5 ms·
Except the Qatari royal family. Remember, capitalism leads to freedom!
by Robin_Message 15y ago
Except the Qatari royal family. Remember, capitalism leads to freedom!
- VMG 15y agoNo, freedom is a requirement for capitalism.
- jarek 15y agoThat must be why the Qatari royal family is so good at it.
- Robin_Message 15y agoI thought Friedman argued they were intertwined, and that capitalism created freedom in many cases, but I haven't actually read his book.
- burgerbrain 15y agoHe may be partially correct, however I suspect that Friedman doesn't really care all that much about the rights most reasonable people appreciate. I can reasonably see it producing some limited sorts of freedom, but (as an example) how would it produce equal rights for homosexuals?
- baq 15y agosentence that china holds very near its heart.
- maxxxxx 15y agoAnother counter example is Singapore.
- burgerbrain 15y agoCapitalism without the presence of (a set of) freedoms is not really capitalism, no matter who calls it that. Now mind, you don't need several of the freedoms people in the civilized world generally like to enjoy for capitalism to exist. Freedom of religion is largely irrelevant to capitalism (so far as the state religion doesn't become a dominate market force...). Basically all you need is some form of property rights, the right to enter and exit markets, and some subset of freedom of expression (basically the right to say "[Product] sucks.")
- toyg 15y agoNot many True Scotsmen around here either, dang.
- burgerbrain 15y agoIt's not a true Scotsmen fallacy to have a tight definition. 'Capitalism' proper may very well be the thing of fairy tales, similar to Socialism proper. It's a philosophical concept, it need not be obtainable.
- Volpe 15y agoI think there are a number countries that defy what you are saying here. Sounds like a True Scotsman.
- burgerbrain 15y agoI don't know of a single jurisdiction that I would call a capitalism. Even the US has socialism mixed in. And for the record, I consider this to be a good thing.don't think I would want to live in a purely capitalist area. I I've heard Hong Kong was or is a pure capitalist society, but I don't know enough about Hong Kong to evaluate that.
- Volpe 15y ago"Pure Capitalism"... Does it need to be cited? (again!?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- burgerbrain 15y agoJust because you cannot construct a perfect circle in the real world does not mean that mathmeticians are guilty of a logical fallacy. I am suggesting that capitalism is something the world has never seen outside of approximations, and that anything more is likely impossible. Unicorns don't exist either but that doesn't mean that you can go cry logical fallacy if somebody says a horse with a horn pasted to it's head isn't one. Scotsmem of course do actually exist... You don't seem to have read my comments for comprehension though, so it's not surprising that you're getting hung up here...
- outside1234 15y agoOr China
- teyc 15y agoHaving lived there for a couple of years, I'd say the problem in Singapore is a having a muzzled press. However, this is balanced by Singapore having relatively clean politicians.
- MarkPNeyer 15y agocapitalism and freedom both arise from an egalitarian cultural mindset. when people believe in the notion of a hierarchy, that some people are better, more deserving, more noble, or more worthy than others, neither capitalism nor freedom can exist for long. when people believe that all men are equals, that we all have hopes and fears, needs and wants, strengths and weaknesses, authoritarian institutions of all forms will crumble.
- notahacker 15y agoCapitalism (in the purist laissez faire sense) functions just fine when people believe that capital is controlled by those who are more deserving (or better at managing it), even if the people controlling the capital happen to be a monarchical dynasty whose inherited land happened to sit on an oil well. When people start to believe in others' needs and wants you get all the products of an egalitarian mindset allegedly incompatible with capitalism, like taxes and government borrowing.
- MarkPNeyer 15y agocapitalism "in the purist laissez faire sense" becomes meaningless - you can't have a market without some mechanism of enforcing private contracts and securing property. believing in others' needs and wants only needs to oppressive governments IF those beliefs come from a place of condescension (i.e. that poor bastard is too dumb to take care of himself, we should try to run his life for him) rather than compassion and understanding (i.e. he doesn't save money because he sees no point in planning for a future he has little hope of enjoying, let's give him the support he needs to function better). condescension is not egalitarianism.