/liberty/ - Liberty

>>61158

>Why is a capitalist necessary?

You're asking why is the division of labor and comparative advantage necessary, basic things which you should have gotten acquainted with already. The "Capitalist" manages the calculation and allocation of capital to where the market demands them. Calling the use of capital, previously used and created legitimately by one person's labor, "absentee ownership" is rhetoric aiming at agitation.

Here's an example:

Person A, by the frugality of his labor has managed to produce more than he consumes on average, or created an extra tool. By his labor he can now lend use of his extra produce to the benefit of someone else. Person A is now owed rent for the use of his additional produce. His produce is being consumed by someone else, or tools undergone wear and tear, requiring maintenance (by him if he hasn't sold them). Both A and everyone else engaging in trade with him benefit. A has found a way to extend the marginal benefit of his labor beyond subsisting. Even more, the increased productivity of everyone else elevates the common rate of profit collectively.

Without the incentive to satisfy a need (supply someone with means to produce more) person A might as well live a primitive life of bare subsistence and abstain from trade lest he wants to be charitable.

Now on more specifically why is an employer "needed". The employer being someone who (presuming was an honest man) has acquired greater skill in a sphere that the majority lacks, engages in undertaking the risk of managing the allocation of capital. Capital that he has had to build upon by satisfying demand and has not merely seized. He may as well be a far better cook than any of his employees in his restaurant, (which is the natural case), but he finds greater gain in doing something else that they can not. The "Capitalist" (as if employees have no capital at all) must pay for services rendered on time, even if his decisions had incurred losses. He must pay for the maintenance and supply of all the tools out of his pocket.

It wouldn't be "better" to replace people who manage capital allocation for the same reason it wouldn't be better to fire a professional translator for a native speaker that does a bit of work on the side of his general employment. Specialization usually prevails over general ability. Both theory and experience point so.

>>61164

Here is some additional information, because absolutely nobody but Marx and some Socialists agree with his definition of Capital. The Austrian is relatively mainstream now, if not completely.

https://www.mises.org/library/positive-theory-capital

>>61164

And here is a more detailed video explaining comparative advantage.

>>61164

>>61166

>>61167

That's all I have for now to answer your economic questions. I know there are anons better suited to discuss legal systems, so I'm leaving the rest to them. Economics is what I prefer to focus on the most. I do wonder though how exactly did you ever become an AnCap in the first place without knowing even this?

>>61164

That doesn't really answer my question. What I'm saying is why is it more desirable to have a capitalist as opposed to the worker's themselves organizing the industry substituting the managerial qualities of a capitalist with fellow workers that would act as organizers and substituting the financial need for a capitalist with a mutual credit banking system that would finance co-operative industries.

>Not to be a nit picking asshole, but that's extremely debatable

You're not that's exactly what I wanted but there are a few problems I see with your argument. Your saying the "state" in and of itself is illegitimate by default not by virtue of its actions.

There were plenty of rebellions against the state in its early years however these were still a minority of the population that rebelled. Many people may have been displeased with the government but not many objected to the existence of government all together and thus granted a certain degree of absentee land ownership over their respective property.

>The fact that they don't act in any manner with it.

They offered protection and a legal system over all of it in exchange for absentee ownership is my point. There's no difference between the state paying people to go mix their labor with a piece if land in exchange for ownership of the land and a state doing the same thing.

None of these answers really addressed my questions and issues I was getting at so I'm going to try and ask a different question to hopefully get my point across.

The state dissolves immediately, everything that was previously state owned is bought by the major banks and tax dollars are re-imbursed.

Why are the banks not a state?

>>61170

>why is it more desirable to have a capitalist as opposed to the worker's themselves organizing the industry substituting the managerial qualities of a capitalist with fellow workers that would act as organizers and substituting the financial need for a capitalist with a mutual credit banking system that would finance co-operative industries.

I'd hate to rely upon consequentialist arguments but look at the world around you. We live in a world where varying degrees of free market economics apply. If co-ops were more profitable, they would be the primary model used today. The capitalist usually does a lot of very meaningful work organizing the business and it's simpler for one person to raise capital and make all the decisions. Many people are happy to punch a clock, do what they're told, get a paycheck, and not make any meaningful decisions into how the business is run. I can't imagine most would be interested in learning co-op business strategies, much less taking a risk in organizing such a system.

>>61172

This is a "but who will build the roads?" tier argument and I'm really surprised you'd posit this if you were truly an ex-ancap. Rothbard already dissected this decades ago. I wish I had the relevant passage from The Ethics of Liberty.

>everything that was previously state owned is bought by the major banks

This is not a valid transaction. The state did not have legitimate ownership of this land, so why should it be honored after it is dissolved?

>>61175

The reason why co-ops aren't the dominant business model is because of the various barriers of entry brought on by the state and capitalism.

Why doesn't the state have legitimate ownership over the land? And even if it doesn't what should happen to the property owned by the state? Why wouldn't the transaction be valid? If someone steals a dollar from you buys a candy bar with it why wouldn't me giving you a dollar and taking the candy bar be valid?

>>61175

>The capitalist usually does a lot of very meaningful work

What does the capitalist do that a fellow worker or the worker themselves can't? Why would people prefer to receive 10 an hour when they could make much more in a co-operative fashion? If people are willing to work harder and do more for more many in a capitalist system why wouldn't they in a co-op?

>>61180

Technically, manager, capitalist and entrepreneur are different functions, so I'll instead say what the worker doesn't have to do thanks to them: He doesn't carry the risk of a bad sale of the products (his wage gets paid no matter what); he is paid ahead of time, before anything is sold (remember his time preference); he doesn't have to worry himself with management of the business, nor with sales; he doesn't have to pay upfront to get the capital necessary for his work, instead he pays nothing to work on the capital of someone else; related ot that, he isn't left to sit on the costs of the business if it fails, whereas the capitalist will probably have to pay a loan back no matter what, or may have to sell his capital at a loss.

If the workers were willing to do all these tasks and carry all these risks, then they could work in a cooperative, no problem. In fact, such cooperatives exist. Some seem to work just fine, but by and large, that system has never become dominant. In all fairness, there may be some legal entry barriers, but ancaps want to take those down, too.

>>61180

I already answered that in sufficient length. Either read or go away. Ignoring answers is how you get neglected. Either point how they are not relevant or why you think they wrong or begone.

>>61181

Don't indulge him any further than this. He's had that answered already.

>>61185

Your answer doesn't make sense. You listed things the capitalist does which I agree they do do a lot of things. The issue is they don't do anything the worker's can't or aren't willing to do. Why does it make sense for a capitalist to be willing to do all of those things but the workers won't?

Think about your own job whatever it is you do if you are a worker and you're not self employed or a business owner. Would you be willing to cooperate in decision making with other workers for an equitable share of the profit? I know I would.

>>61261

>The issue is they don't do anything the worker's can't or aren't willing to do. Why does it make sense for a capitalist to be willing to do all of those things but the workers won't?

The workers could do a co-op on all these task that the capitalist does in theory I guess. However, here's the thing, the wage you make off the co-op is purely based upon the markets reaction, were as if you where working for a Capitalist, your wage would be guaranteed, even when the business is doing bad. In a co-op when the business is failing, there probably wouldn't be enough money to go around ( that is if you make profits).

Its a less risky to work for Capitalist than it is to be in a co-op.

But that all comes down to personal preference. Do you want your wage to be guaranteed or do you want a wage that is fluctuating.

>>61261

Workers can already do that if they so choose. They can set up shop with each other as nothing prevents them from doing so. The issue is that it is not mandated upon them to do just that. Leftist ideologies always want to issue a mandate upon the whole instead of allowing people to operate organically.

>>61261

>The issue is they don't do anything the worker's can't or aren't willing to do

The workers can attempt doing them. It is marginally inefficient to do them compared to doing what they do best. They can start a coop if they are so sure they can do better collectively. Most people choose not to. So yes, they aren't all willing to do it.

>Would you be willing to cooperate in decision making with other workers for an equitable share of the profit?

No. The majority of my colleagues are incompetent. I already don't agree with my employer that we should all make the same, but it's up to him to judge. The losses that will be incurred from that venture will outstrip anything I could gain. I'm not going to share the risk and critical decisions with so many people that neither work as hard as I, nor are of equal skill, nor can spend even one day without initiating internal intrigue. They don't deserve an equal share of anything I make.

>>61262

Guaranteed wage can be covered by a mutual credit bank which is what mutualists have been advocating for since Proudhon.

>>61264

The talk of equal share is my point. My point is equitable share. You're doing more work, better work you should be compensated for that.

>>61266

>mutual credit bank

That could also work.

But in order to actually have money in the bank account you would need you make profits. Which is still pretty risky when trying to start a new business. Also you might want to be careful what investments go into the business. If you invest a large amount of money and you lose is all, you better hope the business doesn't start failing.

And you also got to worry about theft as well as competition.

>>61270

I don't think you understand what I meant. The mutual credit bank would substitute the need for a capitalist class, the bank would finance the various industries needed to provide for society.

>>61272

Interest from loans would be their means of compensation

>>61271

>The mutual credit bank would substitute the need for a capitalist class, the bank would finance the various industries needed to provide for society

So a central bank?

>>61275

Depending on how you define central bank.

>>61276

I think I would rather want market to finance industries rather than monopoly.

>>61277

What monopoly? There can be several financial institutions to satisfy different needs of different industries that replace the capitalist class. Why is it desirable for one person or a group of shareholders to finance an industry as opposed to a bank which serves the people?

>>61278

>as opposed to a bank which serves the people?

>This institution serves the people because that's what it says in the charter!

>They'll ignore the incentive to abuse their economic power because these pieces of paper say they have to.

>What could possibly go wrong?

>>61279

If one bank abuses their power why wouldn't the industry choose to conduct business with another bank?

>>61278

>Why is it desirable for individuals to finance an industry as opposed to a central entity which serves the people?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA The same argument can literally be applied to government.

Also Shareholders are people! Shareholders usually fund company that are doing good in the market place, which mean that company is already serving the people. The Mutual bank is nothing more than an unnecessary middle man. Shouldn't individual decide what companies should be funded rather than a central mutual bank?

>>61281

There would be multiple mutual banks? Not really mutual now is it?

>>61282

You've made my point and you don't even realize it.

>>61283

The mutual implies that the institution doesn't operate of profit but for the compensation of the workers.

>>61284

What you're not getting is that the state functions in an identical manner to a landlord through absentee land ownership. The issue is that you have to demonstrate that the property is justly acquired.

What's the difference between someone charging rent and a state? If you don't want to live in an area with a state then you should just leave is the same argument as telling someone else to move and build their own house.

Your argument which is completely valid rests upon the presupposition that the property is justly acquired in the first place.

>>61285

>doesn't operate of profit but for the compensation of the workers

And those are different things?

>>61287

Yes, to put it in simple terms it works like this. A business has one boss and ten workers and generates 3000 in profit a day. The workers each receive 100 a day and the boss gets 2000. I argue that it's better for the workers to receive 300 a day and remove the boss.

Everywhere you look workers are the ones actually creating things we need for a society. Hypothetically speaking if all bosses and capitalists disappeared the workers cans still do work. If workers don't come to work nothing gets created and society will not function.

>>61285

>You've made my point and you don't even realize it.

How?

Also, explain to me how does a mutual bank decide which companies deserve finance? via vote?

>The mutual implies that the institution doesn't operate of profit but for the compensation of the workers.

>no profit motive

>Its all good will

You can't be serious.

>>61288

>Yes, to put it in simple terms it works like this. A business has one boss and ten workers and generates 3000 in profit a day. The workers each receive 100 a day and the boss gets 2000. I argue that it's better for the workers to receive 300 a day and remove the boss.

1. This is where competition comes in. Employer would have a incentive to pay their worker better because somebody else is doing it.

2. Wage is set by the market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQc2YAbyI-k

>>61288

>Everywhere you look workers are the ones actually creating things we need for a society. Hypothetically speaking if all bosses and capitalists disappeared the workers cans still do work. If workers don't come to work nothing gets created and society will not function.

This is coming across as another typical socialist argument which solely relies upon a sharp distinction between worker and capitalist, when in reality there is no sharp division. Workers are constantly moving up the ladder by starting their own companies in which to compete against their fellow employers. There is no static social caste system. Also, to suggest that a boss does not "work" or does nothing important for a company is asinine, as many corporations have had their destiny either rise or fall based simply upon the change of a CEO regardless of how its employees performed.

>>61292

All of which is irrelevant to the point. The point is workers create everything for society and create value, capitalist extract value from this labor. Yes the capitalist does things, the point is that there isn't anything a capitalist does that the workers can't do themselves.

>>61288

>Everywhere you look workers are the ones actually creating things we need for a society. Hypothetically speaking if all bosses and capitalists disappeared the workers cans still do work. If workers don't come to work nothing gets created and society will not function.

Welp, I guess that kills entrepreneurial incentive. There's no point in creating something since i'm barely going to be making any benefits off it anyway.

>>61293

Who are these "workers" you speak of? Identify them as being a separate social caste. After all, you made the claim so the burden of proof rests on you to show this distinction.

>>61295

the people that get paid wages to produce things and provide services

>>61295

read this

https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2014/10/28/is-class-real-some-empirical-contributions-from-econophysics

>>61287

they charge enough money to pay their operating costs (including for the workers) and nothing more

>>61290

But they're still paying less than the workers produce.

>>61302

There is no guarantee that what the worker produces would even sale. Hence payed wage, product sold or not.

>>61303

We keep going in circles with this that's the point of a mutual credit bank to cover the potential loss in an industry. Besides the capitalist takes the risk what's the difference between workers or capitalist takes the risk?

>>61293

>>61296

By your definition, the capitalist is also a worker. He gets paid wages for providing a service. Yes, the wages that he gets paid come out of his own pocket, but that's an irrelevant distinction. The capitalist provides a service by making available the equipment, tools, and raw materials needed to work, providing a space to work in, directing the workers' labour towards a specific goal, and, like >>61303 said, he shoulders the risk of whether their efforts are successful or not, and pays them a stable wage regardless.

All of those things can be done by the workers themselves, except for the last one, and since you insist that the capitalist is an overall drain on the workers, it obviously can't be that important (or even desirable at all). With that established, I have to ask: why would anyone ever work for an employer? Co-operatives can and do exist, so why doesn't everyone work in a co-operative? The start-up costs are the same as those of a traditional company, if not even lower from the absence of an evil capitalist skimming off the top. Why, it's almost as if people want to just turn up, do the work, and get paid, without having to worry about finding the cheapest raw materials, doing market research, negotiating with stores to get their product on the shelves, and so on and so forth…

>>61304

Since when do banks cover anyone for potential business losses? Providing start-up funds for a new co-op is one thing, but how can they shield workers from risk and not immediately go bankrupt? You haven't really addressed the issue of your mutual bank(s) simply becoming the new capitalist class instead of replacing it, either.

>Besides the capitalist takes the risk what's the difference between workers or capitalist takes the risk?

Would you mind translating this question into English, please?

>>61293

>there isn't anything a capitalist does that the workers can't do themselves.

Likewise, the capitalist could run a one man business. Why does he need workers? He could do everything himself, couldn't he? The same argument applies for why the capitalist needs workers as to why the workers need a capitalist.

>>61304

>what's the difference between workers or capitalist takes the risk?

It's much easier to make bold decisions when 1) it's 100% your money you're dealing with and 2) you have the only power in the decision making process. Having to reach consensus among many interested parties would likely result in more cautious decision making, making the business less competitive in the long run.

>>61304

It just sounds like a terrible idea. The risk is likely to outstrip the losses, most are going to only withdraw rather than deposit. Those coops will be competing against each other unless you want the quality of service to hit rock bottom. It makes even less sense for them to have mutual insurance while competing. Without interest and profit for the ones managing the fund it worsens even more. The larger the coop the more impossible it becomes to manage it. Without someone entirely dedicated to managing capital allocation the whole thing becomes even less organized. You're placing a cap on growth and removing incentives to improve. It's just a terrible, terrible idea and is reasonably not wide spread. You can do it if you absolutely hate the thought of having a boss. It is inferior in every way otherwise. In theory and practice.

>>61309

outstrip the profits *

>>61306

Yeah, okay, I read the article and it's a whole lot of nothing. What point are you trying to make? When I said that "the capitalist is also a worker", I was already arguing from within the capitalist-worker dichotomy that you lot hold so dear (since any other approach is always met with autistic shrieking). My point still stands: the capitalist is paid in exchange for providing a service, just like the worker is. He doesn't just sit around contributing nothing. The capitalist, by any semantic definition, is both a capitalist and a worker. The worker, on the other hand, is a worker but not a capitalist; this is why they earn less. They can become capitalists if they wish, but the vast majority do not. They can use their own money to start a business of their own, and then hey presto, they're a capitalist. If they lack the resources to go it alone, they can partner with others, or even start a co-op (as mentioned earlier). By putting forward their own resources, and deciding their own course of action, the worker is now also performing the role of the capitalist. In this scenario, they actually would be getting "the full value of their labour", and yet most people do not do this. They remain exclusively workers, because trying is hard, success is never guaranteed, and they prefer to just sell their labour at whatever the going rate is, and sink into a routine of turn up, do work, get paid, go home.

I know that your standard reply would be to say that I didn't read the article properly, or didn't understand it, or whatever, so let's skip that part and get to the fun bit: your article is absolute trash. It's a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit that LARPs as "empirical", but makes no effort at all to provide any kind of evidence to support its theory. The whole article rests its argument on a single paper ("Statistical mechanics of money" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko), and only references a handful of other works for the sake of flavour. This paper is even worse than the article. Dragulescu and Yakovenko draw a lot of pretty pictures graphs of Boltzmann-Gibbs distributions, and for each one they do a creative writing piece about how this variable represents this part of an economy, and that parameter represents that part, and so on, but they never use real-world data to create their models, and they never test the validity of their models with any kind of real-world experiment. It's completely detached from reality, and the exact opposite of empirical; they start off with an assumption, make an unsubstantiated comparison to a different kind of system, apply a law that was specifically meant to describe that different system to data that was hand-crafted to suit the application of that law, slap on a few bits of economic terminology without providing any justification for doing so, and then pat themselves on the back for showing that a physical law that someone else came up with can be used to describe the exact thing that it was developed to describe. Then they finish up by admitting that modelling the distribution of money (what they were pretending to do) is not the same thing as modelling the distribution of wealth in general. There's a reason that this paper was published in a physics journal and not an economics journal.

>>61309

Jesus Christ you people are fucking delusional. All of these things don't magically disappear just because someone's an entrepreneur.

This is all pretty simple. A worker creates products and actually provides the service. Capitalist collects profits and pays wages. Muh time preference is solved by a mutual credit bank and all of your nonsensical "lol what if the businesses it funds fails XD" bullshit, what if multiple entrepreneurs fail? The mutual credit bank can have economists and financial analysts that decide what the best investments are. To the guy who said "durrr the bank will just be greedy and take too much money" isn't that what an entrepreneur already does?

You guys don't have any real understanding of actual economics, when it comes to the very basic micro economic theory you have it all covered six ways from Sunday I'll give you that much but you absolutely no concept of how a system functions.

Ancap debunked in two seconds. If the government were to disappear the corporations would just recreate the state through contracts and it'd be more brutal than before.

>>61384

Cool. Never heard that one before.

>>61385

You know it's true.

> But I won't voluntarily live on someone's property who's gonna tax me!!!

Where the fuck else are you gonna go dumbass? The corporations are just going to buy up as much property as they can and milk it for all it's worth. At least OP tried being civil and rational to explain your stupidity and talk to you in words you can understand but there's no getting through to you people.

>>61388

Man. That's really cool.

>>61389

How the hell are you going to build Ancapistan anyways?

>>61381

>"lol what if the businesses it funds fails XD" bullshit, what if multiple entrepreneurs fail?

Because when you have multiple entities only a certain percentage can fail AND NOT ALL AT ONCE.

>The mutual credit bank can have economists and financial analysts that decide what the best investments are.

"Individuals making investments on their own!?!? Absurd, but an oligarchy, now that's more preferable."

>durrr the bank will just be greedy and take too much money" isn't that what an entrepreneur already does.

YES, and that's why we wouldn't want a central bank doing all the funds.

>>>61398

First one doesn't make any sense why would the businesses fail all at once?

Oligarchy? What do you think the capitalist class is?

Last one makes no sense

>>61401

>First one doesn't make any sense why would the businesses fail all at once

Its a central entity which means other businesses are going to feel the effects of businesses mistakes?

>Oligarchy? What do you think the capitalist class is?

They only have control over their own money, rather than someones else's.

>Last one makes no sense

Messed up ~> >>61400

Point is since people already "take too much money". Why would you put all the money in one place rather than separating so people could only take a portion amount?

>>61381

>A worker creates products and actually provides the service. Capitalist collects profits and pays wages.

If the capitalist doesn't add anything of value to the process, why do the workers work for him? Why don't they work for themselves? There's nothing stopping them from doing that right now. Why isn't every business a co-operative?

>>61384

>Ancap debunked in two seconds.

I'm having a bit of trouble spotting where this "debunking" happened. Mind pointing it out for me?

>>61388

>The corporations are just going to buy up as much property as they can and milk it for all it's worth.

Who's going to sell it to them?

>>61423

The reason workers don't do this now is because of capitalism hence why we need socialism. There are barriers in place to prevent worker cooperation.

Who's going to sell property to the corporations? Is that a serious fucking question? People that are selling property or the corporations will just give them a cut of the profit they make.

It's debunked because anyone with common sense can realize that Ancapistan would turn into neo-feudalism in a nano second. Your ideology has never been put into practice and it never will because I don't know how the fuck you plan on building your little free market down syndrome paradise.

You idiots really believe shit like "Dude if an employer isn't doing a good thing literally anyone else can open a business in the same industry and do it better literally anyone!!!!!"

Yeah anyone with millions of dollars and a fucking factory and a myriad of other shit. This idea is childish and stupid and no one likes any of you.

>>61432

>The reason workers don't do this now is because of capitalism hence why we need socialism. There are barriers in place to prevent worker cooperation.

hi where are the proofs

>People that are selling property or the corporations will just give them a cut of the profit they make.

How will the seller benefit from such a transaction if the corporations are buying up all available land and then acting like tyrants towards anyone living on that land? If things start to approach the point where there'd be nowhere else to go except corporate-controlled land, the price of non-corporate-controlled land would sky-rocket.

>It's debunked because anyone with common sense can realize that Ancapistan would turn into neo-feudalism in a nano second.

If it's really that simple then you shouldn't have any trouble walking me through it step-by-step.

>>61432

>The reason workers don't do this now is because of capitalism hence why we need socialism. There are barriers in place to prevent worker cooperation.

So people don't want to follow your retarded business model voluntarily, so that's why they need to be forced to do so? What in the actual fuck.

>It's debunked because anyone with common sense can realize that Ancapistan would turn into neo-feudalism in a nano second. Your ideology has never been put into practice and it never will because I don't know how the fuck you plan on building your little free market down syndrome paradise.

This is the biggest and most ironic word salad I have ever seen in my entire life. I hope to god that this is that one germancap just fucking around and shitposting with a different flag. This post is too good to be true.

>>61442

How would Ancapistan come about? Please en lighten me.

>>61442

Retarded business model? There's tons of functioning cooperative enterprises right now and the workers are much happier and love it. Obviously no one's going to force you but why work for 7 an hour when you can make 30 and all you have to do is vote on some shit once in a while.

>>61440

Because corporations have enough money to make it worth your while or turn current land owners into junior partners. Either way you're going to be paying taxes buckaroo.

>>61452

I believe Rothbae has set up numerous such scenarios. Lemme swap from my tablet to a keyboard in order to go into detail.

>>61454

Large corporations have enough money right now to buy just about any piece of land that they want right now, but are you familiar with the concept of supply and demand? As they buy more and more land, each piece of non-corporate land gets more and more valuable, and the more the corporations try to oppress their tenants, the faster this increase in value will occur. Do you honestly believe that a corporation could ever possibly have enough money to buy every patch of land on the planet? Do you seriously think that there's even enough money in existence to buy all of that? Hell, let's look at a smaller example: how about buying a continent? Or a country? Or even "just" a major city? It's as absurd as it is impossible.

Additionally, there's another big reason why this wouldn't happen: return on investment. What does this evil megacorp hope to achieve? If they're spending millions (if not billions) to buy some run-down shack in the middle of nowhere, what are they planning on getting out of that deal? Even if they're planning on setting themselves up as the new state, and collecting taxes from everyone on their land, how many years is it going to take to break even again after their real-estate spending spree? A few centuries, maybe? A couple of millennia? What's the end-game here?

>>61454

?……..You do realize that once you buy the land you're going to have to maintain it right?. Are you telling me a corporation that would oppress people (bad publicity) would have enough funds to maintain such a large portion of land? Cooperation are in it for the money, they want to use little as much resources as possible in order generate profit. Having more consumers is more preferable than having more land.

>>61509

But they don't have unequivocal rights to the land they possess that's the difference.

>>61530

Is that a joke? Are you a troll? Please think about that for a second.

>>61530

Bad publicity? They can control the media.

Corporations will oppress people.

Maintaining land? They can do that it's not hard, what the hell are you talking about? They use the land to generate income via taxation (rent is the exact same thing). As for people who don't want to live on corporate land, there may be a few with enough wealth to avoid that but the majority are going to have to be subjected to this "voluntary" transaction.

You guys don't understand power structures at all. The state is just a landlord.

Ayoo let's remove the state but none of the incentives that created the in the first place. This will work great!

Do you guys not understand the concept of elasticity of demand?

>>61539

>Corporations will oppress people.

Yet leftists will not? Delusional much?

>>61545

But anon, they are not true leftists :^).

>>61539

>Corporations will oppress people.

>Maintaining land? They can do that it's not hard

>the majority are going to have to be subjected to this "voluntary" transaction.

>You guys don't understand power structures at all.

Prove it.

>>61548

Corporations buy up land. Where else are people going to go?

>>61549

Not sell.

>>61550

Because…..?

>>61541

What's that got to do with anything? Sounds like you're just throwing economic terms around for the fun of it. I mean, yeah, elasticity is a thing, but it has nothing to do with whether a company would be able to acquire a monopoly on land. If anything, if land has a high price elasticity, that's a point against this possibility, as prices would rise a lot with an increase in demand.

>>61550

Hi I'm a massive fucking corporation I'd like your property how about I give you enough money to retire right now so you can quit your job and lodge you in one of our other apartments in exchange for your land?

Who the fuck is going to turn this down? In the long run it's a profitable decision. You guys don't understand business at all.

>>61552

It means people aren't going to go without shelter in the name of being thrifty. It's the reason why rental properties don't go down in price and don't fluctuate with the rest of the real estate market.

>>61552

With the last part, I mean the costs of units of land would become ever greater for the company. How could it afford this?

>>61551

Because that's the surest way of not being evicted into the sea, as you niggers say? You answered that question for yourself. Or are you gonna run on the assumption that as consumers, people are borderline retarded?

>>61555

It can afford it because they have the money even if they don't have the cash or liquid assets they have some serious fucking credit. What this guy says is exactly what will happen

>>61553

>>61553

>Who the fuck is going to turn this down? In the long run it's a profitable decision.

If it really is, then where exactly is your problem?

>>61554

Again, how is the company going to acquire the property in the first place? Fairy dust? Because that's the most substantial theory I've heard so far.

>It's the reason why rental properties don't go down in price and don't fluctuate with the rest of the real estate market.

Could also be zoning laws, you know? What I see are ten businesses in my street that are empty and yet people are begging for an apartment. And you're telling me zoning laws have nothing to do with it?

>>61556

>It can afford it because they have the money

They have the money, and people don't care about keeping their land because the company's offer is too good but somehow the consequences of one company owning everything would still be bad, and something something about price elasticity that doesn't sound like an ad hoc rationalization at all…

We're back to fucking fairy dust now, you know that.

>>61558

Corporations don't have lots of money? Really? Since when?

Rentals don't go down because there's no need for them to go down someone will come along and rent the property. Same reason why fast food companies pay minimum wage and don't need to compete for labor, someone will come along and work for that low wage.

>>61556

How about a contract where the company has to give you enough money for at least 100 generations to live wealthy, in that it has to provide with high-quality food, all-covering healthcare, free tuition at the most prestigious universities, a private airplane on that piece of land and a weekly check of money for other expenditures. I mean, they do have the money after all and they do want to buy that piece of land, and look on the bright side, you now have almost fully automated communism provided by a private entity.

>>61562

They'll accept way less than that dumbass.

>Nuhuh

Ok keep being delusional.

>>61563

And there are people who will won't accept for any less.

>Nuhuh

Ok keep being delusional.

>>61565

And there are people who won't accept for any less*

ITT Stupid fucking Ancaps who can't wrap their mind around a corporation buying property and think it's literally impossible.

Stay classcuked friends, hopefully people read this and realize how money=capital=power=slavery for us all. I can't wait till ancapistan comes around and you're all working for shit wages and realize there isn't a god damn thing you can do about it.

>but if I don't want to work for 5 an hour someone else will come and pay me 6!!!!

Follow that logic eventually the wage increase stops and where does it stop? At just enough to keep you coming back so you can survive to produce more shit for the capitalist class. Equilibrium, douche bags; it ain't gonna be in ya favor.

>>61566

Yeah people who are already wealthy fucktard i.e. the CEOs of the very same corporations looking to buy land. The average homeowner would jump at a chance at early retirement and guess what? There's a lot more average homeowners than wealthy homeowners.

>>61485

stop lying

>>61569

Have fun in ancapistan working 18 hours a day for a few bowls of rice and a bunkbed in a worker's lodging for Burger King retard.

We had free market capitalism during the early period of industrialization.

>but there was a state therefor it wasn't freee!!!!

Yeah and the state didn't regulate the factories the owners could do what they wanted.

>>61561

>Corporations don't have lots of money?

You're assuming that the money they have would be sufficient to buy every patch of land in the world. That's a long stretch. It's like saying that because someone is rich, he can afford to buy the moon: Fucking retarded.

>Rentals don't go down because there's no need for them to go down someone will come along and rent the property.

>Same reason why fast food companies pay minimum wage and don't need to compete for labor, someone will come along and work for that low wage.

In both of these, an artificial scarcity is created, by zonings laws and by the minimum wage. "He only earns the minimum wage!" Then why the fuck have a minimum wage if you're still bitching that people earn too little on it?!

>>61568

>2050 in Ancapistan

>Everyone has early retirement

Again: That's a bad thing because…? You just admitted that the corporations will pay people handsomely and allow them to retire at thirty.

>>61577

Nice dubs btw….I mean that.

They don't have to buy literally every last patch of land on earth.

Zoning restrictions and minimum wage laws don't refute the point. Without minimum wage laws wages will decrease for employees currently being paid a minimum wage.

How does everyone have an early retirement?

It's not possible to compete solely on price.

>>61577

Maybe not one corporation but every corporation sure as shit can but most of the land and re-create the state. Your system is retarded and will fail.

>>61585

>Your system is retarded and will fail.

On the contrary, what makes capitalism fail is the introduction of socialist programs

>>61598

> Hugo Chavez

> Anything functioning at all.

Top lel.

>>61598

Kek, they were so ashamed that they took Maurice Bishop out of this version.

>>61571

Absent of the state, the factory owners were heavily restricted by large-scale strikes and sit-downs. Throughout industrialization, wages and safety increased.

>>61598

>Tito

My mother has a lot of respect for him and her mother adored him. And still, she says there were constant shortages. Never enough to cause a famine, but enough to make sit at home with three blankets because there's no coal to buy.

Also, fuck's got the Reagan Administration have to do with any of this? Tito was in power for the rest of his life. Did Reagan buy up all the oil at random months of the year? Did he collect and destroy all the razor blades? It's kid of telling that this kind of sabotage only works when capitalists do it against socialists, yet it's never the cause of any of the troubles of capitalism.

>Allende

Several hundred percent inflation rate? Yeah, what a success story!

>Chavez

Because nothing spells "prosperous country" like shortages in electricity combined with free electricity (???) and people eating fucking flamingos. Goddamn motherfucking flamingos! Might be a famine at the horizon, or did they just develop a taste for pink one-legged birds all of a sudden?!

>>61620

It's not consumption it's investment.

>>61262

>your wage would be guaranteed

That's just not true, wages fluctuate based on the performance of the markets all the time. When a business is doing poorly one of the first things to come are pay cuts and layoffs. The only time wages are somewhat stable is when they are locked via a contract usually won through worker organization and labour activity (strikes, boycotts etc.)

>>61616

Reagan funded right wing nationalist groups that contributed to the breakup of the country along ethnic lines.

>>61625

It was stillborn to begin with. No political entity like Yugoslavia ever existed in the past, before WW1. Then some faggots that couldn't into geography decided that it was a great idea to split the lands of the Habsburg monarchy up to create a number of multicultural states, all imbued with the idea of nationalism. It was only a matter of time until all these splintered nations would blow up.

>>61626

>And what happens when one party refuses mediation? Or when shares in private courts are bought up by one of the parties, thus removing impartiality? What if one party refuses to abid by the result and has the resources to resist any attempts to force them to comply? I've never heard any AnCap address any of these issues.

Then you're doing something wrong. I've seen these questions get addressed by many ancaps over the years. I've answered them myself, too, more often than I can count.

>And what happens when one party refuses mediation?

Three options: The verdict could be made in absentia and enforced; the other party could literally be forced to go to court; or the other party could be blacklisted, get its insurance premiums raised and so on. That depends on expediency and on what's regarded as legitimate in the population. The first option is more likely in civil disputes that don't pertain to any business, the second in criminal disputes, the third in civil disputes that involve businesses. How do you think the state handles this now? Even nowadays, verdicts can be made in absentia or presence at the court hearing can be violently enforced.

>Or when shares in private courts are bought up by one of the parties, thus removing impartiality?

I talked about this at length, too. A corrupt court would have exactly one willing customer: The one who bribed it. At worst, the court will be blacklisted, banished, the judges will have dead animals® delivered to their doorstep and so on. It won't have a single customer because its verdicts will not be seen as valid by any enforcement agency, and any enforcement agency that tries to ignore that and still enforce them will itself be treated the same way. At best, it will "just" have a disadvantage compared to other courts. A party that is sure that it's in the right will never go before such a court, because it can only win in an honest court but could lose in a corrupt one. A party that is sure that it's wrong will only go to a corrupt court if it's sure the other party couldn't outbid it. Two parties that are shady and ruthless will probably also go to the honest court just to save the money from bibes. And if you're just looking for non-binding legal council or a mediation, as many parties nowadays do, then you will also go to the honest court. In summary, corrupt courts simply don't provide the same service as honest courts. The service of the latter is superior in every regard except under quite narrow circumstances.

>What if one party refuses to abid by the result and has the resources to resist any attempts to force them to comply?

Come on, don't act like you're against power discrepancies. The biggest of these is still between the citizen and the state and I hear suspiciously little against that from the left side of the spectrum. You see it as unacceptable that some entity might not pay its dues, but you're fine with another entity being able to elect the judges and legally change the law? I'm not buying that.

But to answer your question, unreliable firms that have to buy an in-house security, fuck over their customers and openly piss on the judges have a clear disadvantage compares to firms that are honest. If I was a judge that knew of their bad record, the very least I would do if they brought a case to me would be to demand that they provide a large security, so that if they lose the case, I can take what they owe me and pay the other party from the security, too. That won't be fun for them when they have to engage in a five-year court battle involving three insurance companies, six specialists, twenty witnesses and a hundred-page contract against one of their business partners.

>>61623

That's why contracts are essential, you can discuss that with your employer, but that all comes down to personal responsibility.

>>61581

>Zoning restrictions … don't refute the point

By reserving certain sections of high value, inner city land for certain functions, you can control where the scarce supply goes. The result is usually the residential demand not being met by supply, and that means scarcity and highly inflated rents. Like a stream meandering around the terrain, the market adjusts to however the state decides to control it. Adding rent control into the mix only puts a bandage on a malignant tumor.

>minimum wage laws don't refute the point

A minimum wage only increases the total payroll expenses for a business. It does not force them to hire the same people at higher wages. The former creates hiring shortages, the latter would bankrupt most businesses. It's impossible to argue that minimum wage doesn't affect hiring practices or business outcomes; it's a priori true.

The old Keynsian classic "more money in the pocket of employees means more money spent on your business" does not account for this. It may mitigate some of the damage caused but there is no way to bridge that gap; even if every dollar that you gave them was spent back at your company, you'd be back at square one.

At best, it would create winners and losers: Some people will take the money lost from your business and spend it on another, and that business enjoys a net gain while you take a net loss. No additional wealth is created, but empirical studies cherrypick the businesses that enjoy the additional income as a result.

At worst, it's a broken window fallacy. The resulting destruction of some businesses through these mechanisms introduces inefficiencies in scarce resource allocation. The businesses that benefit take control of that market space but in doing so reduce competition in the market, which increases prices for the consumer. The glazier wins, the shop keeper loses. Which brings me to your next point:

>Without minimum wage laws wages will decrease for employees currently being paid a minimum wage.

It's important to grasp the concept of real wages for just this reason. Minimum wage does not inflate real wages, but it does result in the inflation of the cost of living. It doesn't matter if you make $1 an hour or $15 if they buy the same amount of goods and services.

>>61598

So you got a bunch of people who

A) lost the war they fought in

B) their system crashed and burned (or is crashing and burning currently)

and

C) terrorists

good job /leftypol/ you guys sure are winners

>>61539

>Bad publicity? They can control the media.

Corporations control their competitors media?

>Corporations will oppress people. Maintaining land? They can do that it's not hard, what the hell are you talking about? They use the land to generate income via taxation (rent is the exact same thing). As for people who don't want to live on corporate land, there may be a few with enough wealth to avoid that but the majority are going to have to be subjected to this "voluntary" transaction.

But how would you keep taxing them? there is only so much productivity you can take out of people, and everyone outside of Corporation isn't forced use the same currency or even trade at all with the people in Corporation. needless to say Corporation being a city doesnt grow its own food. you have to buy food from somewhere, if the farmers hear how you treated people, they are inclined to not do business with you. Plus you also got to worry about people boycotting your products as well. I dont think you realize that without people's cooperation these things just dont happen. thats why kings were ordained by "God", Democracy was "The will of the people" and "Consent of the governed" etc. somewhere in all of this people are compelled of their own accord to go along with the system.

Its a lot easier and safer to run a company than a city or state.

>>61621

investment is capital consumption.

>>61626

Corporations didn't kill workers. MIlitias and state-hired contractors did. If you kill your workers, who will work in your factories? Child labor exists in developing countries where the alternatives are prostitution or destitution.

>And what happens when one party refuses mediation?

Then the workers continue to strike or are employed somewhere else. That is why in almost every situation, mediation leads to compromise.