3 ms·

>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

>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.

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.