Blessings of Slavery: a free market vs. collectivization teaching tool

[Gumba Masta]

Does that mean that Capitalism is best fitted to the human nature?

[Virgil0211]

Does that mean that Capitalism is best fitted to the human nature?

What exactly do you mean by that?

[Gumba Masta]

What I want to know is, is capitalism so successful because it accomodates to human nature or because human nature grew accustomed to capitalism.

[MrBogosity]

Whenever I talk about Cuba, China or Russia around undergrads, I always get some smart-ass who says, well there's never been a true Communist/socialist country.

And then they DEMAND that you show a 100% libertarian society and if you can't then they win by default.

[MrBogosity]

What I want to know is, is capitalism so successful because it accomodates to human nature or because human nature grew accustomed to capitalism.

The former. People spontaneously form capitalist economies. No one ever has to make it happen. In fact, most of the problems in this country come from people trying to stop it.

[AHPMB]

"And then they DEMAND that you show a 100% libertarian society and if you can't then they win by default."

Right, and they ignore the fact that nobody is even proposing that notion.  I have never met a Libertarian or even just plain old capitalist positivist in my life.  You would never find a libertarian who would have the gall to do what Marx did and predict that all of human history is just a lead-up to some kind of bizarre utopia where all of humanity suddenly stops being self interested.  We understand that in any situation where there are people and resources, someone is going to attempt to take power and limit the availability of resources to others in order to enrich themselves.  Thus a purely libertarian/anarchic society is impossible, and government's job is to protect people's rights, including the right to keep and acquire property.  Thomas Paine figured this crap out in 1776!

When I teach Communism in class, at least when I introduce the topic, I always use the example of Smurf Village.  It's getting harder to do because a lot of kids these days never watched the Smurfs, but most of them know what I'm talking about.  First off, you've got Pappa Smurf, who looks just like Karl Marx and wears red.  They live in a perfect collectivist society where all resources are publicly owned.  You have each Smurf that, save for their job descriptions would be completely indistinguishable from any other smurf.  How do the Smurfs manage to make Communism work?  By having characters that are completely and utterly defined by the work they do.  In other words, by not being human.

[Gumba Masta]

They're Qunari! Now it all makes sense, it's an invation! Man the bridges! You'll take Lloyd and I take Beaugh!
... Phew, these painkillers are strong. O_o

[Travis Retriever]

The former. People spontaneously form capitalist economies. No one ever has to make it happen. In fact, most of the problems in this country come from people trying to stop it.

Right!
As I explained on one of your videos, Agorism style Anarcho Capitalism IS the default. :3

[Travis Retriever]

I wonder what the reaction to his paper on Slavery at the time was?
Was it anything like the response most people will give when you talk stuff like wage slavery?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m486BhgA2s0  Reminds me of this.  So funny

[Gumba Masta]

I always wonderd, is Phil a comedian, I mean doing it for the moneiz in real life.

[Travis Retriever]

Right, and they ignore the fact that nobody is even proposing that notion.  I have never met a Libertarian or even just plain old capitalist positivist in my life.  You would never find a libertarian who would have the gall to do what Marx did and predict that all of human history is just a lead-up to some kind of bizarre utopia where all of humanity suddenly stops being self interested.  We understand that in any situation where there are people and resources, someone is going to attempt to take power and limit the availability of resources to others in order to enrich themselves.  Thus a purely libertarian/anarchic society is impossible, and government's job is to protect people's rights, including the right to keep and acquire property.  Thomas Paine figured this crap out in 1776!

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7dgLSfxi1uM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7dgLSfxi1uM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

Why I'm an Anarchist by Caleb Johnson (scroll down for the essay)

[Lord T Hawkeye]

As I understand it, outright anarchism just ends up being a tyranny in itself.  With no way to enforce property rights, they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.  If you're wronged in some way, who do you turn to in order to make it right?

The result ends up being a society where you are in fact LESS free because you have to protect your own property all the time, restricting your time and ability to travel.  Worse yet, what if the majority wants to take your business or even you?  "Might makes right" is tyranny just as much as a monarchy or oligarchy would be.

That's why I stick with the rule of law.  I prefer a system where it doesn't matter if you can convince everyone that slavery is cool, it still won't fly.

[Travis Retriever]

As I understand it, outright anarchism just ends up being a tyranny in itself.

I think you're confusing Anarchy with Anomie.

With no way to enforce property rights, they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.  If you're wronged in some way, who do you turn to in order to make it right?

The only difference is that there wouldn't be a monopoly on it.

The result ends up being a society where you are in fact LESS free because you have to protect your own property all the time, restricting your time and ability to travel.  Worse yet, what if the majority wants to take your business or even you?  "Might makes right" is tyranny just as much as a monarchy or oligarchy would be.

Again, being there would be a demand for it, why wouldn't there be emergent institutions to do just like, just like in the "Wild" West, or for the Native Americans (see the video on my youtube page).

That's why I stick with the rule of law.  I prefer a system where it doesn't matter if you can convince everyone that slavery is cool, it still won't fly.

Once again, there can be that too, only the rules would be emergent from the bottom up, instead of enforced from the top down.

Also, you to the replies I got in the comics thread:
You referring to Somalia?
If so, you've been misinformed.  As Shane as pointed, Somalia is NOT an Anarchy.  They do have a repressive government (just try setting up a land phone line and see!).

Also, I'd advice looking into Anarchic Ireland and Anarchic Iceland.
Both lasted and were quite successful.
Granted, I wouldn't mind knowing why some last and others don't.
From what I can tell the ones that tend to be more liberty based and have more market incentive tend to be better off.
For example, the Anarchy in the Spanish Civil war for example:  http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1132 was built on the ideas of socialism/communism:  It failed horribly.  Mass repression, puritanical bs, and control over the people.

Anarchic Ireland lasted for about 700 years (or 1000 depending on what metric/source you read), and despite the over reliance of religion in that place, was quite scientific and scholarly (according to ConfederalSocialist).
The main problem of the place in addition to the whole being overly religiously depend was also a lack of trade routes (from LadyAttis).

Anarchic Iceland lasted for about 300 years, ending in Civil war (far longer than the US lasted before one of those. ).
Granted, I can't remember as much about it, other than the laws and leaders (consensual ones) and was dependent not on where you lived:  you could actually shop for stuff like that (lose from memory of ConfederalSocialist's video on the subject...I'll see if I can't find it at some point.  He's on youtube as user/fringeelements or something like that).

Another interesting case of Anarchy (at least according to Fringeelements/ConfederalSocialist) was actually the "Wild" West.
The video I have featured on my youtube channel explains it a bit near the ending (outstanding video).

Also, as for Virgil's response, that would be, if anything an argument to stop funding the UN. 

PS:  Sorry if this reply isn't quite as scholarly/good as my others, or as Shane's.
I'm a n00b to the whole Anarcho Capitalist/Agorism deal, so I'm not quite as...informed as the others. ^^;
I suppose I'll end off by saying:  Even if you don't agree with the idea, would you at LEAST mind us who don't have unlimited succession from your State to form our own society?

PPS:  http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap13.html (The Other Piece of the Puzzle)
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html (Policing agression)
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap20.html (National Defense)
You could argue that because I don't have a positive solution that it's in your favor, but would just be an appeal to ignorance.
I don't know how to make shoes or grow food or how exactly that's done in a free market either.
Is that justification for handing both functions over to the state?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Again, being there would be a demand for it, why wouldn't there be emergent institutions to do just like, just like in the "Wild" West, or for the Native Americans (see the video on my youtube page).

Because if you do that...it's not really anarchy anymore.  :p

Even if you don't agree with the idea, would you at LEAST mind us who don't have unlimited succession from your State to form our own society?

I wouldn't try to stop you.  Just saying don't be surprised if years down the road, you find yourself with something one could define as a government emerging.  There IS a need for it.  We want a set of standards like property rights, rights to a fair trial and all that because we don't just want mob rule making the rules up as they go along.  A situation from the old west once illustrated this...

Without the rule of law: A wanted gunman is caught by a mob.  They vote 30 to 1 to hang him and so he hangs.

With the rule of law: A wanted gun man is caught by a mob.  They vote 30 to 1 to hang him.  But then the sherrif comes along and says "you can't just hang him, he has a right to a fair trial."  He's taken back to town and is judged by a jury of his peers.

As much as I despise the idea of politicians deciding my rights, I don't want my rights subject to the whims of society either.