5 ms·

Like I said, in emergency situations different rules apply, based on the principle of the exclusionary effect I mentioned earlier. The normal libertarian ethic

Like I said, in emergency situations different rules apply, based on the principle of the exclusionary effect I mentioned earlier. The normal libertarian ethics don't apply in such cases. In the ordinary non-emergency market, Newtonian/libertarian ethics do apply, and those are the circumstances you are avoiding contending with by focusing on extreme outlier/edge cases.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I think these outliers demonstrate an inherent flaw in capitalism (among others) where power imbalances dictate capital accumulation. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich are in a better negotiating position so the poor must take what they're given. The obvious example being that workers must sell their labour while capitalists can buy labour and retain profit, leading to capital growth. Marx documented the tendencies of capitalism pretty well to be honest. You don't seem to be engaging with the implications of what I'm saying, rather just engaging with the specific examples, so I'm not sure you're really willing to engage with the arguments.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Ask the millions starving under communism then improving their lot under capitalism which system they prefer. Debating the various theoretical aspects of various *isms is fun and all but there is practically no immigration from capitalism to communism. The poor know which one is better for them and vote with their feet.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    You realise that even Lenin, piece of human filth that he was, didn't consider the USSR to be communism? That's just not what the word means. The USSR was (pick one): - A Marxist-Leninist state - State capitalism - Bolshevism I don't care much about the terminology, but I do care about people making out that most left-wingers want more USSR. I mean, I'm an anarchist, so if I were alive in the USSR I'd be murdered, so that should tell you the level of friendliness between those people and libertarian socialists.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      Any society where Marxist doctrines came to predominate ended up suffering for it. We can quibble over what you call the USSR, but Marxism is simply a-economical, and causes unimaginable human suffering to the extent that laws are shaped by it.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        You can literally just switch out corporations with cooperatives to make a market socialist economy. Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        If cooperatives were as efficient as corporations, they would win out in the free market, with consumers choosing their products over those produced by corporations. Repressing the free market necessarily means preventing the most efficient means of production/coordination from becoming predominant, based on crude ideologically motivated narratives about how an economy is supposed to work. >>Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies. No it didn't. All of those things emerged as a result of the rising levels of per capita GDP that were due to profit-motivated investment in a free market. Child labor could only be abandoned when productivity increases enabled parents to support their whole family alone, and that productivity increase was, again, a consequence of profit-motivated investment in a free market.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I think these outliers demonstrate an inherent flaw in capitalism (among others) where power imbalances dictate capital accumulation. These outlier situations have properties not present in normal circumstances, regardless of the power imbalance in those normal circumstances. Normal circumstances mean that Apple, despite being worth $2.8 trillion, can only induce me to purchase its product, if it is the best option for me amongst the entire set of options globally available to me. The harmful/coercive effect of the power imbalance vanishes in a free market, because by the ruleset of the free market, Apple cannot use its power to do anything except provide a better quality product for a lower price. >> The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich are in a better negotiating position so the poor must take what they're given. The poor don't get poorer in a free market.. We've seen wages grow over 20 fold since 200 years ago, in 1822. This is after adjusting for inflation, meaning a greater than 20 times material improvement in people's living conditions. The places in the world with the highest wages are precisely those which adhered to the free market ruleset most closely, and for the longest duration of time. >>You don't seem to be engaging with the implications of what I'm saying What you're implying is simply misinformed.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Yes, apple does not have the power to not literally force you to do anything, which is an improvement over feudalism. However, if you take apple alongside all their inputs, what you have is an extractive model where shareholders capture the value created by employees and suppliers, and the employees of those suppliers are often the ones being ruthlessly exploited (the aforementioned cobalt miners, Chinese factory workers, etc). Nowadays the truly horrific exploitation is done abroad. The west barely does any material labour like resource extraction or manufacturing, we just shuffle paper around and live off capital extraction and admimistration. > The poor don't get poorer in a free market.. Real wages in the USA have stagnated since the 1960s [1] as neoliberal (aka libertarian) policies have been implemented. The US has some of the worst rates of education, medical expense, and income inequality in the world. Many cities are unaffordable to the service workers and labourers that those cities require. At the same time, the value of real work being done is extracted from countries in the global South by neocolonial policies. That's not the kind of ethical ideal we should be aiming at. 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

beaconstudios 5y ago

I think these outliers demonstrate an inherent flaw in capitalism (among others) where power imbalances dictate capital accumulation. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich are in a better negotiating position so the poor must take what they're given. The obvious example being that workers must sell their labour while capitalists can buy labour and retain profit, leading to capital growth. Marx documented the tendencies of capitalism pretty well to be honest. You don't seem to be engaging with the implications of what I'm saying, rather just engaging with the specific examples, so I'm not sure you're really willing to engage with the arguments.

nickpp 5y ago
Ask the millions starving under communism then improving their lot under capitalism which system they prefer. Debating the various theoretical aspects of various *isms is fun and all but there is practically no immigration from capitalism to communism. The poor know which one is better for them and vote with their feet.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  You realise that even Lenin, piece of human filth that he was, didn't consider the USSR to be communism? That's just not what the word means. The USSR was (pick one): - A Marxist-Leninist state - State capitalism - Bolshevism I don't care much about the terminology, but I do care about people making out that most left-wingers want more USSR. I mean, I'm an anarchist, so if I were alive in the USSR I'd be murdered, so that should tell you the level of friendliness between those people and libertarian socialists.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Any society where Marxist doctrines came to predominate ended up suffering for it. We can quibble over what you call the USSR, but Marxism is simply a-economical, and causes unimaginable human suffering to the extent that laws are shaped by it.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      You can literally just switch out corporations with cooperatives to make a market socialist economy. Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        If cooperatives were as efficient as corporations, they would win out in the free market, with consumers choosing their products over those produced by corporations. Repressing the free market necessarily means preventing the most efficient means of production/coordination from becoming predominant, based on crude ideologically motivated narratives about how an economy is supposed to work. >>Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies. No it didn't. All of those things emerged as a result of the rising levels of per capita GDP that were due to profit-motivated investment in a free market. Child labor could only be abandoned when productivity increases enabled parents to support their whole family alone, and that productivity increase was, again, a consequence of profit-motivated investment in a free market.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>I think these outliers demonstrate an inherent flaw in capitalism (among others) where power imbalances dictate capital accumulation. These outlier situations have properties not present in normal circumstances, regardless of the power imbalance in those normal circumstances. Normal circumstances mean that Apple, despite being worth $2.8 trillion, can only induce me to purchase its product, if it is the best option for me amongst the entire set of options globally available to me. The harmful/coercive effect of the power imbalance vanishes in a free market, because by the ruleset of the free market, Apple cannot use its power to do anything except provide a better quality product for a lower price. >> The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich are in a better negotiating position so the poor must take what they're given. The poor don't get poorer in a free market.. We've seen wages grow over 20 fold since 200 years ago, in 1822. This is after adjusting for inflation, meaning a greater than 20 times material improvement in people's living conditions. The places in the world with the highest wages are precisely those which adhered to the free market ruleset most closely, and for the longest duration of time. >>You don't seem to be engaging with the implications of what I'm saying What you're implying is simply misinformed.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Yes, apple does not have the power to not literally force you to do anything, which is an improvement over feudalism. However, if you take apple alongside all their inputs, what you have is an extractive model where shareholders capture the value created by employees and suppliers, and the employees of those suppliers are often the ones being ruthlessly exploited (the aforementioned cobalt miners, Chinese factory workers, etc). Nowadays the truly horrific exploitation is done abroad. The west barely does any material labour like resource extraction or manufacturing, we just shuffle paper around and live off capital extraction and admimistration. > The poor don't get poorer in a free market.. Real wages in the USA have stagnated since the 1960s [1] as neoliberal (aka libertarian) policies have been implemented. The US has some of the worst rates of education, medical expense, and income inequality in the world. Many cities are unaffordable to the service workers and labourers that those cities require. At the same time, the value of real work being done is extracted from countries in the global South by neocolonial policies. That's not the kind of ethical ideal we should be aiming at. 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...