Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the capitalists use the state to squash new competition? There was article linked in this thread, for example about someone trying to startup and sell milk cheaper and the corporations passed laws to get it shut down.

capitalists in general lobby for and get a lot of privileges that makes it pretty hard for a new coop to compete.


And you and I both know the unregulated free market has never existed in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some capitalists will try to lobby the state for favors and protectionism. Not all. Ever heard of James Hill? Your argument is great against having a central state capable of handing out favors to businesses, but not a good one against capitalism itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually everybody pushes for virtually everything they can get, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, deservedly or undeservedly, in surfeit of what they need or just to keep from dying.

If you think otherwise, you kind of are arguing against capitalism itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but I think this is more the fault of the state than of capitalism in general. The state has a great deal of power and if your competitors are lobbying for more handouts, protectionism, stifling competition, then you're at a disadvantage so it makes sense to also try and lobby for your company. It takes some strong principles to avoid that temptation, especially when doing so could cost you your company.

[peritonlogon]

I have not actually proposed anything, all I have done is dispute something. Namely that the AC notion of rights are a fabrication.

What do I think constitutes moral guidelines for what should be done in this world? I do not have a simple answer, and I don't think a simple answer exists that is also satifying. But here are some of the major ideas that contribute to how I see right and wrong in a broad sense.

There are claims that the individual makes on the world.
There are claims that the world makes on the individual.
There are also responsibilities that the individual has to the world.
As well as, responsibilities that the world has to individuals.

Much of the time the government speaks for what I've termed 'the world' but not always, sometimes it's family, sometimes it's community, sometimes it's a company sometimes it's something else.

Both the world's claims and responsibilites should find some sort of balance. The same goes for the individual's claims and responsibilities. When these are too far out of balance there is a problem, ie a moral problem. For example the state killing its citizens would be making a claim without acknowledging its responsibility, another would be an individual refusing to pay taxes, the individual makes a claim on the world without taking a responsibility.

I don't think there exists a very cogent definition of where the balance lies or what it would look like optimally. This is just an idea of how to look a the problem, not a solution (because, a satisfactory one does not yet exist).

Along with this there are aspects of issues that aid in judging particular examples.

Power, is the first. What the ACist see as 'coercion' would be an example of this. Also, exercising one's capital would be an example of this. Not all power is necessarily bad, but power certainly can be used badly. Everytime an individual or the world exercises it's power is a different circumstance, and should be considered differently, but that's not to say that the power a capitalist has is inherently different than the power a state has. Money can be just as coercive as the state and that's not always bad or good.

Utility. We all know what this means, and this should be considered in every decision that an individual makes in relation to the world or the world to the individual.

Fairness. This is quite hard to define out of context. But we all seem to share this notion.

Happiness. This is another aspect that is difficult to define. There are plenty of decisions that one can make that are useful and fair but detract from happiness where one another decision that is both useful and fair would not. The human spirit would come into play in this aspect (people aren't happy having everything provided for them with nothing to do, nor are they happy in abject poverty with no hope.)

Evidence. By this I just mean that there is correct knowledge and understanding to guide a decision.

I'm sure there are more, but they're just not coming to me right now.

So, I haven't provided any actual universal solutions. I don't think any exist. I think that it is far easier to determine that something is wrong than it is to determine why something is wrong. This is because our explainations for why something is wrong are really just attempts to understand why we think something is wrong. As in, we've generally already reached a conclusion and we are now searching for a satisfying answer. As such, this answer really only relates to the matter it originally described and should not be taken to be universal.

I'm alluding to the moral imperative that is presented all the time here regarding coercion and freely agreeing. This dichotomy attempts to explain why someone might feel such and such a policy or action is wrong, but it doesn't actually. There are almost no decisions that one can make that could actually be called free. So it sets up a false dichotomy. To actually believe that a poor person with children looking for a place to live is acting freely, as in, unencumbered by other people's power, is simply to close one's eyes to reality. If the person were acting freely they could sleep in the nearest building or find an unoccupied domicile to go to, this is an example of capital coercing.

There may be more to come. I gotta run.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
To actually believe that a poor person with children looking for a place to live is acting freely, as in, unencumbered by other people's power, is simply to close one's eyes to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This arguement would be true if it was occuring under a free market system. Poverty exists to a large extent because government is taking money out of the free market and giving it to whoever is funding their campaigns. We need to solve the problem of inefficient and corrupt governments before we can asses how much damage a free market does to poor people.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To actually believe that a poor person with children looking for a place to live is acting freely, as in, unencumbered by other people's power, is simply to close one's eyes to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This arguement would be true if it was occuring under a free market system. Poverty exists to a large extent because government is taking money out of the free market and giving it to whoever is funding their campaigns. We need to solve the problem of inefficient and corrupt governments before we can asses how much damage a free market does to poor people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you mis the point more? And then propose something irrelevent? Explain to me how that fits into or questions the general method I was proposing to analyze the moral actions that individuals or groups might take in the world?

For example, I was suggesting that most all actions that people have been characterizing as "free" are not free, they infact exist within a power structure that includes capital as the primary unit of power. This is not to say that I'm against capital, just that we can't really call it free. See, there is a liguistical problem in that the word "free" has multiple meanings and, in the case of "free market" free simply means unencumbered by government. It does not however mean "free" in the sense that anyone is allowed to do whatever they wish, these two ideas should not be blurred. Capital creates a power structure that is sometimes in accordance with peoles general notions of fairness and liberty and sometimes is not. The market in practice is sometimes in accordance with a general utility (efficiency) and sometimes not, depending on how the surrounding structure creates incentives.

Despite what you may have been taught, there is no simple answer (more freedom) or simple method (AC) to achieving the good life either on your own or through some political meduim.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I was suggesting that most all actions that people have been characterizing as "free" are not free, they infact exist within a power structure that includes capital as the primary unit of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this definition there is no freedom in any system. Money just represents resources, the more you have the more powerful you will be. People need resources to survive and therefore have to work. There is no freedom from our biological needs.

When ACers talk about freedom, they are talking about freedom within your economic means. The only time this ever becomes a problem is when someones economic means are so restricted that they cant afford basic neccessities. If the poorest people could afford basic neccessities who cares if they lack the 'freedoms' that rich capitalists can afford. The goal of society should be to provide a sustainable living for everyone, and capitalism would be the most efficient system at producing and distributing wealth if it werent for the government that takes as much as it possibly can get away with.

I would be interested in hearing your solution to the lack of freedom that poor people have?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
When ACers talk about freedom, they are talking about freedom within your economic means. The only time this ever becomes a problem is when someones economic means are so restricted that they cant afford basic neccessities. If the poorest people could afford basic neccessities who cares if they lack the 'freedoms' that rich capitalists can afford. The goal of society should be to provide a sustainable living for everyone, and capitalism would be the most efficient system at producing and distributing wealth if it werent for the government that takes as much as it possibly can get away with.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens when AC Corp moves its headquarters, and 1,000s of unskilled workers are layed off? You can complain ad infinitum about government waste, but there is at least a safety net for those who choose to use it. I fail to see how pure capitalism succeeds in providing basic necessities more than government wealth redistribution. Aggregate wealth might grow faster in AC, but you'll always have people of the time that get screwed one way or the other. Is this where private charity argument kicks in?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, I was suggesting that most all actions that people have been characterizing as "free" are not free, they infact exist within a power structure that includes capital as the primary unit of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this definition there is no freedom in any system.

[/ QUOTE ] That's true[ QUOTE ]
Money just represents resources, the more you have the more powerful you will be. People need resources to survive and therefore have to work. There is no freedom from our biological needs.

[/ QUOTE ]That makes sense to me, but along with this there seems to be relative freedom, as in, this situation is more free than that one, and it's almost always better to be in the more free one. For example, if you're shopping for a car you will be able to get yourself a far better deal if you are able to walk away from a number of places before making your purchase, but, if, on the other hand, you have to commute 50 miles to work tomorrow and you really can't stretch your shopping out for a few more days because your ride won't be able to take you to shop or to work and you're counting on a loan and can't afford a rental, you are probably not going to get a good deal...I've been in both situations before, and the near term restrictions that a tight budget gave me ended up costing a whole lot.

[ QUOTE ]
When ACers talk about freedom, they are talking about freedom within your economic means.

[/ QUOTE ] Which is far too narrow of a definition to use, especially if you would like to extrapolate any type of a moral system out of it.[ QUOTE ]
The only time this ever becomes a problem is when someones economic means are so restricted that they cant afford basic neccessities.

[/ QUOTE ]I strongly disagree. Companies can exercise a whole lot of power of a lot of people. Companies can use strong arm tactics and can coerce other people, howerver, when they do this they either answer to no one for it or they answer to the government. US Steel was able to do whatever they wanted to Gary Indiana, people objected, nothing happened, they went to the city, nothing happened, they went to the state, nothing happened, then they went to the feds, and now we have the EPA.[ QUOTE ]
If the poorest people could afford basic neccessities who cares if they lack the 'freedoms' that rich capitalists can afford.

[/ QUOTE ]There are a lot people who care because often the rich are rich on the backs of the poor. This may not always be the case. But one thing to keep in mind is the result of the fed's policy of keeping inflation in low is to keep the unemployment rate higher than it would otherwise be. So companies are able to have a cheaper labor pool (more unemployed people) on the backs of those unemployed people.[ QUOTE ]
The goal of society should be to provide a sustainable living for everyone, and capitalism would be the most efficient system at producing and distributing wealth if it werent for the government that takes as much as it possibly can get away with.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't konw if that should be the only goal of society. That's certainly part of it. I think fairness, justice, happiness, those shouldn't be compltely forgotten as goals for society.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing your solution to the lack of freedom that poor people have?

[/ QUOTE ]So would I. It would involve being more lenient on debts, giving more cash to people who are in poverty because of a one time evevnt so they can get out of poverty sooner, and more worker training and employment tracking for people who have been poor for a long time...labor market holes get filled, people get more self respect, tax payer pays less...win-win-win soulution...Unlikely to happen in any meaningful way.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens when AC Corp moves its headquarters, and 1,000s of unskilled workers are layed off? You can complain ad infinitum about government waste, but there is at least a safety net for those who choose to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what cost? Even if we ignore the moral issues, you can't just say "well we got XYZ, so it was worth it" without examining the opportunity cost of the alternatives. Government can take $1M, burn 99% of it, and feed some homeless people with the remaining $10K.

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how pure capitalism succeeds in providing basic necessities more than government wealth redistribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at places where government actually *provides* such necessities - the more direct the government's involvement in such provision, the more shortage, more waste, more suffering there is. Central planning *cannot* outperform distributed market distribution, even ideally, without corruption or maliciousness, primarily because central planners cannot read the minds of those they are planning for. Add in the realities of that corruption, the self-interest of the bureaucrat, the concentration of power that attracts outside influence, and what do you think you'll get?

[ QUOTE ]
Aggregate wealth might grow faster in AC, but you'll always have people of the time that get screwed one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Nobody claims that AC is a magic bullet that solves every problem in the universe (even though some posters would love to think that is the claim).

Do you think nobody is getting "screwed one way or the other" under statism?

[Poofler]

I was responding to a specific comment that insinuated AC would = less people living w/out bare necessities than statism. I don't want to rehash debate #12,000 about whether waste/corruption of the state is "worth it" or moral. For the sake of argument I'll concede in AC less people are put in a position that they need assistance to survive.

That conceded, just answer this question: do more or less people lack shelter/food/medicare equivalent health in AC? Put simply: if statism's waste puts 20 people in a situation where they cannot house and feed their families, and AC only puts 10 people in such a situation, are those 10 able to have "bare necessities"? The 20 in statism are generally supported by the government to that bare subsistence level for a prolonged period of time.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
You can complain ad infinitum about government waste, but there is at least a safety net for those who choose to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There comes a point when the safety net eventually costs us more than it helps us. Mabey if government spending was just a little bit inefficient and corrupt we could have an arguement, but when you look at Iraq or the 1 trillion in unaccounted funds at the pentagon there is no arguement. Poverty is really not that big of a problem and if the government was really there to solve it it would have by now.