The Fatal Flaw Of Free Market Capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

Aka why anarchocapitalism would devolve into autocracy.

What keeps Capitalism working is the fact that it works — not for everybody; but for enough people to keep the economy going. Communism and Socialism seem to work only under authoritarian regimes, but only temporarily.

The video isn't really talking about capitalism in a broader sense and certainly doesn't address current mixed economies and the nation-states behind them so I'm not quite sure what that has to do with.

The video is very specifically focused on the fantasies of AnCaps, Objectivists and similar, stateless capitalism and how without states as a check on corporations (which are autocratic in nature) the end result would be far less freedom, not any improvements in regards to freedoms.

You could have just said you didn't bother watching it.

Suck the coconut man's d**k or starve? I'd rather toss a stone right between his eyes.

Exactly, why settle for coconuts when you can feast on longpig? Eat the rich isn't just a metaphor.

The video isn’t showing up on my Apple mobile device, so I’ll have to check it out later.

IDK what you mean about any Objectivist fantasy. The core tenet of Objectivism is its take on metaphysics: that a reality exists outside the mind itself. Everything else follows based on the axiom of the rational mind—that it exists, first of all, and that it is the reason for continued human existence, i.e. humans can choose to not exist.

Individuals always have freedom of thought, and through reasoning may exercise their freedom to exist for their own sake. This is where selfishness, or rational self-interest, or more simply “believing in one’s self” emerges within objectivist philosophy. Objectivism rejects Hedonism, the mindless act of pleasure-seeking. It rejects envy (hating the achievements of others, often exhibited by entitled victim classes) and greed (looting, parasitism, or the drive to take things one neither earns nor deserves, often associated with political power). It celebrates love, value, mutually beneficial cooperation and achievement.

It does NOT obligate people to take care of each other when the other person doesn’t deserve it, nor must anyone invest in a relationship when there is nothing to be gained.

Objectivism favors trade over sacrifice and recognizes the greatest human attainment is achieved when individuals are FREE to pursue their own interests, work together, and engage in free trade of material things as well as innovative ideas. Individuals are also FREE to work alone or keep secrets as it suits them. They are NOT free to harm individuals, and if competition destroys another business, they must concede that the same thing could easily happen to them—and that works in favor of all because it means everyone has access to everything they need, plus people are rewarded for having great ideas and bringing them to life.

People are free to come up with better ideas and put entire industries out of work (can someone PLEASE explain to me WHY we are still dependent on fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine???). And while that is a scary thought for a lot of people, it does underscore the need to logically consider one’s career choices: Are you in the COAL industry or are you in the ENERGY industry? Big difference (coal use is not strictly limited to fuel). If you provide coal, you’ll need to factor in that the demand for coal can’t always remain in energy. But if you work in energy, you’ll want to broaden your scope to include nuclear and renewable energy.

Free market capitalism without governmental interference provides the best options for Objectivists. It is often pointed out that unregulated industry is dangerous to the general public. Remember, life is the highest objective value, so once one individual does harm to another, his freedom is forfeit. It IS the proper role of government to provide justice and protect the individual. If a business causes harm to individuals and property, it can be reasonably punished through normal, basic laws such as those concerning unjustified or even negligent homicide. There’s never a need for regulation when proper justice is consistently implemented. The reality of government regulation is a tendency of policies to favor some businesses at the expense of others all at the fickle whim of a ruling political party.

It’s not a fantasy. It’s really just common sense. Leave individuals alone, reward good people, punish the bad guys.

But we aren’t completely disconnected from reality. People envy achievers. Greedy folks manipulate and control the masses. People believing themselves to be victims of achievers prefer to let cultural influencers do their thinking for them. People favor narratives over objective reality. People hate taking personal responsibility. The sad fact is individuals are FREE to think that, and Objectivists are unable to deny reality. All we can do is exercise our freedom to build the kind of world we want for ourselves and put distance between us and the looters. But anyone who chooses to assert his freedom from regressive thinking and the self-destruction men miscall “progress” can be my friend any time.

Rich folks are too .... rich...for me!

You know. Their meat tastes too gamey.

The answer is twofold.

The first is that maintaining high-carbon infrastructure is often cheaper than replacing it with carbon-neutral infrastructure.

The second is that people who burn fossil fuels do not have to deal with the full cost of their emissions. The externalities are borne by the world at large, including by future generations. This is a textbook example of a market failure. Current people in industrialised nations are effectively leeching off future people and people on the other side of the world, who do not get a say.

There are two solutions. The first is to make people pay the cost of their pollution through mechanisms such as a carbon tax. The second is to mandate that people stop using high-carbon technologies. Zero-emission cars cannot compete with ICE cars on current terms, but most countries are prohibiting the sale of ICEs in the coming years in order to get their numbers down and also to provide a very strong signal that we need to invest in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and R&D.

Videos don’t seem to load for me so I cannot say what argument the video makes, but climate change is a great example of the failures of a priori capitalist systems like Objectivism compared to empirical systems like mainstream economics.

Or government could just stop propping fossil fuel industries. There ARE positives. Ok, so I’m not convinced that emissions really are destroying the environment in the sense and to the extent that fear-mongers claim they do. But I AM convinced that emissions aren’t helping. What bothers me isn’t emissions or climate change. It’s stalled progress. If it weren’t for lobbying and corporations buying votes in congress, I’m convinced we’d have competing technologies by now that would have put fossil fuels out of business. I do think oil is useful in the area of polymers and chemical manufacturing. I think it is more economical to use gasoline as fuel instead of pouring it off as a waste product of refining crude. CO and CO2 in the air are certainly less toxic than gasoline contaminating the air and/or groundwater. If you have to burn it, at least do something constructive with it. But the DEPENDENCE on gasoline as an excuse to not look for better energy, more efficient motors than ICE, and create more productive and worthwhile jobs is what I find disgusting. Heck…car engines can run briefly on vodka for crying out loud, or diesel cars that can burn vegetable oil. Get the government and the lobbyists out of the market’s way and let’s see some amazing things happen!

[Trimmed for length]

Government subsidies for fossil fuels are much lower than the returns on fossil fuels (obviously - that’s why governments subsidise them to begin with).

The dominance of fossil fuels is an issue created by laissez-faire policies, and is not going to be fixed by laissez-faire policies.

The idea that lobbyists are propping up the ICE is obviously ludicrous when so many governments are banning ICEs.

Even in electricity generation, where renewables can compete without considering the social costs of carbon, that cost reduction has only been possible due to long-term commitments by governments.

In heating and cooling, it is very unlikely that our housing stock will become sufficiently energy efficient and electrified without government intervention.

You can be convinced of something if you like, but reality is not powered by conviction. Much more sensible to start looking at how the world works and building your ideology up from there, rather than starting from ideology and insisting that the world follows your ideology. That’s not to say you can’t have principles, but if you desire a certain end then consider how it could actually be achieved, rather than dogmatically insisting that the solution is a mindless revolution. It’s amazing how similar Objectivists and Marxists are in that regard…

ah, yes, love.

How objectivist was Ayn Rands stamp collection, btw?

Indeed. And if you want clarification, there is no imperative that anyone should invest in any relationship. That is largely the problem of probably most relationships, the idea that one MUST love another person unconditionally without regard to, say, whether that person will be loyal, or abusive, or mentally unstable. No one is entitled to love any more than anyone else is obligated to love another person. Love with obligation isn’t really love. If you HAVE to love someone, it isn’t love. True love doesn’t entitle or obligate, but rather engages in mutually beneficial trade. My wife doesn’t HAVE to wake up next to me every day; I’m simply grateful that she chooses to. And all the repayment she requires is that I do likewise. We’re both getting what we want.

But if I didn’t want to be with my wife, it would be immoral to be married to her. Because then I’m betraying both myself and her.


Huh? Back in those days the worldwide postage system was symbolic of man’s achievement of global communication. Stamps from Iceland and Japan were works of fine art in and of themselves, which were a heck of a lot nicer than some weird-looking dictator’s face.

Also, you have to think about what stamp-collecting represents. It’s a hobby that requires creative energy. It’s not problem solving. But if you have a sheet where you’re putting stamps and there’s a blank space, that blank space is demanding to be filled. You’re going to be on the lookout for a new and interesting stamp you’ve never seen before to fill that space. It’s like the empty spot is an enemy calling you out, and finding just the right stamp is a victory. The same might be said for a novelist and a notebook, or a composer and staff paper. But it is a hobby and not a career. It is a way of refocusing the mind. The renewal of the rational mind is vital to that particular Objectivist axiom—the rational mind, without which there is no reason to live.

You seriously can’t see how stamp collecting is objective? For me, it’s Python programming. There are certain repetitive tasks I do that are made easier by scripting, but more often some of the things I work on don’t have set goal. Sometimes it’s more about finding multiple ways of solving the same problem and deciding which approach suits a particular purpose—for instance, NumPy arrays are faster than lists. I also enjoy good YouTube videos about the First World War. Having interests outside your career helps keep you sharp enough to do your job-job well and enjoy everything you get out of your work. You burn out otherwise. Considering the value placed on productive work, hobbies are always objective.