I'm not really interested in specific labels. I'm more interested in the fact that nothing stops a capitalist government from being oppressive, and that there are plenty of oppressive governments that still allow free trade to a certain extent. As you said above, there's a scale.
But if a "capitalist" government is oppressive, by definition it isn't capitalism. The problem is instituting a government that won't use its oppressive powers.
? I don't understand how you can consider yourself knowledgeable in economics and not see that if such a system existed the exact same thing that happens with health insurance would happen with "police insurance". Specific areas would have police, and other areas where crime is too rampant or on the other side crime almost never occurs would not be covered. There's be a million and one exceptions for providing service and a co-pay would be demanded every time you called 9-1-1. Plus we'd end up with 30+ million people unprotected by the police, and these people would probably be the poorest which implies the most crime in their neighborhood.
You say all that, but you don't really give any evidence. If this were the case, there would be a lot of money to be made if you started a security firm for the poor.
Also health insurance is messed up because of government interference in the markets - e.g. tying your insurance to your work (because benefits aren't taxed the same way as income).
Anyway, let's consider the current system. Tons of people are unprotected by the police, and tons more are actually attacked by the police and thrown into prison for victimless crimes like using drugs. The nightmare scenario you describe already exists.
How exactly are individuals supposed to stop gigantic corporations from spilling toxic chemicals into their water/food/land? What difference does it make if it's on your property if you're directly affected by it? We don't live in this imaginary perfect world where nothing goes wrong.
There are several ways they could do this - one possible way would be appealing to another firm to take action against the corporation. In general, it's unlikely that people would stand for an act of vandalism like that and not do anything about it.
It's also less likely that "gigantic corporations" would exist given that those entities benefit tremendously from government subsidies (which then allows them to afford even more lobbyists). Of course, I can't say for sure.
I don't understand why we need violence.
Your claim is that we need violence. My claim is that we do not.
I guess everyone who's ever been screwed over by a bad contract is "better off". Dude, this isn't economics 101, the world doesn't work exactly like this. Not everyone is rational and has all necessary information to make all informed decisions.
Doesn't happen too frequently, but yes, there is the possibility that you might regret your actions later. I do not understand how this forms an argument that I should be able to FORCE you to do something. Are you claiming that I (or some other entity) will know your preferences better than you do, to the extent that me using violence against you will actually help you? I doubt you believe that.
So no one in the entire world needs help?
I'm not sure how you got that out of the section you quoted. It was specifically about charity.
? What? Because we have the capacity to help those in our country much more than the entire world. This doesn't make sense from a practical perspective. Just because we want to help people doesn't mean we're unrealistic.
If your argument is that we morally must help the disadvantaged, there is absolutely no way that can lead you to say we should support certain people who, by all reasonable standards, are extremely affluent relative to the average human being in the world.
The person would always keep the 10 dollars and half the people playing this game would always lose. Why is this complicated to grasp?
There are no winners and losers in this game. One person happens to get 10 dollars, the other people happen to get less. But just because they received less, that does not make them "losers".
Anyway, I don't see any problem.
? Do you mean are the police/fbi justified in killing a man about to blow a bomb to kill millions of people? Or do you just mean anything involving government has to be violent? Why?
-blazed
If you disobey the government, they take your property or throw you in prison. Now, maybe this is justified if I have been using violence against someone else, but if not, then I don't see how you can justify this.
Meh, if you support the death penalty for unlucky people and people without enough firearms, then we can agree to disagree. Your stance is valid, but hopefully you can understand why I do not support such a system. It's frustrating when you have a logically valid view and nobody supports it. (The other side is logically valid as well. Just different morals)
(Seriously, you want poor people to not be able to afford police protection!?)
I think poor people would have police protection. At least more than they do now.
Anyway, it's fine if you don't support exactly the same system as me. But what gives you the right to force me into your preferred system. In my system you can still form/join your own community that adheres more to your preferences. You just can't dictate things for everyone else.
