5 ms·

Ah so if I disagree with you I'm a sociopath? That's not a friendly rhetorical tactic btw. It may not be obvious, but your post is not critiquing capitalism. F

by kobeya 9y ago

Ah so if I disagree with you I'm a sociopath? That's not a friendly rhetorical tactic btw. It may not be obvious, but your post is not critiquing capitalism. Free-market capitalism is solution in the space of how we decide to allocate scarce resources. It stands mostly in contrast to various forms of collectivism and central decision making (socialism). Take UBI/negative income tax since it is most relevant to the linked article. UBI is the equivalent of saying that rather than construct our incentive models in such a delicately balanced way as to target a specific value of τ, the wealth redistribution constant, let's just forceably redistribute wealth by that amount. It's only non-capitalist in the sense that any form of taxation and central governance structure is non-capitalist, but of possible welfare schemes it is probably the most capitalist -- it punts the issue of how those funds should be spent and lets their new owners decide.

EGreg 9y ago
Well you likened those who merely disagree with the idea that Capitalism is as inevitable as gravity, to Flat Earthers - and now you complain? If it makes you feel better I said "most non-sociopaths want A", which doesn't imply that you are one if you don't want A. Nor does it imply that you are not a sociopath if you want A. But seriously, if you are ok with the poor running out of resources and starving, or even want it, then you'd be considered a sociopath. "Free-market capitalism is solution in the space of how we decide to allocate scarce resources." Exactly, which is why "we" is the society, and "we" usually decide that every human being is entitled to have their minimum needs met. The one who disagrees is labeled a sociopath - that's just how it works. Some nihilists for example may have a completely logical theory as to why people, like companies, should be subjected to market forces. "If animals die from hunger why not humans? If you don't work, you don't eat." But we don't reason with them, we dismiss them because our basic values are different. Do you understand now that I chose my words carefully? And what are those basic needs? Potable running water goes to your sink. That's not required for survival. Most societies carried water from the river. Romans had aqueducts but they didn't go to people's houses. Child mortality is down because of advancements in science and medicine. Who do we pay for all these things? The scientists who contributed to the growing snowball of knowledge are long dead. We are lucky to have been born in the 20th and 21st centuries and benefit from the amazing wealth humanity has built up. Capitalism deals with conferring PRIVATE PROPERTY rights to individuals and privately owned organizations of any size. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A MONOPOLY RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM THE USE OF A RESOURCE. Show me that this is always the best way to allocate the resources. Is selling a lake to a capitalist the best way to make sure the lake is not polluted? Is enforcing the monopoly right of an inventor to threaten others at the point of a gun (see what I did there) to extract rents from them for building on their idea the best way to promote scientific progress and software and drugs?
- kobeya 9y ago
  > Exactly, which is why "we" is the society, and "we" usually decide that every human being is entitled to have their minimum needs met. Only if by "we" you only include progressive liberals and ignore the other half of society that gives preference to individual responsibility over welfare. You obviously put a lot of time into your reply and I'm sorry to not address anything else, but so long as the "debate" is taking controversial political positions as axiomatic, there isn't really any point to continuing this further. I bid you good day, sir.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    Remember, you originally said the word "we", not me. It is shibboleth for how we use force in society. I just used your word in quotation marks. In your case you take for granted that "we" should use guns to enforce private property of Capitalists. Then you criticized the word "we" which you yourself used, by making assumptions about "Liberals" and that only progressives want Welfare. Tell that to all the conservatives on Medicare and Social Security or whose water is not polluted. I've had this happen a lot. When someone is ideological they think that only their position is axiomatically true and everyone else is making assumptions. I understand how you feel, but this exceptionalism is keeping you from engaging in good faith with other viewpoints. Anarcho capitalism is the best, our system is the best, etc. You never seriously challenge your assumptions and that's why you sincerely believe that "capitalism is as inevitable as gravity." I gave you lots of good info above as a starting point but happy to discuss substance if you ever want to. Good day!

by kobeya 9y ago

EGreg 9y ago

Well you likened those who merely disagree with the idea that Capitalism is as inevitable as gravity, to Flat Earthers - and now you complain? If it makes you feel better I said "most non-sociopaths want A", which doesn't imply that you are one if you don't want A. Nor does it imply that you are not a sociopath if you want A. But seriously, if you are ok with the poor running out of resources and starving, or even want it, then you'd be considered a sociopath. "Free-market capitalism is solution in the space of how we decide to allocate scarce resources." Exactly, which is why "we" is the society, and "we" usually decide that every human being is entitled to have their minimum needs met. The one who disagrees is labeled a sociopath - that's just how it works. Some nihilists for example may have a completely logical theory as to why people, like companies, should be subjected to market forces. "If animals die from hunger why not humans? If you don't work, you don't eat." But we don't reason with them, we dismiss them because our basic values are different. Do you understand now that I chose my words carefully? And what are those basic needs? Potable running water goes to your sink. That's not required for survival. Most societies carried water from the river. Romans had aqueducts but they didn't go to people's houses. Child mortality is down because of advancements in science and medicine. Who do we pay for all these things? The scientists who contributed to the growing snowball of knowledge are long dead. We are lucky to have been born in the 20th and 21st centuries and benefit from the amazing wealth humanity has built up. Capitalism deals with conferring PRIVATE PROPERTY rights to individuals and privately owned organizations of any size. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A MONOPOLY RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM THE USE OF A RESOURCE. Show me that this is always the best way to allocate the resources. Is selling a lake to a capitalist the best way to make sure the lake is not polluted? Is enforcing the monopoly right of an inventor to threaten others at the point of a gun (see what I did there) to extract rents from them for building on their idea the best way to promote scientific progress and software and drugs?

kobeya 9y ago
> Exactly, which is why "we" is the society, and "we" usually decide that every human being is entitled to have their minimum needs met. Only if by "we" you only include progressive liberals and ignore the other half of society that gives preference to individual responsibility over welfare. You obviously put a lot of time into your reply and I'm sorry to not address anything else, but so long as the "debate" is taking controversial political positions as axiomatic, there isn't really any point to continuing this further. I bid you good day, sir.
- EGreg 9y ago
  Remember, you originally said the word "we", not me. It is shibboleth for how we use force in society. I just used your word in quotation marks. In your case you take for granted that "we" should use guns to enforce private property of Capitalists. Then you criticized the word "we" which you yourself used, by making assumptions about "Liberals" and that only progressives want Welfare. Tell that to all the conservatives on Medicare and Social Security or whose water is not polluted. I've had this happen a lot. When someone is ideological they think that only their position is axiomatically true and everyone else is making assumptions. I understand how you feel, but this exceptionalism is keeping you from engaging in good faith with other viewpoints. Anarcho capitalism is the best, our system is the best, etc. You never seriously challenge your assumptions and that's why you sincerely believe that "capitalism is as inevitable as gravity." I gave you lots of good info above as a starting point but happy to discuss substance if you ever want to. Good day!