Re: Take Back Your Time Day

Gabrielle Rapagnetta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> Constantinople wrote:
>>
>>It's state funding of the arts. It is not capitalism, it's
>>tax-and-spend. Did you really need to dig into ancient history to find
>>*this* example? If this is really your example, why didn't you bring
>>up the National Endowment for the Arts? And the fact that
>>tax-and-spend is not capitalism, does not rest on your idea that
>>capitalism is the accumulation of money. In fact, the king does
>>accumulate money, and he does invest it (in armor and castles). So
>>your example is doubly confused. Your definition fails to explain why
>>the king's funding of the arts is not capitalism; in contrast my
>>definition explains it, since my definition excludes taxation, since
>>taxes are not trade. 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that a lot of people willingly pay taxes in exchange for
> social services and representation.  

Maybe they would, but they do not have that opportunity.

> I think your definition falls short of the mark, too.  If enough
> people were to trade exclusively with one company for their services
> we would soon see an encompassing, coercive social order imposed by
> that company, similar to the State in many aspects.

Sure, you can throw in the no-society-dominating-monopoly requirement if 
you like.

However, in practice it makes no difference. In practice society-
dominating monopolies are unlikely. An example of a society-dominating 
monopoly is a monopoly on oxygen, illustrated in the movie Total Recall 
(a single capitalist had a monopoly on the supply of oxygen on Mars). 
Another illustration is from the novel Dune: the monopoly on "spice" (the 
substance was central to the society's infrastructure; e.g. faster-than-
light travel was impossible without it). As we can see, fantasists have 
no trouble imagining society-dominating monopolies; however, it is quite 
a bit more difficult to actually find such monopolies, at least without 
blowing certain existing monopolies all out of proportion (for example, 
Microsoft's monopoly on Windows).

> Along with taxation your definition of capitalism might well exclude
> union dues, investment, and debt.

No, it would no exclude them if they are voluntarily taken on.

> Perhaps you are meaning to define capitalism as any form of trade
> which does not imply a social order?

I don't know what you mean by "does not imply a social order".