A Problem I See With Pure Capitalism

[ill rich]

exactly.

why not?

[jogger08152]

And efficient market theory (or a close facsimile thereof) raises it's ugly head. No, there will not necessarily be adequate security.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you incorporated enough in your response the premise put forth by Sklansky, in that the prospective thief is in a "miserable condition". In other words, acquiring something is already a necessity

[/ QUOTE ]

"Miserable conditions", granted, define a bad state of affairs but not necessarily the lack of things needed to sustain life. If aquiring something is a "necessity" then the question is not one of morals or legality. It is one of survival. If the question is one of survival then "stealing" has little meaning unless the thing stolen robs another of a survival need. In the latter case it would become a morality issue once again. Sklansky doesn't always ask questions that allow us of lesser intelligence to grasp what he is asking. Others always seem to have to interpret them for him. I wonder why that is? Help me! please.

leaponthis

[DustinG]

[ QUOTE ]

Sklansky doesn't always ask questions that allow us of lesser intelligence to grasp what he is asking. Others always seem to have to interpret them for him. I wonder why that is? Help me! please.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the problem here is compounded by the fact that "pure capitalism" is pretty much meaningless, and the forms of capitalism that exist now or have existed in the past, were most certainly not of the trickle down variety. (But through capitalism technological growth has increased living standards)

So we have a badly defined imaginary situation that we are working with.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sklansky doesn't always ask questions that allow us of lesser intelligence to grasp what he is asking. Others always seem to have to interpret them for him. I wonder why that is? Help me! please.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the problem here is compounded by the fact that "pure capitalism" is pretty much meaningless, and the forms of capitalism that exist now or have existed in the past, were most certainly not of the trickle down variety. (But through capitalism technological growth has increased living standards)

So we have a badly defined imaginary situation that we are working with.

[/ QUOTE ]

present day 'capitalism' is a farce in terms of 'true' capitalism.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky doesn't always ask questions that allow us of lesser intelligence to grasp what he is asking. Others always seem to have to interpret them for him. I wonder why that is? Help me! please.



[/ QUOTE ]


What was the question, again ?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Present day 'capitalism' is a farce in terms of 'true' capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]You think so? I was thinking tragedy.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Present day 'capitalism' is a farce in terms of 'true' capitalism.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You think so? I was thinking tragedy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ad infinitum.

leaponthis

[Darryl_P]

[ 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 ]

The argument is that, in pure capitalism, people are responsible for protecting their own property. So if a situation arises in which a no-risk theft could take place, the victim of the theft must have made a mistake. In that sense, he gets what's coming to him and the thief gets off scot free. End of story.

But ACers argue that, unlike in today's state-run society, someone with a lot of property will be able to use much more forceful means to protect it, thereby deterring theft to a greater extent.

There will still be some cases that trickle through the cracks, but not even the most hardcore ACers claim AC is perfect, only that it's better than anything else.

[Jeff76]

[ 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 ]I accept the premise that society is better off in the longrun with Capitalism than anything else we've devised so far.

It seems to me that Capitalsim is brutal (survival of the fittest) and ineffecient (vast amounts of resrouces are spent solving the same problems different ways and only a few actually work out), however it at least "works" in that it allows us to progress as a society better than anything else we've come up with.