Can capitalism exist without govt

[purest]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj

I do whatever it takes to keep myself and my family fed, sheltered, and happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwK_XVfm0I&t=2m10s

[Feachie]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All these arguments showing places where you perceive capitalism as having failed just go to show that a reasonable capitalist society cannot exist without government

this. bolded for emphasis, and underlined what most people miss. capitalism is not the few at the top preying on the ones lower on the food chain. capitalism in it's purest form is fine, but not this incarnation we've been forced upon. only government can keep the little guy from being fucked.

imho capitalism and it's core ideals are generally about "me me me," but there's 7 billion of us on this planet and rising, we need to stop thinking that way or else we're all in deep shit.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Feachie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

only government can keep the little guy from being fucked.

Unfortunately, they stand to lose their free ride and all of their power if they do. It's funny that they leech so much off of the common worker and then have the audacity to call us lazy and helpless without any insight into our lives (looking at you, Herman Cain).

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am 100% certain there are a range of things you can be doing to better your situation, but they require hard choices, and that is the problem.

I'm sorry, it's not clever insight or hard decisions that make businesses successful. It's the common worker. And they're tricked into labouring selflessly, often in slave-like conditions, with the promise of sharing some of the success.

But that's not capitalism. Capitalism would take all of the profit earned on their backs and pay it off to investors and corporate officers and then cut the common worker when the job is done or when the profits show the smallest sign of sliding.

We need protection from this.

Since the transfer of ideas and services is also considered importing, and imports have tariffs, outsourced hours need to be taxed. The lowest acceptable amount would be to tax companies enough to make salary paid to overseas workers equal to at least minimum wage. That would offer them incentive to pay them more appropriately or to bring the jobs back state side.

[Feachie]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Unfortunately, they stand to lose their free ride and all of their power if they do. It's funny that they leech so much off of the common worker and then have the audacity to call us lazy and helpless without any insight into our lives (looking at you, Herman Cain).

our forefathers were prophets in their own right. unfortunately, the majority of americans lack the will, ambition, and are unwilling to accept the possibility of self sacrifice to fight for what is just.

"and i sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." thomas jefferson

[Samoht]

They also wanted a separation of church and state. Look what we have now [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Feachie]

who's fault is it? ours.

[Cujoy]

Simple fact is, if there was no government, the capitalistic system would create some sort of government in order to protect its assets, trades, markets and so on. Also as you all have probably seen in the past, here in the USA, capitalism would use the government to stay on top. A free market isn't exactly the same thing as capitalism.
Also a pure capitalist may incorporate some very socialistic ideas, like healthcare and childcare for all workers. Because if you plan on being as productive as possible you would want all your workers as healthy and distraction free as possible while maintaining the ability to raise the next generation of producers.

Just my 2 cents.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Cujoy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

healthcare and childcare for all workers.

iamoenaj's response: No way. Poor people aren't allowed to use doctors. They get nurse-practitioners and midwives at best. Health care is not a right.

[Cujoy]

agreed, but if I were a pure capitalist it'd be a necessary expense to make my workers as productive as possible.

[Loke]

Samoht's main problem is that (s)he is taking the worst parts of capitalism and attempting to use them to represent the entire system. What you are talking about mostly arises from monopolistic practices in a free(ish) capitalistic economy. However, even in those worst case scenarios (monopolies), the idea of capitalism does not always cause sole benefit to the producer at a detriment to the consumer.

Take for example the ALCOA case. They controlled 90% of the virgin ingot market for aluminum production - which was argued to be a monopoly based solely on the fact that there was a perceived possibility that they could use their considerable market control to ends which negatively affect competition, and thus the consumer. However, even with that 90% control, ALCOA maintained competitive prices and production quantities WITHOUT regulation, and they attained their monopoly status through essentially legal and ethically sound business practices. As even the Supreme Court acknowledged, ALCOA in many regards was guilty of simply being too successful at their business, and that success eventually reached a point where it could be considered anti-competitive - despite no definitive wrong doing (both legally and ethically).

Every situation has the possibility to cause unnecessary harm - in regard to the original question, that is why there is a need for guidelines (and thus a governing body to provide those guidelines).

Now, as far as this anti-capitalist sentiment goes, how would a socialized system be better? What is the motivation in a non-capitalist society? A for profit economy is one in which success is rewarded with wealth, thus motivation to be successful. Again, what motivation is there in a non-capitalist society? If you do not benefit from the rewards of your labor more so than an individual who labors less, what motivation is there to not decrease your production to the lowest common level? You talk about a production based society amassing capital and wealth at the top, but by definition, that would be counter productive to their profits, thus not profitable, thus not sustainable, thus no capitalist would consider driving an economy to that point. When everyone is concerned with their own self interest, that they will for some reason act contrary to that self interest is essentially what you are arguing. It just doesn't add up.