Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

As a far better economist than myself on this forum rightfully pointed out to me, isn't capitalism the absence of a system? That is to say, true, free-market capitalism.

In any case, I agree that Anarchy will bring world peace.

For goodness sake we have tried anarchy and it is a bloody massacre of human kindness. We dragged ourselves out of anarchy into monstrous capitalism and now we see a social human society developing you nutters want us to start all over again, your mad.

A very pessimistic view of human nature, with your view of mankind we are manipulated monsters. I hope to be more optimistic of human nature. Accepting our weaknesses we create regulations, laws to remind us of our base interests. Its what makes us just that little improved by admitting our weaknesses.

Wait...so is human kindness massacred bloodily? Or is something massacred by human kindness? I'm confused.

And when did anarchy happen? Where was I? The first anarchist (at least in the traditional sense of the word, but I don't recall ancient philosophers who worked on that philosophy) philosophers weren't even around until the 19th century.

Yes it's pessimistic. But if that's how we are, then what good does it do to have a naively rosy outlook on human nature? Usually we tend to believe the optimistic explanation because it's more pleasant to believe it.

I think the pessimistic view of human nature follows from evolution. All organisms that are on the planet are here because their ancestors were better at passing on their genetic material than their competitors. The most important attribute that allowed organisms to prevail was looking out for the self interest of itself and it's immediate family. Being selfish is an evolutionary advantage. We are the result of a long selection process that resulted in the most selfish beings possible.
It would be more pleasant if humans were rational, but looking at it rationally, you'd have to conclude that the pessimistic view makes sense. Ironically, the view that humans are irrational is dictated by rationality. :shocked:

But that we look at human nature in a pessimistic way does not mean that the ideology that follows from it is pessimistic. Actually I would say I am more optimistic viewing progress in the human condition as a inevitable, rather than something that has to be forced. It implies that the most greedy banker can be made to act morally, if only we set up the incentives in the right way.

Well you would be confused if your ability to see the social history of mankind is only by the comments of modern philosophers.

I expected more from you on this debate, you appear to be agreeing with me..:bigsmile: Bankers work on the ability to secure profits by a legal method. The legislation was not sufficient to stop their unbridled desire for more at any cost. We must control and legislate for ever occurrence . We failed to do so, simplesss s.

So rather than provide an example you prefer to critique my source of knowledge, assuming it is my only source of knowledge. In any case, I was suggesting the 'modern' notion and defense of anarchy wasn't even developed until the late 1800s. My knowledge of social history may be limited to the last 2500 years, but I'm fairly certain there hasn't been an attempt at anarchy in the last 116 years.

But please, continue with poisoning the well when reason fails you.

If you cant see anarchy at any time in history, what can I say. Does it have to be acknowledged at the time to considered? I will give you a clue , it was after the Romans left Briton.

You and Rwa001 understand something different by anarchism. You mean the absence of a centralized government, e.g. after the Romans left Britain there was anarchy. Which definitely was not so pleasant. So you are right to reject it.
Rwa001 means the absence of any form of authority. In that meaning, the warlords that took hold of Britain after the Romans left meant that somebody was still in a position of authority. For him anarchism is something that has not yet been attempted.
You two are talking at cross purposes.

...That might be a perfect description of what is going on Nero. I appreciate that input.

I think we are generally miscommunicating what we mean by anarchy. If that is the case, you are right to assert that 'anarchy' in the negative, lawless sense of the word, did exist. But I am also right in saying that true anarchy has not existed, although one might make the argument that in pre and post revolutionary America there were anarchistic communities. Which, by the way, were incredibly prosperous and peaceful.

Anarchism is anarchism what guise it takes is academic. If you can give me an example where it has been beneficial in real terms then I think we have a debate. You cant create a state of unauthorised anarchy without authorisation. Human nature creates hierarchies that need to be controlled. Crap always rises to the top.

So the westerns with the wild gunslingers, with no lawful control are a figment of Hollywood's imagination?

Your definition of anarchy only ever occurs after periods of extreme political and economic turmoil, you'd be remiss to expect anything other than chaos. The voluntary acceptance of anarchy and natural law hasn't been attempted (at least not as far as I can tell).

But your definition of anarchy is not ACTUAL anarchy. It is chaos, and that is not what anarchy is about or advocates.



No that certainly existed. But that is a product of some people playing by the rules of the government they expected to protect them and some people taking advantage of the naive. Anarchy requires a social contract and an acceptance of natural law. If those towns were actual anarchies, the gunslingers would have been held accountable. Instead, they were government towns that the government refused to support.

If you cant see anarchy at any time in history, what can I say. Does it have to be acknowledged at the time to considered? I will give you a clue , it was after the Romans left Briton.

I dont get it, it does not exist but it does, only when it works. Men look for years for their perfect societies in academic dreams. The American dream was reliant on a certain violence and portraying it, ever, as the perfect anarchical society is a very blinkered view of history.

I can't help that you refuse to accept that a single word might have multiple definitions, or more correctly, a definition and a connotation. The American dream? What are you even talking about?