What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Okay. There's nothing that needs to be done by the state in order for capitalism to exist.

All countries. A state is not necessary in any country.

 

No. You didn't. Longshot said "TedintheShed's statement was that a state is not NECESSARY for capitalism." And that isn't true. That was not your statement. Your statement was about Marxists. So let me reword mine.... All capitalist-derived systems require a state to operate. There has never been a capitalist country that had no laws related to the economy. In fact every economic system requires a state to operate and it's always about controlling other people.

 

Bald assertion fallacy.

 

Come on. That's nonsense and you know it. Property rights need to be protected from harm by other capitalists; laws are needed for enforcement of contracts; data must be protected; ...

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...whim-of-bureaucracy-to-function/#2a158e073000

https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/the-laws-of-capitalism/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/harryb...apitalism-requires-government-2/#4ab7322b7d89

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/12/capitalism-needs-a-welfare-state-to-survive

 

Bald assertion fallacy.

 

So you're saying that property needs to be protected, contracts need to be enforced, and data must be protected. Okay, and why is a state necessary for any of these tasks to be performed?

 

But you see, I'm not asserting anything. I'm denying your bald assertion. See the difference?

 

Read the links.

 

Bunk. You asserted that a state is not necessary. That was the meaning of "no, it's not".

 

So you can't answer the question. Got it.

 

You don't read proofs. Got it.

 

Yes, I deny your unfounded claim that the state is essential to capitalism.

 

Alright. I'll play your silly game for a moment. Company ABC orders parts from company XYZ and after company ABC receives the parts, ABC refuses to pay for the parts. Now what?

 

I never said that.

 

I believe you did:

I'm still waiting to hear your proof of this claim.

 

They enter into the arbitration to which they both agreed in the contract.

 

Then quote me correctly please.

See post 863.

 

You said: "First, capitalist ABSOLUTELY requires a state". That's a direct quote.

And in post 863 you ask a question. It doesn't prove that capitalism requires a state.

 

Oh man, you're playing a silly game! YOU SAID MY WORD WAS "ESSENTIAL". I NEVER SAID THAT.

My "question" in 863 puts you in a corner where you can't show your claim of a state being unnecessary is true. The answer to my question is that a state is needed to keep the order for capitalism, unless you can figure out another answer for 863.

 

Um, I answered your question. The two parties would use the arbitrator to which they agreed in the contract. No state required.

 

Ok, you did answer, but who says they have to enter into arbitration? Company ABC is like Trump. It says "screw you" and shafts company XYZ. Then ABC reverse engineers the parts provided by XYZ and starts making them and selling them because XYZ has no patent on the parts. They CAN'T HAVE a patent on the parts BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATE TO ENFORCE IT.

 

Right. It wasn't there when I first looked and answered. But my reply is there now.

 

Of course they don't have to agree that arbitration would be part of the contract. But they'd be stupid not to do so because then there would be no recourse in the situation you described.

So? Patents aren't necessary for capitalism.

 

What "contract"? If the state doesn't have anything to do with a capitalist economy, there is no enforcement of contracts. No enforcement of arbitration; no enforcement of contracts; no patents; no requirement to do anything you choose not to do. Great system! LOL!!!!

 

Duplicate post.