[DubiousDan]

That is true, but that is proof that those countries aren't entirely capitalist, becuase those people who live there should own the land as it belongs to them, and if the government owns it, then its not the capitalism i support.

My point was that there weren’t any unfettered Capitalist nations. Actually, in all civilized nations that I know of, land is real estate. Real in the sense that it derives from law and is not personal property, which does not require the state to assign it.
Therefore, in the final analysis, in civilized nations, no one really owns their land, it is theirs by permission of the state and it can be taken away by the revocation of that permission.

[ninurta]

My point was that there weren’t any unfettered Capitalist nations. Actually, in all civilized nations that I know of, land is real estate. Real in the sense that it derives from law and is not personal property, which does not require the state to assign it.
Therefore, in the final analysis, in civilized nations, no one really owns their land, it is theirs by permission of the state and it can be taken away by the revocation of that permission.

Okay, so maybe there aren't any. Though from analysis of the data we have, the less the government involves itself in the economy, the better off it is. So by that, we can say that unfettered capitalism is better.

[SecretSquirrel]

Somalia is not an anarchy. They have an ancient system of tribal authority known as xeer which governs the more peacable people, and the areas near the coast are controlled by warlords, pirates, and islamic extremists.

[DubiousDan]

Okay, so maybe there aren't any. Though from analysis of the data we have, the less the government involves itself in the economy, the better off it is. So by that, we can say that unfettered capitalism is better.

Perhaps I missed something. What is the data that we have?
In addition, what is unfettered capitalism better than?
If you mean better than fettered capitalism, I missed the proof.
Of course I am even unsure of what you mean by better? Better in what respect?
I am not nit picking here, though it may seem like that to you.

[ninurta]

History has shown us that the more the government controls or is involved in the economy, the lower the currency value is, the higher the inflation, the more economic baggage their is restricting the system. For example, when in a down economy, countries such as Zimbabwe, pre-ww2 germany, and other countries increased their currency, and as a result it's value kept dropping.
Now, if we had left those economies and let them fall and fail, eventually natural growth does indeed return on its own. Though I guess you'll need to understand more about the buisness cycle to understand the way the system bounces back, its the same as when you create a bubble, people start spending again, but except its not a bubble.

Another example of how I know that the less fettered it is, is by america itself. Before minimum wage, there was more jobs and more money to be earned. As well as when we got off the gold standard and started using papermoney. I know its not actually made out of paper, thats beside the fact. These are some things began by the government to "help" the economy, but apparently it didn't. More government involvement, the forcing companies to pay a minimum wage, all lead to what we have now with constant high unemployment, shipping of jobs over seas, and really bad economic downturns

[DubiousDan]

History has shown us that the more the government controls or is involved in the economy, the lower the currency value is, the higher the inflation, the more economic baggage their is restricting the system. For example, when in a down economy, countries such as Zimbabwe, pre-ww2 germany, and other countries increased their currency, and as a result it's value kept dropping.
Now, if we had left those economies and let them fall and fail, eventually natural growth does indeed return on its own. Though I guess you'll need to understand more about the buisness cycle to understand the way the system bounces back, its the same as when you create a bubble, people start spending again, but except its not a bubble

Yes, in the case of Germany, natural growth produced Adolph Hitler, and he solved the problem with massive controls on the economy. You are back to making dogmatic statements about subjects of which you know very little. Germany didn’t choose to devalue her currency. World War I forced most of the combatants off the gold standard. Then the victors in World War I waited until after Germany had disarmed herself in compliance with the Armistice and demanded massive reparations for the war. At least France and England did. After Germany found the amount beyond the limits of her economy and stopped payment, France invaded Germany in 1923 while she lay helpless. It was an atrocity, but every now and then, France becomes a bit irrational. The consequences of the invasion were disastrous, not only for Germany, but for France as well. France’s currency fell to half it’s value due to the invasion. The rest of Europe suffered as well and finally France pulled out, but not before spawning Adolph Hitler. The resulting hyperinflation in Germany was not due to policy but circumstances. The circumstances being mainly due to France and England’s short sighted greed and stupidity.

Yes, hyperinflation is a danger with fiat money, but all of the world is on the damn stuff now. However, bimetallism has a few problems as well.
Yes I guess I have to learn a lot more about economics, but somehow, I usually find something else a lot more interesting to learn, like history.

Another example of how I know that the less fettered it is, is by america itself. Before minimum wage, there was more jobs and more money to be earned. As well as when we got off the gold standard and started using papermoney. I know its not actually made out of paper, thats beside the fact. These are some things began by the government to "help" the economy, but apparently it didn't. More government involvement, the forcing companies to pay a minimum wage, all lead to what we have now with constant high unemployment, shipping of jobs over seas, and really bad economic downturns

That kind of goes back before your time, now doesn’t it? However, it doesn’t go back before my time. I think we’ve had a minimum wage a lot longer than you think. I think they slapped it on right after World War II. I remember it from when I was a lot younger than you are. I don’t see where it did any harm at the time, and in the Fifties, our economy was pretty healthy. Economic treason came around quite a bit after the minimum wage. The paper money, and it is mostly paper, is fiat money and that was due to the stupidity known as the Vietnam War. Debasement of currency is a standard way for incompetent governments to raise revenue. However you are switching cause and effect to fit your prejudices. You see, I lived through it, so I know which came first. We had some really bad economic downturns before fiat money and minimum wages. However, economic treason, that’s new.

[ninurta]

I am aware of when minimum wage came about, it was during the Roosevelt years right?

I am going to have to do a little research, for I wasn't referring to Hitler's administration, I was referring to before that when Germany's economy 'crapped the bed' so to speak. My guess is that his focus on the military was the driving force for economic improvement, and does make economies have growth.

While yes it did have alot to do with the tremendous amount of debt they had to pay, they had to print more money to pay it, thereby causing hyperinflation. I am not sure what you mean by dogmatic, I don't run on dogma, I speak of what I know. If I am wrong or misunderstand something, I am pretty good about it if I am corrected, please don't make assumptions about me.

Don't worry, I prefer history to economics as well lol.

Interesting, I am going to look into that. I don't think you should hide behind age, I may be in my 20's but I do study. I am not trying to do anything to suit my bias, I am just talking about things from how I understand it. Could I be wrong? undoubtedly. But correct me, don't just assume that I am trolling dogmatic bullcrap

[DubiousDan]

I am aware of when minimum wage came about, it was during the Roosevelt years right?

Right, but I had to look it up.

I am going to have to do a little research, for I wasn't referring to Hitler's administration, I was referring to before that when Germany's economy 'crapped the bed' so to speak. My guess is that his focus on the military was the driving force for economic improvement, and does make economies have growth.

You should read ‘”Mein Kampf”. Hitler had some really noteworthy ideas. A drooling idiot didn’t seduce one of the most highly educated people on Earth.

While yes it did have alot to do with the tremendous amount of debt they had to pay, they had to print more money to pay it, thereby causing hyperinflation. I am not sure what you mean by dogmatic, I don't run on dogma, I speak of what I know. If I am wrong or misunderstand something, I am pretty good about it if I am corrected, please don't make assumptions about me.

Dogmatic is when you speak about things you know as opposed to speaking about things you believe.

Yes, compared to most of the Forum, you are pretty reasonable. That’s sort of like talking about a short man on the LA Lakers basketball team.

Sorry, I kind of rush to judgment, it’s in my nature.

Interesting, I am going to look into that. I don't think you should hide behind age, I may be in my 20's but I do study. I am not trying to do anything to suit my bias, I am just talking about things from how I understand it. Could I be wrong? undoubtedly. But correct me, don't just assume that I am trolling dogmatic bullcrap

Don’t know what it is, but please do. As for hiding behind my age, if senility isn’t good for an excuse, what is it good for?
Everyone tries to fit facts to their preferences. Be aware of it, don’t ignore it.

Believe me, you are no troll. I’ve been called a troll a few times, and on this forum, that really hurts.

[ninurta]

Dogmatic is when you speak about things you know as opposed to speaking about things you believe.

I thought it meant speaking out your believes as though they are facts. Kinda like a preacher might go out quoting the bible like a history book saying its absolutely true.

Sorry, I kind of rush to judgment, it’s in my nature.

Well there is also alot of people on here that just do that.

[J_D]

Yeah I am a Libertarian, that's why it sounds familiar, becuase I said it over and over.

But that's my point: I didn't hear it from you first.

That's anarchy, and while that is no doubt a fact of reality, there is also such thing as the teaming up of the weak and the victoms against the strong and the bullies.

Not really Anarchy any more than it's Capitalism or Communism. When there's no respect for law and other citizens - whether enacted by government or local committee - brutality can exist.

Don't confuse libertarianism with anarchy, the two are not the same.

How is it different in the examples I quoted?

Those communities were Libertarian. Read about it. Beevor quotes these examples of Libertarian communities in his book "The Battle For Spain". They worked for a while but I doubt if any of them lasted more than 18 months.

[ninurta]

Did they have a government in which they saw as valid?

[J_D]

Did they have a government in which they saw as valid?

They burnt their money. They were collectivists. They definitely saw themselves as independent of the Republic. They also dealt with them in the same way that a business would have.

Don't know if I'm answering your question as you asked it.

[ninurta]

Any form of government that they viewed as valid? Even if direct democracy.

[J_D]

Bit hard to answer that because "valid" could mean many things. I guess if you're referring to whether or not the believed that the Republic had any authority over them then the answer would be "no". However, if you mean that they did or didn't recognise governments as external entities to be dealt with then they probably did because they traded with the Republic.

They may have recognised the legitimacy of other governments but they were not subject to them.

[ninurta]

That is then the difference between anarchy and libertarianism, at least as far as minarchists go. We have a limited government that does have some level of authority that is seen as valid over the people. But only in certain situations. Its very little power.

[J_D]

I'm...struggling to see the connection.

I wasn't looking to make any point that Anarchy and Libertarianism were the same thing. All I did was to explain some examples of how it worked in practice. There were probably as many different examples of Libertarianism as there were Libertarian communities in Spain. None survived very long. Some were overrun by Franco's forces, some were taken over by Stalinists and some just tore themselves to pieces or fell apart.

You have to remember what drew people into Libertarianism in Spain in the first place. This was a result of desperation as much as anything else. They had little or no money. They had little in the way of education (pre-SCW literacy in Spain was very poor) and they had few marketable skills. When the communities were formed, people gave up their possessions to the community so that everything belonged to everyone and burnt their money.

There was a level of minimalist administration like production committees etc., but there were also other means of community administration.

[ninurta]

If they had no form of currency, then they weren't any form of libertarianism I would easily recognize and be able to distinguish from communism or communalism.

In spain, what formed were communalist and anarchist communities.

[J_D]

If they had no form of currency, then they weren't any form of libertarianism

Just out of interest, would that be the only major difference?

Also, I'm not familiar with what you referred to as "communalist". If having no currency is what separates them from Libertarianism, then what is communalism and how is it different? (This is a serious question, by the way)

[ninurta]

[ninurta]If they had no form of currency, then they weren't any form of libertarianism[ninurta]

Just out of interest, would that be the only major difference?

If they had no form of currency, then they weren't any form of libertarianism I would easily recognize

You can't understand my statement if you don't have the rest of that portion of my sentance. "...I would easily recognize" is an essential part of the sentance. Also, the part where I talk about distinguishing it from communalism is another essential part, without it my statement can't be well understood.

The major difference between what? I'm not certain what you have in mind.

Also, I'm not familiar with what you referred to as "communalist". If having no currency is what separates them from Libertarianism, then what is communalism and how is it different? (This is a serious question, by the way)

If they had no form of currency, then they weren't any form of libertarianism I would easily recognize and be able to distinguish from communism or communalism.

In spain, what formed were communalist and anarchist communities.

I never once said that they weren't libertarian, I just simply stated that it wouldn't be a form I would easily recognize, simply because I see capitalism as a fundamental part of liberty. That's all.

My point was that such a system is unfamiliar to me. I have to do more research on it. my point in bringing up communism and communalism is that it would look like some of the theories I have heard put forth of governmentless societies/communities (such as some of those in spain) that weren't capitalist, and worked as a community to do what needed to be done.

[MajinLink]

Pure anarchy is just chaos. It later turns into an awful government(s) whether official or de facto