: Britain abandonned the Gold Standard during WWI? tried to re-establish it, but eventually gave up coz they couldn't?For a quick look over the history of Gold arounf that time (American bias though) see the link
: How many could live solely upon their investments- a hell of a lot less.
Quite a few when they retire.
: Its not conspiracyl its structural function- and although they may 'own' much, what they own is very little, and amounts to little above nimoal shares- an alternative to putting money in the bank.
Which is lending capital to a re-lending agency for investment. Similar in function, still counts a capital ownership - canyt have one rule for 'lots' and one rule for 'little'
: A society dominated by investment of capital does and has existed, a society of common and democratic control of production hasn't.
They do say that ideas are tested by reality, those that work tend to do better.
: No, I pointed out, without a world state you cannot have free trade, because turff wars and boundaries over recognition would happen all the time.
The state then, if its necssary really, would be required only as a police protection of negative rights - not as favor seeker.
: Nice reminiscence- anyhow, the point being that teh Mafia are the ultimate laissez faire capitalsits, but even they errupt into war occaisionally over business interests- and I suggest they provide the best functioning model for how anarcho-capitalism would go.
I wouldnt agree with that because they exist within a non-capitalist society so their activities are hugely skewed by having to adapt to being 'illegal' and where they cannot legitimately resort to private law agencies because such are barred. I would have liked to argue this point with Joel, if thats what he meant
: So you would accept such a state?
I would, personally Id feel more relaxed with just a tiny government which occasionally messes about but does nowheer near as much as now - but I know that within a few generations it would grow like a weed.
: No, I am saying that the market has meant that cash crops are grown where food may be better produced, and that teh interests of teh tiny number of owners of land take precedence over the workers (note- people who work on farm fields may starve due to lack of money, despite producing crops themselves...)
Ive mentioned before that international food trade is heavily politicized, as a left over of warring nationalism. Land however is always worth discussing - its the only property, that whilst I can and do argue for its privacy, that when descending through generations can be innefficiently used because the motivce to use it well may not be there.
None.
