"Statism v. Anti-Statism" will it replace "left v. right"?

[str8 outta Old Town]

Who exactly would prevent it from doing so?

Sure. People are happy to deal with corporations on that basis, so why not pseudo-corporations?

Well, it depends on the system you want to see in place, in a totally government free environment there's be no rules at all, and I suspect the kind of institutions we might see would be very different from anything existing today, a corporation would be something akin to a renaissance princedom.

If you have a mini-state with absolute respect for private property and a state existing only to enforce contract, it seems very unlikely that the state would permit entities which had no owners to contract. After all, if something has no owner, then what's to stop someone just walking in and taking it over? How can it be compelled to fulfill its obligations? Why would people lend money to an entity that could shut itself down at a moment's notice and declare its debts (to shareholders) void.

[guag]

@BaelorBreakspear: I disagree, but I'll get back to that later. Wall of text ahoy!

I also suspect that many left and right wing parties don't have really that many significant differences and are pretty close.

Right wing parties and parties that call themselves left wing, which they most certainly aren't. That's why they're so close.

And that's a good cue for me to get back on topic. I have some pretty graphs for you people (all from the Political Compass which I mentioned earlier).

This is the basic chart. Left/Right on the horizontal axis, Authoritarian/Libertarian on the vertical. Simple, yes?

This is the same chart, with some iconic figures placed on it: Hitler, Thatcher, Friedman, Ghandi, Stalin. Yes,it's idiotic to put Ghandi and Stalin in the same group just because they're both left-wing. It's also idiotic to put Ghandi and Friedman in the same group, just because they're both anti-authoritarian. Read the analysis - but ignore the international chart below, because it's horribly outdated. (The world is in the process of turning right at full speed, and Angela Merkel now is where George Bush was 10 years ago. More on that later.)

This is the US Presidential Election of 2008, with data based on each candidate's statements and voting records. Note that there is a significant difference between republicans and democrats at that point, though they are still at the same quadrant (authoritarian right).

This is the US Presidential Election of 2012. Note that, with the exception of Ron Paul (a peculiar aberration in the graph, much less authoritarian than the rest, but at the same time so mind-bogglingly right-wing, that it's not even funny), everyone else is clustering at the top right of the top right quadrant. Also marvel how much Obama has moved towards the authoritarian right in only 4 years.

Now see Ireland, 2011. [but remember that Ireland is a crisis-stricken country, which means that each party's proclamations (based on which people vote, supposedly) have no relation with what actually happens once they get elected and govern the place. Why we still call this joke a "democracy" is beyond me.] See how spread the graph is. See how much more variation there is among parties - in theory.

See also UK 2010 and New Zealand 2011, for a similar spread and variation. And now understand this: If the Left/Right divide seems meaningless to you, that may be because your cultural environment has shifted the discourse from "Right or Left?" to "Very Right or Somewhat Less Right?". And when that happens, it's only natural to think "bugger that, I'll just worry about animal rights and battle creationists". (Or "bugger that, I'll just worry about the declining morality and battle scientists". Or something.)

A few years ago, this misunderstanding was a strictly American thing within the Western World. Europe, Canada, Australia, still understood the difference between right and left - and the importance of it. But that didn't last. They, too, started shifting towards the American paradigm. With the annoying difference that, at least, the authoritarian right parties in the US never had the gall to call themselves "socialist party" or "labour party" - in Europe that's exactly what they did, which confused matters even worse.

This is a global trend. See Canada 2005, and compare with Canada 2011. More authoritarian, more right. And of course, the Euro-crisis has brought a huge shift, dismantling both the welfare state (using sovereign debt as an excuse) and labor rights (for no apparent reason).

Which brings me very neatly to WHY the Left Vs Right matters so much. To the point of making people who are actually libertarians, and whose utopia involves no state authority whatsoever, go out on the streets and demand MORE state. The important question is, of course, "what kind of state".

Say that you are on the bottom left quadrant of the chart, a left-wing libertarian who despises equally Stalin and Friedman, though for entirely different reasons. And say that you live in a western, capitalist country (that isn't Norway :P). Who is your enemy? Is it Stalin? Baby, Stalin is dead. The authoritarian left doesn't threaten you, doesn't hurt you, doesn't exist. It doesn't run your country and never will. It's a ghost.

Right-wing neoliberals (not to be confused with liberals as opposed to conservatives, per the American terminology) DO run your country. Occasionally neoliberals no one voted, in fact. People whose notion of "less state" is "less state for the people, less laws to protect labor rights, less laws to regulate capital, oh, and let's privatize everything, so much for the welfare state, have a nice day".

That's not YOUR notion of less state! The reason you hate the state is because it perpetuates inequality and oppression of the unprivileged. And now here come these Other Libertarians, and from all the State's functions, what do they choose to abolish? Any chance poor kids might have to get a decent education, find a decent job, lead a decent life, and grow old in dignity. Any protection working people might have against their employer's blackmail. Any help that might be given to people in need - the weakest are always the first to suffer*.

So what do you do? Side with them, because they're sort of anti-state too? HELL NO. You fight them. You stand against them. You are a libertarian, but you are left-wing. And it matters so fucking much.

*Not at all fun fact: When budget cuts "had" to be passed in our health system in Greece, the first thing they slashed was the mental institution of Chania, Crete. A few years back, it was revealed that the inmates were horribly neglected and mistreated in that place. Fortunately, it was swiftly dismantled and replaced by an incredible system which did away with institutionalization altogether. The patients were helped back into their community, psychiatrists and social workers were there all the time to help and advise not only them but also their relatives and friends, medication and therapy was used in conjunction with work on the field, they helped them find employment, and in short they got them back into society. I can't explain how important that was, especially for a country that still hasn't gotten over the stigma and discrimination of mental disorders.

Now? Now "less state" means that two public mental institutions in one island is too much. After all they've been through and after all they've achieved, these patients must pack their things and go to the next town. Except that there's no such program there, there's just a normal mental institution. If they go, they will be locked up again. In a strange town, 140 km away from their families, and from the community they worked so hard to be accepted in.

Heartless neoliberal bastards...

[str8 outta Old Town]

property certainly preceded the state. if there were two people in the world, there would be possibility of a state, yet the two could easily acquire and own property.

if you mean that there would be no means of defending property, the literature is deep on this. freely contracted and agreed upon court systems, police forces, etc.

Private property as the concept we know to day? There isn't really evidence of this prior to the emmergence of states and surpluses in Mesopotamia.

[Reposado]

Private property as the concept we know to day? There isn't really evidence of this prior to the emmergence of states and surpluses in Mesopotamia.

If you mean, did they own land(actual land, not land as in nature-given factors of production), then no, there wasn't much owned land till then. but was there ownership of tools, clothing, livestock? I'm sure most pastoralists would have thought so.

If you mean, did they have a rigorously defined idea of private property? then no, but that didn't come about until millennia after sumer

[guag]

property certainly preceded the state. if there were two people in the world, there would be possibility of a state, yet the two could easily acquire and own property.

What property are you talking about? Arrows and pelts? Look, when we're talking about the origin of private property, we basically mean land. Also (as str8 outta Old Town said), our written records go as back as the Sumerians. By that time, we have already permanent settlements, agriculture, irrigation, towns, a state, a Temple that does business, huge silos, accounts, debts, money, private property and state property.

there is no state over the people of the US and China, yet in exchanges between them, they use money.

They use an exchange rate, based on the money each country separately guarantees. Sorry, that doesn't count at all.

iceland in the middle ages was basically stateless, they had money.

Help me a bit here please: when exactly are we talking about, how stateless are we talking about, and what kind of money are we talking about? Was it a leftover from a previous period? Did it have value of its own right, or could it only be used for exchange? Was it minted coins, and minted by whom?

nomadic herdsmen used cattle as the medium of exchange without any state above them. [...]

cattle, wampum, fishhooks, copper, all of these became the money at one point and without a state declaring it so.

That's not money, these are items that have a very real value. The commonest/most convenient good used for barter isn't money.

And to get back to the original question, an anti-state/pro-free market society would work on... barter then? What's our most common and convenient good to trade? I vote bullets, it seems appropriate. :P

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

@BaelorBreakspear: I disagree, but I'll get back to that later. Wall of text ahoy!

Right wing parties and parties that call themselves left wing, which they most certainly aren't. That's why they're so close.

And that's a good cue for me to get back on topic. I have some pretty graphs for you (all from the Political Compass which I mentioned earlier).

This is basic chart. Left/Right on the horizontal axis, Authoritarian/Libertarian on the vertical. Simple, yes?

This is the same chart, with some iconic figures placed on it: Hitler, Thatcher, Friedman, Ghandi, Stalin. Yes,it's idiotic to put Ghandi and Stalin in the same group just because they're both left-wing. It's also idiotic to put Ghandi and Friedman in the same group, just because they're both anti-authoritarian. Read the analysis - but ignore the international chart below, because it's horribly outdated. (The world is in the process of turning right at full speed, and Angela Merkel now is where George Bush was 10 years ago. More on that later.)

This is the US Presidential Election of 2008, with data based on each candidate's statements and voting records. Note that there is a significant difference between republicans and democrats at that point, though they are still at the same quadrant (authoritarian right).

This is the US Presidential Election of 2012. Note that, with the exception of Ron Paul (a peculiar aberration in the graph, much less authoritarian than the rest, but at the same time so mind-bogglingly right-wing, that it's not even funny), everyone else is clustering at the top right of the top right quadrant. Also marvel how much Obama has moved towards the authoritarian right in only 4 years.

Now see Ireland, 2011. [but remember that Ireland is a crisis-stricken country, which means that each party's proclamations (based on which people vote, supposedly) have no relation with what actually happens once they get elected and govern the place. Why we still call this joke a "democracy" is beyond me.] See how spread the graph is. See how much more variation there is among parties - in theory.

See also UK 2010 and New Zealand 2011, for a similar spread and variation. And now understand this: If the Left/Right divide seems meaningless to you, that may be because your cultural environment has shifted the discourse from "Right or Left?" to "Very Right or Somewhat Less Right?". And when that happens, it's only natural to think "bugger that, I'll just worry about animal rights and battle creationists". (Or "bugger that, I'll just worry about the declining morality and battle scientists". Or something.)

A few years ago, this misunderstanding was a strictly American thing within the Western World. Europe, Canada, Australia, still understood the difference between right and left - and the importance of it. But that didn't last. They, too, started shifting towards the American paradigm. With the annoying difference that, at least, the authoritarian right parties in the US never had the gall to call themselves "socialist party" or "labour party" - in Europe that's exactly what they did, which confused matters even worse.

This is a global trend. See Canada 2005, and compare with Canada 2011. More authoritarian, more right. And of course, the Euro-crisis has brought a huge shift, dismantling both the welfare state (using sovereign debt as an excuse) and labor rights (for no apparent reason).

Which brings me very neatly to WHY the Left Vs Right matters so much. To the point of making people who are actually libertarians, and whose utopia involves no state authority whatsoever, go out on the streets and demand MORE state. The important question is, of course, "what kind of state".

Say that you are on the bottom left quadrant of the chart, a left-wing libertarian who despises equally Stalin and Friedman, though for entirely different reasons. And say that you live in a western, capitalist country (that isn't Norway :P). Who is your enemy? Is it Stalin? Baby, Stalin is dead. The authoritarian left doesn't threaten you, doesn't hurt you, doesn't exist. It doesn't run your country and never will. It's a ghost.

Right-wing neoliberals (not to be confused with liberals as opposed to conservatives, per the American terminology) DO run your country. Occasionally neoliberals no one voted, in fact. People whose notion of "less state" is "less state for the people, less laws to protect labor rights, less laws to regulate capital, oh, and let's privatize everything, so much for the welfare state, have a nice day".

That's not YOUR notion of less state! The reason you hate the state is because it perpetuates inequality and oppression of the unprivileged. And now here come these Other Libertarians, and from all the State's functions, what do they choose to abolish? Any chance poor kids might have to get a decent education, find a decent job, lead a decent life, and grow old in dignity. Any protection working people might have against their employer's blackmail. Any help that might be given to people in need - the weakest are always the first to suffer*.

So what do you do? Side with them, because they're sort of anti-state too? HELL NO. You fight them. You stand against them. You are a libertarian, but you are left-wing. And it matters so fucking much.

*Not at all fun fact: When budget cuts "had" to be passed in our health system in Greece, the first thing they slashed was the mental institution of Chania, Crete. A few years back, it was revealed that the inmates were horribly neglected and mistreated in that place. Fortunately, it was swiftly dismantled and replaced by an incredible system which did away with institutionalization altogether. The patients were helped back into their community, psychiatrists and social workers were there all the time to help and advise not only them but also their relatives and friends, medication and therapy was used in conjunction with work on the field, they helped them find employment, and in short they got them back into society. I can't explain how important that was, especially for a country that still hasn't gotten over the stigma and discrimination of mental disorders.

Now? Now "less state" means that two public mental institutions in one island is too much. After all they've been through and after all they've achieved, these patients must pack their things and go to the next town. Except that there's no such program there, there's just a normal mental institution. If they go, they will be locked up again. In a strange town, 140 km away from their families, and from the community they worked so hard to be accepted in.

Heartless neoliberal bastards...

You misunderstand me, I don't think the divide is meaningless, I just favor left and right wing parties that are similar with each others or more centrist while the more extremist ones that make the divide more meaningful I think are unsuitable. Of course the right and left wing parties that I find acceptable will probably be more on the right of what you find acceptable. But I have a low opinion of some of your previous views in regards of incentives, collectivization, etc so I will probably disagree with your view of how right wing the political axon must be because I might have some different ideas about extremism, moderation and where the center should be. However note that I believe the American Republicans are extremists. Maybe I am misunderstanding you and your views.

Say that you are on the bottom left quadrant of the chart, a left-wing libertarian who despises equally Stalin and Friedman, though for entirely different reasons. And say that you live in a western, capitalist country (that isn't Norway ). Who is your enemy? Is it Stalin? Baby, Stalin is dead. The authoritarian left doesn't threaten you, doesn't hurt you, doesn't exist. It doesn't run your country and never will. It's a ghost.

Right-wing neoliberals (not to be confused with liberals as opposed to conservatives, per the American terminology) DO run your country. Occasionally neoliberals no one voted, in fact. People whose notion of "less state" is "less state for the people, less laws to protect labor rights, less laws to regulate capital, oh, and let's privatize everything, so much for the welfare state, have a nice day".

That's not YOUR notion of less state! The reason you hate the state is because it perpetuates inequality and oppression of the unprivileged. And now here come these Other Libertarians, and from all the State's functions, what do they choose to abolish? Any chance poor kids might have to get a decent education, find a decent job, lead a decent life, and grow old in dignity. Any protection working people might have against their employer's blackmail. Any help that might be given to people in need - the weakest are always the first to suffer*.

So what do you do? Side with them, because they're sort of anti-state too? HELL NO. You fight them. You stand against them. You are a libertarian, but you are left-wing. And it matters so fucking much.

Let me offer an example for comparison. The difference between a right wing party that is pro some welfare but mostly wants less welfare than left wing party, but still is in favor of some welfare, also wants lower taxes but still social healthcare remaining and wants to be somewhat tougher on immigration so on, so on and a left wing party which is in favor of more welfare, perhaps is in favor of more secularism than the right wing party, all in all those two parties would be pretty similar. The differences can be meaningful but not necessarily very significant and it is possibler for both political philosophies to be workable for a nation.

But when you get to libertarians, you will find some who are nearer to extremes and of course you could have some who are in very different ways in those extremes. The difference between an anarchocapitalist and anarchists who are against private property and state. These are philosophies that I see as more extreme and can have widely big differences despite being libertarian. This is the kind of left or right wing parties that in my previous post I wouldn't like. The wrong kind of left wing or right wing. Now it is possible for libertarians to not be as extremist as that and to be more centrist, and I find those who are so closer to what I find acceptable.I don't think the left, wing divide is not significantly meaningful in the example of left or right wing libertarianism, I just don't care about these views that much.

My point was that I am more concerned about the right kind of right or left wing party (a more centrist one) in comparison to extremist parties from either left or right wing than just sticking with the right wing or the left wing. And that is because of my in my view more centrist beliefs. Or to put it differently the difference that each of the right or left wing parties I find acceptable have with each other can be less than the difference that an extremist left party might have with a left party. So my argument is a kind of simple argument of how I find most important a third political category and not left or right, centrism. The divide for me is between extremist views on both left and right in comparison to not extremist more centrist views. So I look at things in a less left vs right way though I still have some preferences there among the more centrist left and right wing views.

For an example for my views: I identify more as center right due to my views on economy mostly. In other ways I am more similar to center left perhaps. That means that I am in favor of social healthcare, and social school system existing, some welfare and social safety net, but I tend to not see the necessity for the state to redistribute income for egalitarian purposes but I am in favor of helping the poorest. My egalitarian views are more in type of the acceptable minimum. I don't think that poor people should die or lack healthcare that is not acceptable to me at all. This to an extend is egalitarian (as is support of various social services that I support being available to people) but beyond helping those who are most in need, I don't favor much redistribution where I don't find it necessary. I also favor progressive taxation, not a huge government if possible, and so on. In regards to regulations, I am not against them though I am cautious of not overdoing it. I am in favor of church state separation to the highest extend and religions should not take special treatment by governments. I think gay marriage should be allowed, and all other unfair restrictions to people's rights removed.

However I believe that center left views which I consider less preferable on the economy are preferable to extremist right wings ones and also workable. Though perhaps more so on countries with strong economies and less so, on countries like Greece. Countries with strong, competitive economies can have a lot perhaps even excessive welfare and still prosper.

[Kalbear]

guag is my favorite board libertarian now. Sorry, Tormund.

[guag]

You misunderstand me...

Oh, that was indeed a misunderstanding and entirely my fault. I kept writing "you", but I meant it in plural, as in "you people", or "to whomever it may concern". I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you and your views.

Maybe, but if not, we don't have to agree on everything, we're discussing. Feel free to disagree! :)

That said, "where is the center" is a very interesting question. For me, it's the center of all political views that have been expressed now and in the past, and followed by people - not necessarily people in charge. Not the most popular views, not the most common ones, not the current trends. All of them.

The end result is basically social democracy. Say, a mixed economy like Norway: a very strong welfare state (healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure), where free enterprise is fine but natural resources are public property (and the income does indeed go back to the people). And also labor rights, human rights, animal rights, the awesome, mostly nordic, freedom to roam, not much needless authoritarianism...

That makes the center a very desirable system in my book, at least in comparison with actually happens nowadays elsewhere. The ideal system in our heads (theoretically, we wish, what if) is another matter.

guag is my favorite board libertarian now. Sorry, Tormund.

Ah, so my cunning plan to discuss libertarianism without spelling out that I am one has failed miserably. Dammit. :P

[str8 outta Old Town]

If you mean, did they own land(actual land, not land as in nature-given factors of production), then no, there wasn't much owned land till then. but was there ownership of tools, clothing, livestock? I'm sure most pastoralists would have thought so.

If you mean, did they have a rigorously defined idea of private property? then no, but that didn't come about until millennia after sumer

I'm not sure if the ownership of livestock in the neolithic could have been individual, and their is no proof that tools were considered property as such, there are hunter gatherer tribes today that don't really have the concept of property. Certainly communities believed that they owned their livestock and foodstuffs collectively, and defended it against others. But in order to defend it from another band, it would be necessary to seek support from other individuals within their community, so it seems unlikely that an early pastoralist community as a whole would consider the livestock a person cared for as "his" in the sense we do today.

Again, this changed when surplus allowed the creation of the state and specialised castes such as warriors who, as well as apropriating goods within their own community, provided a system of defence that allowed a man to own more than he could defend himself without needing the consent of all his peers.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Oh, that was indeed a misunderstanding and entirely my fault. I kept writing "you", but I meant it in plural, as in "you people", or "to whomever it may concern". I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry.

Maybe, but if not, we don't have to agree on everything, we're discussing. Feel free to disagree! :)

That said, "where is the center" is a very interesting question. For me, it's the center of all political views that have been expressed now and in the past, and followed by people - not necessarily people in charge. Not the most popular views, not the most common ones, not the current trends. All of them.

The end result is basically social democracy. Say, a mixed economy like Norway: a very strong welfare state (healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure), where free enterprise is fine but natural resources are public property (and the income does indeed go back to the people). And also labor rights, human rights, animal rights, the awesome, mostly nordic, freedom to roam, not much needless authoritarianism...

That makes the center a very desirable system in my book, at least in comparison with actually happens nowadays elsewhere. The ideal system in our heads (theoretically, we wish, what if) is another matter.

I like your agree to disagree suggestion because inevitably we often can't but disagree.

As for how to determine the center, for me it is harder to determine that A is exactly what the center is but easier to determine that there can be various centrist approaches. I generally regard proponents of mixed economy without extreme views (I consider lack of social healthcare somewhat extreme for example), somewhat socially liberal and secular views to be that. So social democracy can be that but so can Ireland too. (here you might disagree).

Regarding the Scandinavian countries, I wouldn't call their model terrible for their economies, they are all successful countries but I am not sure how much centrist it is in comparison to other European countries that have social democracy. It is my impression that the Scandinavian countries go further with being more socialist and having higher taxation, welfare. Maybe they are still centrist, I don't really have all the answers or fully determined this stuff so I am unsure how exactly to regard them. I hold the belief that you need a competitive economy to have a very strong welfare state and I personally don't see very strong welfare states, say Sweden's system as precisely my idea of a centrist system but it isn't far left communist system either. I haven't really in depth looked how all Scandinavian countries compare to countries like Germany, France but as I said my impression is that they go further into an even stronger welfare state than other European countries despite those other European countries also having social democracy and a welfare state.

[Galactus]

Just one point: Ser Scott is arguing that limited liablity is a construct of the state.

I'd argue it's not, liability, is a construct of government. Limited liability is the state *refraining* from imposing this power on certain actors under certain circumstances.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

Regardless, the State is a necessary element.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

That's not money, these are items that have a very real value. The commonest/most convenient good used for barter isn't money.

That's actually pretty much the definition of money.

guag is my favorite board libertarian now. Sorry, Tormund.

Eh, the better part of a decade going at it with you people has worn me out. I'm only good for one libertarian thread a year nowadays. So I understand if you're leaving me for someone younger, and prettier....sob

[guag]

That's actually pretty much the definition of money.

Wait, what? No. The things you barter as exactly as valuable as ONE person (the person you trade them with) thinks they are, at the moment of the exchange.

The value of money is a much more complicated concept, and one way or another it depends on the state. The Sumerian Temple declares that 60 rations of barley equal 1 silver shekel. The city of Rome mints coins according to detailed specifications, that can be used all over the Empire. The Bank of England guarantees that a piece of paper is equal to 10 pounds of gold. The American Government issues bank notes, and legally allows banks to create money every time they give out loans. And so on.

The crucial difference is that without a state, when you owe someone something, it's up to the two of you to agree on what you'll give him back in return. Goods, services, a kiss, your sister, whatever. While the state has the authority to force the debtor to pay (and the creditor to accept) any sort of payment the state itself acknowledges as money.

So I understand if you're leaving me for someone younger

Meh, I'm no spring chicken, I'm 35. I'm still new here, though. :P

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The value of money is a much more complicated concept, and one way or another it depends on the state. The Sumerian Temple declares that 60 rations of barley equal 1 silver shekel. The city of Rome mints coins according to detailed specifications, that can be used all over the Empire. The Bank of England guarantees that a piece of paper is equal to 10 pounds of gold. The American Government issues bank notes, and legally allows banks to create money every time they give out loans. And so on.

You seem to have confused money with currency. Currency is reliant on an issuing body (not necessarily a state, check out the Templar's early traveller's cheques that they issued to pilgrims to the holy land). Money is simply a commonly agreed upon medium of exchange.

[guag]

You seem to have confused money with currency.

I haven't, but the way I wrote the above post, I don't blame you at all for thinking so. I insist, however. Money is not, under any circumstances, "simply a commonly agreed upon medium of exchange" (that one can indeed exist without a state, and very successfully). Today, a commonly agreed upon medium of exchange is the dollar. But is it money? Or is it only, as you said, currency?

You can have money but no dollars (you've invested somewhere, and are entitled to income that you can't access yet). You can have dollars but no money (you just got paid, but you owe ten times that much, due yesterday). Heck, these days, you can have no money and not many dollars either, and still be considered filthy rich and successful (congratulations, you're a bank).

The concept of money has less to do with pieces of paper or silver (this is, as you said, currency), and much more to do with balance sheets, or their equivalent. How much you owe, how much others owe you, when are they due. It doesn't matter if the calculations are made in silver shekels or in green dollars or in scintillating seashells, it matters that you're keeping tabs in some authorized way. That's what money is.

Money is debt. Money doesn't work if there's no authority to enforce it and govern it. You can have transactions between people without a state, sure. And you can have obligations that look a lot like debts. You can have trade, you can have barter, you can have sharing, and any combination thereof. You can have anything that relies on people's honesty and/or relative force of arms.

But you can't have capitalism without a state, because you can't have a capitalistic banking system - a rather necessary ingredient. Can you abolish the state and keep the banks? Well, let's say you can. The minute the bank starts handling and creating any sort of money, and abiding by its own rules and regulations that are now effectively the Law, and keeping official tabs of who owes what and who owns what, and hiring people with guns to guard it all and (lacking state police) to enforce its debtors to pay back, it BECOMES the state. For all intents and purposes. So...

Money: The bank can define, create and destroy money at will.

Law: The bank's jurisdiction extends to all those who transact with it, directly or indirectly.

Force: The gunmen's primary function is to protect the bank's property.

...What else do you want to call it a state? A parliament? :P

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I haven't, but the way I wrote the above post, I don't blame you at all for thinking so. I insist, however. Money is not, under any circumstances, "simply a commonly agreed upon medium of exchange" (that one can indeed exist without a state, and very successfully). Today, a commonly agreed upon medium of exchange is the dollar. But is it money? Or is it only, as you said, currency?

A dollar is both currency and money.

You can have money but no dollars (you've invested somewhere, and are entitled to income that you can't access yet). You can have dollars but no money (you just got paid, but you owe ten times that much, due yesterday). Heck, these days, you can have no money and not many dollars either, and still be considered filthy rich and successful (congratulations, you're a bank).

You're introducing a third term, which is also not money. That term is wealth, which is relativistic and dependent on perception.

The concept of money has less to do with pieces of paper or silver (this is, as you said, currency), and much more to do with balance sheets, or their equivalent. How much you owe, how much others owe you, when are they due. It doesn't matter if the calculations are made in silver shekels or in green dollars or in scintillating seashells, it matters that you're keeping tabs in some authorized way. That's what money is.

This is accounting and wealth, not money.

Money is debt. Money doesn't work if there's no authority to enforce it and govern it. You can have transactions between people without a state, sure. And you can have obligations that look a lot like debts. You can have trade, you can have barter, you can have sharing, and any combination thereof. You can have anything that relies on people's honesty and/or relative force of arms.

Money works just fine without enforcement. Once again, that's what money is. It's simply a medium of exchange, commonly agreed upon. Currency, on the other hand, requires enforcement. Usually because the issuer ends up debasing it.

But you can't have capitalism without a state, because you can't have a capitalistic banking system - a rather necessary ingredient. Can you abolish the state and keep the banks? Well, let's say you can. The minute the bank starts handling and creating any sort of money, and abiding by its own rules and regulations that are now effectively the Law, and keeping official tabs of who owes what and who owns what, and hiring people with guns to guard it all and (lacking state police) to enforce its debtors to pay back, it BECOMES the state. For all intents and purposes. So...

This is so far beyond correct that it's rather impossible to deconstruct. Where did you learn economics?

Money: The bank can define, create and destroy money at will.

Exceptionally wrong. You display a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is.

Law: The bank's jurisdiction extends to all those who transact with it, directly or indirectly.

This doesn't make any sense. A bank has contractual obligations to depositors and investors. It has no "jurisdiction" to speak of. Can you cite historical examples so I can understand where you are coming from?

Force: The gunmen's primary function is to protect the bank's property.

That's what guards do. I'm having a tough time seeing how you make the jump from "guarding the vault" to "being a state".

[felice]

Without the State to offer that protection the Corporation would be forced to defend its assets and the assets of its shareholders itself.

Yep. That doesn't mean it isn't a corporation.

Well, it depends on the system you want to see in place, in a totally government free environment there's be no rules at all, and I suspect the kind of institutions we might see would be very different from anything existing today, a corporation would be something akin to a renaissance princedom.

Oh, I most certainly don't want to see it, I'm just arguing that it's not impossible. And yes, it probably would be not too dissimilar to a princedom.

If you have a mini-state with absolute respect for private property and a state existing only to enforce contract, it seems very unlikely that the state would permit entities which had no owners to contract.

No, you can't have corporations within a state that bans corporations. That doesn't mean corporations require a state.

They use an exchange rate, based on the money each country separately guarantees. Sorry, that doesn't count at all.

Corporations can issue their own currencies and agree on exchange rates just as countries do.

I'd argue it's not, liability, is a construct of government.

Exactly.

[felice]

There's always "Cool Bobby" who doesn't think he really needs to turn the compost pile every day and who can convince "Anti-Social Adam" to do that because Cool Bobby has something to offer Anti-Social Adam that AS Adam wants more than his dislike of having twice the compost turning responsibility everyone else has on the commune.

Probably, yes. I don't think the existence of a small proportion of Cool Bobbies is enough to bring down the entire system, though.

[felice]

Money is debt. Money doesn't work if there's no authority to enforce it and govern it. You can have transactions between people without a state, sure. And you can have obligations that look a lot like debts. You can have trade, you can have barter, you can have sharing, and any combination thereof. You can have anything that relies on people's honesty and/or relative force of arms.

Honesty is a more effective regulator than one might think. If an individual or corporation develops a reputation for dishonesty, nobody will trade with them. And we're talking modern technology here, not historical; reputation isn't going to rely solely on in-person word of mouth.