5 ms·

> Everytime you say "free markets beget cronyism" you're implying a less free-market would beget less cronyism No, I'm not. I'm claiming that free markets sans

> Everytime you say "free markets beget cronyism" you're implying a less free-market would beget less cronyism No, I'm not. I'm claiming that free markets sans cronyism aren't a steady state (or even exist), so distinguishing between "free market capitalism" and "crony capitalism" is anti-empirical. > the only way to regulate interpersonal cooperation is through growing government Ideology, marketing, religion, and non-state violence, for example, are all also powerful mechanisms. Also, limiting government might actually INCREASE the power of government... and what's worse, someone else's government! This is particularly relevant in the case of the World Bank. > Then why is it vacuous to argue for limiting said power? See above. The choice might be between US gov't/corporate power and local governance. Limiting the power of local governments in the face of extremely powerful foreign governments and corporations doesn't actually reduce the power of government writ large. > Saying free-markets become less free overtime and eventually foster cronyism No, and if you re-read the thread, you'll notice that I'm not even making an argument against free markets. I'm making an argument against your distinction between "free market capitalism" and "crony capitalism". Again, the central claim from my original reply was: >>>>> The World Bank may not embody "your" capitalism. But by any reasonable definition that avoids this sort of No-True-Scotsman distinction, the World Bank is aggressively capitalist. I think you're now violently agreeing -- or at least you've stopped making any sort of coherent argument that crony capitalism is "not capitalism" in anything but a sort of vacuous sense. As for the rest of your post, I don't get it. You're still just playing with definitions! Free markets aren't a cure-all for corruption, and your approach to corruption seems to be using definitions to bury your head in the sand. Seems dangerous. If you're opposed to the World Bank, then you're opposed to an artifact of free market capitalism. It's that simple.

djschnei 9y ago
No, I'm not agreeing. The distinction between cronyism and free-market capitalism is important. You're claiming it isn't - I'm claiming it is. Simply: Property rights = Free-market =/= Cronyism It's like if I commented on an article about sodium and water exploding saying "water is generally pretty great, don't mix it with sodium though" then you respond with "don't be pedantic, water explodes." Semantics are extremely important, especially in this arena. Never would have thought I'd get into an argument today with someone arguing against distinguishing between free-markets and cronyism... wow. Acknowledging the presence of a force is not "playing with definitions"... unbelievable...
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Property rights = Free-market =/= Cronyism Free-markets without Cronyism doesn't actually exist in the real world... no matter how cute your definitions and logical derivations are, they're also vacuous. If we're going to advocate for impossibilities, why not skip the free market middle man and simply advocate for universal happiness? Empirically dubious and we have no idea how to actually implement it in reality, but apparently that doesn't matter. (Also, I've heard water does in fact exist without sodium. So, not analogous.)
  - djschnei 9y ago
    Crony-capitalism is literally the opposite of a free-market! So, you think property rights are a made up impossibility? Advocating for them is a waste of time? Nothing lives on a spectrum? Don't care how you answer. This is a waste of my time.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Crony-capitalism is literally the opposite of a free-market! But it's what the capitalist system of property rights consistently produces in the real world. > So, you think property rights are a made up impossibility? No, they are made up but quite possible. The idealized free market the capitalist model of property rights is supposed to deliver is, OTOH, an impossibility (or, at any rate, an unstable condition unlikely to ever be achieved which would decay immediately if it was.)
      - djschnei 9y ago
        > But it's what the capitalist system of property rights consistently produces in the real world. No... ignoring property rights consistently produces crony-capitalism. > they are made up as are ethics and morality. Doesn't mean they aren't endlessly important. > be achieved which would decay immediately if it was As in, property rights are pointless because people ignore them. Got it. What do you propose?

djschnei 9y ago

No, I'm not agreeing. The distinction between cronyism and free-market capitalism is important. You're claiming it isn't - I'm claiming it is. Simply: Property rights = Free-market =/= Cronyism It's like if I commented on an article about sodium and water exploding saying "water is generally pretty great, don't mix it with sodium though" then you respond with "don't be pedantic, water explodes." Semantics are extremely important, especially in this arena. Never would have thought I'd get into an argument today with someone arguing against distinguishing between free-markets and cronyism... wow. Acknowledging the presence of a force is not "playing with definitions"... unbelievable...

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Property rights = Free-market =/= Cronyism Free-markets without Cronyism doesn't actually exist in the real world... no matter how cute your definitions and logical derivations are, they're also vacuous. If we're going to advocate for impossibilities, why not skip the free market middle man and simply advocate for universal happiness? Empirically dubious and we have no idea how to actually implement it in reality, but apparently that doesn't matter. (Also, I've heard water does in fact exist without sodium. So, not analogous.)
- djschnei 9y ago
  Crony-capitalism is literally the opposite of a free-market! So, you think property rights are a made up impossibility? Advocating for them is a waste of time? Nothing lives on a spectrum? Don't care how you answer. This is a waste of my time.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Crony-capitalism is literally the opposite of a free-market! But it's what the capitalist system of property rights consistently produces in the real world. > So, you think property rights are a made up impossibility? No, they are made up but quite possible. The idealized free market the capitalist model of property rights is supposed to deliver is, OTOH, an impossibility (or, at any rate, an unstable condition unlikely to ever be achieved which would decay immediately if it was.)
    - djschnei 9y ago
      > But it's what the capitalist system of property rights consistently produces in the real world. No... ignoring property rights consistently produces crony-capitalism. > they are made up as are ethics and morality. Doesn't mean they aren't endlessly important. > be achieved which would decay immediately if it was As in, property rights are pointless because people ignore them. Got it. What do you propose?