4 ms·

I lean more on the capitalist side, but this is a more interesting question than a basic view of capitalism would lead one to believe. The ethics of capitalism

I lean more on the capitalist side, but this is a more interesting question than a basic view of capitalism would lead one to believe. The ethics of capitalism are based on the assumption that the business owner rightfully has final say on all of the property of the business, and that the workers are merely guests on the property, paid to do something with the property, collect a paycheck, and go home. They have no right to it. But then you can start asking questions like, did the capitalist have rightful ownership of the money to buy the thing in the first place? If you go far back enough, you have things like conquest, homesteading land (which is inherently ambiguous), government grants of land (open to favoritism), etc. The whole foundation can be called into question. Again I'm not ultimately convinced by it, but I think there's at least a discussion to be had. I feel like I've heard some convincing arguments but they're not coming to me now. But if you have the patience for it (I didn't even finish it), you might check out "What is Property" by Proudhon. He lays out a philosophy called Mutualism that sort of has socialist ethics, but is still somewhat market based in the end. He enumerates all of the assumptions he sees as underlying private property ownership and makes an interesting argument against them.

scarmig 8y ago
Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it. Would the people who give absolute value to the right of property holders to do what they choose with it support the Soviet Union's right to organize its economy however it so choose, along with controlling the media it owns and the workforce it contracts with? After all, it owns the property, and anyone with credible contrary claims to it would be long dead.
- orblivion 8y ago
  I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets") I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers. But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)
- mises 8y ago
  The Soviet Union stole its original resources, but more importantly continued to steal all resources produced. See Dekulakization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
mises 8y ago
There was a thread yesterday about a jury selection glitch that made young people less likely to be selected, and someone suggested making them 10x more likely as recompense. I said that wasn't fair to the new jurors or the new defendants (who would still get a biased jury). I believe it's the same here. I know several people who were raised dirt-poor, and even one who was a high-school drop-out, who started successful companies. Getting ahead is hard, but certainly possible.
- scruple 8y ago
  There was another thread yet, a day or two back, where people were talking about the financial windfalls that they received from their parents. I found that interesting, because as one person put it, paraphrasing, receiving that money from their parents to kick-start their life and presumably successful business had led them towards a more liberal political outlook. Having been raised in relative poverty, I have no idea what it's like to have wealthy parents to fall back on. Instead, I spent a decade after high school fighting to get ahead. Today, I find myself, over a decade later still, living what can only be called an excellent quality of life. I, instead, give back to my parents. And I look back at the path that I walked and it makes me less liberal in my politics as a result. > Getting ahead is hard, but certainly possible. I think that most everything we do in life is hard and that the daily challenges of life are exactly what make it worth living.

scarmig 8y ago

Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it. Would the people who give absolute value to the right of property holders to do what they choose with it support the Soviet Union's right to organize its economy however it so choose, along with controlling the media it owns and the workforce it contracts with? After all, it owns the property, and anyone with credible contrary claims to it would be long dead.

orblivion 8y ago
I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets") I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers. But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)
mises 8y ago
The Soviet Union stole its original resources, but more importantly continued to steal all resources produced. See Dekulakization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

mises 8y ago

There was a thread yesterday about a jury selection glitch that made young people less likely to be selected, and someone suggested making them 10x more likely as recompense. I said that wasn't fair to the new jurors or the new defendants (who would still get a biased jury). I believe it's the same here. I know several people who were raised dirt-poor, and even one who was a high-school drop-out, who started successful companies. Getting ahead is hard, but certainly possible.

scruple 8y ago
There was another thread yet, a day or two back, where people were talking about the financial windfalls that they received from their parents. I found that interesting, because as one person put it, paraphrasing, receiving that money from their parents to kick-start their life and presumably successful business had led them towards a more liberal political outlook. Having been raised in relative poverty, I have no idea what it's like to have wealthy parents to fall back on. Instead, I spent a decade after high school fighting to get ahead. Today, I find myself, over a decade later still, living what can only be called an excellent quality of life. I, instead, give back to my parents. And I look back at the path that I walked and it makes me less liberal in my politics as a result. > Getting ahead is hard, but certainly possible. I think that most everything we do in life is hard and that the daily challenges of life are exactly what make it worth living.