4 ms·
In many other eras these two would be dead. Can you imagine a couple farmers in the 1200s with planning this shitty? Instead, modern society has provided Tom a
by dokein 8y ago
In many other eras these two would be dead. Can you imagine a couple farmers in the 1200s with planning this shitty?
Instead, modern society has provided Tom and Kate with stable upbringings, solid graduate-level education, good jobs, readily accessible resources, and even a mini bail-out of their own.
I get that this is an outlier case, and am not arguing that this story supports libertarianism. But surely this story is not by itself an argument AGAINST capitalism.
If Tom and Kate can’t be expected to exercise even a modicum of agency and self-control, then most people are just automatons in dire need of a nanny state ruled by a philosopher-king.
- hsitz 8y agoI didn't suppose you were arguing for libertarianism; why would you suppose I was arguing for a "nanny state ruled by a philosopher king"? I would say that the story of Tom and Kate (taken together with millions of similar, if less extreme stories, as well as, e.g., many other different types of exploitation described in Shiller's book) _does_ stand as an argument against unrestrained, laissez faire capitalism. The fact is that unrestrained capitalism breeds opportunities for businesses that tend to exploit people's natural foibles. There are ways to prevent this (e.g., intelligent regulation) within the capitalist system. See, e.g., Shiller's book.