Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

Results 601 to 675 of 1312

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is exactly what I'm curious about.
    Within an overriding framework of capitalism, there are pockets where other economic systems enhance value.
    Maybe you should elaborate on what these pockets are. Did you mean when someone enters into a relationship, it enhances their value? Okay, I can get behind that, but again, consent is crucial to the equation. I don't believe it can be stated that there are pockets within a capitalist framework wherein coercion enhances value.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I asked this:
    Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?
    (Although, I wish I had asked, "Is it just?" rather than, "Is it fair?")

    You interpreted it as this:
    Is the free market fair?

    I don't see them as the same question. I am not stipulating any particular market strategy (or whatever).
    I felt you were implying that a system where everyone voluntarily agrees to all exchanges of resources was necessarily one in which punishments and rewards are sometimes based on factors outside of the control of the actors. Did I jump to the wrong conclusion? Of course, this is what a capitalistic society is, and of course, that is true of capitalistic societies. And it is fair and just by a reasonable interpretation of the definitions of those words.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What are the perils of attempting to address this systemic injustice?

    You need first to establish why it is unjust for two people to have different levels of wealth from birth. Not state it as a given. It is a fact of life that fortunes are distributed unevenly. Life is risk, the concepts are inseparable. And its not only with wealth. Some of us are born with favorable genetics. Two children may be born with enormous worldly wealth but one has shitty parents who don't hug him enough. He grows up to be a neurotic mess. Does the state need to enforce hugs as well?

    If you want to make a case for states to subsidize the poor, it needs to be from a different point of view than social justice. An economic case needs to be made that this actually benefits society. At the very least it needs to benefit the poor people you mean to help. In most cases the anti-poverty measures even fail at that. In other cases, the programs simply increase the population growth of the poor by directly incentivizing single motherhood. If the aim is to even the playing field and smooth out the variance of being born, then the methods need to be subtle. The state is never subtle.
    Last edited by Renton; 06-26-2015 at 05:15 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •