Capitalism >Private Ownership >Freedom to make your own decisions, even if they are bad. >Allocates needs and wants using resources effectively >Greed is the reason to serve the public's needs and wants and the need to innovate to do so. >Caring about your own private property and maintaining it. >Merit over Equality
Communism >Public Ownership >Collective decides what you do, regardless of what you think, with addition of decision making lag >Ignores economics all together >All ambitions to better our selves are lost, and we must help each other before we can help our selves. >Not caring about your assigned personal property, because it is not yours. >Equality over Merit
And frankly to make crony capitalism distinctly different you need a few things. >Government that controls the market in some form (Socialist or Fascist will do) >Have firms be able to manipulate the decision making process of the government. (Bribing Congress) >Government willing to give in and pass policy to benefit your business, agenda, or hurt your competition.
Here are a few traits of Corporatism >Private Ownership >Limited Freedom to make your own decisions, as long as they do not compete too much with an existing firm. >Allocates the needs and wants of the firms through the market and transfer payments (corporate welfare) >Greed no longer serves public interest, rather the interest of the firm and lobbyist. >Wealth Inequality begins rapidly expanding. >Private Property now extends to ideas, that now are legally exclusive to an individual or firm. >Connections over Merit
Corporatism is not capitalism, nor is it communism. It is a mixed system, that breeds corruption and makes owning the government and people the end game for the wealthiest of individuals.
What is the Anarcho Capitalist view of patents and intellectual property ?
Parker Foster
...
Dylan Hernandez
...
Liam Reed
...
Caleb Ortiz
...
Brayden Peterson
Not ancap, but patents and intellectual property is corpararist shit
Chase Perez
Ah of course, the facsist who can't argue and covers up his failures by bloating the thread.
It hinders the free market. How can you make on idea exclusive that someone millions of miles away can come up with independently? Why should you be exclusive to making a good or service when someone can possibly do it more efficiently.
Caleb Sanchez
...
Christian Young
You stupid fuck cartels violate the NAP you have no idea what you are talking about
Ethan Wood
So I can make my own coca cola and sell it in identical cans of coca cola ?
Not disagreeing with the concept just trying to get to the core of it
Blake Lopez
yes
Dylan Carter
produce the patent for the coca cola recipe are you really "not familiar" with the concept of a trade secret
Michael Howard
this is the one that proves you are false flagging as a fascist
Matthew Torres
I'm talking more about the brand/logo not the flavor of the soda itself
Cameron Turner
Yes, that is how RC cola got started. >Grocery story owner gets pissed off at Coca-cola >Makes Coca-cola substitute in basement beneath the shop. >RC cola was born and becomes as popular as Pepsi and Coca-cola in the southern states.
Luis Adams
'Anarcho'-capitalism is an oxymoron and is not a form of anarchism, as anarchism has opposed capitalism and private property in all of its forms. 'Anarcho'-capitalism is better called feudalism.
This makes sense but I am not violating the NAP if I say I am coca cola and sell coca cola with their logo etc and reap the benefits of the millions they pay for advertising
Jaxon Reed
Capitalism:
>Private Ownership of resources that have existed for billions of years >Freedom to work under the heel of a capitalist or starve >Allocates needs based on who can pay the most, rather than actual need >Greed is the reason to serve the public's needs and wants and the need to innovate to do so. >Polluting because nothing matters except your property >Merit (ability to generate profits for capitalists) vs Equality (life is inherently valuable)
Communism:
>Communal "ownership" (no one owns natural resources, they're for everyone) >You and your coworkers decide what to produce and how to run your business together >Uses greed and the market to promote equality >People are free to pursue their personal ambitions as their labour instead of selling their time for pittances >Caring about the land around you because only those who maintain and use it have a right to it.
Connor Sanchez
I'm very pro individual freedom and the free market but i can't see how anarcho capitalism would work. Could anyone red pill me?
Jace Robinson
It wouldn't, you need a state or an entity acting like a state to protect private property (absentee ownership).
Jaxson Reed
Your articles say that it is indeed anarchy since it's in favor of abolition of the state. They dispute the 'capitalism' part. Your authors explain how they are defining capitalism not as a voluntary exchange of transactions; and what OP and everyone else is calling 'anarcho-capitalism' should be called 'anarcho-free-market'. Free-market, according to these writings is not capitalism.
In political theory (some people think) that any form of anarchy-> stateless society is a transitional state. It doesn't last. In which case I get that this could quickly turn into feudalism.
Angel Ross
Capitalism, rich people own everything, including the government. Communism, government owns everything, so the government are the rich people. Grow the Fuck up, your screwed what ever system you are in. Money corrupts every system. Just live your life, do the best you can and stop worrying about this shit. Politics is bullshit.
Mason Sanchez
I suppose lying would violate the NAP.
>Private Ownership of resources that have existed for billions of years And your gonna trade said resources around, to satisfy your needs and wants. >Freedom to work under the heel of a capitalist or starve Half of freedom is the freedom to fail. If the reality of having to use commerce to get your food scares you, you need to remember that you are still an animal. But you are special and civilized one that does not need to prey on others to survive. >Allocates needs based on who can pay the most, rather than actual need Demand is defined who wants and is willing and able to pay. And actually prices are set at the most profitable combination, so lowest firm costs, and the highest prices where most people can buy a good. >Polluting because nothing matters except your property You can sue a firm for polluting if you are affected. Secondly pollution harms the land and laborers. It is inefficient.
>Communal "ownership" (no one owns natural resources, they're for everyone) Can't wait to see the debates from everyone on how to use the same acher of land when they all own it. >>You and your coworkers decide what to produce and how to run your business together Typically Ive noticed that commies refer to them selves as wageslaves, typically people are like this because they have no knowlege or skills that would allow them to do anything but unskilled labor. I would be impressed if they can come up with an effective production plan when they can hardly do anything.
>Uses greed and the market to promote equality. How is equality a good thing, why should we promote it?
>People are free to pursue their personal ambitions as their labour instead of selling their time for pittances Last time I checked it was personal ambitions that get businesses started and to achieve personal goals.
Chase Cox
>dude I know we just abolished the state but I'm just gonna steal from you some more lol
Sebastian Moore
I think they are a good thing. If I invest tens of millions into research & development of a new drug and then after all this some chink company copies my idea and sells it for 1/20th the price why would I waste time researching?
The ONLY role of government is to protect property, and Intellectual property is just as important to protect as physical property.
Jayden Davis
Intellectual property is possible in a lolbertarian society depending on who you talk to. Frankly, i think short term parents are healthier than no parents or long term patents. I don't believe that people will pay for a company that does consistently good research imo
Kevin Ward
Basically the ideas of non-agression comes from the observation that people generally don't try to go around and attack random people for no reason. And generally those who are able to defend them selves are able to deter crime.
Then there is the observation that government is inherently inefficient. 1. Lag, the government has to to take time to observe problems, come to an agreement, and pass policy. 2. The governments have to rely on collecting taxes from the indivudal. Even if the money collected went towards something like a school or hospital it may not be exactly what the public demands. So by leaving the money in the hands of the individual they are better able to satisfy there needs and wants more efficiently. 3. Government can impose restrictions on firms in the form of Copyrights, Tariffs, Quotas, Anti-Trust Law , Regional Exclusivity Laws, Wage ceilings and floors, and discriminatory taxes that hurt other firms.
With these two observations we can come to the conclusion that 1. Government does not make us civilized. And that 2. Government does not make our lives much better.
Elijah Davis
>violate the NAP
and who is there to protect you?
Lucas Wood
>>Private Ownership of resources that have existed for billions of years private ownership is the only way to settle disputes over scarce resources, and all conflict arises from scarcity >>Freedom to work under the heel of a capitalist or starve Having the freedom to not be stolen from and engage in voluntary transactions isn't "under the heel", sorry you hate your dad >>Allocates needs based on who can pay the most, rather than actual need yes, because otherwise the market would not equilibrate and there would be shortages >>Greed is the reason to serve the public's needs and wants and the need to innovate to do so. Nobody is stopping you from committing acts of charity. Socialist systems force you to commit them, which aren't acts of charity by definition >>Polluting because nothing matters except your property sue or boycott the polluter, protecting property doesn't mean only property matters >>Merit (ability to generate profits for capitalists) vs Equality (life is inherently valuable) Equality and freedom are inherently opposed. You can choose between equality and poverty or freedom and prosperity.
>captcha: Moron BRIDGE fitting
private protection agencies, your landlord, self defense, friends and family...
Ayden Cook
>Money corrupts every system. If you remove the system there is nothing to corrupt.
I would agree with this. Copyright originally didn't last that long. When it was first inroduced it was just long enough to make a good profit, but it was Disney who lobbied to extend it to up to 95 years after the creators death so that way they can keep Mickey Mouse under there name. Pic related.
Your self. You can have any weapon you want in an Ancap.
Ayden Hill
Cartels do have all those, yet violence still happens. This whole NAP this sounds like bullshit. What's the difference between ancap and anarchy? In both cases there is no government to protect basic rights.
Evan Peterson
The cartels can also have any weapon and defend themselves. But they can also kill other cartels.
James Kelly
anti-corporatism is our strongest and most accessible point it's crazy we never push that as hard as the other stuff
Nathan Evans
Yeah, I agree you need a military, police and justice to keep your people safe but I think everything else should be privatised
Cooper Diaz
The NAP doesn't mean that crime and murder wont happen. it just is means that you should not attack others because they will likely be armed an not afraid to retaliate immediately.
Warlords and Cartels still pic on the weakest and most vulnrible groups, even when government is present. They operate on the black market and can get pretty much any weapon even if the government says its illegal. In an ancap you can better your odds against them by having access to the same weapons the cartels could get.
Cameron Thompson
A group of people, like a neighborhood, can group together and fund private security for themselves if it is necessary.
Christopher Ortiz
Just because you CAN own the same weapons, doesn't mean you will. That's why I'm a minarchist, the government's role should be to enforce the NAP and protect individual rights. At the moment the Mexican government is openly allowing cartels to operate.
Chase Bennett
I completely agree that the government tends to be corrupt, inefficient and immoral but wouldn't any type of anarchy degenerate into tyranny then into some form of slavery or feudalism (because why would the strong pay or work out a deal to get something if they can just take it ). After that I feel like you would either have a lot of small backward states or 1 feudal lord would kill all the others and become a dictator. Not to mention other nations' potentally attacking or influencing your unorganised people. I believe in the NAP but I also know most people don't. How would you solve theese problems?
Wyatt Kelly
The problem with ancap is that as soon as these voluntary individuals come together to create actions or establish rules, they become a state. Not to mention, all of this is dwarfed by the fact that the NAP is nit guaranteed in any circumstance by any authority, meaning any larger force in opposition to the NAP can violate it at will.
Caleb Barnes
Yeah but why would the private protect them instead of robbing them or making them their serfs? And how would you stop other nations from attacking you? I'm not sure private security would help there
Camden Anderson
The victims don't have those because the cartels suppress such activities. In an AnCap society you can't pull that shit without having the entire town lighting you up with funs
Angel Turner
Sounds like spontanous order (Anarchism)
Connor Murphy
Depends on who you talk to, but I think it should be enforced exclusively through DRM and other private means.
The big thing is patents. Patent races are basically a gamble to enter because there's a guarantee you can't recoup your costs if you lose. You shouldn't be able buy an idea, then sit on it, do nothing with it, and sue people for patent infringement, and the only way you can totally prevent this is by abolishing patents.
Additionally, I have an logical/ethical problem with someone owning an idea. It doesn't make sense to patent mathematics. But if there are some ideas you can't patent, where do you draw the line? It depends on individual whim, and isn't universal truth. Karmarkar's algorithm is one great example of something that shouldn't have been patented.
You might ask "but doesn't this cause externalities?" At first glance, it appears that you need patent enforcement because the inventor of an idea needs to be reimbursed, and it's unfair for everyone in the world to benefit from an idea without paying for it. However, the fact is that everyone benefits from ideas that aren't theirs all the time.
You have the option to buy a thousand warm blankets, but there's no need to extract money from everyone who has that option, even if they benefit from merely having that option, whether they exercise that it or not.
>He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. -- Jefferson
Ryan Hill
I'm not an ancap, but I believe that the duration of copyright needs to be reduced profoundly to foster capitalism and diffusion of innovations. Basically, to such an extent that it benefits the little entrepreneur rather than corporations.
