Libertarianism claims that money is an emergent market phenomenon derived from just voluntary exchange, and that capitalist profits emerge from money when entrepreneurs create value for society, and are therefore also just.
Their entire theory is the state merely creates waste, like a parasite, and abolishing the state will allow the emergent "free market" to operate optimally.
This is all totally wrong.

Money is not in fact emergent from organic trade. Systems of barter allowed for informal, tacit arrangements where debts didn't have to be settled with precision, which is the function money provides.
The only time precise debt settlement was needed was with the weregild, the blood money to buy out of a family feud. This weregild concept was extended to pay off warlords in the form of protection money, which then became taxes.
With the introduction of the state and taxes, money finally became universally valuable. This in fact increased trade beyond the issuing state's political control, but the value of money was premised on it being redeemable for taxes at the end of the day.

Pre-money was also protection money, but more informally within local class structures, trade between distant wealthy petty chiefs.

1/3

>>512230668 (OP)
Wealth is not moral or just under property theory. This is a lie.

Anglo-Saxon property theory divides a tribes wealth into personal estates and the commons. This is in contrast to state communism bronze age agrarianism. Even so, within Anglo-Saxon property rights, the establishment of household estate wealth depends on an interrelationship between the private estate and the commons. Men provide common defense to the Anglo-Saxons rights - a commons in itself - and the general commons of the tribe.

The issue is that wealth needs to be defended. Any wealth that exceeds what an individual man could produce with his own labor becomes the target of other men who can use their labor to steal it. You have to be able to personally defend your own wealth.
Anglo-Saxon morality combats brigandry through collective defense, but this would break down if one guy in the tribe is massively rich and enforces shitty exploitive usury or landlord fees with a permanent game theory advantage.

Lockean capitalist wealth is Jewish AF, and has no moral basis.

2/3

>>512230683
Private wealth is not "property" and it's not just under entrepreneurial merit. It's a privilege the state extends to oligarchs - defending, establishing, enforcing their wealth - and in turn the oligarchs provide unified support to the state.
In fact, it takes national debt tied to taxation power to create the "debt treadmill" that forces the entire economy to "keep up" or lose value. Capitalism as we know it depends fundamentally on the state, and there's no anarcho-capitalist world without the state. Private wealth capitalism won't function without the state, without coercive taxation of the labor class which is made desperate for capital through a permanent game theory disadvantage.

An alternative would be something called commons or community equity capitalism. Where capital is owned by community groups, for the benefit of the community, where covenants manage the divide between how that wealth is spent on the commons versus being retained for private exchange by households.
These communities then must cooperate with each other to do investment, and risk is with the "lender" not with the borrower when it comes to investment, making capitalism slower and more conservative, but resilient to the pressure of the "debt treadmill" and ultimately more value driven.

Debt capitalism forces cost cutting. Equity capitalism forces quality improvements. All value in market economics comes from either cutting costs or improving quality.

3/3

There's no such thing as "anarcho-capitalism". There's no debt-wealth capitalism without a state.

Libertarian theory is wrong because Rothbard never accounted for human violent action in his theory. Theft incurs a cost but gains a reward. Accumulated wealth must be defended at cost. This integrates into a united political economy.
There's no free market of exchange with abstract capital that can exist on mere principle.

Having capital means having a game theory advantage that lets a person wield purchasing power in the market without having to prove entrepreneurial merit. Also, not all profits are purely the result of creating value. Mature industries don't create that much new value and aren't as profitable, meaning that it's NECESSARY to establish monopoly power to stabilize and rationalize markets.
There's no such thing as debt-capital industry without a necessary progressive era of government involvement and "mixed" economics.

Not one single person with wealth in this economy has just rights to it.
Simply because of the Federal Reserve making it so that owners of capital have an advantageous access to newly created capital, which becomes inflation and increased future debt burden by the time it reaches the majority.
If you're on the "side" that is outpacing inflation, you are basically in the camp of the oligarchs that benefit from the Federal Reserve.
This is what your dumbass can't sort out when it comes to market economics.

No "voluntary exchange" can overcome the fact that ALL exchange in this market is corrupted by the Federal Reserve, whose intervention is so universal and so massive, it obliterates any kind of just or legitimate claim to wealth.

What I've realized is that you have to tie private property to an reciprocal obligation to some commons. That investment capital has to be something that is owned within this joint obligation and serves the balance between commons and property that has already been established within the community.

This is the only way to do non-slave non-Jewish industrial economics.

You don't understand industrial organization. I think this is an obscure discipline mostly taught only in American MBA schools during the 1970s-1990s. It's the economics of semi-monopolistic competition and how a very diverse and robust industrial economy designed to operate with less government micro management would structure.

Industrial structure (how many companies, and how market share is distributed) is defined by the rationalized market structure. There have to be predictable prices, consumer markets, costs of capital. This allows businesses to plan, and most importantly, affects competitive behavior. Businesses decide to remain within a niche or expand their market share. To become a new entrant or not. This REQUIRES stable and predictable market structures.

National debt creates a sort of metronome or timing belt that anchors predictability and allows for companies to determine the structure of industry.

I'll tell you why this is necessary. Without this feature, capital is inherently self destructive. You can't remain profitable without remaining competitive, and competition destroys profitability. Another paradox is that economic value (profit) is created with efficiency improvements, but overall this causes deflation and lowers the value of the products you're selling.

This is because debt based capitalism in a "free market" without government help doesn't actually function from a technical perspective. Profitability and competition only apply in growing or new industrial sectors. Mature sectors can only preserve wealth by cooperating to preserve value.

Ideally, the balance between competition and cooperation will be managed by community based equity, where the incentive to cooperate already exists because the structure of decision making values the commons equally to private property (colloquially speaking).

1/2

>>512230884
Without commons capitalism, the 20th century required central banking and the debt treadmill to basically permanently disadvantage labor against capital. Labor cannot be allowed to save enough money to tell employers to "fuck off" when employers are giving undesirable conditions, otherwise the rationalized market structure would fail.

So, central banks force the entire economy to "keep up" which gives all the negotiating power to established semi-monopoly industries, and solves the game theory problem that would have to otherwise be solved through community cooperation.
Here, the oligarchs and monopolists are cooperating to keep their advantage over everyone else. So it's still a cooperative solution. It's government enforcing by violence a socialism for the rich.

2/2

Too good for daytime /pol/ retards bots and shills. This thread kills in the middle of the night.

didn‘t read, keep spamming though