4 ms·
Interesting read... Two things: 1. I think the argument about objectivistic capitalism being immoral was not fleshed out enough at all, a claim is made that it
by hardwaresofton 12y ago
Interesting read... Two things:
1. I think the argument about objectivistic capitalism being immoral was not fleshed out enough at all, a claim is made that it's just as bad as governmental "theft", but I feel one of the most important distinctions, the use of force, is not covered at all. How do independent actors in the market force you to buy their goods (and pay their economic rent?)
2. The actual idea is extremely interesting, and I liked reading the paper. (SPOILERS) - It's interesting to think of employees as really working for a portion of future proceeds rather than current pay... However, I don't think this model fits all business types, and it doesn't go into the humanist aspects of what happens when businesses fail.
- skilesare 12y ago1. It is true. My talk has little of this. I was pissed at Ayn Rand when I wrote this. But I think I answered your question in another thread. If you run out of gas and walk five miles, the gas station owner has you at a disadvantage. He can charge you $50 for the gas can or $5. What is 'fair'? I'm not sure I know, but most of it is economic rent that you are 'forced' to pay. Mostly because you are stupid, but still... 2. One thing not covered in the paper is the compassionate bankruptcy that is in there. https://github.com/skilesare/art_and_democratic_hypercapitalism/blob/master/hyper_capitalism/clear_outs.md https://github.com/skilesare/art_and_democratic_hypercapital...
- hardwaresofton 12y agoAh thanks for the clarifications