but there lies the problem Bosses take advantage of everyone creating social inequality it was proven that the tasks assigned to a Boss can be done collectively by the workers in that eliminating social inequality and making the worker responsible for his work environment and everything that goes on in fact that stimulates the worker cause he knows if he fucks it up he fucks himself up and CAPITALISM by definition is not only free market capitalism if it was just that damn that would be very good but it was proved tru history or most recent now days that capitalism can't survive if a higher power doesn't have her back you seem to be very confused when it comes to anarchism maybe you are just at the beginning but you will understand if you study more deeply anarcho-capitalism is a PARADOX cause Another State would replace the first capitalism is inherently authoritarian in anarcho capitalism everyone would be trying to capitalize off another. All striving for the same goal of exploiting another for financial gain. For all they really have is land and capital, both of which produce nothing without labor. There would be no one in the community who would be willing to contractually exploit themselves unless it would further their own agenda of exploitation of another later on down the road. In turn this would eventually lead to the capitalist pyramid scheme that governments have utilized to gain power. Instead of the state we would have corporational slavery due to the mergers of financial institutions and the allowance of monopolization within a free market. and then it comes the problem of HIERARCHY anarchism's main objective is the abolishment of hierarchy in a capitalist society hierarchy is crucial an example is Venice in her trade times there was no centralized authority over them but hierarchy and social gaps still existed

well it depends, there are a lot of jobs that aren't easy, like mine, jobs that a really hard work but people like me get shitty pay.

An entrepreneur goes to an investor and asks for a loan. In order to get a loan the entrepreneur presents what he plans to do with the money and the benefits with the plan.... there's very little exploiting involved. If there was then we wouldn't have many successful companies we see today.

Laissez-faire in definition is used in any type of anarchist society so cut that bullshit it seems you have no idea what's anarchism

Hong Kong is not a good example Hong Kong's poor Households the levels of expenditure , Income Security and poverty makes Hong Kong unqualified as an example maybe as a business example yes but as a social example NOT REALLY Venice and Hong Kong are similar while people praised them their people lived in dirt and their aristocracy lived like kings

businesses are usually owned by the bank (through a mortgage or small business loan) and a landlord (most are in rented commercial property) who collect money from you through your boss for doing nothing.
- It is arguable that many small business "owners"/operators work harder than if they were working for someone else, but the chances are, even if they do, they still don't pay their workers for the full value of the work their workers do. The best evidence of this is that while you have to ride the bus to work, the boss owns a car. While you have to rent or share an apartment, the boss has a house. Obviously, you can't afford to live like your boss and even the hardest working boss doesn't do that much more than you do, to be equal to the difference in the money each of you get out of the business.

check this video

woow

In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and reflecting the policy known as "one country, two systems" by the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region in all areas except defence and foreign affairs. The declaration stipulates that the region maintain its capitalist economic system and guarantees the rights and freedoms of its people for at least 50 years beyond the 1997 handover.

that's from wikipedia Triad infested Hong Kong is still independent and was all the time don't mention it cause its not a good example

However, looking more closely at Hong Kong, we find a somewhat different picture than that painted by those claim Hong Kong as an example of the wonders of free market capitalism. Once these basic (and well known) facts are known, it is hard to take Friedman's claims seriously. Of course, there are aspects of laissez-faire to the system (it does not subsidise sunset industries, for example) however, there is much more to Hong Kong that these features. Ultimately, laissez-faire capitalism is more than just low taxes.

The most obvious starting place is the fact that the government owns all the land. To state the obvious, land nationalisation is hardly capitalistic. It is one of the reasons why its direct taxation levels are so low. As one resident points out:

"The main explanation for low tax rates . . . is not low social spending. One important factor is that Hong Kong does not have to support a defence industry . . . The most crucial explanation . . . lies in the fact that less than half of the government's revenues comes from direct taxation.

"The Hong Kong government actually derives much of its revenue from land transactions. The territory's land is technically owned by the government, and the government fills its coffers by selling fifty-year leases to developers (the fact that there are no absolute private property rights to land will come as another surprise t boosters of 'Hong Kong-style' libertarianism) . . . The government has an interest in maintaining high property values . . . if it is to maintain its policy of low taxation. It does this by carefully controlling the amount of land that is released for sale . . . It is, of course, those buying new homes and renting from the private sector who pay the price for this policy. Many Hong Kongers live in third world conditions, and the need to pay astronomical residential property prices is widely viewed as an indirect form of taxation." [Daniel A. Bell, "Hong Kong's Transition to Capitalism", pp. 15-23, Dissent, Winter 1998, pp. 15-6]

Their workers not slaves, they have a choice to work their or not. There is a lot more oppurtunities and jobs than just wal-mart, or workers could strike and demand higher wages.

Very few artists on major record labels make a lot of money. In many ways, it's actually better to make sign a contract with a independent label rather than a major one, one example is because u get a bigger percentage of the profits.

And actually, there's nothing wrong with major record labels. The majority of people get what they want... taco bell shit cuz they can't handle the real mexican, no what I mean? There's nothing wrong with that.

that's another capitalist economic myth In order to answer that we must first have to point out that "actually existing capitalism" tries to manage unemployment to ensure a compliant and servile working class. This is done under the name of fighting "inflation" but, in reality, it about controlling wages and maintaining high profit rates for the capitalist class. Market discipline for the working class, state protection for the ruling class, in other words. As Edward Herman points out:

"Conservative economists have even developed a concept of a 'natural rate of unemployment,' a metaphysical notion and throwback to an eighteenth century vision of a 'natural order,' but with a modern apologetic twist. The natural rate is defined as the minimum unemployment level consistent with price level stability, but, as it is based on a highly abstract model that is not directly testable, the natural rate can only be inferred from the price level itself. That is, if prices are going up, unemployment is below the 'natural rate' and too low, whether the actual rate is 4, 8, or 10 percent. In this world of conservative economics, anybody is 'voluntarily' unemployed. Unemployment is a matter of rational choice: some people prefer 'leisure' over the real wage available at going (or still lower) wage rates . . .

"Apart from the grossness of this kind of metaphysical legerdemain, the very concept of a natural rate of unemployment has a huge built-in bias. It takes as granted all the other institutional factors that influence the price level-unemployment trade-off (market structures and independent pricing power, business investment policies at home and abroad, the distribution of income, the fiscal and monetary mix, etc.) and focuses solely on the tightness of the labour market as the controllable variable. Inflation is the main threat, the labour market (i.e. wage rates and unemployment levels) is the locus of the solution to the problem."

No, my family besides a few members are all democrats. I just like economics

My dad is a computer programmer, my mom a accountant, my grandpa on my moms side is a painter, and my grandma on my moms side used to work as a cashier in a supermarket