Quote from: NewLiberty on June 07, 2013, 10:14:38 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on June 07, 2013, 05:59:13 AM

Quote from: ktttn on June 07, 2013, 05:23:37 AM

Capitalism- an historical era where the means of production and products belonged exclusively to moneyed entrepreneurs, state officials, and speculators due to state protection of legal claims to privateized property.
There, does that not cover both communism and capitalism as they have always existed?

Well, of course not, but at least it's a start. What you seem to be railing against could be either corporatism (i.e. fascism) or merchantilism, or both; but it's certainly not capitalism in it's natural form. Both of those could be considered corrupted versions of capitalism, so I can see the confusion, but one should be willing to start with first principles.

The first principle is this...

Who owns you? Is there anyone who has a greater claim upon your body, thus your life, then yourself? If we cannot agree that I own myself and that you own yourself, as nominally free adults, then we can't proceed.

True, but also don't ignore the validity of Kittn's point that:
The difference between the philosophic capitalism and what is in practice are not the same. Using the same word for both is confusing.
"Communism" likewise.
"Anarchy" as well.
The terms are appropriated by popular culture and media.

This is the thing that frustrates the hell out of me. These words have specific philosophies behind them that have come to mean other things. I'm finally on the road today, but when I get back online I'm going to have written up a rather long treatise on my take on the subject(s). It's gonna start with working definitions.

As I've noted elsewhere, capitalism is an economic theory, not a political one. I am a capitalist, philosophically, because every system of economics out there is based on the mechanics of capitalism despite railing against it.

Kittn, your point is valid, but it's also proof of mine. Insomuch as the moneyed people had the LEGAL RIGHT OF INFRINGEMENT because of buying or subverting the political entities, they often screwed people over. Do gooders, regardless of economic beliefs, are the most dangerous people on earth because they will oppress the hell out of you on the (mistaken) premise that they know what's best for you. I would honestly rather deal with a straight up thief than a do gooder.

I suspect that New Liberty, Moonshadow, Myrkul and others in that vein have already done so, but Kittn and Zarathrusta (and anyone who hasn't) should read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith AND For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard to get a better understanding of what ancaps and voluntaryists mean when we use the word capitalism. Otherwise we end up battling strawmen that you probably didn't mean to create.

It is an unfortunate truth that words often have multiple meanings, and that just as often leads us astray in our proposals and arguments.