Anonymous
10/17/2025, 8:01:17 PM
No.150879973
>>150879160
>In history there aren't any examples of this
The Icelandic Commonwealth from 930-1262 was a stateless society with no executive government. It operated through a decentralized legal system based on voluntary chieftainships that could be bought and sold as private property.
>Capitalism without a state would just become feudalism
Not only are you now conflating coercive hierarchy with voluntary association, but you fundamentally misunderstand feudalism. Feudalism emerged within a statist or proto-statist framework, where land titles derived from conquest or royal decree. Feudalism is more like an example of pre-capitalist statism.
>Capitalism always has a state
Historically, yes, capitalism has coexisted with states, but it doesn't mean it requires them. The same could be said of science, art, or religion. Entanglement doesn't prove ontological dependence.
>Money is coercive
If I offer you $20 for your book, you are free to say no. Your preference to keep the book or accept the money is yours alone. Coercion involves threats of violence, capitalism operates through mutual benefit.
>Capitalists dont
Yes they do, because unsustainable businesses fail. The idea that they "just move on" unscathed is fostered by state intervention: limited liability, bailouts, subsidies, and central bank liquidity. The idea that only working people in their communities have a reason to care is a romantic collectivist fallacy. Many capitalists, like local shop owners or family businesses, are deeply embedded in their communities. State-managed enterprises are notorious for what you're describing precisely because they lack profit signals and ownership stakes.
All the waste and cruelty you talk about comes from the absence of clear property rights, which the state constantly undermines through eminent domain, inflation, and regulation.
>In history there aren't any examples of this
The Icelandic Commonwealth from 930-1262 was a stateless society with no executive government. It operated through a decentralized legal system based on voluntary chieftainships that could be bought and sold as private property.
>Capitalism without a state would just become feudalism
Not only are you now conflating coercive hierarchy with voluntary association, but you fundamentally misunderstand feudalism. Feudalism emerged within a statist or proto-statist framework, where land titles derived from conquest or royal decree. Feudalism is more like an example of pre-capitalist statism.
>Capitalism always has a state
Historically, yes, capitalism has coexisted with states, but it doesn't mean it requires them. The same could be said of science, art, or religion. Entanglement doesn't prove ontological dependence.
>Money is coercive
If I offer you $20 for your book, you are free to say no. Your preference to keep the book or accept the money is yours alone. Coercion involves threats of violence, capitalism operates through mutual benefit.
>Capitalists dont
Yes they do, because unsustainable businesses fail. The idea that they "just move on" unscathed is fostered by state intervention: limited liability, bailouts, subsidies, and central bank liquidity. The idea that only working people in their communities have a reason to care is a romantic collectivist fallacy. Many capitalists, like local shop owners or family businesses, are deeply embedded in their communities. State-managed enterprises are notorious for what you're describing precisely because they lack profit signals and ownership stakes.
All the waste and cruelty you talk about comes from the absence of clear property rights, which the state constantly undermines through eminent domain, inflation, and regulation.