On wealth and ideologies

Wealth creates wealth, builds upon previous wealth.
It takes wealthy people to buy products from others, making the producers wealthier (and the purchasers too: for otherwise they would not have parted with the money). Those producers can then, in turn, purchase products from others, and so forth and so further.
Wealth breeds safety and security. When one does not have to worry about acquiring the basic necessities for life (food, drink and shelter), one does not have to consider acquiring those by violent means, risking injury or even death (or social ostracisation),wasting resources one does not have due to one’s poverty (war presumes wealth: which is why it is very unlikely that North Korea will go to war).
Paradoxically, poverty creates empoverishing conflict while extreme poverty prevents it. Making socialism the most potent force for peace the world has ever known.

Growing the #economy by running a succesful business not only enriches thousands upon thousands, up to millions, but then enables these richer people to give to charity themselves because they now have more disposable income than they immediately need (so do not have to live hand to mouth).

Capitalists are not likely to deliberately put people in unsafe factories. It is not in their benefit for people to risk their health there. Capitalists will provide safer factories, if they would result in higher productivity/fewer complaints/strikes by the workers.
This would be for his own good, for increased profits.
Being a sadist, intent on harming workers, takes money and effort, which one cannot afford to spend on such unproductive matters, unless one is a capitalist.

Capitalism doesn’t tend to have people alwith an innate desire to tell people how to behave, because doing so is wasteful,of effort better spent on producing stuff.
Socialism on the other hand, is all about telling people what do do, and if the glorious leadership would rather not hear that, they easily turn aggressive. This means that people with an inherent violent streak are most likely to gravitate to socialism.

To reform #banking

Fractional reserve banking is what enables banks to pay #interest to the saver. It also makes banks susceptible to #collapse from a #bank #run.
If one wishes (nearly) 100% assured safety, only deposit one’s money in a bank that does not lend out at an interest rate, so a bank that only engages in the traditional role of warehousing. You pay a modest fee, but are assured that your money is there (bar events such as robbery, bankruptcy, earthquake, war…)
How could banks earn enough money to pay you(!) a fee for storing your money with them (the exact inverse)? Why, through

Fractional #reserve-banking

of course! By not keeping all the deposited money in reserve, but lending out a #fraction the bank earns #interest #payments, which are used to pay the worker’s salaries, saver’s interest mortgages on the bank-building, purchases of bank-safes, etc. This lending out of money to borrowers, makes investments possible (like the aforementioned mortgage on the bank-building, or mortgages for factory- or office-buildings), and thus economic growth. Regrettably, it also makes possible a bank run, where savers want to get back more money than the bank currently holds (some of which is loaned out to borrowers).
Citizens that are concerned about “greedy banks” or bank-runs might choose to keep their money in a bank, that only stores the money for a fee and doesn’t lend it to borrowers. Such banks no longer exist, one could easily purchase a safe and start advertising about your run-proof money-storage.
Except in today’s world, ever fewer payments are done in cash (#gold bullion), but rather electronically, so your money safe would likely remain quite empty & pristine.
One could engage in a different strategy, and take #CryptoCurrencies like #BitCoin or one of the many derivatives. So long as there is an internet (and you didn’t lose your password), you have access to your balance.

The seeds of its own destruction?

Friedrich #Engels was able to finance Karl #Marx, because Engels was the son of a wealthy entrepreneur. Engels and Marx both famously opposed entrepreneurship. Marxism inspired communist dictatorship, which as we know was a disaster for the esstern-European people (proletariat), unlike #capitalism, which had lifted the western worker up to great affluence, even the poorest households tended to be able to acquire toothpaste, unlike even the elite in the #communist block.
So, basically, #capitalism made possible the ideology that spent 3/4 of a decade fighting it (and didn’t really stop with the collapse of the USSR; there are so many communist activists in the west that try to overthrow the free-market-way of life – Al #Gore, Naomi #Klein, …) So did capitalism carry the seeds of its own destruction?
I tend to disagree. Capitalism (I use that as “free-market”) simply means that people are free to make their own choices, unlike communism/socialism, which is all about the state imposing its will upon others. Since capitalism is a different kind of ideology (Strictly speaking it’s not about #politics), unlike #communism which is about how many roles the evil institution should play) it is not an ideology that fights other ideologies. I know, the cold war between #communist east and capitalist west disproves that, except it wasn’t really between communism and capitalism, now, was it? It was about control of the earth by one nation or by another nation (#4thReich), it just so happened that the west, in spite of all its socialist faults (and there were so many: starting with Central Banking, over-regulation of markets and more) tended to be a bit freer & wealthier than the east. So socialism, with its more violent nature, tends to destroy anything it gets in contact with, and is the side most likely to pick a fight and attempt to impose itself anywhere it can, because socialism is all about politics, and politicians desire power for (abuse of) power’s sake. Businessmen desire a comfortable life, so wealth for comfort’s sake. Hence proper capitalism is not about abuse of power, so proper capitalists don’t really care if the state is governed one way or another: of course, the presence of a state tends to diminish the virtues of capitalism, states automatically lean more toward socialism (totalitarianism).

The downfall of empires pt.3: Rome pt.2: decadence

As I started saying, decadence is sometimes blamed for #Rome’s downfall. There is possibly some truth to that: (corrollary to the roaring 1920s) the perceived, fleeting wealth of an,inflated currency (denarius) which was debased to 5% (the denarius was reduced from a silver coin, to a silver plated brass coin) temporarily made Rome’s citizens feel a sense of economic relief: the face value of the denarius remained unchanged, but there were more of them, meaning people were richer, right?
Much like the #euro: that hated currency still has the value of one euro, but it keeps getting inflated by that evil bastard #Draghi, so it’s real value is now much less than one euro (using the introductory coin’s value)
This sense of economic relief promoted a mentality of Carpe Diem, instead of the more gloomy memento mori, the imminence of death, people were reminded of before, when there was doubt about the chances of individual survival. This seizing of the days became a sort of decadence, which the people then could not afford to keep up.
So, all in all, the downfall of Rome had multiple causes, all #political: military conquest, monetary malfeasance.

Who will license drivers?

Since handing out driver’s licenses is clearly not one of government’s tasks, (driver’s licensing has little to do with owning the road), in a stateless society the only interested party would handle driver’s licensing: insurance companies. After all, if someone can’t drive, they probably cause lots of accidents costing the insurance company lots of money; causing them to demand proof of skill before they grant a driver’s license. (Translated from the official Dutch title, literally “evidence of driving skill”).
Hold on, one might say: wouldn’t a rich guy just drive without insurance and expevt to pay for any damages he causes out of pocket? (Perhaps injuring or killing people)
Well: in a stateless society the wealth would likely be distributed more evenly, because the opportunities to become rich would be equalized: there would be no ridiculous licensing requirements to open a business anywhere, no crony capitalism (see (1) below).
But apart from the fact that everybody would be more or less equally rich:
Some road owners (remember: businesses may run an access road to their business to get customers to be able to reach them), will refuse such drivers access to their roads, making their car useless, as well as harmless.
This is another balancing check to ensure that people actually pass driver’s exams before they go on a drive.
This will ensure sufficiently high standards for safe road conditions. And those standards will not be set ridiculously high, or nobody will pass their exams, meaning that THAT insurance company will not be able to sell car insurance, if only because nobody will try to buy it from THEM, they will seek out a different insurance company, that may have slightly higher rates because actually selling insurance would mean they occasionally have to pay out, raising costs, which will have to be paid by consumers.
This will see to it, that it will not be unduly difficult to pass a driving exam.

(1): this does not mean that in stateless society there would be heavy industry in rural housing communities, polluting the heck out of the neighbours: because, once again, interested parties (the neighbours), would object to having their interests harmed, by noisy, smelly petro-industry, noisy, hazardous big rigs driving to and fro, carrying heavy cargo.

In short, the current situation, where the government owns the roads and grants (ocasionally) driver’s licenses, is wrong on so many counts, that it is just another reason to embrace statelessness: the government does get a lot of its loot from taxing driving/car sales/ownership and not spending that money on building enough roads, but still they are not strongly incentivised to pass standards of decency on their monopolist driver’s licensing agency because being a totalitarian dictatorship, they can raise taxes on whatever they want, and still get their money from the citizenry.

While it’s  true that the Dutch CBR, Central Bureau for Driver’s Licensing (yes, comrsde, thst is its actual name), is a private business, they are not a true market operator, because they have a government monopoly, and follow government’s rules, so they are as close to a government agency as it gets, without strictly legally being one. Being the government that makes and changes the laws, has its perks.

Why does capitalism work better than socialism?

Socialism, being dictatorial, lets evertyhing (it’s always totalitarian) be decided by one person, unlike capitalism, which lets everything get decided by the market, which consists of millions of “one person”s. So, yes, capitalism is more social.

And anarchism, with its zero rulers, is the most social and democratic of all.