Your dream political system

[WhatTheGox]

Also support Anarchocapitalism as the way forward.

[Timetwister]

There is no any perfect political system for every person,No matter how perfect of a political system you would make,there will always be people whom you harm.Some citizens aren't made for any political system whom we call non law abiding citizens,Good for nothing

Who is harmed by anarchocapitalism? Parasites that have to start doing something productive to live?

[Balthazar]

I'd say that anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron.

[gts476]

I'd say that anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron.

thats because you don't understand that anarchy and capatalism are not contradictory terms, they are synomyms.

anarchy is the non iniation of force and volentry free interactions and even you enjoy these benifits every singe day in many of the choices you make.

when you watch a tv show, who makes that choice? you? did anyone force you? anarchy baby!

here is an another example. Women choose who they want to sleep with and rape is illeagle. Is this a bad thing? are you pro rape?

The free choice is an expression of anarchy and the ilegality and moral evil of rape stems from the right of sovernity over ones property (when you consider that a man or woman must have soverenty over their body and be free from the iniation of force! rape in this case is defined as the forceful posession of ones body, which is ones property)

It then follows that as capatalism is the action of volentry trade between two partys, If the trade is volentry then it is free and if it is free it is again anarchic. It is also fair as when making this free choice both partys of the trade must beleive themselves to be betteroff for making the trade, or no trade would occur.

So in reality, anarchy and capatalism are the same thing. Free market capatalism can not exist without absolute property rights, the non iniation of force against a person or property and volentry interactions.

Such a state of affairs would lead to all trades being trades where both partys benifit, and that would be a great produces of wealth and happyness.

Anarchy and Capatalism are the same thing, they are redudent terms, not oxymornic.

[Balthazar]

thats because you don't understand that anarchy and capatalism are not contradictory terms, they are synomyms.

<skipped>

Thats because I perfectly understand that they're contradictory. Money or any other kind of wealth is a source of power by definition. If you have the source of power, then the only thing you need is somebody who will decide to use it for own profit.

Any corporation is very similar to state:

constitution - company's charter;
legislature - assembly of share holders;
government - council of directors;
head of state - chief executive officer;
interior ministry - security service;

and so on. In fact, any corporation it's like a seed of the state.

In case of free market capitalism we have a soil for this seed, and we'll get a competition between many "states" in one society. Due to planning issues some of these corporations will become bankrupt or will merge with others. As the result, eventually we'll see inevitable centralization of wealth which is leading us to corporative dictatorship. Corporative dictatorship means a situation when few monopolies proclaims itself as a new government and this will be the end of so-called anarcho-capitalism.

Type of the resulting regime will depend on internal structure of "the power prize winner" corporation, it could vary from absolute monarchy to direct democracy.

[gts476]

thats because you don't understand that anarchy and capatalism are not contradictory terms, they are synomyms.

<skipped>

This because I perfectly understand that they're contradictory. Money or any other kind of wealth is a source of power by definition. If you have the source of power, then the only thing you need is somebody who will decide to use it for own profit.

Any corporation is very similar to state:

constitution - company's charter;
legislation - assembly of share holders;
government - council of directors;
head of state - chief executive officer;
interior ministry - security service;

and so on. In fact, any corporation it's like a seed of the state.

In case of free market capitalism we have a soil for this seed, and we'll get a competition between many "states" in one society. Due to planning issues some of these corporations will become bankrupt or will merge with others. As the result, eventually we'll see inevitable centralization of wealth which will lead to corporative dictatorship. Corporative dictatorship means a situation when few monopolies proclaims itself as a new government and this will be the end of so-called anarcho-capitalism.

Type of the resulting regime will depend on internal structure of "the power prize winner" corporation, it could vary from absolute monarchy to direct democracy.

1. The corperation is a fiction created by the state and enforced by state laws, AC has no such laws and so there may be no such corperation.

2. A corperation is in no way like a seed of the state. A state has a legal monolopy on the iniation of force against people, there is no coperation on earth that has such a monolopy.

3. There has never been a monolopy such as you have decribed occur in a free market and nor could there due to increasing marginal cost of buying each buisnesses, the cost of which must be passed on to the consumer and wil make you buisness less competative. Any psudo monolopy that exists currently only does so with state protection and laws and is such not a natural monolopy and is in fact a a fascist, mercantilistic, state sponsored enterprise.

4. So corperations such as you decribe may only exist with the sponsorship of the state.

5. No such centralisation of wealth occurs in free markets, as the only way to acrue wealth is to please customers who volentarly trade with you. No please customers, no trade, no wealth. Free markets create greater wealth distribution, not centralisation.

6. Free markets promote compition and drive down profits, no buisness will acrue sufficient wealth as any sector returning super normal profits will attract compition.

You a communist?

Also it is not a source of power it is a store of energy, power is energy per unit time, wages are an expression of power, wealth is a form of energy stored.

[Balthazar]

The corperation is a fiction created by the state and enforced by state laws

%) State laws were written using the same logic as corporate charters, that's why states and corporations have similar structure. Corporation is a typical entity of business activity in any well developed society. Not because of state but because it's a natural order of things. It's not even a sign of capitalism because they exist even under anticapitalist regimes.

AC has no such laws and so there may be no such corperation.

In case if you didn't notice, corporations doesn't care about law too much. Even more, they're writing their own.

A corperation is in no way like a seed of the state.

Please elaborate why do you think so.

A state has a legal monolopy on the iniation of force against people, there is no coperation on earth that has such a monolopy.

State has this monopoly only because it holds on suitable amount of wealth. Wealth is a source of any real power. If you have wealth then you can do virtually anything, otherwise you're nothing because you even won't be able to buy weapons or feed your army.

There has never been a monolopy such as you have decribed occur in a free market and nor could there due to increasing marginal pricing of buisnesses.

There are many different types of monopoly. Some of them are state-created (e.g. radio frequencies regulation), but many others are naturally occurred (e.g. transport infrastructure or water supply).

fascist mercantilistic state sponsored enterprise.

People are greedy and mercantilistic creatures. That's the reason why state is greedy and mercantilistic, because state is formed by people. That's why the communism doesn't work at the current development level of our civilization.

as any sector returning super normal profits will attract compition.

Or cause some assasinations of unwanted competitors. We're not living in the ideal world, remember?

No such centralisation of wealth occurs in free markets, as the only way to acrue wealth is to please customers who volentarly trade with you. No please customers, no trade, no wealth. Free markets create greater wealth distribution, not centralisation.

Tell this to bitfury or eric_chen@elen-tech.com, please.

You a communist?

I'm a realist who have analyzed many real-life examples.