Can capitalism exist without govt

[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.

[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.

[Samoht]

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

If you do not benefit from the rewards of your labor more so than an individual who labors less

Are you comparing against capitalism or utopia here? Capitalism DOES NOT pay for performance, if it did, common workers would be making 200 times than CEOs instead of the other way around. The executive board would be expendable instead of the employees. Unfortunately, we don't live in utopia and we're forced to work for crooks, because let's face it, we'd have to leave the country to find jobs working for honest employers who actually care about their workers.