Quote from: ktttn on June 12, 2013, 09:44:52 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on June 12, 2013, 09:04:35 PM

Quote from: ktttn on June 10, 2013, 07:38:18 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on June 10, 2013, 05:20:58 AM

Quote from: ktttn on June 10, 2013, 03:11:47 AM

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.

Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?

"Pure" capitalism is tragic because it is impossible- a broken ideal.

I can't say whether or not it is possible, but assuming that it is not possible seems to beg the question and thereby preclude any discussion on the merits of what it offers or destroys.

Quote from: ktttn on June 12, 2013, 09:44:52 PM

The economic benefit for an employee is shallow compared with what they could have done for themselves and their oft-neglected community and the world with the same amount of labor of love, rather than toil for pay.

Yes, perhaps so, but even in the impure capitalist system, they could choose this option to labor for oneself rather than cooperatively, and many do so today.

Quote from: ktttn on June 12, 2013, 09:44:52 PM

The violence comes in when the wage slave sees the capitalist profiting from her toil, and tries to take some of that profit. The capitalist sometimes has a machine gun waiting in case of this.
For capitalism to work, a premium of some kind must be placed on a product to profit the capitalist involved in funding the production- this premium is lost to the worker.

This seems that the violence is initiated by the worker who does not respect the risk that the funding capitalist took in creating the environment and organizing that work. If the capitalist is overcompensated for that risk, it invites competition.

Quote from: ktttn on June 12, 2013, 09:44:52 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on June 12, 2013, 09:04:35 PM

From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.

The best laid mutual agreements often go awry -especially when one party is more dependent on the other. You can count on "do as thou wilt" to get things done.
All statist intervention is unnecessary.

Arguably whichever side is getting the best part of the deal is the more dependent and has the most to lose from any renegotiation.

Quote from: ktttn on June 12, 2013, 09:44:52 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on June 12, 2013, 09:04:35 PM

How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination?

Once the state's protection of private property is abolished, the 'All Is For All' free for all chaos wound up tightly like a spring by capitalism will work itself out- with perfect efficiency.

Some might suggest that even without state protection of private property, individuals may choose to protect their private property and person. One might further suggest that free for all chaos is sometimes less than perfectly efficient.