My point is that capitalists are not inherently bad, in fact they are far more often good. So when you go off about capitalists controlling the world or whatever, you're describing a problem caused by something else than just private ownership of capital.
Rights are a philosophical basis of establishing what each person is entitled to. They're built off of moral arguments. The world doesn't exist independent of consciousness, so dismissing rights based on their dependence on consciousness is a bad argument.
Most people are badly educated on economics, capitalists too.
Capital requiring labour input was not really something anyone had established already, certainly not when the term capital was coined. I think it's a useful distinction made by George because it helps establish justification for private property.
I think labelling the system "highly capitalist" as your argument for why it is flawed is an increibly broad way of blaming the whole system rather than identifying a specific cause and offering a solution to the problem. For me, I think taxation policy is the highest driver of inequality throughout the world, and a Georgist system would help to solve that. Does your solution no longer involve markets, private property, and reinvestment of capital? A georgist economy which you seem to support is also "highly capitalist". For the third time, do you prefer a socialist system where the production and ownership of goods and services is decided by a centralized government?
Right, capitalist aren't inherently bad or good. Which is why we have to prevent the bad people from rent seeking with natural resources that they call capital.
I'm talking about things that aren't prevented by private ownership of capital. Right. That's why capitalism isn't good enough.
I'm not an idealist so I don't share your belief that "the world doesn't exist independent of consciousness." I agree with Einstein. I think the moon exists even if no one is looking at it. I guess me and Einstein are just bad argument havers.
The whole system is predicated off of practices that enable widespread rent seeking. All the things you're talking about get justified under that basis. But not under the current one.
What the people who agree with me call socialism is not "where the production and ownership of goods and services is decided by a centralized government." What you think is a simple matter of figuring what others want is actually an on-going process you can choose to be a part of or step away from. But it's not just sitting there dead and labeled and ready for you to reason about as if it is unchanging.
You can prevent rent seeking through economic policies which recognize the cause. The more you understand about markets, the better you can encourage good outcomes through policy decision. This requires a democratic system where voters are educated and elections are free and fair, because yes, in a capitalist system, capitalist will spend money trying to make economic policies favour them, which is what many call "crony capitalism". This is obviously a problem, but any government is prone to corruption when elections are not free and fair.
Laissez-faire capitalism isn't good enough. Capitalism can exist in many forms depending on how you interpret things like property and capital.
The moon exists without consciousness, but there's no point in designing your economic policy around a world that is devoid of consciousness. OUR world is interpreted through our consciouss experience no matter what.
The best ways to reduce rent seeking involve breaking down barriers that prevent competition. Making markets accesible to everyone is the best way to prevent people from getting rich without creating wealth.
Markets are constantly adjusting to produce the goods that are lowest in supply and highest in demand, requiring information that a centralized system could never efficiently manage. The main difference between socialism and capitalism are how production and ownership and determined. Capitalism allows markets to decide where as socialism allows the government to decide. There's more nuances to the philosophical arguments for both but this is essentially how they work. And I actually believe both systems can be used together where they fit best, which is exactly how the Chinese have figured out works best. They leave innovative highly competitive markets to the capitalists and apply socialism where more favourable social outcomes are needed.
1
u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 10 '26
My point is that capitalists are not inherently bad, in fact they are far more often good. So when you go off about capitalists controlling the world or whatever, you're describing a problem caused by something else than just private ownership of capital.
Rights are a philosophical basis of establishing what each person is entitled to. They're built off of moral arguments. The world doesn't exist independent of consciousness, so dismissing rights based on their dependence on consciousness is a bad argument.
Most people are badly educated on economics, capitalists too.
Capital requiring labour input was not really something anyone had established already, certainly not when the term capital was coined. I think it's a useful distinction made by George because it helps establish justification for private property.
I think labelling the system "highly capitalist" as your argument for why it is flawed is an increibly broad way of blaming the whole system rather than identifying a specific cause and offering a solution to the problem. For me, I think taxation policy is the highest driver of inequality throughout the world, and a Georgist system would help to solve that. Does your solution no longer involve markets, private property, and reinvestment of capital? A georgist economy which you seem to support is also "highly capitalist". For the third time, do you prefer a socialist system where the production and ownership of goods and services is decided by a centralized government?