Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

I also disapprove of referring to state control as a monopoly. The term monopoly brings all sorts of feelings with it which I don't think help the conversation. And it's not like saying state run doesn't have its own set of negative associations (inefficiency, wastefulness, slow reaction to change etc).

It technically is a monopoly. The monopoly on violence. The government uses this monopoly to structure everything else how it sees fit, so when the government owns the highway, it has a monopoly on the highway.

I don't think wealth should automatically entitle you to the best of everything. Just because you are rich, why should your trip to work be easier than mine? Why should you get access to better health care while maybe I have practically none? Why should you have access to justice which I don't?

Morally: because you're the one with the resources. The guy who kills the meat gets to do with the meat what he chooses. If it isn't structured like this, civilization falls apart. You use your resources to support your family. Why would it better for you to not have that option?

Socially and economically: because it makes the world a better place. Meritocracy drives abundance and prosperity, regardless of if you "earned" the merits or "just have" the merits. Macroeconomics is counter-intuitive. We may think that helping the poor with things like wage floors or price caps on goods helps them, but macroeconomics says otherwise. It isn't even that macro says it doesn't help them, but that it actually hurts them. I don't really even understand it that well, but I'm not going to tell economists at large that they're wrong about economics. Maybe an easy way to visualize it is that when regulations make it hard to have a job without a car (which ours very much do), it undercuts the poor since they have to waste so much of their resources on a car.

It is important that people pay for what they have with the resources they have. Not doing this is what the Soviet Union tried to do. Socialism in the West is not any different whatsoever. We are just lucky that only some aspects of our society have embraced the ideology; whereas the USSR embraced it for all aspects of its society.

I like to think that certain things are worthwhile giving up some form of profit for. And what we are essentially saying is a reduction on growth rate and perhaps marginally higher indirect cost. I agree with lots of the stated benefits of free trade, I just don't think the sacrifices required to obtain those benefits are worthwhile in every case.

Profit is essential to driving abundance and innovation. There are no known exceptions.

So as I've stated before, basic infrastructure, utilities, health care, education, policing, justice and defence, should all be state run or at least heavily regulates by the state. This ensures certain freedoms exist for all. ie the freedom to travel around, to access a good quality of health care, to be safe and be protected and expect justice, to receive a decent level of education. To be free from being held to ransom over basic needs like electricity.

The reason I keep mentioning food is because it is equally as essential to life as the other things you mentioned (more than most of them, actually), yet it is not heavily influenced by the state and it works better than every one of your examples. So the question is "what gives?" How can it be that government ownership is better for essentials when the facts show that markets are better?

[rong]

It technically is a monopoly. The monopoly on violence. The government uses this monopoly to structure everything else how it sees fit, so when the government owns the highway, it has a monopoly on the highway.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. And anyway, technically, it it state run. It is run by the state, therefore it is state run. Why aren't you calling it what it is? (DYSWIDT?)

Morally: because you're the one with the resources. The guy who kills the meat gets to do with the meat what he chooses. If it isn't structured like this, civilization falls apart. You use your resources to support your family. Why would it better for you to not have that option? Morally? Really? Morality doesn't side with the capitalists.

Socially and economically: because it makes the world a better place. Meritocracy drives abundance and prosperity, regardless of if you "earned" the merits or "just have" the merits. Macroeconomics is counter-intuitive. We may think that helping the poor with things like wage floors or price caps on goods helps them, but macroeconomics says otherwise. It isn't even that macro says it doesn't help them, but that it actually hurts them. I don't really even understand it that well, but I'm not going to tell economists at large that they're wrong about economics. Maybe an easy way to visualize it is that when regulations make it hard to have a job without a car (which ours very much do), it undercuts the poor since they have to waste so much of their resources on a car. Sociably, no. Economically yes. You could possibly make it cheaper and more efficient, I give you that. But more expensive and given to everyone can be sociably better than cheaper and more efficient.

It is important that people pay for what they have with the resources they have. Not doing this is what the Soviet Union tried to do. Socialism in the West is not any different whatsoever. We are just lucky that only some aspects of our society have embraced the ideology; whereas the USSR embraced it for all aspects of its society. Funny, but health care over here is pretty good yet people don't pay for what they use. Which demonstrates my point perfectly. There is no reason not to have a mixture of both.



Profit is essential to driving abundance and innovation. There are no known exceptions. That is bullshit! Some people do things for other reasons than profit. And anyway, this is irrelevant. You can still have some things given to everyone for free and have plenty of innovation across the board. A little bit of free at point of use and paid for via tax doesn't destroy everything.



The reason I keep mentioning food is because it is equally as essential to life as the other things you mentioned (more than most of them, actually), yet it is not heavily influenced by the state and it works better than every one of your examples. So the question is "what gives?" How can it be that government ownership is better for essentials when the facts show that markets are better?

Food stumps me for a good answer. I need to think about that.