Is capitalism actually dying, despite appearances?

[civver_764]

We do, we voted for it.

What about the people that voted against it? They don't get a choice?

 

[Traitorfish]

You would insure yourself against the crime of kidnapping. Your DRO will then either pay for your freedom, or hire a security company to break you out.

This is beginning to sound less like a techno-capitalist utopia and more like eighth-century Denmark.

Then it's the same problem we have with Saudi Arabia, right? What can you really do about a self-sufficient community of fascists?

There's no such thing, not in a modern economy. The Nazis found that out the hard way. What you're proposing is not extending an acknowledgement of existing self-sufficiency but of extending license to barbarism without having to sacrifice the benefits of civilisation. The usual trade-off is, you get to go all-in on this Nazi thing, or you get to live inside and drive a car and eat non-diseased food, and you're proclaiming that there's cake enough for these would-be sturmabteilung to both have and eat.

So you're using one of the most murderous states ever to try to show why getting rid of the state would be a bad thing?

I'm saying that a lot of people are quite prepared to deal with fascists if they think they can turn a profit.

 

[Borachio]

Is this a joke? Our statist court system is one the most prohibitively expensive things in all of society, and it's getting worse every year. We desperately need competition and alternative solutions for this service.

Well who knows whether your claim is justified or not?

I guess these people do.

I'm blowed if I'm going to read the whole of that document, though, to find out what the global costs of the civil justice system in the US actually is.

I'll let you do that.

And then you can tell me whether or not the cost of justice is more or less than the cost of defence, and/or, health care, and/or education, and/or etc.

I would expect, however, that the cost of justice is orders of magnitude less than the cost of defence.

 

[Hygro]

What about the people that voted against it? They don't get a choice?

Who would choose less long run wealth?

 

[civver_764]

This is beginning to sound less like a techno-capitalist utopia and more like eight century Denmark.

Lol ok, how would you deal with a kidnapping situation then? We could be competing DROs

There's no such thing, not in a modern economy. The Nazis found that out the hard way. What you're proposing is not extending an acknowledgement of existing self-sufficiency but of extending license to barbarism without having to sacrifice the benefits of civilisation.

If 99% of the people in a society are opposed to fascism, then they will be contracted with DROs that protect them against fascists. These DROs, wanting to prevent fascist crimes, would refuse to insure fascists and those who do business with fascists. They effectively would be losing the benefits of civilization.

I'm saying that a lot of people are quite prepared to deal with fascists if they think they can turn a profit.

The only way you can get into a kind of scenario like the Third Reich is through the use of an authoritarian government. The whole reason it was profitable to work with the Nazis is because they propped themselves up through the use of tax dollars and military power. Also, people did not have the negative views about fascism that they do today. They didn't know about the genocide that was taking place. And this goes back to my point that with or without a government, if people tolerate certain things there's not much you can do.

You're also arguing that without a state fascists would be free to their thing, but with this point you are showing me that with a state the fascists were free to do their thing. Clearly a state does not solve this problem.

Who would choose less long run wealth?

I don't know, maybe nobody! And if that's the case, you've got nothing to worry about We can replace the government health care fund with a non-profit fund and people will happily fund it to generate more long run wealth.

 

[Broken_Erika]

You just don't like governments of any type do you?

 

[caketastydelish]

If your hated enemy is dying, it does not follow that you are immortal.

Perhaps both capitalism and socialism are on the way out, and something else is on the way in?

From the way things are going in America and Europe, among other places, it appears fascism would be your answer.

 

[Hygro]

I don't know, maybe nobody! And if that's the case, you've got nothing to worry about We can replace the government health care fund with a non-profit fund and people will happily fund it to generate more long run wealth.

I was hoping you'd go for the quippier more real answer of "the people who already did" to which I was going to crush it with "well then isn't it good we have a system in place now that stopped those people from stealing our future wealth"

 

[civver_764]

I was hoping you'd go for the quippier more real answer of "the people who already did" to which I was going to crush it with "well then isn't it good we have a system in place now that stopped those people from stealing our future wealth"

Surely you see the problem with forcing people to invest in something against their will.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't disagree with that, I'm concerned about all the would-be al-Sauds in our own countries.

This is beginning to sound less like a techno-capitalist utopia and more like eighth-century Denmark.

10/10

Another great example of how governments create evil.

No, it's an example of what happens when "communities of fascists" exist.

You're reaching so I laughed. Come on, telling me losing my civic power and only having spending power constitutes true power. Maybe true power for the one with the wallet. Now I'm telling you I have greater spending power through the efficiencies of a commonwealth, you reach again calling it theft. A little meanly, too.

@Sommerswerd and I sort of tried to go over this pages ago, we were arguing that "government" forms organically when you put humans in groups, he just flatly refused to agree and to use your phrase I think you're arguing "downstream" of this point.

 

[Ajidica]

Hey, I have an idea.
How about we have one giant dispute resolution organization that solicits input from the people using its services to ensure a smooth resolution of disputes. This neatly avoids the Dark Age kingdom vibes your idea are giving off while providing built in safeguards against abuse!

We can call it "the government"!

Also, I dread to ask but how would your patchwork of competing DROs prevent abusive behavior? Say I run a coal mine and using railroads is the only viable method of transportation. The railroad decides they want to own my mine to promote vertical integration and cut out the middle man. To do so, they jack up freight rates to drive me out of business. What recourse do I have to prevent my mine from being driven out of business by abusive behavior?
(If you say "private enterprise will build another railroad" I'll know your ideas are so far in the deep end they probably spawned in R'lyeh.)

 

[civver_764]

Hey, I have an idea.
How about we have one giant dispute resolution organization that solicits input from the people using its services to ensure a smooth resolution of disputes. This neatly avoids the Dark Age kingdom vibes your idea are giving off while providing built in safeguards against abuse!

We can call it "the government"!

Woah dude that's totally mindblowing!! You're totally not the 50th person to come in thinking they're clever and make the exact same point.

Also, I dread to ask but how would your patchwork of competing DROs prevent abusive behavior? Say I run a coal mine and using railroads is the only viable method of transportation. The railroad decides they want to own my mine to promote vertical integration and cut out the middle man. To do so, they jack up freight rates to drive me out of business. What recourse do I have to prevent my mine from being driven out of business by abusive behavior?

Presumably you would have agreed to a certain rate with the railroad when you set up your mine. If they go outside of that rate, then their DRO contract would be voided and they would lose the benefits of DRO insurance. In addition, predatory practices would result in bad publicity. The railroad would be training people not to make agreements with them. All in all it would be a very bad idea for their bottom line.

 

[Hygro]

Surely you see the problem with forcing people to invest in something against their will.

I do, I also see it in the context of all the other coercions and forces. Why fetishize any one of them? (No it's gotta be feet!)

 

[Ajidica]

Presumably you would have agreed to a certain rate with the railroad when you set up your mine.

Rates change, all the freaking time based off of any number of things. It is where there is currently a kerfuffle between the grain industry and the railroads -mediated by the STB- over unreasonable rate changes and a refusal by the railroads to provide comprehensive pricing tables.
https://www.ngfa.org/press-releases...-procedure-challenge-unreasonable-rail-rates/

If they go outside of that rate, then their DRO contract would be voided and they would lose the benefits of DRO insurance.

If you want to do business with the railroad, you need to get a DRO contract through their preferred service providers. What incentive does the railroad have to accept "outside" DROs when they have a captive market? Your coal mine can't just go to a different railroad and sell the coal through them so competition doesn't come into this.
If you think level of abuse is all speculative, you must never have even looked once at the rampant abuses that lead to the creation of the ICC.

In addition, predatory practices would result in bad publicity.

Hahahahahahahaha.
Oh wait you're serious.
Widespread negligence and misconduct lead to the Exxon Valdez spilling ten million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound.
The public reaction against such negligence and misconduct was sufficient to...... accomplish absolutely nothing as ExxonMobil now the seventh largest company in the world.

The railroad would be training people not to make agreements with them. All in all it would be a very bad idea for their bottom line.

I thought communists were supposed to be the naïve ones assuming all men are angels.

 

[cardgame]

You vote with your wallet. The supply matches the demand. Private companies offer things because people want those things. They can't sell you something that you don't want, but the government can. It's a very direct form of democracy, much more direct than our representative democracy system.

No, that's very much the opposite of democracy. Capitalism is undemocratic, because it values capital over labor, and hence the power of the few over the many. If you want this system, you freely admit to wanting a system in which 0 000 000 008 men (or I think it's actually less than that, now) have as much voting power as 3,000,000,000 people. That's worse, democratically speaking, than any historical monarchy in history. Ever.

Speaking of history, didn't you read anything about the 19th century and laissez-faire economic policies? Kind of disproves literally everything you're saying would happen. And not just theoretically - it's already happened.

edit: OK, actually I will concede on one point. You keep saying "the will of the people will influence companies to change their behavior," and I will admit that is true with an example. The people's will, after reading The Jungle, was to involve government in the free market to solve the problem. And guess what? It worked. Now we have the FDA. This was done by the people, for the people. So I don't know what your problem is with it. Surely it satisfies your criteria?

 

[Ajidica]

Speaking of history, didn't you read anything about the 19th century and laissez-faire economic policies? Kind of disproves literally everything you're saying would happen. And not just theoretically - it's already happened.

No, you see, that is a bad argument because those abuses by a free market run rampant only existed because the government created the possibility for those abuses to occur. Without the government to create abuse opportunities, the world will be one, happy, ecumenical free and efficient market.

 

[Traitorfish]

I thought communists were supposed to be the naïve ones assuming all men are angels.

Some communists have also dabbled in for-profit kidnappings, so Civver really seems to share a lot of their outlook.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't know if you've ever had to use our court system, but it sucks.

I use it all the time. It doesn't suck. First of all, again, you are ignoring context. For example, what is the alternative? I don't know if you've ever had to settle disputes with your fists or weapons, but that really sucks.

Lawyers are extremely expensive and only available to those with significant amounts of wealth.

This is an over-generalization that is patently false on its face. For example, public defenders are inexpensive and sometimes even free to the poor, because of those pesky government laws and guarantees of civil rights that you are complaining about. Personal Injury attorneys work on 100% contingency so they are completely free... Legal Aid, Pro Bono, ACLU, Prepaid Legal (which incidentally you should love because its essentially legal "insurance")... etc, etc, on and on...

Even people in the middle class will go heavily into debt if they need to hire a lawyer. It's not unusual for them to charge $300 an hour.

Wait, why should we expect the DROs to be "cheap"? Competition? You think there isn't competition in the legal field? So why are there "expensive" lawyers if competition makes everything cheap?

On top of this, the court system is extremely slow. It is not unusual to wait 6 months or longer for your court date.

Why would DROs be any faster in delivering services/resolving disputes? Again... is it "competition"? There is tons of competition in the medical field but try scheduling a doctors appointment, particulary something specialized, like knee replacement surgery and you will quickly find out that competition doesn't prevent 6 month waits.

 

[caketastydelish]

Is Snoop Dogg dying, despite appearances? What about the Black Eyed Peas?

 

[Traitorfish]

The Black Eyed Peas died in like 2012.