: I'm happy to. Point me in the direction of the books.
What so you can dismiss them as green commie propaganda or something? Why is the word of your opposing debater not enough? Dont try using any brainwashing silliness as an explanation either because if NJ's 'brainwashed' why arent you?
: Sounds more like a monarchy.
Which is the tendency of industry and commerce under unhindered capitalism, just scope out Bill Gates the empiror of Microsoft.
:How did this man and his corporation obtain ownership of the entire country?
Well he maybe employed high barriers to entry and exit in the market place to prevent competition, as any competitor would, then used monopoly power and economies of scale to further defeat the choices and freedoms of the consumer and worker and consolidate his market position. As is again the tendency in modern market economies, see Cable and Wireless's amalgamation with British Telecom or the mass mergers in the Pharmacuticals industry, and would be only worse in a totalling unhindered state.
:From what individual (or corporation) did he purchase it, and what right did the seller have to the property in the first place?
Now I'm not sure you really wish to ask such a question because if you wish to consider the actual history of it Property emerged through the theivery of Kings and Fuedal lords, so it's orgins are totally illegitimate even if it is not entirely illegimitate now because it is a semi-satisfactory means of organising rewards.
:I suspect that somewhere in the equation was a government with some kind of "eminent domain" policy.
And why would that government be any different from a monopoly business? They are both after all operating under the, supposedly excusable, influence of greedy self-interest and competition for scare resources.
: In other words, a system which was quite the opposite of a system of private property.
Or one that is synominous, what is the difference between the property of a monopoly business man and a statesman? Both are acquired through force, conniving behaviour and fraud, the 'laws' of 'natural' competition for scarce resources.
: And, apparently, the Brazilian Indians had no private property/rule of law based recourse.
Capitalism does not respect the rule of law, the rule of law hinders the pursuit of monopoly status, vitory in competition and acquisition of profits.
: Again, I'm not saying that corporations are incapable of monstrous acts, merely that those monstrous acts are almost always a direct result of some kind of government intervention in private property rights and the free exchanges of people.
Or perhaps the operation of a system in which the rule of law, sociability etc. have all foundered on the rocks of competiton, conflict and rythless acquisition, capitalism pure and simple, why should this be any different under a 'stateless' socio-economic system? Would the private monopolists, or capitalist oligopoly, given a free hand to employ mercenary armies for the 'defense of property', EG their power bases, etc. not just constitute a new state?
: You're assuming that capitalism requires a state, which it doesn't, at least not by my definition.
The fact is that capitalism once needed a state to defend property and enforce injustice in the workplace and exchange of goods and services but now that monopolies and capitalist oligopoly are sufficiently powerful they could simply starve non-compliers or hire mercenary forces to 'police' opposition.
:The existence and wide-spread use of the term "state capitalism" would imply that my definition is not mine alone.
That description denotes that the monopoly control of production and exchange is equally insufferable to the consumer or worker regardless of whether the state or the capitalist the proprietor.
: Again, please point me to the info I need.
Again, NJ's word is not good enough? We are being asked to accept your or rothbards accounts without, or even contrary to evidence, and with the perpetual excuse that everything would be different in 'anarcho'-capitalism.
The idea that monopoly or oligopoly control of production and exchange and proprietorship would simply disappear or wither away is so much similar to the marxist-leninst notion that the state monopoly control of production and exchange and proprietorship would simply disappear or wither away. Why would the powerful individuals in either instance divest themselves of power if they where given a free hand? Do you really think that an entire generation of people would rise up in competition to defeat the monopoly when they do not at present?
: Really? And whose common good were the Pygmies using the land for? The Pygmies? So, the Pygmies profited by their use of the land? Scandalous!
Benefit and profit are two very, very different matters.
: Corporations use their resources for the common good too, primarily for the common good of their investors and employees, and secondarily for the common good of everyone who exchanges with them.
Nonsense the corporation puts the interests of the shareholders above all else, the consumer and the worker can go to hell for all they care, the only people they are accountable to are shareholders and that accountability is very residual because the sharholders are unlikely to be able to organise in an fashion worthy of the corps attention.
The evidence: The Water Service and Train Service in Britain, the corporations have done nothing other than raise the wages of the 'fat cats' outrageously and exercise nepotism in promtion and employment, much as a government does, to the determent of services and without meaningful threat from the shareholders. All while demanding huge welfare payments from the taxpayer.
The Capitalist Health care system works similarly in America.
: All the evidence of economic science points to laissez-faire capitalism as being the only economic system which preserves individual freedom.
All the politically prejudiced economic 'science' points in that directon, you obviously havent sought to account conflicting accounts.
You should, it's becoming increasingly popular for capitalists to call on the state to save them from the 'brink', the complete chaos of competiton which allows all the Hitlers of this world to rise up.
Check out George Soros' 'The Crisis of Global Capitalism', he made incredible fortunes predicting futures and trading shares but has now lost thousands and thousands, he's no fool and his investments etc. have been wise so there has to be some reason. Then Check out John Gray's 'False Dawn: The Dillusions of Glabal Capitalism', he was a prominant member of the eighties New Right and supported the violent suppression of the Mining communities by the Thatcher Regime, he remains vehemently anti-socialist but is realistic about the consequences of unstable and unsafe capitalism or it's acceleration of global destruction.
:If you don't know that, you really don't know economics.
Or perhaps your not easily fooled.
: On the other hand, I will freely admit that I could use more reading in history. Please point me to recommended books.
Well, you could check out those books, I'd recommend that you visit the Democratic Socialists of America website for references, they support market socialism which I dont think any capitalist would cringe at, personally I'm currently reading Rudolf Rockers 'Anarcho-Syndicalism' (with an introduction by Noam Chomsky) which I'd recommend to anyone, it's a great read.
: If I did say that socialism invariably leads to tyranny, I was probably upset and prone to exaggeration.
It is honourable of you to admit this, there is nothing wrong with admiting that you may have been mistaken it just means your wiser now than you where, I found that out by corresponding with syndicalists or libertarian socialists who convinced me that 'authoritarian monopoly proprietorship socialism' wanst greatly different from capitalism.
:I remember saying in one post that it leads to economic stagnation at best
I would not like to generalise since Ireland that has a Social Partnerhsip (sure the capitalists renegaded on it and fraudlantly and secretly moved all their savings off shore, I guess they wherent content with a ceasefire in the class war, but that can be addressed) and is out performing neo-liberal Britain, there's always Sweden, Switzerland or Denmark who have what you would no doubt refer to as socialism, particularly in the instance of Sweden, who dont display any of the traits you have described.
:and mass murder at worst. This is more accurate.
I think the mass murder is more a product of authoritarianism and the foolish identification of institutions, planning strategies or blue prints with socialism, when that's the case people perish but then the same has happened under capitalist regimes like Pinochets Chile when the plans of Friedmann where implemented from behind the barrel of a gun.