Capitalism is simply the free exchange of value where the proper role of governance is the protection of individual rights. In other words, the framing of Wilson's question misses the biggest opportunity for reaching higher ends and greater value, a better life for all people. Capitalism is often labeled by those who don't understand it as a continuous accumulation at the expense of others. And this fundamental misunderstanding fails to acknowledge the key to capitalism's position as the only moral system
So a few disclaimers upfront. You are obviously far more well versed in these things than I am. I have next to no interest in economics. However, I am fascinated by systems and how they are interwoven into other systems and so on. And I am also not familiar with this particular gentleman and I'm not familiar with this particular article
C D
@ValuableActs · 5:00
There is at no point such a thing as an independent collective, an independent, quote governed which is not made up of individuals. A just government, a capitalist government, a moral government would protect you from violations of your rights, regardless of the source of where those violations come from. You are correct to be critical, however, of the idea that some people are granted special privileges. This is particularly interesting in the realm of insurance, which is a voluntary exchange of value
I'm using that sloppily, but you get my point. Presentation of capitalism where people can voluntarily opt in for paying taxes and where their money goes, et cetera. Because it would seem that this paragon, then is more in theory than potentially reality. But I don't know, again, enough about various economic systems to be able to say I'm of the thought with my very limited knowledge that some hybrid of sorts would be the quote unquote paragon ideal, whatever economic system
C D
@ValuableActs · 4:55
I'm going to try to do my best in five minutes. I think you're right. It's a very tough barrier to make. Capitalism will never be realized in a truly ideal form. We live in an imperfect universe. However, no economic or interpersonal system will be realized in a perfect form. This is less about the system than those who use it. I've never met a perfect person, and if such a person exists, they have not spoken up
C D
@ValuableActs · 4:54
There's value that's money, but there's also value that's love and friendship and care and kindness and that warm, fuzzy feeling that you get when we interact and I'll wrap this up here is perhaps the greatest weakness of capitalism and what makes it uniquely moral and distinct from systems like communism, socialism and other collectivist ideas. Any government that uses force at no point is a capitalist going to use force to make someone accept capitalism. Forcing coercion are violations of individual rights
And even when you're laying out how capitalism is better, I'm seeing the different aspects to it and so it's hard for me to make these direct comparisons. So for example, a capitalistic society is obviously focused around the individual ownership, possession, rights, while the altruistic society is about others. So if we're comparing anything that has to do with the rights of the individual, of course they're not going to measure up to the altruistic society
But I really appreciate the points that you've made because, well, it's given me more food for thought. And although I'm still muddy on the whole concept of altruism, it's given me some other things to think about. Thank you
C D
@ValuableActs · 4:26
Really happy to continue the conversation. And it's such an important one, especially in a situation where there is such a great opportunity for advancement and there's also such, unfortunately, a great opportunity for violence. And I appreciate your idea of apples and oranges in terms of the focus, but I do think, I guess it's a question really about how we arrive at the fact that there are apples and oranges
Okay, let's see if I can do this. In these two imperfect types of societies, I think that there are radically different philosophies of how the individuals would perceive self. Others, organizing any actions, decisions one might make. These are all affected by the various philosophies of these different societies. So, for instance, that the language in a capitalistic society is really revealing about this. Neither good or bad, just really makes it clear. So for example, it's about the individual's rights
C D
@ValuableActs · 1:49
I think you actually had it spot on right under five minutes, I think was exactly where you had hoped to come in on that, which is perfect. Truly. I think your point about land is interesting, and I actually agree with you 100%. That's why we have contracts instead of someone dies and all of a sudden they're land is not owned by people who are deceased. Jefferson says this life belongs Usafront to the living
Is it considered owning one's body when we are socially influenced of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviors or selfexpression or how we move through the world? The things that we do, we can get into the science and the philosophy. Where are the boundaries of my own body, this microbiome of critters and bacteria and so on, that are also a part of what is christina, how do we define what is, quote, unquote, mine? It all depends on how you look at it
C D
@ValuableActs · 0:30
Should all ideas be entertained? Specifically, should ideas that violate consent be entertained and be part of the debate? Are those the ideas that you would suggest need to change? Or is there some other underlying principle that needs to be considered to evaluate what ideas are worth spending our finite time on and which of those we can safely dismiss?
If there is an overarching priority, then the others sort of fall in underneath it and you can make different decisions or address different topics of what's important or what's not. At least like if you were creating from scratch a society and you wanted to use capitalism as the economic system and you wanted that to be the priority, then when you start to get down to the nitty gritty, of it, right?
C D
@ValuableActs · 0:49
What I was less clear of in this latest response is how you would define consent and the cases in which it applies. Would you be able to help me out with that and elaborate on your understanding of the definition of consent and its applications?
Swell Team
@Swell · 0:15
And so then it's instead a matter of complying or yielding to the system. This is the perspective I was coming from, but it sounded like maybe there was another way that you were thinking of consent. Um, and I still haven't been able to figure that out