Anarchism: Is it the Best Route for the US?

Of course.

The United States really doesn't fit into any of those three economic definitions. Your statement is a non-sequitur. not fitting those certain definitions does not prove that capitalism has a "gradient."

Our market is not controlled by private owners, due to the amount of regulation and money thrown around. So no, our system is not what you would call capitalism.

I'm afraid we cannot, I'm against interference in contracts between private individuals.

 

It is either capitalism or it is not capitalism. It cannot be both capitalism and not capitalism simultaneously. It can have aspects of capitalism and aspects of socialism, but, per its identity it still is not capitalism.

The 'mainly on private individuals' is incorrect. Capitalism requires all the means of production be privately controlled.

 

Without basic economic regulation our economy turns into a game of monopoly. I don't know about you but i'd rather not have 99.999999999% of the world's capital in the hands of one person. The survival of the fittest mantra can only take you so far until the new generation inherits the misdoings of the predecessor. Eventually you're looking at a revolution or worse.

Bottom line is a purist economic systems are a nono

 

Restricting interactions between consenting individuals is immoral.

 

I'm not talking about the upper end regulation in corporate conquest (At least not at this moment). Obviously well trained business executives are well trained economic soul eaters who will act in their best interest and try their best to not get fucked over. I'm talking about the well educated taking advantage of the lower and middle classes. Whilst these A B C and D are fighting each other for market share the minimum wage slave is slowly descending into poverty.

I'd like to see you explain how someone who is born into poverty without financial aid through socialist programs can even feed themselves after a few decades of purist capitalism. Sure there may not be any monopolies but all of the currency in circulation (within a rounding error) will be in the pockets of those fortunate enough to be born into lucrative property.

 

Yes because well trained leeches called politicians would never dare act in their own self-interest. They're obviously super concerned with the welfare of the average citizen. Better to continue let them make decisions backed by unimaginable force.

Those companies fighting for market share is a great thing, it lowers cost to the consumer and improve the general quality of the product or service.

I have an idea. I need people to make it happen. I'll pay you a price that we've both agreed upon. Seems like slavery to me.

How about the US citizen? You are not allowed to leave without masters permission. You are not allowed to own property without masters permission. You are not allowed to work without masters permission. You are not allowed to travel without masters permission, etc. That is truly slavery.

By getting a job? By providing a product or service that people desire? To have a hobby that people will pay for? By being an artist? By learning a skill? Do I need to go on?

Barriers for entry in the marketplace are dramatically lowered without government intervention. If anything it'd be easier than ever to start a competitive business or find a job etc.

What is it that liberals are throwing around right now? 1% of Americans own 1/3 of the wealth? There is only room from improvement from this, as the politicians wouldn't be able to enable monopolies through legislation.

 

^Posted this awhile ago and never got a response


Anyways, more stuff to add to the discussion here:

The default for emerging human society WAS anarchy. Government evolved from anarchy, it's just the natural social order of things (similar to supply/demand, you can't really fight it)

 

I didn't read le OP.

"Having kings is just the natural order of things, we can't fight it"

 

I don't really like the US government to be honest but what I do like and what I am comfortable with is speaking to american people. They aren't rude at all, they're friendly, most of the people answer you with a smile but they government is taking it too far. They want to be the most powerful country in the planet and they won't get it because its simply impossible. China and Russia won't tolerate that. Anarchy is a good and a bad thing but idk, depending on you, people are different, some may like some may dislike it.

 

You're putting words into his mouth. Government can be many things, kings, councils, chiefs, autonomous bodies. If you don't have one big government you'll have hundreds of small bands. Humans gravitate towards living in hierarchical groups that have tangible command chains and leadership. Not every person is a rugged individualist, in fact most people would prefer having a leader to blame things on. Leadership is always a scapegoat. Don't have a job? It's the governments fault. Kids poorly educated? Government's fault. Hooked on meth? Government's fault. It is the nature of most humans and of society, because there is strength in numbers and people love to have something to blame their problems on.

 

Yeah i agree. :laugh:

 

I don't think that a society can be successful without a governing body. Why don't we shoot our neighbors when they stress us out? Laws. If there were no laws, it would be chaos.