5 ms·

>On what evidence, on whose word, should we believe this? Pure capitalism is barter amongst two consenting and legitimate property owners. Trade makes us rich

by smokeyj 15y ago

>On what evidence, on whose word, should we believe this? Pure capitalism is barter amongst two consenting and legitimate property owners. Trade makes us rich and allows for specialization and niche markets to exist. Forces that promote trade make us rich, forces that prevent trade make us poor. Forces that promote trade are things like innovation and technology, capital that can be risked in order to try new things, Y-combinator and other incubator funds, savings invested for future use such as start-up companies. Things in this category are what "pure" capitalism is about. It is ideological, but reasonable as well. Forces that prevent trade also prevent innovation, the development of technology, and ultimately our livelihood. These include tariffs, taxation, inflation, regulation, war, theft, murder, basically anything that hinders consenting adults from interacting. You can't trade if you ain't alive, or if you owe all your money to the State, or if trading is illegal. The more you trade, the more prosperous you will become. America is declining because we don't trade, because we can't produce, because we can't invest when we're taxed thru inflation and bubbles. We invest in military and regulation which has yielded nothing but croneyism and bankers. A strong State always inflates and invests in war, it's a textbook maneuver.

asciilifeform 15y ago
"Consent" is the favorite weasel-word of market-worshippers. Pray tell, in what sense do I "consent" to turn over a large share of my income just to have a roof over my head and to put distance between my home and criminals? Consent in a bargain between vastly unequal parties (in this case, an ordinary citizen vs. a market of wealthy people peddling almost exactly the same raw deal via emergent, silent price-fixing) is not consent at all. As for "legitimacy" - what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? Fine, he paid for it. And the person he paid? Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. And, not infrequently, a genocide. The legitimacy of a political system is always a collective hallucination. This is not a moral judgment. Collective hallucinations make for fine Nash equilibria and can benefit the people involved. But sometimes they do not.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? .... Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. You touched off this subthread by arguing that > Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people [who] were not adequately compensated for their loss. You find corpses in the past of the Soviet people's dairy farms as well. Why, then, is their ownership "legitimate" such that they should be "adequately compensated"?
  - wnight 15y ago
    So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      > So, nobody's got a valid claim. Under the previous guy's reasoning, that if you go back in time far enough "you'll find a corpse" and that this makes the property claim illegitimate, this is true. It's not reasoning I agree with, but I thought it was worth pointing out that if one accepts his reasoning, it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. > If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. I've thought about it and I think private ownership is perfectly reasonable in most cases. It's true that in the past, faction A took land or materials from faction B, who took them from faction C, and it's turtles all the way down. But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items, and you are the legitimate owner of certain items, many of which we either created ourselves or received in exchange for other things we created. Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any. Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time.

by smokeyj 15y ago

asciilifeform 15y ago

"Consent" is the favorite weasel-word of market-worshippers. Pray tell, in what sense do I "consent" to turn over a large share of my income just to have a roof over my head and to put distance between my home and criminals? Consent in a bargain between vastly unequal parties (in this case, an ordinary citizen vs. a market of wealthy people peddling almost exactly the same raw deal via emergent, silent price-fixing) is not consent at all. As for "legitimacy" - what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? Fine, he paid for it. And the person he paid? Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. And, not infrequently, a genocide. The legitimacy of a political system is always a collective hallucination. This is not a moral judgment. Collective hallucinations make for fine Nash equilibria and can benefit the people involved. But sometimes they do not.

lotharbot 15y ago
> what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? .... Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. You touched off this subthread by arguing that > Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people [who] were not adequately compensated for their loss. You find corpses in the past of the Soviet people's dairy farms as well. Why, then, is their ownership "legitimate" such that they should be "adequately compensated"?
- wnight 15y ago
  So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > So, nobody's got a valid claim. Under the previous guy's reasoning, that if you go back in time far enough "you'll find a corpse" and that this makes the property claim illegitimate, this is true. It's not reasoning I agree with, but I thought it was worth pointing out that if one accepts his reasoning, it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. > If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. I've thought about it and I think private ownership is perfectly reasonable in most cases. It's true that in the past, faction A took land or materials from faction B, who took them from faction C, and it's turtles all the way down. But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items, and you are the legitimate owner of certain items, many of which we either created ourselves or received in exchange for other things we created. Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any. Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time.