4 ms·

It only appears self-contradictory because we're told day in and day out that labour protections are anti-capitalist. They're not. If you think about it, labour

It only appears self-contradictory because we're told day in and day out that labour protections are anti-capitalist. They're not. If you think about it, labour protections are pro-capitalist because they agree the current model works and just want to make the wealth flow fairly to everybody rather than to those who initially control the capital. Labour protections would be about dismantling capitalism if they were anti-capitalist. > Capitalism and Public programs are in conflict because underlying public efforts is progressive taxation (aka Redistribution) With respect, that sentence makes no sense. Progressive taxation (aka Redistribution, aka something I completely agree with) does not underlie public efforts. Taxation alone underlies all public efforts. Taxation comes in many stripes: regressive, flat, progressive. Progressive taxation makes sure the rich shoulder a fair portion of the tax burden rather then the less well off. Who tries to roll back progressive tax policies? The rich. Not all the rich are capitalists, many are but many by the same token are not. Many of the rich have wealth going back centuries to times which preceded capitalism. The wealthy, many of whom are capitalists, oppose progressive taxation. This does not imply that capitalism and progressive taxation are in conflict. Many people point to the post-war years in the US when progressive taxation was very, um, progressive and the economy was booming. As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows, but the rich don't like it because they like all of us are self-interested and greedy.

petermcneeley 8y ago
Okay I understand the issue. You think that Capitalism is the economic order of the 1940s-80s. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc) Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private. "As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows" I dont mind arguments where one states that capitalism can be so self destructive that constraining its natural tendencies leads to higher economic output. BUT dont then confused this new tamed object with the original savage beast. It is a category error when you give someone a wolf for a pet when they asked for a dog. If you hear "dog" when someone else actually says and means "wolf" you will aid in a great deal of suffering. I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty
- igravious 8y ago
  > I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …) I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that capitalism in and of itself is merely the system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law … I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue). I strongly strongly disagree that taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. Again, I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue). > Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. Ever wondered why city and county councils are sometimes called corporations or are said to be incorporated? I may be going out on a limb here but I doubt you did. There's no God-given rule that every single part of society must be privately run. No sane person actually believes that. Police? Emergency services? Army? (To name the obvious ones). What, wars outsourced to unaccountable mercenaries? Policing crime outsourced to the lowest bidder? Guess what, we used to have voluntary and competing fire services and they used to start fires to create work for themselves! Eventually people copped on and decided that they should be publicly funded. > If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) Vacuous. Literally devoid of sense. > This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private. With how many uninsured. Roughly 30 million, isn't it? And how many needless deaths a year. I think the number is around 40,000? You're basically saying that you're okay with the status quo, a status quo which results in needless death. Luckily people with the extreme views that you have are outliers. Over 70% over people in the USA want Medicare for All. It's coming. It's happening and there's nothing people with the views you have can do about it. Here is Life Expectancy measured against Health Expenditure compared in the developed world: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_expectancy_vs_healthcare_spending.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp... That's the reality you're living in and want to continue to live in.

petermcneeley 8y ago

Okay I understand the issue. You think that Capitalism is the economic order of the 1940s-80s. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc) Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private. "As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows" I dont mind arguments where one states that capitalism can be so self destructive that constraining its natural tendencies leads to higher economic output. BUT dont then confused this new tamed object with the original savage beast. It is a category error when you give someone a wolf for a pet when they asked for a dog. If you hear "dog" when someone else actually says and means "wolf" you will aid in a great deal of suffering. I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty

igravious 8y ago
> I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …) I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that capitalism in and of itself is merely the system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law … I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue). I strongly strongly disagree that taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. Again, I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue). > Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. Ever wondered why city and county councils are sometimes called corporations or are said to be incorporated? I may be going out on a limb here but I doubt you did. There's no God-given rule that every single part of society must be privately run. No sane person actually believes that. Police? Emergency services? Army? (To name the obvious ones). What, wars outsourced to unaccountable mercenaries? Policing crime outsourced to the lowest bidder? Guess what, we used to have voluntary and competing fire services and they used to start fires to create work for themselves! Eventually people copped on and decided that they should be publicly funded. > If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) Vacuous. Literally devoid of sense. > This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private. With how many uninsured. Roughly 30 million, isn't it? And how many needless deaths a year. I think the number is around 40,000? You're basically saying that you're okay with the status quo, a status quo which results in needless death. Luckily people with the extreme views that you have are outliers. Over 70% over people in the USA want Medicare for All. It's coming. It's happening and there's nothing people with the views you have can do about it. Here is Life Expectancy measured against Health Expenditure compared in the developed world: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_expectancy_vs_healthcare_spending.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp... That's the reality you're living in and want to continue to live in.