4 ms·

This analogy doesn't hold true in reality. Pure capitalism doesn't mean no rules, just no rulers. Look at Github, for example. Spontaneous standards, convention

This analogy doesn't hold true in reality. Pure capitalism doesn't mean no rules, just no rulers. Look at Github, for example. Spontaneous standards, conventions, communities, etiquette, etc. happen all the time. Now, I know the Fed is private, but is still hugely influenced and tied to the US Gov. Why can't we have competing currencies in the market? And then we can see what kind systems & rules evolve and come into being. Fiat currency is like a single point of failure.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
po 14y ago
Pure capitalism doesn't mean no rules, just no rulers. Who enforces the rules when someone breaks them? The community? Sounds great! Do all of the people have to vote on every infraction every time? …or are we going to designate some people who understand the rules and regulations deeply (let's call them referees and/or regulators) and put them in charge of making decisions on our behalf. That sounds like a great optimization to me! We just need to make them answerable to the people and not the players. You know, the players would love to have these guys on their side. They will probably even try to corrupt the refs by paying them off. Why can't we have competing currencies in the market? And then we can see what kind systems & rules evolve and come into being. Fiat currency is like a single point of failure. Firstly, we do have multiple currencies. Each nation has one and there's nothing from stopping you and all of your friends from doing business in a different one. Yes, you still have to pay your taxes in the one the US gov accepts. Secondly, why is innovation in currencies important? I'd rather have companies building new types of ship rather than trying to reinvent water. I think something like bitcoin or a gold-backed dollar is interesting to think about, but I haven't seen anything compelling to say it's worth the switch. Maybe some smaller nation/economy somewhere should try it out. I think they will find that it's not all roses as they think it is. In europe they said: cell phone infrastructure is extremely expensive to build so let's pick one standard, and force all companies to compete and build it out on the same standard. Kind of like how the US originally approached the incompatible railway gauge problem. With cell phones, the US didn't do that so now we have multiple incompatible standards that all have kind of half-assed coverage. More competition and innovation! Except it's worse for the consumer. If you want to buy a cell phone, it might only work at your home but not well at your office. It might have to have 2 different kinds of radios. I wish the US had picked a different set of priorities to compete around.
- dmix 14y ago
  I think you're mistaken by one big thing, in a "pure" capitalist state, there would still be court systems in place to enforce human rights, contracts, lawsuits etc. A privately-run court system which is prone to corruption wouldn't last very long, when a competitor could easily pop up who offers transparency and a lack of vested interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_orde... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    Are you sure it wouldn't be some kind of private arbitration circuit? I'm pretty sure that in a "pure" capitalist state, the preference would be to allow the market to discover a solution to the problem of injustice. Indubitably, the foundations of such a system would be, essentially, pay-for-play. Those with means would prefer, rationally, to have a system where the measure of justice they receive is proportional to the means they possess. As long as we're buying and selling justice, who would want to pay more, and receive less justice? I'll take my business elsewhere, thank you. I somehow doubt, then, that such a system would tend toward what most people consider fair and justice -- those notions today, at least ideally, embody the concept that all participants are equal, regardless of any other consideration.
    - dmix 14y ago
      > those notions today, at least ideally, embody the concept that all participants are equal, regardless of any other consideration. Equality as defined by the government/state... which as we have seen, is susceptible to corruption and enforcement of laws that were created with influence from special interests.
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        Yes, the selection and implementation of equality is open to suspicion. I reject your implication that the state/government are somehow separate from those governed, however. Without that, all you are saying is that equality is a flawed concept, owing to the fact that government has so many stakeholders, with disparate, wide-ranging and sometimes conflicting interests -- and therefore any notion of equality formed by consensus will fail to completely satisfy someone. The ideal of equality before the law, however, remains -- something which cannot be said for a pay-for-play justice system. You are changing the subject by drawing attention to the flaws of the current justice system. The original statement you made was a positive assertion about the qualities of a theoretical private arbitration system. I see that you added "when a competitor could easily pop up who offers transparency and a lack of vested interests" since I wrote my comment. To this, I can only groan and roll my eyes. Who will pay for such a system? Why would someone who can pay prefer a fair system to an unfair system? All other things being equal, if you have to pay $X for justice, would you rather have a fair hearing or one where a favorable outcome is determined?
jessedhillon 14y ago
Because the purpose of a society is to promote a stable, peaceful condition within which people can be safe and prosper. (See: Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan) To the end that prosperity requires economic forces in order to create opportunities for people to rise disproportionately to their effort, we have a market. But the market serves our society, not vice versa -- the purpose is to control and tame the beast to make it serve us, not to expose ourselves to the wild fluctuations of uncontrolled (or poorly restrained) profit motives. The extent to which market control is reduced raises the bar of informed-ness for all market participants. In theory we can all be served by an efficient market, if all participants are perfectly informed. In practice, perfect information is unavailable, and lacking that, we will all spend every available minute either seeking information or being duped. Or: we can sacrifice the goal of theoretical market purity and accept that the rest of us have better things to do with our lives.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

po 14y ago

Pure capitalism doesn't mean no rules, just no rulers. Who enforces the rules when someone breaks them? The community? Sounds great! Do all of the people have to vote on every infraction every time? …or are we going to designate some people who understand the rules and regulations deeply (let's call them referees and/or regulators) and put them in charge of making decisions on our behalf. That sounds like a great optimization to me! We just need to make them answerable to the people and not the players. You know, the players would love to have these guys on their side. They will probably even try to corrupt the refs by paying them off. Why can't we have competing currencies in the market? And then we can see what kind systems & rules evolve and come into being. Fiat currency is like a single point of failure. Firstly, we do have multiple currencies. Each nation has one and there's nothing from stopping you and all of your friends from doing business in a different one. Yes, you still have to pay your taxes in the one the US gov accepts. Secondly, why is innovation in currencies important? I'd rather have companies building new types of ship rather than trying to reinvent water. I think something like bitcoin or a gold-backed dollar is interesting to think about, but I haven't seen anything compelling to say it's worth the switch. Maybe some smaller nation/economy somewhere should try it out. I think they will find that it's not all roses as they think it is. In europe they said: cell phone infrastructure is extremely expensive to build so let's pick one standard, and force all companies to compete and build it out on the same standard. Kind of like how the US originally approached the incompatible railway gauge problem. With cell phones, the US didn't do that so now we have multiple incompatible standards that all have kind of half-assed coverage. More competition and innovation! Except it's worse for the consumer. If you want to buy a cell phone, it might only work at your home but not well at your office. It might have to have 2 different kinds of radios. I wish the US had picked a different set of priorities to compete around.

dmix 14y ago
I think you're mistaken by one big thing, in a "pure" capitalist state, there would still be court systems in place to enforce human rights, contracts, lawsuits etc. A privately-run court system which is prone to corruption wouldn't last very long, when a competitor could easily pop up who offers transparency and a lack of vested interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_orde... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Are you sure it wouldn't be some kind of private arbitration circuit? I'm pretty sure that in a "pure" capitalist state, the preference would be to allow the market to discover a solution to the problem of injustice. Indubitably, the foundations of such a system would be, essentially, pay-for-play. Those with means would prefer, rationally, to have a system where the measure of justice they receive is proportional to the means they possess. As long as we're buying and selling justice, who would want to pay more, and receive less justice? I'll take my business elsewhere, thank you. I somehow doubt, then, that such a system would tend toward what most people consider fair and justice -- those notions today, at least ideally, embody the concept that all participants are equal, regardless of any other consideration.
  - dmix 14y ago
    > those notions today, at least ideally, embody the concept that all participants are equal, regardless of any other consideration. Equality as defined by the government/state... which as we have seen, is susceptible to corruption and enforcement of laws that were created with influence from special interests.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      Yes, the selection and implementation of equality is open to suspicion. I reject your implication that the state/government are somehow separate from those governed, however. Without that, all you are saying is that equality is a flawed concept, owing to the fact that government has so many stakeholders, with disparate, wide-ranging and sometimes conflicting interests -- and therefore any notion of equality formed by consensus will fail to completely satisfy someone. The ideal of equality before the law, however, remains -- something which cannot be said for a pay-for-play justice system. You are changing the subject by drawing attention to the flaws of the current justice system. The original statement you made was a positive assertion about the qualities of a theoretical private arbitration system. I see that you added "when a competitor could easily pop up who offers transparency and a lack of vested interests" since I wrote my comment. To this, I can only groan and roll my eyes. Who will pay for such a system? Why would someone who can pay prefer a fair system to an unfair system? All other things being equal, if you have to pay $X for justice, would you rather have a fair hearing or one where a favorable outcome is determined?

jessedhillon 14y ago

Because the purpose of a society is to promote a stable, peaceful condition within which people can be safe and prosper. (See: Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan) To the end that prosperity requires economic forces in order to create opportunities for people to rise disproportionately to their effort, we have a market. But the market serves our society, not vice versa -- the purpose is to control and tame the beast to make it serve us, not to expose ourselves to the wild fluctuations of uncontrolled (or poorly restrained) profit motives. The extent to which market control is reduced raises the bar of informed-ness for all market participants. In theory we can all be served by an efficient market, if all participants are perfectly informed. In practice, perfect information is unavailable, and lacking that, we will all spend every available minute either seeking information or being duped. Or: we can sacrifice the goal of theoretical market purity and accept that the rest of us have better things to do with our lives.