The idea that it's justifiable to let unspeakable suffering within your community continue when you have enough excess (meaning losing it wouldn't affect your overall quality of life) resources to stop it, just because those resources "belong" to you and you shouldn't be expected to give them up unless you get something better in return, is absolutely the most selfish, morally bankrupt and evil foundation for a society that always leads to fascism eventually.
#Capitalism
๐ณ๐ฑ
Agreed, people who dont donate their time and money to help charities, especially when you have excess, is morally dubious at best.
Not sure what that has to do with #Capitalism however.
@freemo @Vincarsi
#Capitalism concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals, which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about, where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others unless they can benefit financially in some way.
concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals
Yes, though, it distributes fairly based on their contribution to society when operating in a healthy way. Societies dont have an equal distribution of people contributing equal utility, ergo you should see unequal distribution of wealth in a healthy government with a typical population.
which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about
Fully disagree. Uneven distributions of wealth does not, in and of itself, lead to lower quality of life or less charitable works. In fact, it has been objectively shown that rich people give significantly higher percentages of their income to charity than middle class or poor.
where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others
That does not line up with reality IMO. Very few rich “hoard wealth” which would look like a mountain of resources sitting in a vault collecting dust (such as useful minerals, or other materials useful to society). In fact they dont even tend to hoard money itself. Almost all rich people have all of their money actively in the community and used for social utility. For example in investment in businesses. No person who hoarded wealth would be rich because wealth looses value with time. You only become rich by not hoarding wealth (putting your money out into the community, at a risk of loosing it or getting a return).
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Missing their whole point it seems.
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Even if you don't include america. Capitalism in every conception creates inequality. Not just in the context of incom. But in the context of access to resources. Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare. No human should be denied treatment. So no, contribution hardly matters. The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
Even if you don’t include america.
Agreed, I am not including america here specifically. I am speaking of capitalism as a whole (which would include the whole of the EU, the UK and the overwhelming majority of countries world-wide).
Capitalism in every conception creates inequality.
It doesnt create inequality, it fairly rewards people for the amount of utility they give to society. Since people give utility to society unequally, this means people are fairly rewarded and those rewards are unequal.
Capitalism (when healthy) provides equity (fairness) not equality (everyone event) which is exactly how it should be!
Not just in the context of incom [sic] But in the context of access to resources.
Agreed, and this is a good thing. People who provide more utility to society should have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.
Again equity over equality. The bigger issue is if people have the same access to opportunity. In other words, if you can demonstrate you provide utility to society will you have the equity of having access to the resources you have demonstrated you earned. A healthy capitalism does just that.
Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare.
If you can afford healthcare you should be paying for it out of pocket. If you cant society should help you with welfare programs. A capitalism does not preclude social welfare.
No human should be denied treatment.
Agreed, and when a capitalist government provides healthcare to those who cant afford it, they are still a capitalist country. Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with social welfare.
The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
No it doesnt. It defines your access to resources, and it isnt arbitrary, it is based on the utility you provide to society (in a healthy capitalism).
The fact that you think a persons worth as an individual is synonymous with the resources they have access to is a very concerning POV.
ยซPeople who provide more utility to society should have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.ยป
Someone who believes this ought to support a very different system from modern-day โcapitalismโ.
For example, one should support taxing inheritance at 100%, since proof of effectiveness at converting resources to utility is not hereditary.
One would also have to support the abolition of rentier income of all kinds, because mere ownership of a resource does not contribute to the productive process.
Whether or not rentier income can in practice be clearly distinguished from productive profit does not detract from the point that rentier income is incompatible witht he principle of distribution based on effectiveness at converting resources to utility.
being a landlord is not "mere ownership of a resource".. The resource is the land, the utility you provide is the livability of that land. You are providing the maintenance of the building, keeping it up to code, repairing damage due to natural disasters or renter abuse, hell at one point you had to even build the building, not mention maintaining the physical land (removing trees and overgrowth, repairing fences etc).
Landlords very much are providing a utility from a resource.
Yes, of course, a landlord does managerial work that should be compensated. But ownership of the building is not necessary for the ability to do that managerial work, nor is doing that work required for the legal entitlement of the collection of rent.
The landlord isn't even usually the person who built the building or repairs the fences.
Yes, of course, a landlord does managerial work that should be compensated.
Cool we agree there at least.
But ownership of the building is not necessary for the ability to do that managerial work, nor is doing that work required for the legal entitlement of the collection of rent.
I dont recall anyone saying it was necessary that the owner of the resource be the same person who is deriving utility from said resource.
These can of course be complete separate resources. In which case the person who owns the land is providing the utility of selecting/screening the most effective managerial service. The managerial service is then outsourced to do the actual management. In this case the utility is provided in multiple steps is all. But the landlord and t
he rental service are still providing a utility.
The landlord isn’t even usually the person who built the building or repairs the fences.
Not always, and as I just covered when they are separate then the landlord is providing a different utility than the managerial service. But both are still providing utility.
ยซIn which case the person who owns the land is providing the utility of selecting/screening the most effective managerial service.ยป
Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone. The tenant. The government. A tenants' union. It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.
The only reason it's the owner who gets to do that job is that they're legally entitled to. And somehow that entitles them to rent.
Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone.
It absolutely could… Any case of a resource being turned into a utility could be done by anyone. The point here is in capitalism the people whoa re most effective at converting resources to utilities are the ones who get assigned those abilities through the free-market pressures that drive it.
If a tenant were as good or better than the landlord at driving utility then in a healthy capitalism they would be a home owner and not a renter, thats the whole point.
A tenants’ union
Nothing stopping such an entity from existing in a capitalist government. The key is such an entity will only exist (for long) if they can provide such a utility better than everyone else.
It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.
It absolutely does take special skill. Evaluating the quality of a managerial service and who you defer such services to is very much a skill. Pick a bad service and you loose everything (as you provided bad utility), pick a good one and you thrive. You also need to be ready to switch services should your current service decline in quality.
The only reason it’s the owner who gets to do that job is that they’re legally entitled to.
No that isnt the only reason. They are legally entitled to and provides the best utility in doing it. If they were only legally entitled to but didnt provide good utility they would pick a poor service and have lost their property as a result, which would mean a newer better landlord would take their place that can provide that utility better.
You're making a very strong assumption that resources would get distributed to whoever can best turn them into utility.
Do you have a specific mechanism in mind through which this happens? Or is it just magic?
You’re making a very strong assumption that resources would get distributed to whoever can best turn them into utility.
Yes I am. If you dont then you dont have a healthy capitalism. The assumption here is you have a healthy capitalism, which i defined as a free market (a market where utility is the determiner of profit, and is not gamed by centralized interests).
Do you have a specific mechanism in mind through which this happens? Or is it just magic?
Not magic, yes. But systems of governments are hugely complex pieces of working machinery. While we can discuss the tenants (such as capitalism, social welfare and others) the specific mechanisms are huge complex and would require an exorbitant amount of time to exhaustively discuss. That say, I am willing to discuss any specific aspects you’d like to challenge as I have so far done.
Snark, not a serious question
@freemo @magitweeter @aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom
So basically you're asserting that Capitalism works perfectly when it doesn't interact with reality?
Snark I dont mind. But the employing the red herring fallacy (grossing mischaracterizing a persons stance to be the opposite of what is said as some gotcha to appear to create an illusion of “winning)… honestly based on your comments up until now I’d like to think your better than that.
That said at least you had the good sense to point out it was snark rather than a fair evaluation. So i can be a little less critical of it. But it certainly isnt helping your stance IMO.
