That's not real capitalism, that's crony capitalism

It's bad when government does it because it uses public money, essentially corporate socialism.

It's also inefficient since government has no incentive to make sure the company becomes financially stable.

>A government rushing in to prop up a business, isn't really capitalism, where a business lives or dies on its own merits.

Even if it wasn't capitalism(it still is), how often do they do that in any first world country do you imagine?

>isn't doing it at the barrel of a gun
pinkerton.jpeg
>perfectly free to leave
What if porky mcscrooge is the only business owner for miles around?
> set up your own business
with what capital?

fpbp

ITT: statist cucks

2008 banking collapse ya dumb dumb

>porky
fuck off

>How often
>can only name one time

>implying forcing people to work for you is capitalism
>implying that isn't the ideal environment for a competitor
>with the money you make working for someone else, or you can raise by asking family and friends, or by being loaned by someone else

>I don't like what you said, so I'll attack you on how you said it

Careful what you wish for..

No, I'm just sick of /pol/ and /leftypol/.

I've always wondered something about ancap.

The "state" is basically just an institution with a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on violence, which sets laws and controls money and stuff, right?

So if a business gets powerful enough, what prevents them from forming a state of their own? Why can't they just hire private militaries and conquer stuff for free resources instead of paying? That's the whole point of war, after all, to get things more efficiently by force.

AnCaps actually imagine that people would hold to the non-aggression principle as if it is some divinely sanctioned law.

>>implying forcing people to work for you is capitalism
>but it wasn't Real Capitalism™

>>implying that isn't the ideal environment for a competitor
>>with the money you make working for someone else, or you can raise by asking family and friends, or by being loaned by someone else

Scrooge owns all of the farmland in town, you decide to buy a bit of pasture from him (if he lets you) with your measly savings you had from working for him.
You open up shop but you suddenly realise Scrooge has undercut the prices of all your produce, because he can take the short term loss. Your business is a failure, and you're forced to be a wagecuck again.

But capitalism rewards aggression... That's the whole point, you have to out-compete everyone else. Are they just retarded or what?

>call themselves anarchist but still support a hierarchical system
yes

Yeah but AnCaps are worried about actual coercion and violence, not hierarchy. They view hierarchy as natural.

>litterally slavery
>hurrrr real capitalism maymay

Yeah, no.

The rest of your shit applies to any business. Save up again and move down the road where Scrooge doesn't own anything.

There's plenty of answers to this question all with various answers, but a few would be:
The logistical requirements and cost to occupy a territory, enslave the population, defend it from liberators would be too much to be profitable

Most people would be armed and very resistant to their invaders, much like when a foreign invader occupies a country it takes a long time for it to become stable

There would be other private security companies and they would have a vested interest in making sure no company could overpower them all.

This is actually interesting though.

AnCaps would rather have permanent civil war between competing mega-corporations' private armies, than settle with a society that has monopoly of violence.

>litterally slavery
But user, that was literally what was happening in the late 19th century in America. Legal private protection agencies forced workers to go back to work at gunpoint.
Dozens of people were shot demanding better conditions.

>Save up again and move down the road where Scrooge doesn't own anything.
You should research the what the Pullman railroad company did to their workers, they had no possible means of achieving such a thing, because everything was owned by Pullman.

This was all in the Gilded Age you libertarians are so nostalgic about.

>There would be other private security companies and they would have a vested interest in making sure no company could overpower them all.
Or they could just collude since every capitalist would relie on them for protection anyway.

But the only thing that prevents actual coercion and violence is hierarchy. Otherwise people will just use violence and coercion to create their own hierarchy. The only way I can see to theoretically prevent that is by making sure everyone's power is equal and that everyone will retaliate against a person or group who attempts to break the peace and use violence. And I can't imagine how one could coordinate something like that without forming a state of some kind or using super advanced technology.

>The logistical requirements and cost to occupy a territory, enslave the population, defend it from liberators would be too much to be profitable
Then why have people been doing it since the dawn of time? Conquering a place is an investment, it pays off over time.

>There would be other private security companies and they would have a vested interest in making sure no company could overpower them all.
Sure they would, I agree. But those companies ALSO have a vested interest in wanting to become a monopoly, or part of an oligopoly, as well, because their main motive is profit. So what prevents a bunch of powerful companies from banding together and crushing all the others?

Actually, let's take this a step back. What prevents them from crushing LOCAL resistance in the first place and effectively establishing a state? Why wouldn't companies just make territorial agreements and form small monopolies on violence in their mutual best interests, i.e. states?

And even if you ARE correct and it's impossible for these private security companies to conquer anything and everyone works together for the common good and everything magically works out: why is a state of perpetual civil war between "private security companies" (mercenary armies) preferable to just settling it with a state monopoly on violence and moving forward from there?

AnCaps believe that corporations would not start wars because wars are to expensive.

>AnCaps would rather have permanent civil war between competing mega-corporations' private armies, than settle with a society that has monopoly of violence.

Armies and war are almost never cost-competitive. I doubt corps would bother.

*too expensive

>Armies and war are almost never cost-competitive. I doubt corps would bother.
Cheney and Halliburton say hello

>AnCaps believe that corporations would not start wars because wars are to expensive.

There's always someone who makes money on war.

So the corporation that actually goes to war might lose money, but the other corporation that sells them weapons doesn't.

I think the biggest example in history is adequate.

The Iraq War was financed by the state, so it doesn't disprove his point

Yes, but would corporations go to war in the first place since they are likely to lose money?

The distinction between a landowner collecting rents and service fees versus a state collecting taxes is basically nil.

>leftists not knowing what capitalism is

Oh I am so shocked!

If that is your belief then I am sorry to say but you're mentally challenged.

>but that's not Real Capitalism™

>he doesn't know what capitalism is

Capitalism is an economic system of private ownership of capital in free (or mostly free, as the case has been historically) markets that grew out of the decline of mercantilism. It has always been hand in hand with the growth of nation-states of the time, so trying to divorce it from the actions of those states is absolutely idiotic.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-09-26-3060394916_x.htm

>financed by the state but the corporations reap all the profit
This is textbook crony capitalism
Is half of the people in this thread playing doubles advocate or what?

You can voluntarily stop paying rent to a landowner, but you can't voluntarily stop paying taxes to a state.

Nice rebuttal. Both exercise an economic dominion and coercive authority over a territory, in the absence of a state landowners are effectively the state since they gain exclusive control over the economy and coercive power of the region they claim.

>but you can't voluntarily stop paying taxes to a state
You can if you fuck off to some nowhere island that hasn't been claimed yet.
Good luck with your homesteading!

Yes you can. With similar consequences: you get treated as a trespasser on their land.

>Capitalism is an economic system of private ownership of capital in free markets

True, it is also based on voluntary exchange.

They're legit retarded, something that seem to be the case for every leftist.

You really are retarded aren't you?

It's almost like companies being able to mistreat their workers, with government consent and assistance, is the very definition of what this thread is about.

Has it ever occurred to you that the state exists because the corporations want it to?

>True, it is also based on voluntary exchange.

That's not a requirement. It's based simply on exchange in a system of free(ish) markets with private ownership of capital. You can't just divorce capitalism from its historic realities to make it sound more appealing.

> coercive power of the region they claim.
If they don't also own/rent the manpower to back that claim up they control literally nothing

>You really are retarded aren't you?

You still don't have an argument, do you?

>If they don't also own/rent the manpower to back that claim up they control literally nothing

So it is with a state.

Please explain

So in the absence of government the mistreatment would have magically stopped?
who's the retard here?

Why do ancaps think that human beings are completely logical and would never dare try to do something if it lost them money?

Who ever said anything about the state? Capitalists are not against a state.

It is literally a requirement of capitalism, capitalism is built on freedom, the freedom of voluntary exchange, without that you don't have capitalism.

Plenty of them in this thread, you not knowing what capitalism is in 2017 makes me sad.

Statists itt be like

Would there be crony capitalists without capitalism? No, but instead you would have communist party members who directly control industry through state planning.

You might say "we don't want full communism, just some regulations to stop the crony capitalists while leaving small and medium sized businesses alone", if so congratulations, you are now a libertarian.

The state is a voluntary agreement between its citizens rather than "I was here first" so it's not the same

Private property needs protection by a third party, else it will be seized by the people. Historically this has arosen as the modern nation state that was formed by the end of the 18th century.
Adam Smith says as much in The Wealth of Nations.

>capitalism = freedom
pure ideology

>It is literally a requirement of capitalism, capitalism is built on freedom, the freedom of voluntary exchange, without that you don't have capitalism.

No, capitalism is built on private ownership of capital and the end of mercantilist monopoly. Nothing more. You are conflating capitalism with liberalism, while ignoring the fact that capitalism has existed in plenty of places without liberalism.

God fucking damn, are ancaps the most historically ignorant people this side of revisionist fundamentalists?

>Plenty of them in this thread, you not knowing what capitalism is in 2017 makes me sad.

The only person who seems to not know what capitalism is here is yourself. You sound like one of them fucking commies that insists the USSR wasn't true communism because it wasn't completely egalitarian and stateless.

How is the protection of the state guaranteed by corporations???

Not if they make bullets.

It's the other way around
The protection of private property is guaranteed by the state. The capitalist needs the state to keep the people from seizing property by threat of violence.

You can't have capitalism without freedom.

>he still doesn't understand capitalism

Jesus christ, millennials truly is the biggest mistake of our lifetime.

>You can't have capitalism without freedom.
>unless it fits my special snowflake definition of capitalism it isn't capitalism
absolutely ahistorical

capitalism is:
-private ownership of capital
-markets
-wage system

They are more likely not to do something stupid if it would cost them money than if it wouldn't

because of autism and lack of social interactions

>companies have never lost money on stupid decisions

Capitalism is private ownership of capital and voluntary means of exchange, nothing more, nothing less.

So simple yet so powerful.

>Capitalism is private ownership of capital and voluntary means of exchange, nothing more, nothing less.
historians, political scientists and economists disagree
unless they're retarded austrian schoolers

"Freedom" herein referring to the freedom of a powerful oligarchy of wealthy individuals to conduct their affairs as they see fit with minimum regulation and no social responsibility to the dregs of society.

But here you say the "corporations allow the state to exist"
Have you mixed things up a little bit?

>muh leftist retards disagree

Yeah, you retard fucks actually have no clue what you are talking about which is why no one takes you seriously.

Freedom here referring to human freedom, the freedom to voluntary exchange.

You still don't understand capitalism yet it has been explained 20 times over in this thread alone.

We'll never know will we? Would mistreatment have continued if it was ok to fight and even kill people attempting to effectively hold you hostage?

Corporations allow the state to exist because they need it to protect their property, that isn't contradictory, it's a mutually beneficial relationship.
>anyone who isn't austrian school is a leftist retard
reassess your life honestly

I found the retard boys

If the state has the power to protect the corporation's property but the corporations allow the state to exist, why doesn't the state seize the corporations' property?

Why would they?
Some would argue that (definetely in current day USA) the state and the private sector already consist of the same people, so in that sense they already are one and the same and the only distinction is legalistic.

>Why would they?
Because they can do so unhindered?

>Some would argue that (definetely in current day USA) the state and the private sector already consist of the same people, so in that sense they already are one and the same and the only distinction is legalistic.
That's true and that's what people call crony capitalism. I'm glad you can understand it now that you were made to type it in a drawn out sentence

>that's what people call crony capitalism
nah, that's what most people call regular old capitalism, like it always was

>regular old capitalism, like it always was
Doubleing this. Capitalism was involved with the state since it's coming to life in England.

Can you just leave? You're clueless.

>We'll never know will we?
Yes, because REAL free markets have never been tried or they failed due to external factors, right? Like public ownership of all means of production? All the same.

>Would mistreatment have continued if it was ok to fight and even kill people attempting to effectively hold you hostage?
"OK"? It wasn't OK because the government condoned it? If the government didn't condone it it wouldn't be OK? If there wasn't a government backing violent private enterprises but the just violent enterprises themselves you believe you'd be freer? The rich only don't own the rights to agress on you because the government doesn't want to share that power.

You haven't produced a single argument this entire thread all you say is
>That's not REAL capitalism
either make an argument or fuck off

>public ownership of all means of production?
When did it failed?

You don't know the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism, you claim both are the same.

Off yourself for the sake of humanity.

The Wehrmacht was really the most advanced for it's time army in the past 10 centuries they only lost because the winter of 43' was cold also also because the Italians dragged them into Africa also the Luftwaffe would have been better if there weren't so many supply shortages once they had jets by the way did you know that not all nazis were evil some of them were okay people the holocaust happened but it probably wasn't as severe as people say it was-
INHALE

it wouldn't have feasible to use precious fuel and resources doing something that didn't contribute to the war effort did you know that Albert Speer was a really good architect also he didn't know about the holocaust so he's not a bad guy also Hugo Boss designed the uniforms don't they look cool they look so cool dude all the German generals were really smart it's just that Hitler kept making bad decisions if it weren't for him the Wehrmacht totally would have repelled D-Day and captured Moscow and Stalingrad did you know that Hitler didn't want to bomb civilians in London it's just that the British accidentally bombed some civilians in Germany and that made him retaliate also the firebombing of Dresden was way worse also did I mention that the only reason the Germans lost is because of Italy and the winter of 43' being really cold and Hitler not crowning Rommel grand Fuhrer of the Wehrmact and god-emperor of all things
INHALE

Anyway, I'm gonna catch you guys later. Let me know if you want to play some Hearts of Iron 3

Because corporations in competition are more efficient than states in doing certain things, and because that would infringe on the personal liberty (right to own property, unlawful seizure) of the people who own the corporations.

Also when property rights aren't secured it stifles innovation/development and people will go somewhere else. Perfect example is the US shale boom. The US is rare in that if you own land, you own the mineral rights to that land, too. The current shale boom in the US is fueled by private industry purchasing mineral rights from private landowners.

>we pretend like left libertarianism doesnt exist and the only real form of libertarianism is the one that only cares about private property rights over any other human right

No you fucking retard
YOU are making the claim that capitalism as it has always existed is not capitalism. That's not how it works. You offer a vague description of what you think capitalism is (freedom and voluntary exchange, lmao), when it has never been the case. I'm terribly sorry your highly idealised version of neofeudalism isn't taken seriously anywhere, but it's up to you to assert that the definition you're proposing of capitalism is a valid one with historical merit.
But you cannot, because there is none.