A Problem I See With Pure Capitalism

[andyfox]

Thread was entitled "a" problem, not "the" problem.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a firm believer in laissez-faire capitalism, which in my eyes is pure-capitalism. Not this Anarchist-capitalism state you're referring to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sklansky meant it as AC, though. Reason is I remember some debates in SMP where he asked a few questions about it and mentioned he wanted to think more deeply about it before forming an opinion. He called it pure capitalism back then, so I assume he's kept that definition.

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe DS will grace us with his presence and clear it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems clear to me that DS was not referring to AC or laissez-faire capitalism. He refers to "architects" of the economy, so he must be referring to "state capitalism", which is opposed by both ACists and libertarians in general, as well as many others.

At the very least he is obviously referring to a situation where capitalism is chosen by the state (or some state-like entity), which would still exclude both AC and laissez-faire capitalism.

Maybe DS could clear this up?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Sklansky meant it as AC, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case I believe Sklansky is making an error in judgement by using AC as the standard for pure-capitalism.

Having a governing body is inherent to any functioning society, so for the sake of argument it should be assumed that pure-capitalism includes a governing body.

[/ QUOTE ]
Inherent? That can't be right. There have been societies without what most would call a governing body that existed for quite a few years. This may depend on your definition of "society", "governing body", and "function", of course.

[Joga Bonito]

[ QUOTE ]

Inherent? That can't be right. There have been societies without what most would call a governing body that existed for quite a few years. This may depend on your definition of
"society", "governing body", and "function", of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

My example for what I meant by society is America. A large collective group of people.

Governing Body is used in loose terms. what I meant was going back as far as you'd like, the great civilizations that have come and gone have always had a group of decision makers. I mentioned this to combat the Anarcho-Capitalist comments.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a philosophy that advocates for a free market and a community without government.

Also, I don't believe that any anarchist society can function. I hate big government, but the idea of having no government in my eyes would mean that there would be no laws.

The human condition is one that is not steady, a lot of people would do things like "stealing a diamond toilet seat" or murder someone for their wallet. Without some sort of "governing body" these actions would be still be morally wrong. But what does that matter to someone who is depraved enough to do it, knowing there will be no lawful repurcussions?

[Bowlboy]

[ QUOTE ]
But say you are in a miserable situation (especially if it is due to little fault of your own) and the architects of your economy say there is nothing wrong with someone owning diamond toilet seats if they can afford it. And go on to justify this stance with the explanation that most poor people will do better in such a system. Then if you are not likely to be one of the poor people who benefit, why not steal from the guy with the toilet seat if you can get away with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is okay to steal in this situation for a bunch of moral reasons, such as providing for one's family where said 'miserable situation' prevents this from happening. I wish you would re-word 'little fault of your own' to 'no fault of your own'. Those who put themself in their miserable situation with prior knowledge of the consequences have made the bed they lay in. If on the other hand the system allows people to become trapped in these miserable situations by no fault of their own then that system is failing these individuals. If there is no other available alternatives to stealing then morality is'nt even an issue as it boils down to necessity/surrvival.

That being said the system actually fails society as a whole. It fails the poor for not presenting them with an alternative to theft. It fails the rich as well because the flaws in the system generate more crime against them.

Therefore the system is in need of change. Ironically, it is the all the diamond toilet seat swiping that will trigger the need for change in the system to benefit society as a whole. If a diamond toilet seat tax was imposed, the proceeds could go to creating jobs and opportunities for the poor. While this may seem like an immediate loss to the rich, they gain in the long run if no more toilet seats are swiped.

As for me, stealing the first diamond toilet seat was a great move. I was able to help out my entire family and friends, start a new business (mass producing faux diamond toilet seats at affordable prices), and help bring about social and economic change that would benefit all.

[David Sklansky]

I have no idea what the name of the system I am talking about is. All I know is that if the system encourages everyone only to think about themselves, supposedly because that will bring the most good to the most people, then if you are not one of those people, it seems that you should steal if it is the right play EV wise.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


AC = anarcho-capitalism = pure capitalism

The rules are simple:

1. Everyone must respect other peoples' property rights.

2. No one is in charge, ie. there is no government.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am a firm believer in laissez-faire capitalism, which in my eyes is pure-capitalism. Not this Anarchist-capitalism state you're referring to.

In Laissez-faire capitalism there is the belief in the governments right to exist. Only insofar that it protects and does not infringe upon individuals right to life, liberty and property i.e. a diamond toilet seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your wrong, pure capitalism cannot exist with a government because taxation interfers with the free market.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

If you accept the premise that society is better off in the long run if everyone is trying to selfishly maximize their own gain, what argument can you make against criminal behavior, to those who are in situations where the "trickle down" effect does not figure to reach them in the forseeable future?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually its more of a "flood up" effect as government policies universally harm the lower classes most.

[ QUOTE ]
why not steal from the guy with the toilet seat if you can get away with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you, a guy with no job, money or prospects- or even clean undewear, getting into a guys house who can afford a diamond encrusted toilet seat (also, wouldn't that cut your ass?). David, capitalism is about realism, not bizarre having to change human actions to arrive at an occurancism.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

I agree and think you can reasonably extend that argument into scenarios where it would be illogical for certain categories of people to NOT engage in crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D- how would that scenario be different from one with a state (ie not pure capitalism).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that stealing a diamond encrusted toilet seat would actually be moral. That diamond seat is going to no good use whatsoever.... but think about all the poor that it could feed if it was turned into more liquid assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, it must have some value because otherwise you couldn't sell that toilet seat to buy food for the poor.