Incorrect, mine is not a contradiction. I believe you need an agreed upon set of rules in order to have property rights. This would include rules, consequences for infractions, and a way to make sure ...
Interesting, honestly.
To honor one of Stephan's tenets, let's begin with definitions.
I define "capitalism" as "full respect of property rights".
Sure, it could be argued it actually refers to the process where someone who accumulated capital, either directly or through inheritance, is able to start a production chain from goods of ever higher order, and sustaining the whole process with its costs, until he sees profits after all other people involved in the production of the final, first order good or service.
But since this is basically a consequence of predictable property rights, I think my definition is simpler.
When the state interferes, corruption ensues, for sure, I would say the direction is opposite, and it's the state corrupting capitalism, because it gives it the cheat to hold a powerful weapon to involuntary extract wealth from consumers, but I also see the merit of considering the other way around.
I would say the state is still the single requirement for the corruption to happen, because while capitalism, by definition, produces new things, and with them sustains itself, the state doesn't produce anything except violence, and sustains itself with wealth expropriation.
My last paragraph about the utilitarian approach was about the inversion of priorities: instead of having property rights as the primary goal, it seems/seemed to me that you place "enforcement of property rights" in its place, and that can indeed be easily achieved by instituting a "thing" called state that can act violently, and arbitrarily, to extract wealth from people in order to put this enforcement into action.
Naturally, this thing cannot just act out its violence on a non consenting population, so it is necessary to instill in this population the acknowledgement and fear of the legitimacy of said institution, hence public schooling.
Public schooling is imposed on the minds of small children who are already fertile to authoritarianism, thanks to "because I said so" parents.
I feel like I am broadening the topic too much.
My main intent is putting forward that, while rules are indeed an instrumental tool for an advanced society, no mandatory, involuntary rules can ever work to get there.
We are discussing about a topic that won't come into application for who knows how many generations still. Right now, too many parents are priming their children to "respect for authority", while I argue that no authority can ever exist, except that of the individual over his own body and the things he acquired through his work. Children need to grow into an environment where they negotiate and are negotiated with, as that's the most efficient way of letting them notice, as adults, that the state, as a non-negotiating source of rules, shouldn't exist.
I don't see capitalism as proof of stake, and while I am sure you have a pretty good explanation for that statement, I would consider socialistic such a position.
To honor one of Stephan's tenets, let's begin with definitions.
I define "capitalism" as "full respect of property rights".
Sure, it could be argued it actually refers to the process where someone who accumulated capital, either directly or through inheritance, is able to start a production chain from goods of ever higher order, and sustaining the whole process with its costs, until he sees profits after all other people involved in the production of the final, first order good or service.
But since this is basically a consequence of predictable property rights, I think my definition is simpler.
When the state interferes, corruption ensues, for sure, I would say the direction is opposite, and it's the state corrupting capitalism, because it gives it the cheat to hold a powerful weapon to involuntary extract wealth from consumers, but I also see the merit of considering the other way around.
I would say the state is still the single requirement for the corruption to happen, because while capitalism, by definition, produces new things, and with them sustains itself, the state doesn't produce anything except violence, and sustains itself with wealth expropriation.
My last paragraph about the utilitarian approach was about the inversion of priorities: instead of having property rights as the primary goal, it seems/seemed to me that you place "enforcement of property rights" in its place, and that can indeed be easily achieved by instituting a "thing" called state that can act violently, and arbitrarily, to extract wealth from people in order to put this enforcement into action.
Naturally, this thing cannot just act out its violence on a non consenting population, so it is necessary to instill in this population the acknowledgement and fear of the legitimacy of said institution, hence public schooling.
Public schooling is imposed on the minds of small children who are already fertile to authoritarianism, thanks to "because I said so" parents.
I feel like I am broadening the topic too much.
My main intent is putting forward that, while rules are indeed an instrumental tool for an advanced society, no mandatory, involuntary rules can ever work to get there.
We are discussing about a topic that won't come into application for who knows how many generations still. Right now, too many parents are priming their children to "respect for authority", while I argue that no authority can ever exist, except that of the individual over his own body and the things he acquired through his work. Children need to grow into an environment where they negotiate and are negotiated with, as that's the most efficient way of letting them notice, as adults, that the state, as a non-negotiating source of rules, shouldn't exist.
I don't see capitalism as proof of stake, and while I am sure you have a pretty good explanation for that statement, I would consider socialistic such a position.
1