Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Renton]

I may just not be getting it, but I feel like you dodged the questions. I can talk to your first two paragraphs, but after that, I feel like you changed topics on me. Please help me correlate your answers back to my questions.

***
I kind of see where you're coming from with the voluntary contract, thing. I appreciate that it re-characterizes my question away from arbitrary size onto a collective of individual decisions to have un-quantized trade (sharing).

It wasn't my intention to dodge your questions. I felt like the questions in the first box I quoted (re: scale) were a bit ill-conceived.

Households share property largely because children aren't yet fit to make economic decisions, and because people value being in relationships more than having absolute autonomy over their stuff. It's voluntary mutual benefit unless you're one of the children (you can't choose where you grow up) or unless you're in a shitty relationship. Basic economics are at play here.

Businesses have social constructs because they are formed based on a hierarchy of responsibility levels with ownership at the top. Everyone involved is a voluntary participant in this, and that is why it works. States would be fantastic if anybody could opt out, and this is largely why smaller states or more local forms of government are more effective.

Small neighborhoods aren't that dissimilar to to the economic advantages of cooperation in business. There are forms of mutual benefit that don't involve exchanging currency. A neighborhood that mutually agrees to keep nice lawns benefits by having an increased property value. If one of them wants to opt out, he's perfectly able to in a free society, and there are some economic disadvantages to this. It is immoral for the other members to use force to compel him to mow his lawn, but there are non-aggressive ways to motivate him. They can exclude him from the social benefits of being in the community.


Now for the second quote box:

Poorness is sometimes caused by bad choices. I would guess it is largely due to being born to poor parents though, so in that way it is caused by other people's choices. Obviously it is possible for a 'great person' to lose everything. Life is full of risk, and even leading a risk-averse life is not without risk. I don't know what a 'worthless' person is. I guess a social parasite like a non-functioning drug addict would qualify? I don't understand the value of these questions. Our wealth is tied to our choices and to our circumstances.

Is the free market fair? The first two definitions on dictionary.com are "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice," and "legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules." Certainly under those definitions a world where people of all levels of fortune are treated the same, i.e. not rewarded or penalized in any way, could be called fair. I would say being born in poor conditions is unfortunate, not unfair. Having a health catastrophe at age 25 is unlikely, not unjust. If you start a business that doesn't work out and forces you into bankruptcy, I wouldn't say you suffered any bias, you just made a bet that didn't pan out. Why is it fair to take from others to benefit these people?

I don't think it's a misunderstanding of capitalism to say there are communities inside which money is completely unnecessary. The system of trade is left unquantized - not capitalistic. Please correct me if my understanding of capitalism is at odds with yours.

I think I kind of covered this earlier in the post, but one more thing. The form of trade of which you speak may not be capitalistic, but it is economical in the sense that it is people acting on incentives. I think there are also a lot of ways in which capitalism enhances the value of non-monetary social constructs.