Why Capitalism is Worth Defending

[dross]

The basic question is always the same and it doesn't matter what we're talking about.

Are you for freedom? Do you believe people should be left alone to make their own decisions or do you believe that they need someone else to vet those decisions?

It's the basic question. What always amazes me is how some people can be so fiery passionate in one area of freedom while at the same time fighting tooth and nail that other areas of freedom need oppressive government oversight.

 

[Fletch]

Did you just say the property rights of business?

I did... sloppy construction, I realize. I'm referring to the property rights of those attempting to run a business.

What about the 'tainted AIDS blood' situation? Actually, what about fraud in general - I imagine you're not going to just say 'caveat emptor, maybe the blood the doctor is giving you has AIDS, maybe it doesn't', but I'd like to see how you'd categorize fraud cases with regards to 'property rights'.

Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach

A choice bit: "If one has a coherent understanding of the nature of contract (a title-transfer theory along the Evers-Rothbard line) and property rights, then one has to understand fraud as some kind of misrepresentation that vitiates the consent needed for a title transfer to be effective."

Selling someone a putatively life-saving item (blood) that you know is spoiled/ruined/works counter to the expected purpose or use (AIDS-infected blood), without telling them, clearly vitiates (destroys, spoils, impairs) the consent of the other party in the transaction. Doing so amounts to the theft of the resources they offer in trade, if they would not have traded had they known about the counterproductive condition of the item they're purchasing.

I also suppose you'd support some amount of regulation there, or if not regulation you'd be defining capitalism such that it's morally obligatory to communicate a certain amount of information accurately in a given transaction?

It depends, and it's all a matter of degree. Is it fraud to knowingly sell diseased blood without revealing the disease? Almost certainly, but those purchasing the blood (or anything as vital) should also be testing it for problems. The nature of the transaction should be worked out by the involved parties to protect their own interests, but if a blind, random sampling were somehow manipulated by the selling party to conceal the disease, it would amount to fraud.

On the other hand, do we need regulation about selling a used car that has a sketchy alternator? I would argue not... everyone and his brother knows that upon buying a used car one needs to either secure guarantees (as in a dealership's "ten billion point inspection"), have the car checked out by a mechanic of their choosing, or simply accept that a used car will have used parts and require repairs from time to time.

 

[jsgolfman]

I would say that selling tainted blood as untainted would be morally wrong, but not fraud unless the contract specified untainted blood.

 

[Fletch]

I would say that selling tainted blood as untainted would be morally wrong, but not fraud unless the contract specified untainted blood.

I'm assuming for the purposes of argument that this was the case.

 

[dross]

You promise to give me an item. You promise that item will have certain characteristics. I agree that I will pay you for an item with those characteristics. If I pay you for an item with those characteristics, but you give me an item without those characteristics, it is your responsibility to make me whole. If you refuse, you have initiated force against me. The force is in witholding what is mine. Fraud is force.

Fraud is the initiation of force. Discouraging the use of force is the only legitimate function of government. Punishing criminals for the initiation of force is not "regulation.'

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You promise to give me an item. You promise that item will have certain characteristics. I agree that I will pay you for an item with those characteristics. If I pay you for an item with those characteristics, but you give me an item without those characteristics, it is your responsibility to make me whole. If you refuse, you have initiated force against me. The force is in witholding what is mine. Fraud is force.

Fraud is the initiation of force. Discouraging the use of force is the only legitimate function of government. Punishing criminals for the initiation of force is not "regulation.'

Punishing criminals for the initiation of force is regulation - it is just regulation that we generally agree with.

Governing behavior always requires exhibiting force, even if it is used to deter a force that we decide needs to be addressed. Whenever breaking a law leads to consequences, force is applied - even if the application of the punishment is in response to, and/or decreases a force.

Force can be defined as the power to influence/control, the force of law...

But I agree with the main point of what I think you were communicating - that fraudulently misrepresenting a product is force - and applying a force is outside the scope of pure capitalism. Wielding a force to deceive or control someone's decision is not the same as free exchange between two parties - in that regard, pure capitalism requires that both parties understand the trade before it can be a true "free exchange".

That is why pure capitalism is economic theory, and not a form of government... government applies regulations and laws in a manner that dictate the behavior of society... economic theory facilitates the exchange of goods / services. While they always work within one another - and hinge on the faults of one another - government =/= economic theory, and that is why the failures of a government to apply an economic theory is not the same as a failure of the theory. Some economic theories can be easier to apply in actual practice by a form of government... but they only overlap in part, and not in the whole. We can point out ways economy theories fail under certain forms of government, or in realistic conditions - but when we do that we are really talking about the realistic applications of economic theory - while most economic theories within themselves require a degree of moral compliance.

That is why as a general rule capitalism is always a more productive economic theory when compared to say communism - because the assumptions of moral compliance in capitalism are more realistic than in communism.

 

[Fletch]

That is why pure capitalism is economic theory, and not a form of government... government applies regulations and laws in a manner that dictate the behavior of society... economic theory brings ways of exchanging goods / services. While they always work within one another - and hinge on the faults of one another - government =/= economic theory, and that is why the failures of a government to apply an economic theory is not the same as a failure of the theory. Some economic theories can be easier to apply in actual practice by a form of government... but they only overlap in part, and not in the whole.

Well stated.

 

[dross]

Capitalism is simply economic freedom. Freedom is not the same as anarchy, or that might makes right. Freedom can't exist when governments are oppressive, or when there are no governments and certain individuals oppress others.

I am not - and this applies to me as an individual, or the me as part of a government - initiating force if I punish or retaliate or prevent someone else from initiating force. Initiation of force is the problem. Using force to prevent another's initiation of force isn't just "regulation we all agree on." It's every person's right to be left alone and not have force initiated upon him. That doesn't change whether he fights back alone, or bands together with others. The principle remains the same: resistance of the initiation of force is a natural right.

On the flip side of the coin, if it is wrong for an individual to take what is mine by initiating force, it doesn't become less wrong because a group of individuals decided to initiate force under the banner of a government.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Capitalism is simply economic freedom. Freedom is not the same as anarchy, or that might makes right. Freedom can't exist when governments are oppressive, or when there are no governments and certain individuals oppress others.

I am not - and this applies to me as an individual, or the me as part of a government - initiating force if I punish or retaliate or prevent someone else from initiating force. Initiation of force is the problem. Using force to prevent another's initiation of force isn't just "regulation we all agree on." It's every person's right to be left alone and not have force initiated upon him. That doesn't change whether he fights back alone, or bands together with others. The principle remains the same: resistance of the initiation of force is a natural right.

On the flip side of the coin, if it is wrong for an individual to take what is mine by initiating force, it doesn't become less wrong because a group of individuals decided to initiate force under the banner of a government.

I agree with what you are saying, and I think our only disagreement is semantical. While you have the right to defend yourself from those that initiate force against you, that is a justification for the use of force - and not the absence of it because you are defending yourself.

If a government uses force to protect you, or a market - it is still using force. Even in a case where knowing the consequences of a regulation deters the initiation of force, force was still used via regulation.

 

[dross]

I agree with what you are saying, and I think our only disagreement is semantical. While you have the right to defend yourself from those that initiate force against you, that is a justification for the use of force - and not the absence of it because you are defending yourself.

If a government uses force to protect you, or a market - it is still using force. Even in a case where knowing the consequences of a regulation deters the initiation of force, force was still used via regulation.

Defending yourself is use of force, but it is not the initiation of force. That is a huge distinction.

 

[Riskeh]

Selling someone a putatively life-saving item (blood) that you know is spoiled/ruined/works counter to the expected purpose or use (AIDS-infected blood), without telling them, clearly vitiates (destroys, spoils, impairs) the consent of the other party in the transaction. Doing so amounts to the theft of the resources they offer in trade, if they would not have traded had they known about the counterproductive condition of the item they're purchasing.

Alright. So is this a kind of minimal regulation you embrace in your vision of capitalism? If not, how do you handle it? I get the impression you don't just say 'caveat emptor' and advise everyone to always be on the lookout for fraud, but if someone defrauds them there's nothing to do but say 'well that's immoral, but life isn't fair'.

On the other hand, do we need regulation about selling a used car that has a sketchy alternator? I would argue not... everyone and his brother knows that upon buying a used car one needs to either secure guarantees (as in a dealership's "ten billion point inspection"), have the car checked out by a mechanic of their choosing, or simply accept that a used car will have used parts and require repairs from time to time.

I'm mostly wondering where you do accept regulation, even as a necessary evil. I agree that in some cases it's just not practical, and also is morally and economically dangerous, to run around trying to stop every logically possible case of fraud. And of course corruption and dishonesty is at work in government as well (and doesn't go away just because a law is passed against it, despite what many seem to think.)

 

[ATOMonkey]

People don't need regulation, they just need recourse.

 

[sentinelrepublic]

People don't need regulation, they just need recourse.

I agree. But in most cases, there are limited legal actions of recorse in our free market model.
The consumer should always be educated on a product and a company before buying a product.
Good products always come with a gaurantee or a warranty...
If theres no warranty or gaurantee, you should be suspicious of that product.
If your going to take that leap of faith......You should know that only you are to blame for your bad purchase that crapped out on you.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

People don't need regulation, they just need recourse.

The amendments to the constitution that protect us from the government infriging upon our natural rights are.... regulations.

If we agree to be a society that is ruled by laws, than reliance on the application of laws is where recourse is granted.