That's nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I'm not sure what efficiency has to do with this.

[–] mamotromico@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you show an example?

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?

Edit: Upon reflection, it seems that the existence of any black market proves the point.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you think the black market doesn't have a central authority, you're looking through rose tinted glasses. Whoever has the most money and the most guns at their disposal is the authority. The black market is actually a perfect example of where capitalist market economics lead without regulation.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things? Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations. Though, we certainly don't need the state for a black market to run its business. However, I guess it wouldn't really be a black market if there wasn't a state to declare things illegal 🤔.

I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things?

Why?

Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations.

What do you mean, "of course"?

Though, we certainly don’t need the state for a black market to run its business.

If there weren't a state, it would just be a "market", not a black market. And as I said, black markets are controlled by the most wealthy and powerful in that market. They are the de facto state of the black market.

However, I guess it wouldn’t really be a black market if there wasn’t a state to declare things illegal 🤔.

Exactly, yes.

I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism

If you consider regulation authoritarian, sure. Or if you're referring to the outlawing of drugs, I somewhat agree. Weapons trading is grey at best, though.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why are we talking about the state running things? Because your comment I originally responded to was "sorry, but the market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?" I believe my responses have been very much on this topic.

I disagree that every market requires a state to function. Humans are social beings and will always continue to trade and barter regardless of the form of government, or lack of government. I absolutely disagree that any third-party is needed for protection of property. Now, if we consider all forms of centralized authority as defacto states, sure, I guess I can't compete with those semantics and will have to concede that you are right. In that case, I believe any group of people can be a "state".

Now, I've been conversing in good faith, stating my point of view, and even answering one-liner questions. You are clearly against capitalism, and you seem to believe that state protection is necessary for a market to function (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth). Are you against the idea of markets in general? If so, what replaces the market and how would its authority be any better?

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Requiring a state to protect private property isn't "the state running things". Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state to uphold private property laws. "The state running shit" would be like... a planned economy.

Don't equivocate the two, yeah?

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look friend, it should be clear that "things", in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of "state" to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I've been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I'm open to hearing alternative views.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's fucking bonkers that you think the definition of "things" is what's at issue here.

I'm not disputing that lmao. But upholding private property law is not running the market. That would be, like i said, a planned economy.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's bonkers is that you still haven't offered up your position so it's difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn't a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I never mentioned personal property. I'm talking about private property.