Capitalist order is one trans-Harold-an agenda meant to be transceanda, to overcome, to expand through the action of ordering. This statement may seem unusual, so it needs explanation.
At first glance, things are so precisely because of the economic laws of supply and demand. If the offer grows and demand remains constant, the price of the good (s) offered. This happens when, due to free several competing bidders appear you the same good on a specific market. On the other hand, if demand increases and demand remains constant, the price of the good (s) offered. The thing is true, inter alia, for the price of Labor: free competition does not mean just that more entrepreneurs offers customers the same good (bread, say), but also that these entrepreneurs need more employees to produce and to sell the property in question.
In other words, in a free market economy the price of consumer goods tends to decrease, while that of goods production (work force, among other things) to grow.
We have such a virtuous circle: a growing amount of money remains at the sole discretion of consumers, which in turn enables entrepreneurs to create new goods to try to extract in the form of profit, part of this monetary surplus; doing so, marketers develop competition, leading to lower the price of consumer goods and increase the price of labor-and so on endlessly.
All well and good, but how it is possible such a virtuous circle? And why it appears so late in the history of mankind? We know already how it works cross-order finite-but what exactly makes it possible? And what allows him to subsist?
To be able to survive, a man needs a shelter and food. Who is the owner of a food source and a House is autonomous in the sense of self-sufficient, independent of others in order to subsist. And if you don't depend on others, he cannot be in any way compelled to enter into commercial relationships with other people. Let us now recall as the classic ideal man was an autonomous individual. Autonomy-the ability of self-maintenance, so feeding from its own resources-represent, in the world of Greek-Latin, a fundamental value-up in there that citizens were forbidden by law to sell or alienate in any other way a piece of land if it was their only property and provide food.
This type of autonomy remained an ideal until the early modern age. Even in a feudal period, if a man was the owner of a food source, was considered and treated as such, hence the strong desire of improprietarire nutrita of peasants deprived of land. Throughout the period, one of the meanings of Premodern periods of freedom was the absence of obligation to enter into commercial relationships with someone to provide daily nutrition.
In short, the fundamental condition of possibility of a capitalist order is the absence of individual autonomy in the sense of ownership of a food source. Only in this case trade may become the Foundation of social cooperation. Important source of feed is replaced with that of the source of income, and autonomy is redefined as non-dependence from a third party source of income in insurance. In this respect, autonomy is guaranteed through free trade and free competition, and any limits put these two freedoms are perceived as attempts to limit the autonomy of the individual.
Modern States require all citizens to their obligation to pay duties and taxes only in currency, not in nature or in work. Thus, even if someone would become the owner of a food source, it would not be able to keep the property unless they would engage in trade relations and on a monetarizata market, in order to get the money payment of fees and taxes. Source of income it takes preeminence over the food source, and commercial relations are generalizeaza as they become virtually impossible to avoid.
It is very important to understand that the order is not a capitalist order. People don't seek out sources of monetary income instinctively. They are looking for but, naturally, to have access to a food source and shelter; in other words, naturally, people seek to become autonomous in the sense. I would say even more: people find spontaneously to hold a food source and shelter in such a way that they do not need to make any effort to obtain their own food production and for maintaining proper housing.
Capitalism is only possible if this natural process is interrupted using a tool through which anyone can no longer gain access to food and shelter than through a source of monetary income. The condition of possibility for maintaining law and order is the capitalist. I say this especially for proponents of the doctrine called "anarcho-capitalism", who believe that the State is the natural enemy of the capitalist order, so that in the absence of state capitalism would flourish. Things are exactly opposite. In the absence of an institutional arrangement that will compel individuals to pay taxes-and make it exclusively in the currency-capitalism would be impossible. In the absence of this institutional arrangement-modern-State, feudal order becomes more plausible than the capitalist (precisely because the latter is no longer how to subsist). From this point of view, the notion of anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
Capitalist order is not so one. It can maintain only one institutional arrangement through which individuals can avoid engaging in trade relations through the coin. That does not mean that free trade economic is unnatural. After all, people have always practiced. Free trade is not artificial, but unable to get out, if you wish, of trade flows.
Capitalist order is an order of commercial exchange universal and inevitable (as I have already said, the inevitability of result of the obligation imposed on all pay taxes in the currency). Institutional arrangement required for maintaining the capitalist order is designed to do one thing: to block the natural tendency of people to himself a source of food and shelter, so that individuals do not have access to food and shelter than through a monetary income. Just lock this natural tendencies, which derives spontaneously from the instinct of self-preservation, the capitalism. In the absence of this blockage imposed from the outside, the market (monetarizata or not) would collapse. Capitalism would become spontaneously what was along the entire order history: a peripheral pre-modern, a useful way of action in appropriate circumstances, but unnecessary.
The fact that, in order to maintain the capitalist order, needs an institutional arrangement outside her to impose gridlock described above has some remarkable consequences. The most important of them is the need to impose and maintain a distinction between the State and equities neta. The modern State is an instrument of blockage. That is why it is necessary for him to not block more than you need for the smooth functioning of the market. In other words, the State must be a guarantor of free trade and free competition. Whenever it tries to be more than that, he shrinks (and, at the limit, cancel) unprecedented benefits that belong to order makes them possible. But doing so, gets to lose reason to be-because in the absence of such modern type of State benefit no longer has any justification.
Here the result State didn't have to intervene in the market. On the contrary. As long as, in order of capitalist, people cannot have access to food and shelter than through a monetary income, their behavior will be naturally oriented to obtaining an income security (or, in economic language, to receiving income from a pension or other species). They'll find so to discover ways to ensure that a number (possibly larger) of captive clients. Free competition is as unnatural as capitalism itself.
But free competition is the one that makes possible the virtuous circle described at the beginning. In its absence, we would not be able to speak really capitalism. Therefore, the modern State is kept to intervene on the market to prevent the formation of rents and to disband those already formed. In other words, the State is held to regulate economic activities for the purposes of the guarantee of free concurrent (including, for instance, by obliging the suppliers of goods and services to offer potential clients all relevant information related to the good or service).
On the other hand, the modern State institutions should not be judged by the criteria of efficiency after a private firm. The thesis according to which there are no services provided to state that the market can not provide better it's demonstrably false. There are at least two services that modern State provides better than any private-access directly to the food source and at home and blocking formation of 1606-and this for the simple reason that no private agent can provide, and in the absence of these two capitalist order services would cease to exist virtually.
The idea to look at the State as a company or as an ensemble of companies in competition with other companies it's capitalist order funesta, because it dissolves the whole State of market relations and thus hinder their exercise of its functions, which by their very nature, are external market, but its necessary subzistentei. Since the capitalist order is not a natural order, able to subsist through itself, but depends on an institutional arrangement outside them, which makes it possible, "privatization of State" has as a consequence the disappearance of the capitalist order required. Therefore, maintaining a net Awards, a modern State boundaries between farms and capitalist order is a necessary condition in order for both to survive.
Come here, I want to remove a possible misunderstanding. The assertion according to which the capitalist order is not a natural order is not in any way a criticism of this type of order. Instead, the discovery that the prosperity and freedoms they are only possible through the instinct of preservation, frustration by refusing direct access to food and shelter, by introducing a mediator between ourselves and our own nature seems to me one of the most remarkable discoveries in the history of mankind. Breach created between us and our nature and thus between us and nature in general-open a previously unknown space of specific human freedom (non-animal) and is consequently a form of domestication.
Is not less true that the frustration of an instinct so strong such as contrariaza conservation and dissatisfied. Any individual who lives in the capitalist order is, therefore, a fundamental, radical of a precarious fragility. It is precisely this precariousness of which no longer has the earth firmly under the soles of the feet is, I think, the last source from which all criticism of capitalist order-occurring periodically and critics who found the audience whenever capitalism is (or appears to be) in the deadlock.
