3 ms·
So if I gain a monopoly on a nation's water supply, and then charge the population exorbitant but enormously profitable prices for a litre of water, I must be "
by thundergolfer 6y ago
So if I gain a monopoly on a nation's water supply, and then charge the population exorbitant but enormously profitable prices for a litre of water, I must be "helping people and improving their lives" because without my activities they'd literally die?
Water certainly can't be in the category of "regressive products".
People paying someone for things they need isn't an indication that the seller is a moral/ethical actor. It's just an indication that they own valuable goods, and ownership has really nothing to do with personal ethics, unless you subscribe to a seriously flawed ethical belief system like Prosperity Theology.
- gnarbarian 6y agoI already answered this below...
- thundergolfer 6y agoOk right, read that now. So you’ve added further exceptions, like no monopolies, no cronyism, and even more exceptions could be added, for example no market externalities. I feel like if we kept going with the exceptions to find a form of theoretical capitalism with no exploitation only mutual benefit from exchange we’d end in a weird, not really capitalist place.
- gnarbarian 6y agoI have a feeling that you'll never be satisfied. Because of course you move the goalposts to eliminate "exploitation" or whatever that means. Good luck arguing against capitalism on a venture capital social media website though!
- thundergolfer 6y ago> Good luck arguing against capitalism on a venture capital social media website though! Haha yep, I'll need it.