5 ms·

Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. And it should work in tandem with whatever social system that's set up, (justice, laws,

Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. And it should work in tandem with whatever social system that's set up, (justice, laws, morals, ethics, etc) Pyramid schemes steal a great amount of wealth, and should be regulated. Regulated capitalism is the good thing. The thing is, pyramid schemes aren't run by the state (or shouldn't be) and you don't have a gun to your head forcing you to participate. I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend.

nicoburns 5y ago
> Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. The "shouldn't" isn't very relevant here though. People shouldn't do that under a communist system either, and yet it happens under both. > I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend. I wish it was a strawman, unfortunately libertarians who promote this kind of capitalism (which to be clear isn't all libertarians) are a prominent political group whose members include many elected officials!
- seibelj 5y ago
  In capitalism the default is freedom and decentralization. So people can choose to act immorally and that’s a trade off we accept as a price of freedom. We set up a criminal justice system to fix that bug and set monetary incentives in a way that encourages productive economic activity over exploitive. Finding some bad actors does not disregard the entire system, especially not one that was ultimately convicted and died in prison.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I argue there is no need for regulation and we just need pure capitalism. Without a government, companies made of people with guns would emerge punishing scammers and criminals in general, advising companies and reputation systems would emerge protecting people from scams. Due to the nature of entrepreneurship, all these companies could be held in check by competitors. Without regulation slowing down new competitors, if a cartel emerges, there would be a great incentive for a better alternative coming up and making money. You may argue the systems of companies providing these services would make a sort of government - and you would be right. It would just be more decentralised and therefore there would be less space for corruption. You also wouldn't force people to pay you a part of their profit or they go to jail and you wouldn't force people to avoid certain substances or limit what activities thay may be doing. You can at best say: "If you don't pay a protecion agency, you won't have protection against criminals / foreign invaders", "You may take this drug but this recommendation company suggest it's bad for you". I'd rather live in a free society, a society where I'm free to even damage myself, than in the regulated prison we live in today.
- simiones 5y ago
  Everything we have seen of low regulation capitalism shows that quite quickly the market becomes dominated by one or, at best two-three huge players who can simply buy any competition that may seem to emerge. As business books will tell you, competition, in capitalism, is for losers. Winners are the ones that don't have competitors.

nicoburns 5y ago

> Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. The "shouldn't" isn't very relevant here though. People shouldn't do that under a communist system either, and yet it happens under both. > I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend. I wish it was a strawman, unfortunately libertarians who promote this kind of capitalism (which to be clear isn't all libertarians) are a prominent political group whose members include many elected officials!

seibelj 5y ago
In capitalism the default is freedom and decentralization. So people can choose to act immorally and that’s a trade off we accept as a price of freedom. We set up a criminal justice system to fix that bug and set monetary incentives in a way that encourages productive economic activity over exploitive. Finding some bad actors does not disregard the entire system, especially not one that was ultimately convicted and died in prison.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

I argue there is no need for regulation and we just need pure capitalism. Without a government, companies made of people with guns would emerge punishing scammers and criminals in general, advising companies and reputation systems would emerge protecting people from scams. Due to the nature of entrepreneurship, all these companies could be held in check by competitors. Without regulation slowing down new competitors, if a cartel emerges, there would be a great incentive for a better alternative coming up and making money. You may argue the systems of companies providing these services would make a sort of government - and you would be right. It would just be more decentralised and therefore there would be less space for corruption. You also wouldn't force people to pay you a part of their profit or they go to jail and you wouldn't force people to avoid certain substances or limit what activities thay may be doing. You can at best say: "If you don't pay a protecion agency, you won't have protection against criminals / foreign invaders", "You may take this drug but this recommendation company suggest it's bad for you". I'd rather live in a free society, a society where I'm free to even damage myself, than in the regulated prison we live in today.

simiones 5y ago
Everything we have seen of low regulation capitalism shows that quite quickly the market becomes dominated by one or, at best two-three huge players who can simply buy any competition that may seem to emerge. As business books will tell you, competition, in capitalism, is for losers. Winners are the ones that don't have competitors.