5 ms·

Are you suggesting that we currently enjoy "economic freedom" or that Capitalism in it's internet-libertarian definition is synonymous with "economic freedom"?

• 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.
          • ThomPete 12y ago
            On the contrary I am simply critiquing the use of free since it disguises reality.
            • deleted 12y ago
              [deleted]