on foodstamps , 500k homeless
Hong Kong - is not a country but the capitalist port of a vast fascist mainland
Korea - fascist as well , businesses grow with huge government "donations"

In capitalism a decreasing number of individuals are getting an increasing piece of the pie.
source : check increase in capital gains over decreasing buying power of average wage

 

dont be confused
koreA HONG KONG AND USA CLOSES To unregulaed cap
best growth because freedom
remember bernanke and clinton are morons
alf coulda been pres in 90s with net booom and done less damage than moron bill clinton
hillar a (*)(*)(*)(*)head abesnt during benghazi 4 amercna murdered
economy would be massivly huge if ron paul repesident and gov spending cut 50%
I would cut 95%
if you build road with gov cost 50x what private free market cost
allow market to work
giginv g$$ to unoin (*)(*)(*)(*)s is fal
nothign gget sproduced efficiently
op cost
dedaweight loss
obama and biden print money morons
the obama sihtyness will take decades to fix
gov spendng nukes eocnomy
see peter shiff tom woods and john allicson youtube
its al simple
dont be duped
noam chompasky soros and krugman morons
ayn rand right about everything but israel

 

you are misindformed
stop having random beliefs
read ayn rand capitalism the unknown ideal
its all easy
all TV save fox democrat mob
dummies
government should not be able to debt spend
end all pensions
end public school
end fed
end all ability of gov to spend over little they should
then reality and market and rpice fix things fast
mass poduce dhousing become reality without stupid house regs
atomic powered energy grid
end all foriegn wars and end all aid including israel which is sand and usa welfare
trade with everyone
freeodm
being a liberal like me is so simple
what u produce u own
then sell it
price falling make everyone richer
during wilson it happened and he siad no to central banking fraud as we have now
why does gov get to print 40B a month?
stealing from everyone
just end all that gov silly (*)(*)(*)(*)
let reality set in
replace lawyers with software
no unearned movements of money
money only moves when something produced owned and sold
simple
all crony bul(*)(*)(*)(*) gone
oracle gone
postgreslq and freebsd
remember obama clinton compsky krugman all morons who cant produce good produce good price under freedom just wanker cronis
slaughter all democrats
100%m tea party house sneate pres

 

If there was any truth to this lunatic rant there would never have been any Great Depression and we would all be millionaires.

 

One too many coconuts fell on that guys head.

 

It took 18 months to build the first nuclear power plant. It takes decades now because of excessive regulation and environmental lawsuits. You have a strong point. I live a few miles from a nuclear power plant, the adjoining lagoon teems with life, pods of wild dolphin growing in number each year, along with manatees. Tourists flock here not even knowing that big building in the distance is a nuclear power plant. These people would knock nuclear the first chance they get, and build up "Clean Coal" b/c a politician told them too. Or would want to destroy hundreds of acres of wetlands to build a solar power field that produces energy at a high cost. They call this thing "Progress"

 

He has bought the myth that Hoover was laissez faire and that government saved us from the Depression, not caused it. This is what teachers teach these days.

 

It's good to know we have a scientist on board.

 

I would argue that in "unregulated" capitalism, the government is still holding people back. This takes the form of enforcing "property rights" on land and natural resources. If wages are low, people will not be able to pay rent on expensive land.

I think the government certainly has a role in helping people, particularly in getting water to the poor, and perhaps also helping them get started. Although I am very skeptical of "training programs", because often they have little real value and are just used by cheap employers to get the taxpayers to subsidize the training of their workers. Sometimes it's not even so much about training, but rather just a screening process. Many medical assistants who go through a government training program have to be trained all over again to gain real work experience. It turns into credentialism, and obviously that is not a good use of tax money.

 

I am a fisherman. I spend more time in the water though, I dive. When you make your living on the water you don't go by hype, you go where the fish are, and they love the clear water that comes from the plant.

- - - Updated - - -

I am a fisherman. I spend more time in the water though, I dive. When you make your living on the water you don't go by hype, you go where the fish are, and they love the clear water that comes from the plant.

 

I know it worked like a damn in Charles dickens' time

 

Best part of this post.

Not really. For whatever reason, it's become trendy today to associate anarchism exclusively with collectivism. Which is not only wrong but probably closer to the opposite of what it actually is. Anarcho-capitalism is closer to the natural state of man in a stateless existence. Although anarcho-tribalism is probably the most accurate description. But tribalism can hardly be considered socialist as there is still a hierarchy.

Worth noting; the number of food stamp recipients went up considerably after the current wealth-redistributing president took office. There's your collectivism at work. It's difficult to blame that on capitalism.

 

since when was there no hierarchy in socialism?

 

I thought the whole idea was the "workers owning everything."

 

that doesn't eliminate the existence of an elected government and its administration

 

Then that's not really the workers owning everything, is it? That's state control.

 

well I hate to break it to ya pal, but there are various definitions of socialism. the fact that you are not aware of that and feel yours is the only valid one does not surprise me in the least given what I have seen of your posts so far

 

Socialism is classless, therefore there would be no hierarchy in the traditional sense of the word. Nobody would have power over one another.

 

hahahhaahaha Yeah right.. Who would make decisions, and since when does anyone with the ambition to control people also feel they are not superior to them?

Read Animal Farm when you get the chance. You will understand what more equal then others means by the time you are dumb.

 

There is no need to have someone dictate everyone's actions, decisions can be made collectively. Regardless, this debate is about the commonly accepted theoretical definition and not people's opinions about how it would work (or not work) in real life.

Owell was a socialist and he wrote Animal Farm specifically as a critique of Stalinism. Orwell faught in the Spanish Civil War and witnessed firsthand how Stalinists suppresed the Socialist society/economy that Anarchists set up.

 

Who would organize the collective to make these decisions? Every single decision? Who decides which ones don't count etc...

He should have realized then any system where the majority have control over the minority interest is bad, even in a socialist Utopia that could never exist.

 

tell that to the police and the government

 

Why yes, here is an example:



With unfettered capitalism, EVERYBODY gets a castle in the clouds and a unicorn!

 

I believe we merely need sufficient socialism, in the form of public sector intervention in the market for labor, to ensure full employment of resources in that market; thus, solving simple poverty when due to a lack of an income that would otherwise be obtained with full employment.