3 ms·

> Would you not agree that distinguishing between free-market capitalism and crony-capitalism brings important value to the discussion? As I said, >> saying t

> Would you not agree that distinguishing between free-market capitalism and crony-capitalism brings important value to the discussion? As I said, >> saying that capitalism stops being capitalism as soon as private investment starts controlling governmental decisions is just defining your way out of a very real and substantive critique of capitalism Money can buy political power, and in a system that incentivizes profiteering, that political power will eventually be used to generate profit. You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. You're more than free to re-define terms, but it doesn't change the reality that free market systems invariably cycle through periods of cronyism. Playing around with the definition of capitalism is terminally non-responsive to the claim that free markets, given enough time, invariably breed this style of cronyism. It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. > The ability to wield what is essentially a monopoly on force Ugh. There's no such thing as a "monopoly on force". It's literally the great equalizer among not just humans but all organisms. You're more than free to go out and build an unbeatable military and take down the evil crony-(not?)-capitalist world order. Who's gonna stop you? If you can't or won't build up the resources and mind share to do so, well, welcome to reality.

djschnei 9y ago
Completely illogical... > You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. A free-market is reliant on government power to protect/enforce property rights. You claiming a system which strictly enforces property rights always leads to a system which disregards property rights is absurd. Are you arguing that in order to keep people from wielding governmental power against others, we need to strengthen government? Really? Why not make it so government power being wielded is a non-issue? > It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. A terrible analogy... What you're arguing is that a diet that avoids sugary/fatty foods will cause heart disease because people end up ignoring diets. That's not a good argument against dieting...
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Completely illogical... Agreed. Your argument is logical but vacuous[1]. Mine is logical, and what's more, proceeds from assumptions that aren't oblivious to empirical observation. > You claiming a system which strictly enforces property rights always leads to a system which disregards property rights is absurd. My claim is that political power is dynamically allocated, not statically allocated. In free markets, money buys power. Power is then abused to rig the rules of the game. So even if you start in an ideal free market state, you'll quickly converge to cronyism. in this sense, opposition to "crony-capitalism" and advocacy for "free market capitalism" is an inconsistent position. Again, not as a matter of your definitions and logical derivations. But as a matter of observed reality!!! If you definitions and derivations contradict reality, the problem is not with reality but with your model of reality. > Are you arguing that in order to keep people from wielding governmental power against others, we need to strengthen government? Really? No. Where do you find me advocating for "strengthen[ing] government" in this thread? In fact, I think my critique of the World Bank is most commonly read as a critique of how strong (certain) governments have become. But actually I don't have any strong ideological advocacy, and even the World Bank/IMF have benefits and drawbacks that aren't so easy to categorically praise or condemn in broad strokes (see: various other threads). I'm not the one claiming a theory of utopia. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of make such a claim by carving out increasingly arbitrary and anti-empirical definitional distinctions. > What you're arguing is... What I'm arguing is that definitions and logical derivations exist in service to describing reality. You have these two things -- reality and the tools we use to model reality -- the wrong way around. Again, stop arguing about definitions and logical derivations stemming from those definitions. Answer the claim that free markets beget cronyism as a matter of empirically observable fact. Anything else is vacuous. [1] in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
  - djschnei 9y ago
    hmmm... > No. Where do you find me advocating for "strengthen[ing] government" in this thread? Everytime you say "free markets beget cronyism" you're implying a less free-market would beget less cronyism. That claim strongly suggests a less free-market is preferable; the only way to regulate interpersonal cooperation is through growing government. > Power is then abused to rig the rules of the game. Then why is it vacuous to argue for limiting said power? You are correct, people will always work in their own self interest. If there is some super powerful tool for them to increase their fortune/profit/power of course they will use it. That's entirely the point. Saying free-markets become less free overtime and eventually foster cronyism isn't an argument against free-markets; it's an illustration of their importance. Healthy eating and its advocates aren't less important because unhealthy people exist.

djschnei 9y ago

Completely illogical... > You call that cronyism. I claim it's the logical conclusion of human nature unfolding within an unabashed free market. A free-market is reliant on government power to protect/enforce property rights. You claiming a system which strictly enforces property rights always leads to a system which disregards property rights is absurd. Are you arguing that in order to keep people from wielding governmental power against others, we need to strengthen government? Really? Why not make it so government power being wielded is a non-issue? > It's like claiming that sugary/fatty foods can't cause coronary artery disease because heart disease is caused by plaque. Technically true, but literally everyone's response is going to be an eye-roll. A terrible analogy... What you're arguing is that a diet that avoids sugary/fatty foods will cause heart disease because people end up ignoring diets. That's not a good argument against dieting...

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Completely illogical... Agreed. Your argument is logical but vacuous[1]. Mine is logical, and what's more, proceeds from assumptions that aren't oblivious to empirical observation. > You claiming a system which strictly enforces property rights always leads to a system which disregards property rights is absurd. My claim is that political power is dynamically allocated, not statically allocated. In free markets, money buys power. Power is then abused to rig the rules of the game. So even if you start in an ideal free market state, you'll quickly converge to cronyism. in this sense, opposition to "crony-capitalism" and advocacy for "free market capitalism" is an inconsistent position. Again, not as a matter of your definitions and logical derivations. But as a matter of observed reality!!! If you definitions and derivations contradict reality, the problem is not with reality but with your model of reality. > Are you arguing that in order to keep people from wielding governmental power against others, we need to strengthen government? Really? No. Where do you find me advocating for "strengthen[ing] government" in this thread? In fact, I think my critique of the World Bank is most commonly read as a critique of how strong (certain) governments have become. But actually I don't have any strong ideological advocacy, and even the World Bank/IMF have benefits and drawbacks that aren't so easy to categorically praise or condemn in broad strokes (see: various other threads). I'm not the one claiming a theory of utopia. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of make such a claim by carving out increasingly arbitrary and anti-empirical definitional distinctions. > What you're arguing is... What I'm arguing is that definitions and logical derivations exist in service to describing reality. You have these two things -- reality and the tools we use to model reality -- the wrong way around. Again, stop arguing about definitions and logical derivations stemming from those definitions. Answer the claim that free markets beget cronyism as a matter of empirically observable fact. Anything else is vacuous. [1] in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
- djschnei 9y ago
  hmmm... > No. Where do you find me advocating for "strengthen[ing] government" in this thread? Everytime you say "free markets beget cronyism" you're implying a less free-market would beget less cronyism. That claim strongly suggests a less free-market is preferable; the only way to regulate interpersonal cooperation is through growing government. > Power is then abused to rig the rules of the game. Then why is it vacuous to argue for limiting said power? You are correct, people will always work in their own self interest. If there is some super powerful tool for them to increase their fortune/profit/power of course they will use it. That's entirely the point. Saying free-markets become less free overtime and eventually foster cronyism isn't an argument against free-markets; it's an illustration of their importance. Healthy eating and its advocates aren't less important because unhealthy people exist.