4 ms·

The use of the word "system" here is obviously a rhetoric device. Only far-left-oriented people use this term. If you ask the question, "What will we do if th

The use of the word "system" here is obviously a rhetoric device. Only far-left-oriented people use this term. If you ask the question, "What will we do if the system can no longer create jobs?", it's hard not to see this question as suggesting the answer "well, we change the system.". But what if I phrase the question like this: "What will we do if economic freedom can no longer create jobs?". It's much harder then to answer, "well, we abolish economic freedom", isn't it? Capitalism is all about the right to exchange and collect means of production. It's a natural consequence of economic freedom. It can be worrying if technology turns many people's labor useless, thus questioning their means of sustaining their lives, but to me that's not enough to question the rights of the others.

jahaja 12y ago
Are you suggesting that we currently enjoy "economic freedom" or that Capitalism in it's internet-libertarian definition is synonymous with "economic freedom"? Also, "Communist FUD" doesn't do you any favours.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  We have a system where an individual who happens to have wealth is generally allowed to take the wealth, purchase capital, use the capital (or pay someone to use the capital) to create something that he or someone else will value, and then either use that something himself or (attempt to) sell it to a third party for More Wealth. Notwithstanding a variety of reasonably important things like Taxes or Labor Market Regulations or even Regulatory Capture which detract from the purity of this model in practice, this is: (a) essentially the textbook definition of what 'capitalism' is (b) a natural consequence of the combination of property rights and basic economic freedoms like "i can purchase capital" -- be it a billion-dollar oil rig or a fifty-dollar sewing machine (c) and a common path taken by many or most people who have some wealth and wish to obtain more wealth, be they entrepreneurs themselves or ordinary people saving for retirement or homeowners looking to save money by insulating their basement or what the heck ever. So yes, in a general way we do enjoy that sort of system, and if someone has some explaining to do around here, it's actually you. We're not in some sort of political echo chamber such that you just say "capitalism" and people will automatically translate that to "Satan, and all his evil works, and all his empty promises" and implicitly remind people of their mission to elect ${politician} to support ${cause}. What do you redefine these words to mean?
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    We have a system where wealth is accumulated. If that wealth goes in fewer and fewer hands then there is no economic freedom for the rest.
    - fennecfoxen 12y ago
      > We have a system where wealth is accumulated. If that wealth goes in fewer and fewer hands then there is no economic freedom. Ah. You're using the word 'freedom' to mean 'power'. This means you can raise the specter of power being concentrated in a few hands to advocate for concentrating power in a few (powerful politicians') hands, and at least it won't sound utterly ridiculous. Clever.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        Where have I been proposing to put it in politicians instead?
    - grondilu 12y ago
      Being free does not necessarily mean having the means to exercise this freedom. E.g, I'm free to drive a luxurious car if I want to but if I don't own or rent one, I can't. You may be free, but it does not mean your beer is.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        You also forgot "if you _can't_ afford a luxurious car" you can't. In other words we are not free by any definition of the word, so lets stop pretending we are.
        grondilu 12y ago
        You're confusing being free with being able. Freedom is a deep concept, but I'm pretty sure not being able to do something does not mean you're not free to do it.
jiggy2011 12y ago
I'm not sure if it's what you are implying , but would you really be comfortable allowing people to starve if the value of their labor drops below that required to sustain them?
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  The correct question to ask is what happens to these people when they have nothing to lose AND have access to guns. We ony have to look a bit south of our border for those answers.
- grondilu 12y ago
  Most people walk by homeless, possibly starving people everyday and they do sleep at night. It's a lack of empathy that everyone basically has.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    We have government programs to feed and shelter the homeless, but how well can those scale?
- zo1 12y ago
  We're no where near that point where the value of their labor is less than what is required for them to feed themselves, and yet millions of people a year go to sleep hungry, or die of starvation, have their growth stunted, etc. I am totally not comfortable allowing people to starve. That is why I pay taxes, and I expect them to be fed using that money. And I am downright pissed-off that it's still an issue. I don't think it's capitalism that you should be directing any undue criticism over "value of labor" when it's currently government that is the cause#1 of hunger/starvation. #1: They're the cause because they're not fixing it.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Very few people starve to death in first world countries, at the same time however there are millions of people who are completely unemployed and would likely be unhoused and without food if it were not for gov welfare programs.
ThomPete 12y ago
The word system make total sense as long as you are only using it as an observation post. The left have normally been fairly right about their criticism of parts of the capitalist system. Where they normally go wrong is when they start suggesting another system i.e.. Capitalism is not about right to exchange there is no right in capitalism that is in liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that just is. There is clearly something thats not working and it has nothing to do with economic freedom or lack thereof but everything to do with technology and how it affect our current system.
- grondilu 12y ago
  > Capitalism is not about right to exchange there is no right in capitalism that is in liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that just is. Even if I'm ok with calling capitalism a "system", it still is a "system" which consists in abstractly dividing capital into shares that can then be exchanged on a market. This "system" is an abstract representation which you can't do without unless you prohibit the use of maths or freedom of exchange. That's what I meant: capitalism is a natural consequence of economic freedom. Calling it a system sounds very derogative to me as it colors it as artificial and optional. It is not.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Well I can't be held responsible for your use of the term system. I use it like it's used normally which implies both articial and natural (eco-systems. Everything is an abstract representation at the end of the day. Capitlism not less so. And everything is the natural consequence of something. You seem to be doing exactly what you accuse the OP for which is playing rethorical games instead of addressing the actual points the article is going through.

jahaja 12y ago

Are you suggesting that we currently enjoy "economic freedom" or that Capitalism in it's internet-libertarian definition is synonymous with "economic freedom"? Also, "Communist FUD" doesn't do you any favours.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
We have a system where an individual who happens to have wealth is generally allowed to take the wealth, purchase capital, use the capital (or pay someone to use the capital) to create something that he or someone else will value, and then either use that something himself or (attempt to) sell it to a third party for More Wealth. Notwithstanding a variety of reasonably important things like Taxes or Labor Market Regulations or even Regulatory Capture which detract from the purity of this model in practice, this is: (a) essentially the textbook definition of what 'capitalism' is (b) a natural consequence of the combination of property rights and basic economic freedoms like "i can purchase capital" -- be it a billion-dollar oil rig or a fifty-dollar sewing machine (c) and a common path taken by many or most people who have some wealth and wish to obtain more wealth, be they entrepreneurs themselves or ordinary people saving for retirement or homeowners looking to save money by insulating their basement or what the heck ever. So yes, in a general way we do enjoy that sort of system, and if someone has some explaining to do around here, it's actually you. We're not in some sort of political echo chamber such that you just say "capitalism" and people will automatically translate that to "Satan, and all his evil works, and all his empty promises" and implicitly remind people of their mission to elect ${politician} to support ${cause}. What do you redefine these words to mean?
- ThomPete 12y ago
  We have a system where wealth is accumulated. If that wealth goes in fewer and fewer hands then there is no economic freedom for the rest.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    > We have a system where wealth is accumulated. If that wealth goes in fewer and fewer hands then there is no economic freedom. Ah. You're using the word 'freedom' to mean 'power'. This means you can raise the specter of power being concentrated in a few hands to advocate for concentrating power in a few (powerful politicians') hands, and at least it won't sound utterly ridiculous. Clever.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      Where have I been proposing to put it in politicians instead?
  - grondilu 12y ago
    Being free does not necessarily mean having the means to exercise this freedom. E.g, I'm free to drive a luxurious car if I want to but if I don't own or rent one, I can't. You may be free, but it does not mean your beer is.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      You also forgot "if you _can't_ afford a luxurious car" you can't. In other words we are not free by any definition of the word, so lets stop pretending we are.
      - grondilu 12y ago
        You're confusing being free with being able. Freedom is a deep concept, but I'm pretty sure not being able to do something does not mean you're not free to do it.

jiggy2011 12y ago

I'm not sure if it's what you are implying , but would you really be comfortable allowing people to starve if the value of their labor drops below that required to sustain them?

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
The correct question to ask is what happens to these people when they have nothing to lose AND have access to guns. We ony have to look a bit south of our border for those answers.
grondilu 12y ago
Most people walk by homeless, possibly starving people everyday and they do sleep at night. It's a lack of empathy that everyone basically has.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  We have government programs to feed and shelter the homeless, but how well can those scale?
zo1 12y ago
We're no where near that point where the value of their labor is less than what is required for them to feed themselves, and yet millions of people a year go to sleep hungry, or die of starvation, have their growth stunted, etc. I am totally not comfortable allowing people to starve. That is why I pay taxes, and I expect them to be fed using that money. And I am downright pissed-off that it's still an issue. I don't think it's capitalism that you should be directing any undue criticism over "value of labor" when it's currently government that is the cause#1 of hunger/starvation. #1: They're the cause because they're not fixing it.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Very few people starve to death in first world countries, at the same time however there are millions of people who are completely unemployed and would likely be unhoused and without food if it were not for gov welfare programs.

ThomPete 12y ago

The word system make total sense as long as you are only using it as an observation post. The left have normally been fairly right about their criticism of parts of the capitalist system. Where they normally go wrong is when they start suggesting another system i.e.. Capitalism is not about right to exchange there is no right in capitalism that is in liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that just is. There is clearly something thats not working and it has nothing to do with economic freedom or lack thereof but everything to do with technology and how it affect our current system.

grondilu 12y ago
> Capitalism is not about right to exchange there is no right in capitalism that is in liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that just is. Even if I'm ok with calling capitalism a "system", it still is a "system" which consists in abstractly dividing capital into shares that can then be exchanged on a market. This "system" is an abstract representation which you can't do without unless you prohibit the use of maths or freedom of exchange. That's what I meant: capitalism is a natural consequence of economic freedom. Calling it a system sounds very derogative to me as it colors it as artificial and optional. It is not.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Well I can't be held responsible for your use of the term system. I use it like it's used normally which implies both articial and natural (eco-systems. Everything is an abstract representation at the end of the day. Capitlism not less so. And everything is the natural consequence of something. You seem to be doing exactly what you accuse the OP for which is playing rethorical games instead of addressing the actual points the article is going through.