5 ms·

> Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. > .. > So this has nothing to do with capitalism Capitalism is the idea of th

> Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. > .. > So this has nothing to do with capitalism Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best. The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism. Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated. Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..

Jensson 3y ago
> Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no? No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Protecting property and contract rights encompasses many things, such as protecting your property from being taken from you via unfair means such as extortion etc. This necessitates limiting others property rights, others can't just build a wall around your property and force you to sell it for example. > Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism) at best. No, that is just regular capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow privately owned companies. Are you from USA? They misunderstand this part a lot, thinking that Europe isn't capitalist or something.
- zero-st4rs 3y ago
  > No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Huh, I am from the U.S. and I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing. (I'm not a socialist). I would say that it is presented differently (or at least culturally differently) where I am. Good catch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism says: > The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation, as well as the scope of state ownership, vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. I do think that the point of my comment is definitely still at play, even if regulation is absorbed into the definition. Happy to speak more to it. ----- I can't seem to reply to comments, so let me rephrase. "Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. I think my point is still valid, regardless."
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing But it is, socialism is when there is no private ownership of the means of production, that is core to it. Europe has social democracy combined with capitalism, there is no socialism there. Social democracy has nothing to do with socialism, they are completely different concepts. Edit: Some social democracy might stem from socialist movements, but there is none of that left today. No part of Europe is moving towards socialism, they are all happily capitalist with a majority of their economies being in the private sector. Social democracy is mainly about the government serving the people and ensuring everyone gets to live a decent life. So health care, social security etc. The same thing USA does but a bit more. It doesn't have anything to do with the means of production except trying to ensure that the system serves the people.
    - xigoi 3y ago
      To add to your comment, eastern Europe used to have socialism and it was very different from what we see today. Most people who were alive at that time don't have good memories about it.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. > I think my point is still valid, regardless. Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need. The "taxation is theft" crowd aren't pro capitalism, they are pro anarcho-capitalism which is essentially just anarchy. Don't listen to them.
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy, so don't listen to yourself.
    - 3y ago
xigoi 3y ago
> Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no? No, that's anarcho-capitalism.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Jensson 3y ago

> Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no? No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Protecting property and contract rights encompasses many things, such as protecting your property from being taken from you via unfair means such as extortion etc. This necessitates limiting others property rights, others can't just build a wall around your property and force you to sell it for example. > Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism) at best. No, that is just regular capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow privately owned companies. Are you from USA? They misunderstand this part a lot, thinking that Europe isn't capitalist or something.

zero-st4rs 3y ago
> No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Huh, I am from the U.S. and I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing. (I'm not a socialist). I would say that it is presented differently (or at least culturally differently) where I am. Good catch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism says: > The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation, as well as the scope of state ownership, vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. I do think that the point of my comment is definitely still at play, even if regulation is absorbed into the definition. Happy to speak more to it. ----- I can't seem to reply to comments, so let me rephrase. "Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. I think my point is still valid, regardless."
- Jensson 3y ago
  > I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing But it is, socialism is when there is no private ownership of the means of production, that is core to it. Europe has social democracy combined with capitalism, there is no socialism there. Social democracy has nothing to do with socialism, they are completely different concepts. Edit: Some social democracy might stem from socialist movements, but there is none of that left today. No part of Europe is moving towards socialism, they are all happily capitalist with a majority of their economies being in the private sector. Social democracy is mainly about the government serving the people and ensuring everyone gets to live a decent life. So health care, social security etc. The same thing USA does but a bit more. It doesn't have anything to do with the means of production except trying to ensure that the system serves the people.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    To add to your comment, eastern Europe used to have socialism and it was very different from what we see today. Most people who were alive at that time don't have good memories about it.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. > I think my point is still valid, regardless. Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need. The "taxation is theft" crowd aren't pro capitalism, they are pro anarcho-capitalism which is essentially just anarchy. Don't listen to them.
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy, so don't listen to yourself.
  - 3y ago

xigoi 3y ago

> Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no? No, that's anarcho-capitalism.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]