Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

Pretty surprised you can't answer the second question. Capitalism has a mechanism for wealth-accrual. The most successful become the wealthiest. Wealth means the ability to command more work and resources which gives you an edge for controlling more wealth. Wealth can breed more wealth. At some point, some where, some one will wield so much wealth, they could tip over from using wealth to participate in the market place to using wealth to control the lives of people most dependent upon him. He may also use his wealth to guard his ability to generate wealth which could approach something like war.

I asked you because I can't have a dialogue with myself.

It is not known that your thesis is accurate. One known reason why is that disadvantage of incumbency is a very real phenomenon in a free market. I've discussed this in the past with regards to Walmart and Amazon or Microsoft and Google, but it exists a million different ways. The TLDR is that incumbents have a disincentive to innovate outside of their business models. This naturally provides competitive space for disruptive innovations from others. This is why back when Amazon began rapidly subverting the Walmart business model, Walmart was powerless to stop it. Walmart's bread and butter is brick and mortar retail, and if it was to compete as directly with Amazon in online retail as it could, it would undermine its own bread and butter.

So, this is but one example of how the positive feedback loop you envision with regards to wealth accrual is struck by negative feedback.

Or we could just look at the wealth data itself. I forget the exact numbers but it's something like only 3% of the wealthiest family from a hundred years ago are still wealthy. The turnover and subversion of wealth in markets is high. Even the "unstoppable" juggernaut called Microsoft from less than a decade ago became a frantic underdog within just a couple years time. Out of nowhere, its vast market share plummeted from the uprising of unpredicted competitors.

Why governments will always exist:

In Anarchy, violence enjoys primacy. Anyone with an edge in violence will reap benefits in every other corner of life. The marketplace can not defeat Anarchy's legacy (States) nor can it defeat the incentive to be the most violent.

What happens when the incentive to not initiate force is greater than the incentive to do so? Meaning, what happens when the initiation of violence is less productive -- and thus less capable of generating wealth -- than the utility of security from the initiation of violence?

Why States won't implement a sustained free market:

States must maintain internal stability to maintain its ability to wage war. The State has an incentive to reallocate its resources to maintain internal stability. A free market will mean reduced services to the least privileged of society which will lead to increased social unrest. A free market will also present members of the same tribe with stark examples of the haves-vrs-the-have-nots which will breed contempt and more social unrest. The State, therefore, has an incentive to be seen as providing a safety net and social securities. (Look at histories best examples of free markets - the US, Sinagpore, Hong Kong, a free market is societies sprint, not its marathon.)

Two things:

(1) A free market increases services. I'm not sure why you're saying otherwise. Also the perception of haves and have nots is built by the government policies that create such divergence and low social mobility in the first place.

(2) I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but if you're saying that free market societies tend towards state authoritarianism because of the perceptions people get from results of how economies naturally function, I disagree. The US welfare state is, well, an accident. A technical thing happened and nobody knew the consequences it would cause with things like reliance on the government down the road. That technical thing is money monopoly i.e. the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve then created the Great Depression (Yes, created. The Fed itself admitted back in the 00's that it did this). But because nobody (the public and most economists too) at the time did not realize that the cause of their disastrous economy was a money monopoly misbehaving, everybody blamed capitalists. This ushered in support for welfare and government authority over all things. As usual, markets are the solution.