6 ms·
>>Libertarians would have us believe that unregulated, free-market capitalism is somehow diametrically opposed to state capitalism. One encourages innovation; t
by CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Libertarians would have us believe that unregulated, free-market capitalism is somehow diametrically opposed to state capitalism. One encourages innovation; the other stifles it. What Thiel demonstrates is that unregulated, free-market capitalism is in fact closely aligned to state capitalism. Deregulation means that nothing constrains the monopoly power of the security state and nothing gets in the way of people selling it their bogus and corrupting wares
Absolutely ridiculous characterization of "unregulated, free-market capitalism" and libertarianism in general. The logical fallacies, in particular the non sequiturs linking Thiel's decisions to some imagined definition of "free market capitalism" that allows for abusive expropriations of private property to expend on wasteful security state initiatives, is particularly egregious seeing as how the author is intelligent enough to be aware of them.
This is pure bad faith ideologically motivated sophistry.
Free market capitalism simply means markets free of prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions, including interactions that involve the exchange of money (gasp!). If you want to claim that interactions between parties with different wealth levels are inherently non-voluntary because of power/information asymmetries or some other superficially plausible but ultimately cockamanie ideological talking point, fine we can have that debate, but don't mislead the public about the plain definition of free market capitalism.
Oh and free market capitalism is not unregulated. There are foundational regulations, encapsulated in common law and that the statutes that codify it, against fraud, assault and any other violation of others' human rights. Under this governance doctrine, the courts are the parties who determine what constitutes a breach of anothers' rights, as they are the only body capable of engaging in the impartial deliberation required to do so effectively.
- dundarious 5y agoFree market capitalists exist in the world as it is now, which involves a capitalistic state apparatus. Pointing out an alliance, however temporary or opportunistic, between these groups is not sophistry. The piece is describing the world and actions and actors within it, not abstract ideology.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoThe author is not merely pointing out an alliance between an alleged free market capitalist and the state. They are drawing broad generalizations from this anecdote about free market capitalists in general. They are also giving a false definition of free market capitalism. You want to argue against the purported freedom of an imagined ideal free market capitalist society? Fine. You want to argue that such an ideal society is impossible to achieve, and will lead to the outcome we see today? Fine. These are debatable points where one can take either position without being clearly deceitful. But don't characterize violent expropriations of private property by the state, to enrich special interests in the security state, as "free market capitalism". This is pure sophistry/propaganda. And it's shameless/immoral when it comes from someone intelligent enough to know better.
- dundarious 5y agoWhere is this characterization made? Is it the comparisons with Goodfellas and The Usual Suspects? I think you’re taking it far more literally than intended. Is it a description of taxes? Sorry, but if so, that’s very funny.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoIn the section I quoted: >>Libertarians would have us believe that unregulated, free-market capitalism is somehow diametrically opposed to state capitalism. One encourages innovation; the other stifles it. What Thiel demonstrates is that unregulated, free-market capitalism is in fact closely aligned to state capitalism. Deregulation means that nothing constrains the monopoly power of the security state and nothing gets in the way of people selling it their bogus and corrupting wares There is absolutely nothing in the principle that we should not have prohibitons on mutually voluntary interactions, or expropriations of private property from peaceful individuals, that would elicit resistance to the state having rules governing appropriations to ensure tax dollars aren't being wasted. This is such a ridiculous and shameless formulation by the author that it discredits everything else they wrote, and exposes them as an ideologue who puts advancement of their ideological agenda above truth.