Why do I think free markets and private property is “every man for himself”?
1) Human nature. Most people can’t see past their own nose. In fact some people have such a massive problem finding empathy for other people that they act, for one example, racist and intolerant to other people. To put it simply, I think human kind has demonstrated how selfish and cruel it can be when left unrestrained. To have an entirely free market and everything private owned would be to let free and even propel all of the nasty things inside people. Just as without laws we will have (more) people hurting each other in society, so too do we need to regulate how people economically interact with each other
2) Capitalism has nothing to do with morality. Let me give you this hypothetical example: a company can either make $10 a lolly selling type A or it can make $1 selling type B. The ‘problem’ is that type A is known by the company (but not the public) to be poisonous. This poison will hurt the people taking it but will not hurt the companies profits- as in they won’t die too soon or stop buying it for any reason. The only harmful effect is felt by the customer and not the company. Thinking purely from a capitalist point of view, with no other concepts available (such as morality, etc), what should the company do? Sell the poison of course because it’s more profitable. In fact most logical and profitable decisions by the nature of the universe are dubious like this.
There are even weird situations in the world where someone may be the head of a company- but think it’s ‘evil’. They may think the company does horrible things and hurts the world, but they themselves are ‘just doing their job’. In their mind they tell themselves they wouldn’t personally do such things but also acknowledge that it’s how the business runs at it’s most profitable and successful level. As bad as people are, some companies are even worse than those who lead them because it makes business sense to be horrible while it makes social sense for the individuals to hold their personal selves to different standards.
3) Capitalism isn’t a sharing thing, so there is nothing left except ‘every man for himself’. If people aren’t sharing- what are they doing? Think about this entirely hypothetical scenario: There are a total of 5 houses in the world and there are 5 people. All 5 are owned by 1 person and the other 4 have to pay rent. Since there are no other options for these 4 other than living in 1 of these homes, the owner can charge as much rent as they want- as long as it doesn’t exceed what the people can pay. What is the capitalist thing to do? To make a maximum profit. In effect these 4 could end up in a situation where they go to work every day simply to be able to afford to eat enough food and sleep in a house to be alive for the next days work. Capitalism alone has no remedy for this- in fact it would see no need for a remedy at all because it wouldn’t see the problem with it.
The only way to be not operating from a ‘every man for himself’ system is to share- but to share would be to not operate capitalism to it’s full extent or to actually go against it in some ways.
Do I think capitalism is opposed to cooperation?
To put my answer very simply- yes I do think unrestrained capitalism is opposed to cooperation. There is no immediate and person money to be made by giving some away to another person in a less fortunate position. There is also no money to be gained by a company treating it’s workers fairly. To be most successful, a company has to wage war against it’s enemies, use it’s employees, and prey on it’s customers. All of these things are on the opposite end of the spectrum from cooperation.
As a libertarian, I don’t think you and I mean the same things by “capitalism”. Could you explain what you mean by “capitalism”, and “unrestrained capitalism”?
What I’m talking about when I say that is private ownership and enterprise. When I say unrestrained that means no laws or regulation. For example there are regulations which make companies write the ingredients on food product labels.
No laws or regulation? I hope you know that most people who advocate for capitalism aren’t anarchists, and those of them who are believe in free-market laws. So there’s no one who’s in favor of “no laws or regulation”.
Yes I do know that. I nearly mentioned that but didn’t.
There is of course a wide range of regulation beliefs. Some people do advocate for very little.
You are right though, no one does call for no laws or regulation. From that some people can also learn that the ideas I have are not new or alien but are actually just an extension or using the ideas already in place.
Human nature. Most people can’t see past their own nose. In fact some people have such a massive problem finding empathy for other people that they act, for one example, racist and intolerant to other people. To put it simply, I think human kind has demonstrated how selfish and cruel it can be when left unrestrained. To have an entirely free market and everything private owned would be to let free and even propel all of the nasty things inside people. Just as without laws we will have (more) people hurting each other in society, so too do we need to regulate how people economically interact with each other
And yet you believe the proses of taking a government job magically cures people of all these problems?
No not by magic and it doesn’t fix every single problem.
But just look at one example if you want to understand my point of view; before fire fighters were socialised, there existed a time in the US where people had to pay private companies or have their house burn down. Socialism didn’t magically cure anything but simply removed some of the opportunity for bad things to happen.
Can you tell me how your point refutes the fire brigade example?
But just look at one example if you want to understand my point of view; before fire fighters were socialised, there existed a time in the US where people had to pay private companies or have their house burn down.
Now they have to pay (higher) taxes or be arrested for tax evasion. What’s your point?
Doesn’t it matter whether the amount they have to pay now is the same as the amount they had to pay then? Also, a house burning down increases the risk of other houses around it catching fire.
Dunno about fire brigades, but in the case of health care the data says that socialism is cheaper for better results.
Let me give you this hypothetical example: a company can either make $10 a lolly selling type A or it can make $1 selling type B. The ‘problem’ is that type A is known by the company (but not the public) to be poisonous.
If someone finds out that their poisonous he has the option of buying from a different company. By way of contrast, if all lollies were manufactured by the “department of lollies” and the head of the department decided to sell the poison lollies to meet budget constraints, my only recourse is to not consume lollies.
Notice that the private company can engage in this kind of behavior only if they are sure the defect will never be found out, by contrast the government department has no reason not to produce products with glaring defects, after all it’s not like people can switch to a competing product. Furthermore, the the salary of the department head likely isn’t even affected by how many people buy the products produced, so he is perfectly happy to waste public resources producing defective products no one wants.
I agree those are issues. That’s why I said I think the government has no place making twirly drinking straws- the private market does it better. When we talk about fire departments though I think the issue still should be addressed but it doesn’t outright kill the concept. its a negative factor which needs to be mitigated but i believe its possible.
Why do I think free markets and private property is “every man for himself”?
1) Human nature. Most people can’t see past their own nose. In fact some people have such a massive problem finding empathy for other people that they act, for one example, racist and intolerant to other people. To put it simply, I think human kind has demonstrated how selfish and cruel it can be when left unrestrained. To have an entirely free market and everything private owned would be to let free and even propel all of the nasty things inside people. Just as without laws we will have (more) people hurting each other in society, so too do we need to regulate how people economically interact with each other
2) Capitalism has nothing to do with morality. Let me give you this hypothetical example: a company can either make $10 a lolly selling type A or it can make $1 selling type B. The ‘problem’ is that type A is known by the company (but not the public) to be poisonous. This poison will hurt the people taking it but will not hurt the companies profits- as in they won’t die too soon or stop buying it for any reason. The only harmful effect is felt by the customer and not the company. Thinking purely from a capitalist point of view, with no other concepts available (such as morality, etc), what should the company do? Sell the poison of course because it’s more profitable. In fact most logical and profitable decisions by the nature of the universe are dubious like this. There are even weird situations in the world where someone may be the head of a company- but think it’s ‘evil’. They may think the company does horrible things and hurts the world, but they themselves are ‘just doing their job’. In their mind they tell themselves they wouldn’t personally do such things but also acknowledge that it’s how the business runs at it’s most profitable and successful level. As bad as people are, some companies are even worse than those who lead them because it makes business sense to be horrible while it makes social sense for the individuals to hold their personal selves to different standards.
3) Capitalism isn’t a sharing thing, so there is nothing left except ‘every man for himself’. If people aren’t sharing- what are they doing? Think about this entirely hypothetical scenario: There are a total of 5 houses in the world and there are 5 people. All 5 are owned by 1 person and the other 4 have to pay rent. Since there are no other options for these 4 other than living in 1 of these homes, the owner can charge as much rent as they want- as long as it doesn’t exceed what the people can pay. What is the capitalist thing to do? To make a maximum profit. In effect these 4 could end up in a situation where they go to work every day simply to be able to afford to eat enough food and sleep in a house to be alive for the next days work. Capitalism alone has no remedy for this- in fact it would see no need for a remedy at all because it wouldn’t see the problem with it. The only way to be not operating from a ‘every man for himself’ system is to share- but to share would be to not operate capitalism to it’s full extent or to actually go against it in some ways.
Do I think capitalism is opposed to cooperation?
To put my answer very simply- yes I do think unrestrained capitalism is opposed to cooperation. There is no immediate and person money to be made by giving some away to another person in a less fortunate position. There is also no money to be gained by a company treating it’s workers fairly. To be most successful, a company has to wage war against it’s enemies, use it’s employees, and prey on it’s customers. All of these things are on the opposite end of the spectrum from cooperation.
As a libertarian, I don’t think you and I mean the same things by “capitalism”. Could you explain what you mean by “capitalism”, and “unrestrained capitalism”?
Given this post it’s pretty clear that A-Lurker calls an exceptionally stupid and shortsighted version of egoism “capitalism”. I don’t know why.
What I’m talking about when I say that is private ownership and enterprise. When I say unrestrained that means no laws or regulation. For example there are regulations which make companies write the ingredients on food product labels.
No laws or regulation? I hope you know that most people who advocate for capitalism aren’t anarchists, and those of them who are believe in free-market laws. So there’s no one who’s in favor of “no laws or regulation”.
Yes I do know that. I nearly mentioned that but didn’t. There is of course a wide range of regulation beliefs. Some people do advocate for very little. You are right though, no one does call for no laws or regulation. From that some people can also learn that the ideas I have are not new or alien but are actually just an extension or using the ideas already in place.
And yet you believe the proses of taking a government job magically cures people of all these problems?
No not by magic and it doesn’t fix every single problem. But just look at one example if you want to understand my point of view; before fire fighters were socialised, there existed a time in the US where people had to pay private companies or have their house burn down. Socialism didn’t magically cure anything but simply removed some of the opportunity for bad things to happen. Can you tell me how your point refutes the fire brigade example?
Now they have to pay (higher) taxes or be arrested for tax evasion. What’s your point?
My point is that fires are put out because they are fires and no fire brigades watch a house burn down anymore. You think it means nothing?
Under the old system people had two choices:
1) Pay a private fire company.
2) Take the risk their house will burn down.
The new system is equivalent to the old except people can only make choice (1) and the private fire company is now a public fire department.
Your claim appears to be that the new system is an improvement even though people have strictly fewer choices.
The difference is the new system doesn’t let houses burn
Doesn’t it matter whether the amount they have to pay now is the same as the amount they had to pay then? Also, a house burning down increases the risk of other houses around it catching fire.
Dunno about fire brigades, but in the case of health care the data says that socialism is cheaper for better results.
If someone finds out that their poisonous he has the option of buying from a different company. By way of contrast, if all lollies were manufactured by the “department of lollies” and the head of the department decided to sell the poison lollies to meet budget constraints, my only recourse is to not consume lollies.
Notice that the private company can engage in this kind of behavior only if they are sure the defect will never be found out, by contrast the government department has no reason not to produce products with glaring defects, after all it’s not like people can switch to a competing product. Furthermore, the the salary of the department head likely isn’t even affected by how many people buy the products produced, so he is perfectly happy to waste public resources producing defective products no one wants.
Yeah, sure.
I agree those are issues. That’s why I said I think the government has no place making twirly drinking straws- the private market does it better. When we talk about fire departments though I think the issue still should be addressed but it doesn’t outright kill the concept. its a negative factor which needs to be mitigated but i believe its possible.