Socialists seem to mistakenly think that their position is unassailable, whereas a truly unassailable position is a stance firmly against all coercive government. The truth is out there.
Black and white thinking - tyranny depends on it. Wide brush strokes, to vilify "the other". There are plenty of countries in the West that have a hybrid between socialism and capitalism - but when you engage in ideological warfare, and are close minded as fuck, the truth you believe you have - is a narrow minded, fanatic's facade of hubris.
So would a democratic-socialist social order be more or less coercive than a plutocracy, which is what we seem to get with capitalism? Socialism is, or used to be, "the ownership or control of the means of production by the workers, or the community in general," which doesn't sound _particularly_ coercive.
Thank you for your fair question. I'll try to keep my answer brief.
Anything with a government with any actual power is coercive, dependent on force and violence.
True capitalism necessitates the absence of coercive government.
Please try not to mistakenly blame capitalism for that which capitalism has not caused. Crony capitalism, although it has capitalism in its name, is far from true capitalsm.
True capitalism causes true capitalism and that is all.
The plutocracy that governments have made and protected for centuries would have no power without coercive governments See recent history like the last four years for the true transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Thanks governments!
Technically, it doesn't, and certainly not at the expense of the presence of a coercive government. It is, however, in the best interest of owners of property to want to enforce their own property rights, or see to it that an efficient (yet non-coercive government) mechanism exists for acknowledgement and protection of property rights.
Enforcement of property rights is a form of coercion, at least from the point of view of those who disagree with them, for example the American Indians versus the European settlers. But to go on the other foot for a moment, can you give examples of modern capitalism without an elaborate system of property rights and the administration thereof? Not talking here about flea markets or desert islands. I worked for several years for a commodities exchange so you can assume I understand that context.
Socialists seem to mistakenly think that their position is unassailable, whereas a truly unassailable position is a stance firmly against all coercive government. The truth is out there.
Black and white thinking - tyranny depends on it. Wide brush strokes, to vilify "the other". There are plenty of countries in the West that have a hybrid between socialism and capitalism - but when you engage in ideological warfare, and are close minded as fuck, the truth you believe you have - is a narrow minded, fanatic's facade of hubris.
"Tyranny depends on" the actions and inaction of the un- and under-principled. Congratulations jamenta! It seems you qualify, and in spades!
The jackass ne'er can know his reflection in the pool.
So would a democratic-socialist social order be more or less coercive than a plutocracy, which is what we seem to get with capitalism? Socialism is, or used to be, "the ownership or control of the means of production by the workers, or the community in general," which doesn't sound _particularly_ coercive.
Thank you for your fair question. I'll try to keep my answer brief.
Anything with a government with any actual power is coercive, dependent on force and violence.
True capitalism necessitates the absence of coercive government.
Please try not to mistakenly blame capitalism for that which capitalism has not caused. Crony capitalism, although it has capitalism in its name, is far from true capitalsm.
True capitalism causes true capitalism and that is all.
The plutocracy that governments have made and protected for centuries would have no power without coercive governments See recent history like the last four years for the true transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Thanks governments!
Capitalism requires the enforcement of capitalist property rights.
Technically, it doesn't, and certainly not at the expense of the presence of a coercive government. It is, however, in the best interest of owners of property to want to enforce their own property rights, or see to it that an efficient (yet non-coercive government) mechanism exists for acknowledgement and protection of property rights.
Enforcement of property rights is a form of coercion, at least from the point of view of those who disagree with them, for example the American Indians versus the European settlers. But to go on the other foot for a moment, can you give examples of modern capitalism without an elaborate system of property rights and the administration thereof? Not talking here about flea markets or desert islands. I worked for several years for a commodities exchange so you can assume I understand that context.
You are 100% correct! And no, I can't.