I suppose it depends how you see capitalism. In my personal view the result's can be quite negative. As in the freedoms of a person would be hindered if surrounded by monopolies and low wages.
Government imposes more monopolies than the free market ever could. Just look at the k-12 education system. Other education systems aren't given the chance to compete on a level playing field, and what has that gotten us here in the US? One of the worst educational systems ever.
Private universities are much more accepted, and they are consistently better than state schools.
Government is also responsible for low wages by imposing taxes and regulation. Businesses would like their employees to be well fed and given the ability to take care of themselves, so they can produce more value for the business. When force and violence are acceptable they can still squeeze their employees for all their worth, without any recourse for the individual.
"Tough titties, it's the law bitch, now get back to work."
Not all currencies are fiat currencies and I do see your point. The only problem is that trading without a common standard currency becomes incredibly difficult. Many inefficiencies would arise from the problems in calculating the "value" of items. For instance, how much value does a Roma football stip hold? Someone may offer 1 chicken from the US but a Roma fan may offer tons of chickens because he values it more. Another, more sensible example is if I want to buy a cow from you, how the hell do I know how many of my chickens to give you? It makes it a very difficult and inefficient system. Imagine trying to pay in stores or online.
It's called bargaining/bartering. It happens all the time. The internet has only made it more efficient because the internet is more of a free market in comparison to "IRL trade".
You: Hey, nice cow you've got there.
Me: Thanks, I'd actually like to get my hands on some of them chickens, how about we trade?
You: How does 25 chickens for you cow sound?
Me: I dunno, that'll only feed my family for X weeks, plus, my cow produces milk in addition to meat. How about 40 chickens?
You: True true, but Farmer Joe down the street offered me a cow for only 20 chickens, and I like him more than you.
Me: Fair enough, let's call it 22 chickens, and you've got a deal.
You: Done.
Now I didnt have to even write up that fake conversation, because it doesnt matter. If you liked the deal, you'd agree to the trade. I'd do likewise. We're both happy, or we never would have agreed.
Of course, with tools like the internet, it'd be easy to see what other people are trading their cows/chickens for.
I see your point. Why should a builder have to make a factory to get the bricks and only then start the building? The thing is, he doesn't. The point you have made is that natural hierarchies are made because of the corrupt and power hungry. This usually ends up with dictator's, criminals and bad men owning big monopolies.
If we as a society could agree that all violence is wrong, these people would be exiled from society because nobody would trade with them, nor would they want to be associated.
Instead, your solution is to
give the dictators, criminals, and "bad" men seats on the board of the greatest monopoly of all time, the government (a monopoly on force).
Sorry, your logic is flawed.
You can even see when you put a bunch of new people together very quickly you will be able to notice who has become the top of the pecking tree and who is at the bottom. The role of a government in a democracy (America = "two party democracy". Now THERE's a oximoron for you!) is to reduce the negative effects of these bad men on the rest of the people. I agree that no government is perfect (many far from it) and often you do end up with bad people in power however it is better than the alternative's of dictatorship or freedom's crushed by mass monopolies.
Using you're isolated group of people analogy, sure people would willingly consent to be led by someone. In a non-violent society, I could say "no thanks, I don't agree, and don't want any part of it. I'm going to live peacefully by myself on the other side of the island" and walk away. However, in a violent society, I'd either be killed, imprisoned, or get the shit kicked out of my til I agree to their terms.
Welcome to your "virtuous" government.
The only problem is how many people will actually stick to the "rules of the game"? Someone stated an argument earlier that I would be interested to hear your thoughts on. You say nobody can infringe upon or take through force one's right to life and liberty. Who is there to protect it? In most modern societies it's the police. I honestly can't think of a world with no police, imagine the huge levels of crime. Also you state "property". If there was no government intervention there would be no minimum wage. There is nowhere near enough value in the world to be shared around so I don't see how the vast majority of people would be able to afford housing. In this kind of system I can only see the rich getting richer and a growing working class.
The police do far more harm than good. I don't have stats, but just look at the OccupyWallSt people. The state and the rich that control the police are granted the ability to use force against peaceful protesters.
Again, the police have a monopoly on violence and "security". Because they are provided by the state, you assume they are responsible for protecting your home. What happens when you get robbed, and the cops don't get there in time to catch the thief. What recourse do you have? Can you sue the police department for not doing their job? No you can't because they have a monopoly on violence.
Now, if police were never part of the picture, you'd assume responsibility for your own security. You may get an alarm system, keep a gun at the house, or you may hire a private team of security guards to protect your property. Guess what? Your home would never get burglarized because the maker of the alarm system, you, or the security firm would be held responsible, and you could take action to be reimbursed.
I strongly believe that people are naturally non-violent. It can actually be measured now with brain scans. Children who are exposed to violence and aggression have their brains changed to not only accept violence, but inflict it upon others. Children are quickly indoctrinated into a society of violence. Remove the violence from society, and eventually it will no longer be accepted. This, of course, won't happen over night, but we've got to break the first link of the chain before every one can be free.
Why do you think early religions, the first violent monopolies, teach/taught the notion of Original Sin? Because if people are naturally violent, then someone (the church, the state, etc) needs to be granted the power to inflict violence upon the people in order to "protect" you.
As for the minimum wage... You say there aren't enough resources to go around. So what's the solution? Give it out anyway, despite that fact that the resources don't exist.
The reason the resources don't exist is because the state has slowed innovation through their monopolies, and we as a society haven't been give the opportunity to dream up new solutions.
You're asking for me to provide solutions, but it's impossible, because I can't possibly harness the collective genius of society alone. In a truly free society, the solutions would quickly present themselves...
An example
Stefan Molyneux often uses goes as so...
Let's say I lived in the time before the liberation of the African-American slaves, plantation owners and politicians would say, "But if we free the slaves, how the hell will be able to provide food to eat and cotton to clothe ourselves?"
If I said, "Simple, we'll have massive horseless carriages, with massive machine claws on the front. How will they run you ask? We'll use pipes miles long to suck black tar out from the center of the earth! The best part is, only a measly 3% of the population will be needed to operate these horseless carriages in order provide food and cotton for billions of people!"
Not only would you think I'm crazy, but there's no way I could pull that out of my ass back then.
Well guess what? We granted liberty and property rights to the blacks, and one of society's great innovations came to be.
Freedom spawns innovation.
In my person opinion the idea of having completely personal freedom is a lovely idea however it is just an ideal. It seems just as impossible and impractical as communism.
You have made the best discussion so far. I find some people make the argument rather ... personal and tend to not answer the questions. Thanks.
Until very very recently, I too believed the idea of no government was Utopian. Since I was able to overcome the silly notion that people are inherently evil, I've quickly overcome the fear of society without government.
An truly free and anarchical society certainly won't happen in my lifetime, but I believe it is possible. Just look at the last 200 years. We went from monarchy and church run governments, to the founding of the US (we've gone astray, which I worry about), to ending slavery, to giving women and minorities the right to vote. We've come a long fucking way, and progress is exponential, so we're not as far off as many would think. We just need to start breaking the cycle of violence that so many impose on themselves and others.
I've also enjoyed discussing this with you! Thanks for reading my wall of text, and I hope you come back with some questions and counterpoints for me.
