[Ronaldus Magnus]

All of these things flow from the existence of predictable rights enforceable by the government.

I don't know how you properly define private ownership outside a legal framework of rules

Capitalism is an economic system which does not definitionally require government involvement. State-to-state transactions are examples of capitalistic trade where there is no over riding legal authority. It is true that undesirable effects such as monopoly, repression, and theft may occur without regulatory oversight, but that does not negate the capitalistic framework. I agree that state power may make capitalistic transactions more safe and predictable, but it is not a requirement.

[TopQuark]

Capitalism is an economic system which does not definitionally require government involvement. Capitalism is a form of distribution of property rights. It is the govermwent that enforeces the rights.

State-to-state transactions are examples of capitalistic trade The fact that the trade occurred "between states" says nothing about it being capitalistic or otherwise.

[ffrancone]

Ronaldus: Agreed. As I said in another post, people will always trade and wherever two or more do so, you have a little market. Its just that, without the magistrate, people tend to trade beads, not derivatives. That is not a coincidence.