10 ms·
The very fact this article is talking about government and business in symbiosis means the author doesn't understand the word 'Capitalism'. When big business a
by vegancap 12y ago
The very fact this article is talking about government and business in symbiosis means the author doesn't understand the word 'Capitalism'.
When big business are in cahoots with government, to good or bad effect (usually bad) it's Corporatism, not Capitalism.
- ThomPete 12y agoI often hear this kind of argumentation and I frankly don't buy it. When businesses are in cahoots with each other it's called cartels. Lets not pretend there is some pure version of capitalism that isn't tied to some special interest.
- eglover 12y agoMixing business with government is government. It takes the power from the customer and puts it into the hands of regulators.
- scarmig 12y agoMixing government with business is business. It takes power from the citizen and puts it into the hands of capital. This is not a disagreement with you, by the way. But just as Rawlsian liberals can't postulate a government that's immune to corruption into existence, libertarians and market fundamentalists can't postulate businesses that don't co-opt government to entrench their market positions.
- sseveran 12y agoThe ability for a business to use the government to its own ends its directly proportional to the size and power of the government. One of the best examples I can think of is Gazprom. While technically a private company its really just an extension of Vladimir Putin's government. In the US you find the similar arrangements in the defense and intelligence sectors. The less powerful the government, the less power there is to be had by co-opting it.
- ThomPete 12y agoBut you are in that assuming that private enterprise wouldn't be able to establish a monopoly via the market, a monopoly that wasn't necessarily established via "fair game". The less powerful ANY organization the less power. It's not exclusive to governments.
- eglover 12y agoNatural monopolies are near impossible, and have never harmed anyone. I've only heard of 2 in all of U.S. history. I don't remember which they were, but they didn't last long and they were entirely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
- ThomPete 12y agoNatural monopolies are indeed possible and they are indeed of course harming people. DeBeers being just one example of that.
- eglover 12y agoDeBeers only has a 40% market share, bad publicity is a major driver for them. At their highest they only had 90% share, that means there were other choices. >.> Not a monopoly. No real harm either. If you want to complain about where the money went after the transactions were made, that's another subject. You're so set on arguing with me. I think it's best if you sat down.
- eglover 12y agoEither way, government is evil. Remember, libertarian is a philosophy, not a political belief and the Libertarian Party gets a lot of flak for making compromises in order to be popular. There's nothing wrong with calling yourself libertarian and supporting some sentimentalized conservative version of government, but government by definition violates the "non-aggression principle". I don't disagree with you either, in fact you've really only restated what I said.
- ThomPete 12y agoAny organization that have it's own interest is potentially evil whether government or private enterprise. You can't define your way out of that.
- eglover 12y agoPotentially, but not by definition. That's an important difference. Only one has the potential to be good, and only one is controllable by the people who are truly effected by it.
- ThomPete 12y agoBoth have the potential to be both good and bad. If you are trying to promote some sort of ancap/libertarian approach lets just stop here that view is in my mind as naive as a communist view and there is no basis for those kind of moral claims.
- eglover 12y agoBy. Definition. That's all that needs to be known.
- vegancap 12y agoCapitalism is the separation of state and economy. When governments set interest rates, print money, tax people and recruit through special interest, it's Corporatism.
- ThomPete 12y agoWhich basically just means that instead of a state having the physical power someone/something else will. Again you can't define your way out of this.
- vegancap 12y agoHaha oh I can. So do you also make the argument that a river is and evil Capitalist because it deprives a drowning man of oxygen? A salt plain has power over a dying mammal that can't find food. Is that also evil Capitalism? No. Capitalism is about best dealing with the fact that the universe owes us absolutely nothing and that the only consolation for that is freedom, voluntary association and opportunity. You can't diminish all forms of 'power' because it's within nature itself.
- gress 12y agoNope. You're describing a specific form of libertarianism.
- josu 12y agoThe problem with the word capitalism is that there are at least four definitions for it. The meaning usually depends on where you are coming from in the political spectrum. The author should have used "the current system" instead of the word "capitalism". But you know, nowadays the trend is to blame everything on capitalism, and it sells really well, so as long as people keep buying it we will keep seeing that word around.
- gress 12y agoThe current system is capitalism. The degradations are part of capitalism in practice. If you only accept categories that are theoretically pure, you cannot speak about the real world.
- nickff 12y agoGovernments have been increasing their regulation and redistribution for over a hundred years now, yet we still call the system "capitalism". At what point will we agree that the Western nations have either blended or socialist systems?
- gress 12y agoI think we all agree that western nations do not have some kind of pure form of libertarianism. That's why we call it capitalism, and not libertarianism.
- nickff 12y agoHow much government regulation, redistribution, and ownership is required before we call it socialism? I am not saying that socialism or mixed systems are bad, but I would like the system we are in to be accurately described. It seems that many of the bad things which occur are ascribed to capitalism, when they should be attributed to the mixed (or socialist) economy we actually inhabit in the west.
- 12y ago
- pjc50 12y agoThere's no ideologically pure world where businesses are uninvolved with government. Indeed, if you take the oft-cited "must maximise profits at any cost" motivation, businesses must lobby government to their advantage.
- innguest 12y agoThen stop voting for a government that has power to dole out to lobbyists.
- 21echoes 12y agoinstead, vote for a government that is powerless to rein in the natural power of capital
- socialist_coder 12y agoAnd that would be... ?
- pjc50 12y agoWhat would that look like? It would have to be unable to spend money on anything or make any kind of economic or product safety policy. It would be hard to distinguish from no government at all. No, lobbying is something intrinsic to any representative system. What can be tackled is the flow of money - once it's accepted that money isn't speech.
- eglover 12y agoNo kidding, these kinds of hit pieces are just more excuses for more socialism. It's a shame when the world has no idea how big of a difference there is between a capitalist economy and "mixed economy". (ie. partially socialist)
- asgard1024 12y agoSo what's your definition of capitalism? I think the original definition originated sometime in the 19th century, probably from Marx, and it meant the actual, real world system (this is different from communism, which designated an ideal). I always understood it as an economic system based on two characteristics: 1. Private ownership of capital. 2. Labor as a market commodity. I think these two aptly describe both 19th century and current economic systems, and I don't think this implies anything about symbiosis (or lack of thereof) between government and business. Addendum: Maybe you mean free market, which, in my view, is a different thing. At least because it, like communism, describes an ideal, not an factually existing system (I am not aware of sufficiently closed economic system which could be considered to be a free market).
- ctdonath 12y ago3. Liberty to mutually contract. "Pay this fee to a 3rd party or you go to jail" isn't.
- burgers 12y ago"Liberty" is definitely not a part of Capitalism. In capitalism liberty only applies to those with capital, just like liberty only applies to those with power in any system.
- ctdonath 12y agoEveryone has capital, if only their minds & muscles - therefore all have liberty, and are capitalists.
- burgers 12y agoWhile "sweat equity" is a fun ideal, in reality it is not very similar to passive equity. That is in essence what wealth in capitalism is. Income via passive equity. When one is dependent on "their minds & muscles", what that actually means is that they are forced to work in government approved income activities(nothing illegal) or face imprisonment or death. That doesn't sound much like liberty to me. On the other hand, those with enough passive equity no longer need to work in government approved activities provided by the asset class, and very much do enjoy the benefits of liberty. That said, it is very obvious to are tied to an ideology(likely because it benefits you a great deal personally), and I won't spend any more time trying to enlighten you.