4 ms·

Well, assuming there's no price collusion, which there's a good chance of the implicit type. "Charging appropriately" isn't the best measure pro-socially, AIDS

Well, assuming there's no price collusion, which there's a good chance of the implicit type. "Charging appropriately" isn't the best measure pro-socially, AIDS medication was still selling well in the West as millions died. FedEx could be prohibiting whole business models that are waiting to be profitable with cheaper shipping. Yes, I know it's speculation, but what we often forget here is that capitalism is a deal of state-based enforcement of your property rights so that you create value for society. If your company, like Comcast, is systematically overcharging / under-delivering, you're not holding up your end of the deal - so the state might just step in to ::realign your interests::

Gormo 14y ago
> we often forget here is that capitalism is a deal of state-based enforcement of your property rights so that you create value for society. Are you saying that the protection of one's property rights is contingent upon the delivery of some arbitrary metric of "value" to "society"? That doesn't sound quite right.
- meepmorp 14y ago
  > Are you saying that the protection of one's property rights is contingent upon the delivery of some arbitrary metric of "value" to "society"? That doesn't sound quite right. Are you saying that property rights are not contingent on a metric of value to society? If it weren't better for society as a whole to provide protections for property rights, do you think they'd exist?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    >capitalism is a deal of state-based enforcement of your property rights so that you create value for society No it isn't. Capitalism is a "system" of capital investment (usually with the expected gains of personal profitability), contingent upon the property rights of the ownership of capital and transferable (partial) ownership of an enterprise that consumes that capital. Capitalism is contingent on property rights being recognized and defended against arbitrary taking, but property rights are not contingent upon the owner of property contributing to society in some arbitrarily (im?)measurable way. This is not to state that the protection of property rights is not a net social boon, just that property rights do not evaporate (in whole or in part) in specific instances once someone calculates the "social value" for an owned enterprise has dropped below some immeasurable threshold. Governments operating under a system of justice attempt to regulate the systems and boundaries of social exchange (to minimize and resolve apparent conflicts), but do not require any party to engage in such exchange to the benefit of anyone, or the mutual benefit of society.
    - nickpinkston 14y ago
      You start describing parts of how the deal works, but not the de jure or de facto reality of its intention and operation in the real world. >property rights do not evaporate... It's called the Sherman Act in the US, and it's why Microsoft was told what to do with their property - similar to MSFTs forced debundling in Europe. It's the state saying "You're outside of the deal, make these changes (to your property) to increase competition, which we know will costing you lots of money (i.e. property)". There are many other laws that regulate anti-competitive behavior, eminent domain, patent violation in times of war, etc. that are all pro-social but sacrifice property rights.
      - sageikosa 14y ago
        I also mention that this is how a government built on a system of justice works, I do not claim to place that moniker "de facto" on any particular government (in whole or in part). Rights don't come from the state, they are a consequence of individuals needing to be able to act upon long range plans while interacting with others, and to be assured that values they have acquired will still be at their disposal in the future. One only needs rights to things one plans to use when other potential users may contend for it. Relying on a social order that defends rights is in one's best long-range interests. Laws that define and penalize "anti-competitive" behavior are orthogonal to capitalism, in that capitalism isn't about competition, it is about investment and return. From a legal standpoint (principles of justice notwithstanding), the remedy for anti-trust behavior is rationalized not as a complete termination of property rights (destruction or redistribution), but commands to take or cease action (interference) to compensate "injured parties", or forced reorganization to hinder the offending activity from recurring. Nominally the property still exists with its owner(s), although it has become encumbered or splintered into multiple properties. The ability for a government to own and acquire real estate puts it at odds with (perhaps) its chief purpose, defense of the property of the citizens, especially when it gives itself the coercive power to grab when all else fails. Suspension of rights in times of war is why we are warned about the rise of the total state under conditions of total war. The "war on terror" is the current excuse for the non-defense of many rights, not just property.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    "Society", as you're describing it, is itself another abstract construct created by actual human beings to describe their process of undertaking relationships with each other. The essence of property rights - property itself - is certainly elemental to the human condition, in or out of society; but the formal recognition of property rights within society is a prerequisite for there to be any society to speak of, outside of the most intimate familial relationships. Although a formal system of conventions for property rights is certainly contingent on general social acceptance, it's clear that any formalized notion of "society" is itself contingent upon the very same thing: individual human beings require exclusive control over well-defined amounts of matter and space in order to live, and human beings will therefore not generally form relationships that deny them the right to do so. In this sense, formal enforcement of property rights isn't so much about protecting property as it is about indeminfiying human beings against the risk to their property which might otherwise prevent them from forming relationships with others who are, at the moment, strangers, and therefore to allow society itself to evolve more complex and useful forms. In other words, without formal recognition of property rights, property would still exist, but "society" might not. All of this means that the protections for property rights afforded by formal institutions are not contingent on individuals delivering some arbitrary metric of value to society (a poor construction of the concept, noting that society isn't something distinct from actual human beings, so there's no "to" or "from" involved), but is rather necessitated by those individuals' mere existence within society.
    - nickpinkston 14y ago
      I don't deny that there's an innate attribute to physical property rights - the lion gets mad when you take his kill. It's undeniable this is what a lot of what the early state was designed to enforce - land rights in post-tribal societies to use Fukuyama's model. However, corporations, bankruptcy, patents, etc. are all not state-of-nature constructs being reinforced formally. They are state innovations to encourage positive growth - do you deny this? To your closing point, it sounds like you're saying that "business models don't have to be approved by the government based on this metric", however this would deny that the myriad taxes, laws, etc. make money itself the imprecise metric by which we judge this social value. In an impossible situation, money would account for all positive and negative externalities, and getting rich would really mean that you truly helped society a great deal - unlike today where it could just mean that you played the system, etc. Thoughts?
FireBeyond 14y ago
"like Comcast, is systematically overcharging / under-delivering" Whilst I understand that Comcast is a really easy target for customer service complaints, I pay for a 27mbps / 7mbps service. Per my speed tests (not speedtest.net), I get upwards of 40mbps down, 15mbps up on sustained transfers. And service is excellent, on the few occasions I've needed it.
enoch_r 14y ago
If I could say what I wanted, but only if the government determined that my speech provided "value for society," I don't think I'd consider myself to have state-enforced "speech rights." Speech privileges, maybe, but "rights" is definitely not the word I'd think of.

Gormo 14y ago

> we often forget here is that capitalism is a deal of state-based enforcement of your property rights so that you create value for society. Are you saying that the protection of one's property rights is contingent upon the delivery of some arbitrary metric of "value" to "society"? That doesn't sound quite right.

meepmorp 14y ago
> Are you saying that the protection of one's property rights is contingent upon the delivery of some arbitrary metric of "value" to "society"? That doesn't sound quite right. Are you saying that property rights are not contingent on a metric of value to society? If it weren't better for society as a whole to provide protections for property rights, do you think they'd exist?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  >capitalism is a deal of state-based enforcement of your property rights so that you create value for society No it isn't. Capitalism is a "system" of capital investment (usually with the expected gains of personal profitability), contingent upon the property rights of the ownership of capital and transferable (partial) ownership of an enterprise that consumes that capital. Capitalism is contingent on property rights being recognized and defended against arbitrary taking, but property rights are not contingent upon the owner of property contributing to society in some arbitrarily (im?)measurable way. This is not to state that the protection of property rights is not a net social boon, just that property rights do not evaporate (in whole or in part) in specific instances once someone calculates the "social value" for an owned enterprise has dropped below some immeasurable threshold. Governments operating under a system of justice attempt to regulate the systems and boundaries of social exchange (to minimize and resolve apparent conflicts), but do not require any party to engage in such exchange to the benefit of anyone, or the mutual benefit of society.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    You start describing parts of how the deal works, but not the de jure or de facto reality of its intention and operation in the real world. >property rights do not evaporate... It's called the Sherman Act in the US, and it's why Microsoft was told what to do with their property - similar to MSFTs forced debundling in Europe. It's the state saying "You're outside of the deal, make these changes (to your property) to increase competition, which we know will costing you lots of money (i.e. property)". There are many other laws that regulate anti-competitive behavior, eminent domain, patent violation in times of war, etc. that are all pro-social but sacrifice property rights.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      I also mention that this is how a government built on a system of justice works, I do not claim to place that moniker "de facto" on any particular government (in whole or in part). Rights don't come from the state, they are a consequence of individuals needing to be able to act upon long range plans while interacting with others, and to be assured that values they have acquired will still be at their disposal in the future. One only needs rights to things one plans to use when other potential users may contend for it. Relying on a social order that defends rights is in one's best long-range interests. Laws that define and penalize "anti-competitive" behavior are orthogonal to capitalism, in that capitalism isn't about competition, it is about investment and return. From a legal standpoint (principles of justice notwithstanding), the remedy for anti-trust behavior is rationalized not as a complete termination of property rights (destruction or redistribution), but commands to take or cease action (interference) to compensate "injured parties", or forced reorganization to hinder the offending activity from recurring. Nominally the property still exists with its owner(s), although it has become encumbered or splintered into multiple properties. The ability for a government to own and acquire real estate puts it at odds with (perhaps) its chief purpose, defense of the property of the citizens, especially when it gives itself the coercive power to grab when all else fails. Suspension of rights in times of war is why we are warned about the rise of the total state under conditions of total war. The "war on terror" is the current excuse for the non-defense of many rights, not just property.
- Gormo 14y ago
  "Society", as you're describing it, is itself another abstract construct created by actual human beings to describe their process of undertaking relationships with each other. The essence of property rights - property itself - is certainly elemental to the human condition, in or out of society; but the formal recognition of property rights within society is a prerequisite for there to be any society to speak of, outside of the most intimate familial relationships. Although a formal system of conventions for property rights is certainly contingent on general social acceptance, it's clear that any formalized notion of "society" is itself contingent upon the very same thing: individual human beings require exclusive control over well-defined amounts of matter and space in order to live, and human beings will therefore not generally form relationships that deny them the right to do so. In this sense, formal enforcement of property rights isn't so much about protecting property as it is about indeminfiying human beings against the risk to their property which might otherwise prevent them from forming relationships with others who are, at the moment, strangers, and therefore to allow society itself to evolve more complex and useful forms. In other words, without formal recognition of property rights, property would still exist, but "society" might not. All of this means that the protections for property rights afforded by formal institutions are not contingent on individuals delivering some arbitrary metric of value to society (a poor construction of the concept, noting that society isn't something distinct from actual human beings, so there's no "to" or "from" involved), but is rather necessitated by those individuals' mere existence within society.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    I don't deny that there's an innate attribute to physical property rights - the lion gets mad when you take his kill. It's undeniable this is what a lot of what the early state was designed to enforce - land rights in post-tribal societies to use Fukuyama's model. However, corporations, bankruptcy, patents, etc. are all not state-of-nature constructs being reinforced formally. They are state innovations to encourage positive growth - do you deny this? To your closing point, it sounds like you're saying that "business models don't have to be approved by the government based on this metric", however this would deny that the myriad taxes, laws, etc. make money itself the imprecise metric by which we judge this social value. In an impossible situation, money would account for all positive and negative externalities, and getting rich would really mean that you truly helped society a great deal - unlike today where it could just mean that you played the system, etc. Thoughts?

FireBeyond 14y ago

"like Comcast, is systematically overcharging / under-delivering" Whilst I understand that Comcast is a really easy target for customer service complaints, I pay for a 27mbps / 7mbps service. Per my speed tests (not speedtest.net), I get upwards of 40mbps down, 15mbps up on sustained transfers. And service is excellent, on the few occasions I've needed it.

enoch_r 14y ago

If I could say what I wanted, but only if the government determined that my speech provided "value for society," I don't think I'd consider myself to have state-enforced "speech rights." Speech privileges, maybe, but "rights" is definitely not the word I'd think of.