Controversial take re: capitalism (1/4)
I'm a firm believer in free markets. I believe that at the present development level, when it is still impossible to cover all reasonable material needs of the humankind without expending any human labor, this is the best way to make people better off.
HOWEVER, present-day capitalism (as well as dreams of some libertarians) is anything but free markets, and I'm not talking about government intervention there.
I do not believe it is beyond repair though!
Controversial take re: capitalism (2a/4)
Markets are not free now. For example, it is not a free exchange of labor for money, when one has to choose between selling their labor or dying.
There _should_ be an Universal Basic Income that would cover all basic human needs (shelter, food, health, etc).
It would also be much easier to administer than mish-mash of various safety net policies we have now, and not let people slip through the cracks.
It would also reduce inequality!
Controversial take re: capitalism (2b/4)
So let's say there is a flat 50% tax on all income, wages, capital gains etc. (I would gladly pay that tax!)
And it's redistributed to all people, to every single person. Everybody just receives an UBI, it's 50% of average pre-tax income. That would be enough to cover all basic needs.
Then people would choose to work because they like that work, or because they like that extra income, not because they _have_ to for their survival.
Controversial take re: capitalism (3/4)
Another problems with markets now is that signals are distorted, there are externalities.
The cost of producing oil might be 10 cents per liter, but the environmental consequences of burning it is 10 euro per liter.
If oil company only considers the former and ignores the latter, we end up with distorted markets, where everybody has to subsidize the oil.
By implementing a carbon tax, government would _fix_ the markets, not break them as some say.
Controversial take re: capitalism (4/4)
I personally do not have any problems with e.g. Bezos sitting on a pile of money.
My problems are with him:
* sitting on a pile of money while workers are exploited;
* gaining that pile of money _by_ exploiting workers;
* being _subsidized_ by ordinary people (Bezos literally gets some money from state budgets);
* being subsidized by everyone, in form of environmental consequences.
If these are solved? He can swim in money if he wants to, I don't care.
I'm not saying my opinion is the only right one.
I might be wrong, and I would like to hear if there are any problems with my reasoning.
But that's what I think now; does this make me a bad person?
@IngaLovinde
Having an opinion and expressing it freely certainly does not make you a bad person. You know that.
@IngaLovinde
I know I am going off-topic, still... You saying that Nazis are bad people is a bit harsh. My emotions agree with you, yet, many (if not most) are loving husbands, wives and parents. Does what they think make them bad persons?
What I am trying to say is this: let's not dehumanise those we don't agree with. That is a slippery slope and actually it is the same thought crime we accuse those we don't agree with of.
@FailForward Sure, and Hitler was also a loving person, a nice painter, and a vegetarian.
Nazism is not just a thing I don't agree with. The core principle of nazism is dehumanizing other people just because of the way there were born. Nazis choose to be that way, and there could be no such thing as "agree to disagree" with them. They can all burn, and being a loving husband does not make a Nazi any less bad.
There is no slippery slope, Nazism has no place in the "marketplace of ideas", period
@IngaLovinde
I get what you feel. And I also recognise why you probably feel that way. You have full right to feel it. They hate you, so why should you not hate them back? I get it.
But do you really believe that expressing contempt (if not outright hatred) towards, say 10%, of the society is going to solve the problem?
I don't want those ideas to be present at the marketplace either. But whether those ideas have a right to be there or not is besides the point. They are already present there, whether me or you like it or not. That's a simple fact. So we can either close our eyes and pretend that they don't exist (which will solve nothing), or we can engage them. And that can be done only when we speak to each other. And of course I know well they don't want to speak to me or you either.
But tell me this: How is wishing some tens of thousands of our co-citizens to "burn" going to help us solve the problem?
@FailForward Debating Nazis won't solve the problem, it will just give them legitimacy. To solve the Nazi problem, you should punch Nazis and make expressing Nazi thoughts so socially unacceptable that nobody would dare to say they're Nazi, and so that Nazi thoughts won't proliferate.
I'm not saying all of them should burn. They can also choose to not be Nazis; that's much easier and more reasonable than stopping being non-Aryan or non-straight or abled etc.
@IngaLovinde
I strongly disagree, but I also recognise we won't move further. That's ok.
What you are proposing to do to them (to solve your problem with them) is in fact **exactly** what they are proposing to do to you (to solve their problem with you). I fail to comprehend how is that a good thing (and how it makes you a better person) in your eyes.
Violence never made anybody happy. While we sometimes need to use it, we shall be very careful in doing so - you can harm yourself more than you think.
@FailForward Of course not, it depends on the opinion. E.g. nazis are bad persons (obviously), and expressing nazi opinions makes them even worse.
It's just that recently several people posted something along the lines "if you believe in capitalism, do not interact". And I decided it would be better if I explain myself upfront, saying all that I think about capitalism (and also maybe get some replies explaining why I'm wrong), than if they will learn about my attitude later and without nuance