8 ms·
Capitalism is sinister like this. It doesn't intentionally do it, because capitalism isn't a person, but when everything is monetized by our creative entrepren
by unabst 9y ago
Capitalism is sinister like this.
It doesn't intentionally do it, because capitalism isn't a person, but when everything is monetized by our creative entrepreneurs, it grows; our problems being no exception.
Once someone makes money, they want more of it. Capitalism demands more of it. And we stretch every line of the law, even cross it, just to get more from where that came from.
Unfortunately one person suppressing their unethical behavior is inconsequential. If an opportunity exists, eventually someone will use it.
- mjfl 9y agoIt's not capitalism, it's people. People do this. Stop absolving them with college-freshman-level ideological appeals.
- cpursley 9y agoI'm not so sure Capitalism is the correct term for this (it's the most misused "'ism"). If there was a free market for drugs (legalization), I suspect we would not be in a crisis.
- dahdum 9y ago"If there was a free market for drugs (legalization), I suspect we would not be in a crisis." If not in direct crisis we'd always be on the knife's edge of one.
- CalChris 9y agoYes. I think a better term here might be corporate personhood, where corporations have some of the rights that people have while shielding their owners from liability.
- cpursley 9y agoHum. Looks like "corporatism" is a thing: https://www.wordnik.com/words/corporatism https://www.wordnik.com/words/corporatism
- CalChris 9y agoYeah, I was thinking about that but I think corporatism is an effect of corporate personhood. If we're talking about root causes, I think it's the rights we attach to corporations.
- azernik 9y agoThat first definition is actually not the definition in political science circles; there, it refers to the view of society as a collection of associations ("bodies", corpora), which form the metaphorical organs of the "body" that is society. This is a term created by advocates to promote it, and so does not denote necessarily a system that undermines the public interest; the first definition I see of it is the Catholic Church's one in the late 19th century as a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest". If this sounds kind of creepy and dictatorial to you, you've got a good head on your shoulders. This semantic distinction is important because a lot of modern leftist rhetoric about fascism is based on a misinterpretation of the term as used in current academic literature and in Fascist ideology of the 1920s and 30s. A defining feature of fascism is corporatism, but this does not mean the unbridled power of big business corporations and certainly is not a good description of current American society. Rather, it refers to the way that undemocratic systems co-opt the organized associations that represent interest groups ("civil society" in current political science literature). See for example the way that the Chinese Communist party traditionally ran the only trade unions, women's rights organizations, etc. in the country; or the way that the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls replaced the Scouts and Wandervögel in Nazi Germany; or the way the Italian Fascist regime ran the economy through a council of hand-picked, compliant representatives of employers and workers. In essence, civil society is transformed from a way for groups to band together and advance their interests, into a transmission belt for the state to control those groups. For more on this topic, including non-Fascist uses of the term, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
- debacle 9y ago> it's the most misused "'ism" Right up there with socialism, ironically. There needs to be a trendier name for regulatory capture.
- WalterSear 9y agoAll truly free markets are eventually for sale, by definition.
- dredmorbius 9y ago"Capitalism" is a label that's come to mean numerous different things to numerous different entities. But some mix of laissez-fair, small-government, complete reliance on decisionmaking at the individual level (except where corporations can impose their preferences over individuals, communities, regions, states, nations, or globally), very strong defences of some kinds of property rights, and an exceptionally high level of un-accounted externalties, seems to capture much the flavour.
- agumonkey 9y agoDrug and free market seems like a nasty bet IMO; too much money, too much immaturity and decrease of rationality. My bet is that most 80% of the time it will degenerate into gangs and cartels.
- Pxtl 9y agoLegalization eliminates the gangs and cartels. The problem is that it makes abuse and misuse into a public health crisis. There are no more gangs of liquor runners - instead we have InBev. People don't go blind from bad bathtub brews anymore, but they kill themselves with overconsumption or even kill others with driving drunk. So legal opioids would presumably mean the same: more abuse, more misuse, but safer and without the cartels.
- cpursley 9y agoI don't understand. What purpose would gangs/cartels serve if drugs were brought into the general legal framework?
- agumonkey 9y agoI spoke to fast, you and your sibling were right.
- Pxtl 9y agoThat's the scary question. Legal opioids would flood the street with cheap, safe (comparatively speaking), legal morphine. What's worse? Morphine flooding a our society as a recreational drug? Think how easily highschoolers can get beer and cigarettes, but with opioids... But our current approach has lead to the widespread adoption of the cheapest, most concentrated, and most dangerous opioid imaginable: Fentanyl. This which has rapidly become the continent's foremost public health plague as it kills a terrifying number of people every year. Would freely available morphine or heroin be better?
- rconti 9y agoSeems like we've already got "how easily highschoolers can get beer and cigarettes, but with opiods". They're doing a lot of the overdosing.
- StreamBright 9y agoActually the opposite. Government regulations outlaw cheap non-dangerous alternatives (like cannabis) and create a monopoly by granting patents to a single entity. https://qz.com/1125690/big-pharma-is-taking-advantage-of-patent-law-to-keep-oxycontin-from-ever-dying/ https://qz.com/1125690/big-pharma-is-taking-advantage-of-pat... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/outdated-treatments-and-drug-company-monopolies-make-opioid-epidemic-worse/article/2611739 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/outdated-treatments-and-dr... The solution is to make cannabis legal for everybody in every state for medical use and since it cannot be patented there will be many suppliers who compete with the quality and price just like it happens with almost everything that is not under very strict government regulation.
- vanderZwan 9y ago> Actually the opposite. Government regulations... I'm from the Netherlands so you won't hear me disagree with the argument that criminalizing cannabis and drugs is not the solution[0]. Having said that, the typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" really irks me. I can imagine that if the only perspective one has is a dysfunctional government, one might think that, but please take a look abroad and see how things work over there. Government regulations are a tool that can be used for good and bad. [0] Also, in the US these laws are historically very much set up to target poor and black people (and I wish I had a clear picture of how things are in my own country regarding that, actually; I'm sure there's a few laws sneakily screwing over migrant workers or something), but I digress.
- StreamBright 9y agoNot really typical, we are very diverse people with very different opinions. What is your argument? Who said government regulations cannot be good and bad? Anything about the subject?
- vanderZwan 9y agoYou were responding to someone arguing that this is a byproduct of giving capitalism free, uninhibited reign (paraphrasing). You are arguing that the cause is government regulation, and that this is the opposite. Apologies for misinterpreting if this was not your intent, but based on what I just wrote, I don't think it's a stretch to interpret that message as implying that regulation is bad in general.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago> Unfortunately one person suppressing their unethical behavior is inconsequential. If an opportunity exists, eventually someone will use it. This isn't solely a feature of capitalism. Any system is going to devolve into the strong eating the weak unless the strong identify with and have solidarity with the weak. I have recently become much more willing to listen to ethno-nationalists of all ethnoses based on this realization: stripped of any imperialistic impulse it may be the best way to generate cross class identity in a given political unit. I tend to think size/scale matters as well, perhaps more so, so that the strong are forced into closer quarters with the weak and so that social interactions are iterated, leading to a better stable state.
- Robotbeat 9y agoDon't listen to the ethno-nationalists. There are other ways of building consensus than based on something as slippery as ethnicity. Nationalism per se may not be a bad thing (stripped of imperialism, as you say), but tying it to ethnicity IS bad. Tying it to culture is better, as it is something that can be taught and acquired and shared (even better is building a metaculture of sharing and appreciating other cultures in a positive-sum, which is, I think, one of the core positive attributes of the American Experiment). Don't let the ethno-nationalists (racists) own nationalism/patriotism/etc. (Indeed, the ironically-pan-nationalist ethno-nationalism of today is largely foreign to America and is opposed to the consensus of American nationalism developed during and after WW2 and on into the civil rights era... Of course this is a thing that hasn't been entirely resolved.)
- quantumofmalice 9y agoI don't believe there is strong evidence that a metaculture (really, multiculturalism) will survive and not devolve into squabbling ethnoses, particularly on the scale of the north american continent. It seems like smaller, more homogonous political units is the best way to avoid conflict, and I don't see why that has to be malicious. My main problem with most of the ethno-nationalists that I read is that they are really racialists or pan-europeanists, which strikes me as almost (almost) as useless for generating inter-class solidarity as appealing to universal humanism.
- collyw 9y agoAs a Europeaan, it would seem that your capitalist funded health care model is at the heart of the problem.
- jpttsn 9y agoIf capitalism is to blame for this profit chase, then who’s to blame for capitalism?
- QAPereo 9y agoNothing about capitalism demands an ugly lack of proper legislation, regulation, and enforcement. I would not like to write off capitalism on the basis of a rigged system that just uses the name for ideological purposes.
- ams6110 9y agoIndeed, rule of law is essential. As is some level of regulation because history has shown that some people are bad actors. The challenge of regulation is how to control the tendency of its bureaucracies to grow and become burdensome.
- QAPereo 9y agoBalance is key, and difficult, and will always tend to fall out of balance under external influences. All too often though I feel that the problem is framed as "too hard" you know? It is not too hard, if more people were on board and made it a priority. Sadly history seems to indicate that it will take a lot for that to happen, if it does. Without popular support and voter oversight, government becomes toxic, but without government support and oversight, things fall apart.