(Disclaimer, I mostly agree with your perspective on the world, though I do think … public perception is pulling the fabric of (some) developed societies apart at an alarming rate. Part of the core cause: reforms to the system don’t mean collapse into socialism or anarchy, nor are massive upheavals needed to address lots of present day complaints people have. But reformism is so unfashionable these days :/ )
I see ‘debates’ like this and they really trigger my solipsism. Every modern society is a mixed system of some capitalist competition with various social safety nets and regulations.
“Capitalism” isn’t good or bad, it’s a tool in the societal design kit. Every country on earth tweaks it to their needs, nobody’s doing like anarcho-capitalism or any sort of purist implementation(at least not anymore, though I’d argue, not in the past either).
Yes, tweaking the innate game-theoretic flows of the capitalist economy has some amount of unintended, or at least surprising side-effects. But it’s not like, oh we banned heroin and child labour and now everyone in our society is growing an extra head due to a hilarious Rube Goldberg series of events. Woe is us, Our Lord and Saviour Capitalism is such a fickle beast sometimes! Time to toss more children into the coal mine pyres to appease it.
Answering, for instance, “Let’s ban gambling elements in video games!” with “But capitalism” makes no sense, when all sorts of other substances and activities are successfully regulated. The complexity is not actually infinite, and as various countries experiment with regulations, lessons can be learned about which slippery slopes are dangerous and which are not.
Government officials claiming “oh that’s far beyond our ability to do” when asked to help with some societal ill also reeks of “x-party member believe the government is incompetent and then get elected and prove it”. I don’t understand why Americans put up with, “Government can’t help with Y-thing-that-dozens-of-other-countries’-governments-do-without-much-fuss”-rhetoric from PEOPLE WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Like, do your jobs, you jerks!
On the other side absurdist anarchist thinking at the level of, “we can’t get paid parental leave without violent overthrow of the capitalist economy” are also insane.
“Capitalism” isn’t good or bad, it’s a tool in the societal design kit.
I often think of markets in that way and think the broad concept of “Capitalism” (and many other isms) fit well.
I think this applies to the OP about explaining harder. While also very market and capital friendly in thought (and action) I do often find the advocates seem to hold (generally implicitly) that somehow capitalism/price markets must be universal and nothing else could displace them. I think that goes too far.
I think framing the subject in that social tool allows for some better discussion. Just as we can talk about building tools, or just carpentry tools, tools serve to resolve a specific type of problem and can be used properly and improperly. Social level tools like markets or capitalism or law are much more complicated than hammers and saws, or even backhoes or cement trucks, or computer systems controlling a large assembly line but still fit into that model well I think.
So when having those interactions about “Yes, I get that but it shouldn’t be that way.” I think the tool framework can help get into the discussion about just what it means to “be that way”. What shouldn’t be that way—the problem to be solved or the tool being used for the problem?
But it’s not like, oh we banned heroin and child labour and now everyone in our society is growing an extra head due to a hilarious Rube Goldberg series of events.
It’s interesting that you mention banned heroin, because it’s clear today that drug prohibition has caused tens of thousands of casualties (but probably more).
Part of the reluctance to implement new regulation is awareness that given society’s complexities it’s very dangerous, and it’s effect might be unknown even ex-post! You seem to acknowledge that, and then just ignore it.
It is very reasonable to have a prior of “yeah let’s better not interfere”. If we had that prior for decades with regards to housing policies, we wouldn’t have housing shortages today.
(Disclaimer, I mostly agree with your perspective on the world, though I do think … public perception is pulling the fabric of (some) developed societies apart at an alarming rate. Part of the core cause: reforms to the system don’t mean collapse into socialism or anarchy, nor are massive upheavals needed to address lots of present day complaints people have. But reformism is so unfashionable these days :/ )
I see ‘debates’ like this and they really trigger my solipsism. Every modern society is a mixed system of some capitalist competition with various social safety nets and regulations.
“Capitalism” isn’t good or bad, it’s a tool in the societal design kit. Every country on earth tweaks it to their needs, nobody’s doing like anarcho-capitalism or any sort of purist implementation(at least not anymore, though I’d argue, not in the past either).
Yes, tweaking the innate game-theoretic flows of the capitalist economy has some amount of unintended, or at least surprising side-effects. But it’s not like, oh we banned heroin and child labour and now everyone in our society is growing an extra head due to a hilarious Rube Goldberg series of events. Woe is us, Our Lord and Saviour Capitalism is such a fickle beast sometimes! Time to toss more children into the coal mine pyres to appease it.
Answering, for instance, “Let’s ban gambling elements in video games!” with “But capitalism” makes no sense, when all sorts of other substances and activities are successfully regulated. The complexity is not actually infinite, and as various countries experiment with regulations, lessons can be learned about which slippery slopes are dangerous and which are not.
Government officials claiming “oh that’s far beyond our ability to do” when asked to help with some societal ill also reeks of “x-party member believe the government is incompetent and then get elected and prove it”. I don’t understand why Americans put up with, “Government can’t help with Y-thing-that-dozens-of-other-countries’-governments-do-without-much-fuss”-rhetoric from PEOPLE WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Like, do your jobs, you jerks!
On the other side absurdist anarchist thinking at the level of, “we can’t get paid parental leave without violent overthrow of the capitalist economy” are also insane.
I often think of markets in that way and think the broad concept of “Capitalism” (and many other isms) fit well.
I think this applies to the OP about explaining harder. While also very market and capital friendly in thought (and action) I do often find the advocates seem to hold (generally implicitly) that somehow capitalism/price markets must be universal and nothing else could displace them. I think that goes too far.
I think framing the subject in that social tool allows for some better discussion. Just as we can talk about building tools, or just carpentry tools, tools serve to resolve a specific type of problem and can be used properly and improperly. Social level tools like markets or capitalism or law are much more complicated than hammers and saws, or even backhoes or cement trucks, or computer systems controlling a large assembly line but still fit into that model well I think.
So when having those interactions about “Yes, I get that but it shouldn’t be that way.” I think the tool framework can help get into the discussion about just what it means to “be that way”. What shouldn’t be that way—the problem to be solved or the tool being used for the problem?
It’s interesting that you mention banned heroin, because it’s clear today that drug prohibition has caused tens of thousands of casualties (but probably more).
Part of the reluctance to implement new regulation is awareness that given society’s complexities it’s very dangerous, and it’s effect might be unknown even ex-post! You seem to acknowledge that, and then just ignore it.
It is very reasonable to have a prior of “yeah let’s better not interfere”. If we had that prior for decades with regards to housing policies, we wouldn’t have housing shortages today.