How do we reform the US political system to put leaders in office

[Skyhunter]

Even if that were true, then still yet, without it we wouldn't need to contemplate those evils. Those kids in Kenya might be able to read too.

But it's not true. You're argument is fallible, and I'll show you why: You use the premise that we live in capitalism, and that we have the leisure to contemplate the evils of capitalism. Both are true, but there is no connection between them and your conclusion that capitalism caused such things, let alone the implication that nothing but capitalism could give us that leisure. You also imply by the word 'leisure' it's self that everyone who complains about is hypocritical because it has brought them leisure. Again, untrue.

Stop trying to appeal to the right by giving ground, you know free trade is unfair Sky. I've heard you say it before, so say it again!

I don't recall saying that. If I did I would like to know the context.

Free enterprise, profit motive, has motivated the masses to accumulate capital. America became what it is today because it was a nation rich in natural resources, the greatest of which was lots of land and fresh water. The institution of private ownership of capital is what provided the incentive to exploit these resources to make us such a rich nation.

When I was in seventh grade I read the book "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". I am not deluded and blindly patriotic, nor am I giving ground to appeal to the right. I try and understand other views so I can see a solution that will work to move us forward. If we stay on opposite sides of the room and just scream back and forth we will never move forward.

What was done to this land and it's indigenous people was unforgivable. What is being done to the environment is insane. However I am a realist and we cannot abandon capitalism. It works on many levels.

I also say that slavery is wrong, but at one time in history it was an advanced social institution. I am an anarchist because I believe that self government is the only perfect form of government. But that is a Utopian ideal that can only exist in a Utopian world.

How do we get there?

One step, one institution at a time.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I pay the same for fair trade coffee at a 100% green certified cafe that I would at Starbucks. I also get a 10% discount because I use my own cup, so I actually pay less. IMO Schultz could make a huge difference in the lives of coffee growers if he would support fair trade. Starbucks could still make a profit with fair trade coffee.

Duh... If not all their products are fair trade, (hell it's starbucks, most of their products arn't) then they're still exploiting someone arn't they? Just because McDonalds commits genocide doesn't mean Starbuck's murder is OK.

Starbucks is one of the biggest purchasers of Free Trade coffee in this country. Only 3% of the coffee growers in the world are Free Trade producers. Should Starbucks monopolize the product from this three percent? Starbucks purchases from Free Trade and non-freetrade farms and take it upon themselves to do for the non-freetrade farms what is done for the Free Trade farms.

What is changing the system if not the practices within it? If you restrict trade and enforce ethics, you're not advocating free trade, your advocating fair trade... you're changing the system.

Capitalism is only an economic model. To make laws pretaining to ethical business practices does not infringe on the economic model. If you make laws saying that you are not allowed to commit business fraud does that alter the economic model? Things like teriffs are another story and are also a bad idea. This though has nothing to do with ethical business practices, only the influencing of the economy.

 

[Skyhunter]

Once again people are getting confused for some reason. If you change capitalism, you're changing capitalism. You have to change it into something. It's either socialism, anarchism, marxism, technocracy, or whatever new fangled Idea you come up with, Change is Change.

Capitalism will be replaced when we can confidently say it no longer resembles what it was supposed to do, hopefully for the better (since you havn't stated what you want to change it into). Just because it changes slowly be legislature doesn't mean it's not changing.

If you read the OP in this thread this is what I am advocating. But the premise that people can own capital is what I mean when I use the term capitalism. I don't believe it has to be malignant, I think we can improve upon it.

I don't practice capitalism, I don't even own a home, because if I invested in a home it could be used to leverage my cooperation. The only hostages society holds over me is my children. Soon they will be on their own and hopefully free from the State.

 

[Skyhunter]

I got a better one than that. In 1951 Guatemala instated an agrarian reform law. At the time 2% of the farmers owned 70% of arable land, this was going to change all that. That 2% was mostly UFC (united fruit company) which monopolized 2 industries, the banana production and the telephone/telegraph system. The law forced the UFC to give up thousands of acres of land, and was compensated for the land.

This allowed guatemalan companies to compete with UFC.

3 years alter Eisenhower declared Guatemala a "Communist threat" and sent land forces as well as the airforce to overthrow the government.

I'll skip the details of what happened and sum up, a lot of innocent people were killed and US companies regained monopoly on Guatemalan agriculture.

Have you ever heard the expression banana republic?

 

[Smurf]

I don't recall saying that. If I did I would like to know the context.

Post 60.

However I am a realist and we cannot abandon capitalism. It works on many levels.

and then

But that is a Utopian ideal that can only exist in a Utopian world.

How do we get there?

One step, one institution at a time.

Why are you contradicting yourself? You don't think we can get away from Capitalism, but you think we still suggest that we can get to anarchism (not capitalism) one step at a time. I think you're confused. Why do you want to change and not change at the same time?

 

[Skyhunter]

Starbucks is one of the biggest purchasers of Free Trade coffee in this country. Only 3% of the coffee growers in the world are Free Trade producers. Should Starbucks monopolize the product from this three percent? Starbucks purchases from Free Trade and non-freetrade farms and take it upon themselves to do for the non-freetrade farms what is done for the Free Trade farms.

I didn't know that. I feel better about Starbucks now, but their coffee still sucks, and they only carry vanilla soy. :yuck:

Capitalism is only an economic model. To make laws pretaining to ethical business practices does not infringe on the economic model. If you make laws saying that you are not allowed to commit business fraud does that alter the economic model? Things like teriffs are another story and are also a bad idea. This though has nothing to do with ethical business practices, only the influencing of the economy.

I agree as an economic model I have seen nothing else to compare with it, however it has been shown that government cannot be relied on to regulate it. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' did regulate business and industry, and it was effective in curbing the robber barons. De-regulation always seems to be followed by huge scandals and government bailouts, S&L crisis, Enron, etc.

If we can motivate people to act in a nobler manner we would have less need of draconian measures to reign in the excesses of capitalism.

 

[Smurf]

Starbucks is one of the biggest purchasers of Free Trade coffee in this country. Only 3% of the coffee growers in the world are Free Trade producers. Should Starbucks monopolize the product from this three percent? Starbucks purchases from Free Trade and non-freetrade farms and take it upon themselves to do for the non-freetrade farms what is done for the Free Trade farms.

according to who? where are you drawing the line at?

Capitalism is only an economic model. To make laws pretaining to ethical business practices does not infringe on the economic model. If you make laws saying that you are not allowed to commit business fraud does that alter the economic model? Things like teriffs are another story and are also a bad idea. This though has nothing to do with ethical business practices, only the influencing of the economy.

What is an economic model if it is not set out by laws? The law states that you can own private property. The law states that a corporation can be sued, and sue back and own property. The law states that you can buy from other countries with this much tax and blah blah blah... If you change those laws, you change the economic model. If you change any law about the economic model, you change the economic model.

I don't get it? Do you think that as long as the government doesn't choose a buyer and seller for every company and customer that it's still capitalism? It's not a 2-D world out there, let alone black and white.

 

[Smurf]

If we can motivate people to act in a nobler manner we would have less need of draconian measures to reign in the excesses of capitalism.

Or force them to. (WHY!? WHY DON'T YOU LIKE THAT IDEA!) it's perfectly fine. You're willing to take away the rights of a person who kills, but not take away the rights of people who keep millions of people in poverty and starving?

(not directed at you sky, I don't know what you're response will be, just putting that out there)

 

[Smurf]

Have you ever heard the expression banana republic?

Yes. Does it have a special meaning you'd like to share?

 

[Smurf]

If you read the OP in this thread this is what I am advocating. But the premise that people can own capital is what I mean when I use the term capitalism.

Oh. Well, that's a fairly lax definition isn't it. That covers any economic theory that has ever been tried outside of an anarchist colony (and not even most anarchist colonies).

I don't believe it has to be malignant, I think we can improve upon it.

Okay.

I don't practice capitalism, I don't even own a home, because if I invested in a home it could be used to leverage my cooperation. The only hostages society holds over me is my children. Soon they will be on their own and hopefully free from the State.

So.. by your own definition you don't own anything? Not even that computer you're using?

Do you sleep on the street? Do you steal everything you need and discard it soon afterwards?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

according to who? where are you drawing the line at?

Did you read what I quoted from that site earlier? And you can look up more info on it if you'd like. If you want sources for particular bits of info let me know what you want sources on. Here's a PDF though it's from Starbucks themselves so you may not trust the info...
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/StarbucksAndFairTrade.pdf
And I'm not sure what you mean by where I "draw the line".

What is an economic model if it is not set out by laws? The law states that you can own private property. The law states that a corporation can be sued, and sue back and own property. The law states that you can buy from other countries with this much tax and blah blah blah... If you change those laws, you change the economic model. If you change any law about the economic model, you change the economic model.

I don't get it? Do you think that as long as the government doesn't choose a buyer and seller for every company and customer that it's still capitalism? It's not a 2-D world out there, let alone black and white.

Sorry I didn't choose my words correctly. Then again you could consider it a matter of ethics to allow people to own things. Corprations being recognized as individuals(in a sense) and being allowed ownership rights as one is something I am wary of. I'll need to read more on the reasoning for that but I don't care for the idea much. At anyrate what I meant was you can regulate business with laws on ethical business practice rather than direct regulation of the economy such as tariffs and it should not infringe on, or change the basic nature of, the economic model.

 

[vanesch]

Okay. Personally I don't care about ancient greece that much when talking about modern economics.

In a discussion where it is stated that capitalism didn't exist before Smith, I'd say you should care because it is a valid argument. *That* ancient capitalism was much closer to capitalism according to the book (of Smith) because people didn't understand the market mechanisms and hence didn't try to regulate it. It's from the top of my head (so I might be wrong) but I think that Lagash (in southern Mesopotamia) was at a certain point a financial centre which got its wealth mainly from banking ; in ancient times (don't remember anymore whether it was under the Assyrians or before). So capitalism *in practice* is extremely old. It exists from the moment you stop wielding clubs to take stuff but respect somehow the idea of private property (of merchants), and accept the liberty to buy or not to buy, and to sell, or not to sell.

 

[hitssquad]

FEMA has never been privatized

FEMA was privatised

FEMA outsourced to a private company. FEMA, as a public bureaucracy, decided which company to outsource to.

 

[Astronuc]

FEMA outsourced to a private company. FEMA, as a public bureaucracy, decided which company to outsource to.

I would like to know if FEMA outsourced to a company based on donations to the Bush campaign or the Republican National Committee. I would also like to know if something similar was occurring during the Clinton Administration. I suspect that it happens, which is reinforced by some personal interaction with local, state and federal politicians. I have met with some politicians in the past, and they politely listen. But I have noticed that they will listen more to those who contribute or help raise funds for campaigns or the party. :grumpy:

 

[Art]

I would like to know if FEMA outsourced to a company based on donations to the Bush campaign or the Republican National Committee. I would also like to know if something similar was occurring during the Clinton Administration. I suspect that it happens, which is reinforced by some personal interaction with local, state and federal politicians. I have met with some politicians in the past, and they politely listen. But I have noticed that they will listen more to those who contribute or help raise funds for campaigns or the party. :grumpy:

Here's a link to a list of contracts awarded by FEMA and currently active. I don't know if there is a way to bounce these off a list of political donations. Is such information available?

http://www.fema.gov/ofm/active.shtm

 

[Art]

Here's a link to a list of contracts awarded by FEMA and currently active. I don't know if there is a way to bounce these off a list of political donations. Is such information available?

http://www.fema.gov/ofm/active.shtm

And here's a link to an article showing the companies who have gained contracts in Iraq through political donations

http://www.sundayherald.com/33046

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes. Does it have a special meaning you'd like to share?

The phrase was coined to refer to Guatemala after the US takeover.

 

[Skyhunter]

FEMA outsourced to a private company. FEMA, as a public bureaucracy, decided which company to outsource to.

Ok I should have said outsourced.

I am not against the government contracting to private companies. My problem is that the companies that get the contracts, get them because of political ties to those in power. Most of these contracts are prized because they pay well for little expenditure.

Ohio is a good example of the Republican party having so much power that, corruption had been rampant. The rape of the state is now coming to light. Governor Taft has a whopping 17% approval rating. Ohio is a microcosm of what has been happening at the federal level and the NO disaster and the follow up investigations are going to expose it.

 

[Smurf]

So capitalism *in practice* is extremely old. It exists from the moment you stop wielding clubs to take stuff but respect somehow the idea of private property (of merchants), and accept the liberty to buy or not to buy, and to sell, or not to sell.

Capitalism is not the idea of private property. Nor is it the idea of trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Regardless, to state that Capitalism or capitalist "Effects" existed so long ago is ridiculous. Just as much as it would be to state that Socialism, or socialist "effects" existed so long ago just because the idea of giving gifts and setting taxes existed.

 

[Smurf]

Did you read what I quoted from that site earlier? And you can look up more info on it if you'd like. If you want sources for particular bits of info let me know what you want sources on. Here's a PDF though it's from Starbucks themselves so you may not trust the info...
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/StarbucksAndFairTrade.pdf

Indeed I don't trust it. They say it's "Fair trade certified", well... certified by who? By starbucks? What's their definition of "Fair trade"? I hope it's not like Vanesch's where as long as they have a minimum wage, even if it's as low as 3 cents an hour, it's considered 'fair trade'.

They don't seem to make any mention of any of the Fair Trade organizations (maybe because they'd get sued for fraud if they did?). I don't think I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to one of the biggest coffee distributors in North America (the world?)

Sorry I didn't choose my words correctly. Then again you could consider it a matter of ethics to allow people to own things.

How so? I don't think ownership is ethical at all, I'm arguing moderately with you now Ape, ultimately I advocate the complete abolition of property and any barter or trade based economics.

Corprations being recognized as individuals(in a sense) and being allowed ownership rights as one is something I am wary of. I'll need to read more on the reasoning for that but I don't care for the idea much. At anyrate what I meant was you can regulate business with laws on ethical business practice rather than direct regulation of the economy such as tariffs and it should not infringe on, or change the basic nature of, the economic model.

Have you ever taken an economics course Ape? (if so, which ones - I'm just curious). I don't really see how you can make changes to the system without actually changing the system, it doesn't make sense. If you prevent someone from buying something (as you would if you had ethical business laws) that's going against Free Trade, however minorly. It's change, that's change. How can you encourage fair trade and free enterprise at the same time?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Have you ever taken an economics course Ape?

Nope. That's why I'm waiting for you to explain to me how enforcing ethical business practices will make the system something other than capitalism or restrict free trade. To me it's like saying that not allowing people to steal is restricting their freedoms and is someone is not allowed to steal then they must not be free. We're dealing with reality here not purist idealism.

How so? I don't think ownership is ethical at all, I'm arguing moderately with you now Ape, ultimately I advocate the complete abolition of property and any barter or trade based economics.

Property is theft huh?
If you like the idea of an anarchist state, then how would people get what they needed if not by barter and trade? I'm making an assumption here since you've said before that you are an anarchist, sort of.

 

[Smurf]

Nope. That's why I'm waiting for you to explain to me how enforcing ethical business practices will make the system something other than capitalism or restrict free trade. To me it's like saying that not allowing people to steal is restricting their freedoms and if someone is not allowed to steal then they must not be free. We're dealing with reality here not purist idealism.

Right now. The economic system, we'll call it system A, has policies not of Free Trade, that's a bit misleading, but of Free-er trade (This is the same in Canada, the US, and China but not necessarily the EU). The goal is to reduce tariffs, trade barriers, and trade restrictions on all fronts.

You want to impose trade restrictions on business, or perhapse tax those that work inethically. This, to me, is obviously against the current direction of trade and economics in the west today (Yes I'm treating the government policy and economic trends as being the same, since to me there's not a whole lot of difference, the government determines economic policy - the government is economic policy).

Property is theft huh?

Not sure what that means... okay..

If you like the idea of an anarchist state, then how would people get what they needed if not by barter and trade? I'm making an assumption here since you've said before that you are an anarchist, sort of.

The assumption is fine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

wiki is your friend.

This is the end result, this is what one would hope for in the future.

 

[vanesch]

Capitalism is not the idea of private property. Nor is it the idea of trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Well, from your own link:

In common usage capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of market forces (in a "free market"), rather than by the state.

How do you call then the economic system of traders, fishermen and so on in city states ? The fishermen owned their boat and nets, they came to the market and sold their fish, and people decided or not to buy it and negociated a price. A pottery maker owned his tools for making pots, and sold them to others who decided to buy them or not and negociated the price.
I don't think that in Hammurabi's code, there were price fixing policies.

 

[Smurf]

How do you call then the economic system of traders, fishermen and so on in city states ? The fishermen owned their boat and nets, they came to the market and sold their fish, and people decided or not to buy it and negociated a price. A pottery maker owned his tools for making pots, and sold them to others who decided to buy them or not and negociated the price.

I don't know. What do you call it when the army and the city governors impose a tax on the fishermen? What do you call the fact that some industries, like weapon smiths, were completely controlled by the state (hammurabi?). What do you call the various periods of time when the state owned all materials and just hired people to make stuff out of it, the workers didn't own what they made, they were hired to do a job (kind of like today - notice we don't even have capitalism today, let alone 5000 years ago).

Once more Vanesch. Capitalism did not exist because someone professed ownership over a rock anymore than socialism existed because he gave that rock to a rockless person.

 

[vanesch]

(kind of like today - notice we don't even have capitalism today, let alone 5000 years ago).

Well, you should be a bit more pragmatic. The *ideal* systems are usually so absurd that they cannot even exist, so indeed, ideal capitalism does not exist, not today, not long ago. So the ideal definition of capitalism is a useless one because we're talking about a non-existent system. Also, you should then be consistent in your definitions: if capitalism doesn't exist and has never existed, you cannot blame it for any error. So it seems that when I want to argue about capitalism to exist long ago, that you take the ideal definition of a non-existant system to argue that I'm wrong, but when criticising for instance Art's comments, that you switch back to current situations which you call capitalism. I'm not talking about the ideal and non-existant system, I'm talking about the pragmatic implementation which follows grossly capitalistic lines, and which comes down to possessions of entities (individuals, groups, families, cities...) being exchanged between those entities simply by negociation (free choice to accept the deal or not) and not by force. *This* is practical capitalism, *this* is what gives rise to all what is good and what is criticised in the actual world. It is not a system that has been thought up, it is something that naturally occurs when two conditions are (more or less) satisfied: entities are entitled to possessions (those entities can be individuals, groups of individuals, or abstract entities like cities etc...) and are entitled to make free decisions concerning the possibility of exchanging some of their possessions with those of OTHER entities, the exchange occurring when both parties agree upon the exchange. When these two conditions are satisfied, you AUTOMATICALLY induce practical capitalism. Now, these conditions are never COMPLETELY satisfied, in that the right of possession is never absolute (there are always cases when something like the king or the state or whatever comes and takes some of it away), and the freedom of action is never absolute either ; but you have to be pragmatical: when these conditions are, overall, more or less met, you have practical capitalism.It is not thought up, it is a natural consequence. So capitalism is the "natural state of affairs" whenever physical violence is communized. If physical violence is not communized, you simply have the "law of the jungle" and capitalism is what remains of that "law of the jungle" when you take away physical violence.

Once more Vanesch. Capitalism did not exist because someone professed ownership over a rock anymore than socialism existed because he gave that rock to a rockless person.

Between this extreme example of minimalistic capitalism (your minimalistic example of socialism is flawed, however), and the ideal systems which do not exist and are impossible to implement, there's an entire grey zone, and if it is dark grey, you should conclude practically that it falls into the "black" class.

When does capitalism NOT exist ? In two cases: when property is not a recognized right (either because there is a powerful entity, the state, which forcefully denies you any such right, or because there is NO powerful entity at all and your right is not protected in any way) and when free decisions to exchange stuff are not present. For instance, hunter-gatherer families who do not have the habit of exchanging stuff with other hunter-gatherer families do not have capitalism, and hunter-gatherers who take their clubs to go and hit the next hunter-gatherer family to take their stuff are also not having capitalism.
From the moment that they don't use their clubs (and hence respect some "properties" of the neighbours), and from the moment that they present berries in exchange for a bit of meat and that the exchange is by mutual agreement, you have instored a capitalist system ; however, it is very limited in the age of hunters-gatherers because the exchange of stuff rrepresents only a small portion of what "capital" a hunter-gatherer uses: most of it is "acquired" by themselves and is for own (family) consumption. (the entities here are of course not the individuals, but the families). At least capitalism in the pragmatic sense I was talking about.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know. What do you call it when the army and the city governors impose a tax on the fishermen?

If they take 10% of the fish, I'd say the system is for 90% capitalistic

What do you call the fact that some industries, like weapon smiths, were completely controlled by the state (hammurabi?).

This is normal: in a capitalist system, everything to pertaining to violence (weapons, army etc...and even the taxes that finance it) are put in common.

What do you call the various periods of time when the state owned all materials and just hired people to make stuff out of it, the workers didn't own what they made, they were hired to do a job

There was maybe capitalism BETWEEN states then, no. But ok, I never said that there was never anything ELSE but (practical) capitalism. I just contered the claim that capitalism didn't exist before Adam Smith. The *ideology* of capitalism (the belief that everything goes for the best) didn't exist, that is correct. And the *ideal* capitalism of that ideology didn't exist and still doesn't exist. But practically, it did, of course.

I mean, this discussion takes on some form like saying that natural selection didn't exist before Darwin.

 

[DM]

I don't know. What do you call it when the army and the city governors impose a tax on the fishermen?

Gross domestic product.

 

[DM]

I'm talking about the pragmatic implementation which follows grossly capitalistic lines, and which comes down to possessions of entities (individuals, groups, families, cities...) being exchanged between those entities simply by negociation (free choice to accept the deal or not) and not by force.

Not forgeting the RIGHT to own the acquisition of profits in the case of individual/group businesses.

 

[vanesch]

Not forgeting the RIGHT to own the acquisition of profits in the case of individual/group businesses.

Yes, I know that that was sometimes denied (or considered un-ethical). But that simply means that there was not the free decision to exchange goods.
Imagine that I have 3 horses. If I go to city A, where there is a lot of grain, and few horses, and I exchange 2 horses against 10 bags of grain (and use the third one to pull the cart) and I go to city B where there are a lot of horses, but not much grain, and I can exchange my 10 bags of grain against 5 horses I "did" capitalism. I can now go back with my 6 = 5 + 1 horses to city A, and obtain 20 bags of grain against 4 horses, I now use 2 horses to pull my carts ; the market price in city A is 1 horse = 5 bags of grain, while the market price in city B is 1 horse = 2 bags of grain. Back in city B, I now get 9 horses for 18 bags of grain, and I used two bags of grain to feed the horses during the trip.
After a few years, I'm a rich man :-) That's exactly how trading went in ancient times.

I used part of my capital (some horses + my time and labor) and spend some of it and each exchange was one based upon mutual consent, and I made profits, but it is hard to say where the profit exactly occured: each exchange was "fair".

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch, that big post of yours is so muddled. I'll try to make some clear responses but we need to try to structure this discussion more if it's going to make any sense. (yes I know I've done it too)

 

[Smurf]

This is normal: in a capitalist system, everything to pertaining to violence (weapons, army etc...and even the taxes that finance it) are put in common.

In the US you are permitted to own various weapons with very little difficulty. Are you saying that private ownership of this paticular piece of property is un-capitalistic?

 

[Smurf]

Gross domestic product.

Ah... good one. :rofl:

 

[Smurf]

There was maybe capitalism BETWEEN states then, no. But ok, I never said that there was never anything ELSE but (practical) capitalism. I just contered the claim that capitalism didn't exist before Adam Smith. The *ideology* of capitalism (the belief that everything goes for the best) didn't exist, that is correct. And the *ideal* capitalism of that ideology didn't exist and still doesn't exist. But practically, it did, of course.

I think you are equating Capitalism with your idea of Freedom a little too closely.

(wikipedia's daily featured article is anarcho-capitalism today - you should read it, it will really clear some things up about both Anarchism and Capitalism I think. - most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as being a flavor of anarchism) I'd like to know if you think what you're calling capitalism right now is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism.

 

[vanesch]

In the US you are permitted to own various weapons with very little difficulty. Are you saying that private ownership of this paticular piece of property is un-capitalistic?

In a way, yes. Everything pertaining to violence is mutualised in capitalism. If not, you're back to the law of the jungle. But again, it is not these small deviations which make you decide whether a society is capitalist or not. Western societies are mainly capitalist, with some socialism and some law of the jungle.

 

[vanesch]

I think you are equating Capitalism with your idea of Freedom a little too closely.

(wikipedia's daily featured article is anarcho-capitalism today - you should read it, it will really clear some things up about both Anarchism and Capitalism I think. - most anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalism as being a flavor of anarchism) I'd like to know if you think what you're calling capitalism right now is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism.

I read the article on wiki . It helps me getting my semantics right.
I think that anarcho-capitalism is some "ideal" form of capitalism where everything is ruled by ownership and private initiative, but so idealised that it ruins itself. Normally, in capitalism, you delegate violence to the state. But it suffers from exactly the same flaw as all other flavors of anarchism: if you have no superstructure FORCING THIS UPON PEOPLE then it won't happen that way. You will simply go back to the law of the jungle.

I mean, it is very nice to say how PEOPLE OUGHT TO BEHAVE, but if you do not force such behaviour upon them by the means of force, then they won't necessarily behave as you think, prefer or anything. I'm a believer in hedonism, in that I think that the search for pleasure and the avoidance of suffering are the only motives for the behaviour of people. If you want to instore certain behaviours, you have to do it that way: by making them enjoy pleasure when they do what you want, and/or by making them suffer when they don't do what you want. There's no other way. Contracts, agreements, laws, property and all that ONLY MAKE SENSE if they are enforced with violence. You cannot posit by axiom that people "ought not to be violent to each other" for instance. That doesn't work. They only won't be violent if they know that they will loose on the pleasure/suffering balance in doing so.
"Individual freedom" is simply the amount of decisions you are allowed to take for yourself in the frame of this seeking of optimisation on the pleasure/suffering balance. Your freedom is only total when the law of the jungle is valid. In capitalism, it is total except for two points: you're not allowed to use violence, and you're not allowed to steal (in the broad sense of breaking contracts). All other actions are free.

So OR you have a superstructure which has "the monopoly of violence" (enforces by the use of superior violence non-violent behaviour between its members = police force) - from which moment on, you can decide whatever other behaviour is to be enforced or not, and whatever economical system you want to use or not ; OR you don't have such a superstructure, and then you will have potentially violent behaviour between members, groups of members etc... dictated by their individual perception of whether or not they will gain on the pleasure/suffering balance ; and you cannot impose whatever society you want. Without ANY superstructure (= state) no other behaviour can be imposed, especially not the rule that members should NOT get together to create such a structure.
And this is the essential instability I was pointing out since the beginning in anarchism.