Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Wed, 22 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024 17:12:42 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>

>
>
On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

>
>
On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>

Dimensional Traveler  <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have a
marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

>
What is wrong with rules and regulations?  I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
less fair.
>
When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
"anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left.  Now people
espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
on the extreme right.  Something is wrong here.
>
Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott

>
Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but
the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just
say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
enforced by contracts.

>
How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
its own?

>
Depends on how it is written. You can refer to private enforcing agencies,
arbitrators, courts etc. It is being done today and there are many
non-governmental courts which you can use in your contracts to settle
disagreements.

>
So, instead of a government, we would have ... a government. Just not
called a government.
>

You can also contract how enforcement should be done. There are private
security companies who can assist with that.

>
I can just imagine the street battles as each side hires/forms its own
security company to enforce what it wants enforced and prevent it from
being forced to do what it doesn't want to do.

That's a modern myth that your government has taught you. In fact, people on average, are way friendlier than we think. But the government wants you to think of other people are scary and enemies because then you come to the government for protection.

Contracts without law are meaningless -- and law is intrinsic to
government. Simply by mentioning "court" you revoke your own argument.

No, that is incorrect. There are international arbitration courts, international courts, private courts. This is a fact.
Also, I get the feeling you have never ran your own company? I have and contracts without law are far from meaningless.
If that we're the case, then logically you find treaties between countries meaningless? Because there is no unconditionally binding international law. In fact, if you follow the current clown show at the ICJ you will see that contracts, courts without law and without enforcement can create pressures regardless.