Baffled by how they think their gravy train can continue with the masses poor, unhappy,unhealthy, and unhoused…
i have been working on definition of capitalism and i want GOOD FAITH critique.
Capitalism is an economic system defined by the private ownership of the means of production and the profit motive of the agents who hold that ownership.
It requires markets - price-mediated exchange, as its operating mechanism, but is conceptually distinct from markets themselves: it neither requires, nor tends to sustain, the classically free conditions of those markets.
i place great emphasis on the definition and conditions of a classically free (numerosity of roughly-equal agents, low friction, price as a pure function of supply and demand) as opposed to to a lassiez faire market (no government intervention), they are not the same.
Left to operate absent exogenous checks, capitalism structurally erodes those conditions, converging markets toward oligopoly rather than preserving them, i will explain the mechanism below.
Within this system, profit-motivated agents are incentivized to seek not only profit (return earned through productive contribution) but economic rent - value extracted purely from ownership and market position, independent of productive contribution, with the barriers created by function of market share and size.
because rent is depended on market share incentives are aligned to concentrate markets, however not all markets offer the same rent .
The magnitude of rent obtainable from a given increase in market share is a function of these parameters i have identified - capital intensity, economies of scale, demand inelasticity, and switching friction which are simultaneously the constituents of barriers to entry.
Because rent-derived resources can be reinvested into strengthening those same barriers (economies of scale, wage suppression via monopsony power, influence over the regulatory and labor environment), increased concentration is both a reward the market provides and a cause of further concentration — a self-reinforcing loop. (this is a source of good in a free market because they encourage capital production but will also end up killing the free market.)
This loop is bounded only by two things:
(1) contestability new-entrant competition or disruption that redefines the competitive basis rather than contesting incumbents on existing terms, whose force is itself a decreasing function of the same three barrier parameters
(2) external checks (regulation, antitrust, institutional constraints on capture), whose effectiveness depends on how insulated they are from capture by rent-derived influence rather than being automatically exogenous.
what stops jeff bezos in a libertarian world from simply hiring a militia to replace the weak government and make his own strong one to consolidate his monopoly?
what stops all utilities providers from forming a cartel to extort consumers and hiring gunmen to rough up aspiring competitors?
why would a smart capitalist not just bribe suppliers to hike prices on competitors?
the Government cannot be the only source of monopolies.
in my country water companies hire armed men to harm small competitors. how would removing governments stop them?
What do you think? I bolded what I think is important.
I think it is always fair to discriminate people as long as the discrimination is privatized. If you are a chef, you provide food based on whether you got paid or not. You discriminate based on paying. And that's okay. It is what's fair.
Say I have a girlfriend that I knocked up and regularly fuck.
She wants me to support her business.
I agree.
Is that rape?
People would think that's ridiculous. Of course not. Or is it?
But think about it. It's my money. It's my business skill. I pretty much discriminate on who I do business with, depending on whether I fuck her.
Of course. Why would I invest on some random people if I can invest on and work with someone I know is cooperative with me.
Every trade is pretty much discrimination based on what you are offering me. Most consensual acts are a trade. Think about it. Either a trade or a tit for tat, which is a primitive trade.
And that's pretty much what Weinstein did.
And Weinstein is charged with rape and got convicted.
Many of you may think I am crazy. So I am going to ask for sample of libertarians proponent that agree with me. And there is one and I am surprised he is not mainstream or famous.
ChatGPT told about Walter Block. And I think I am very surprised that he is in the minority.
I think EEOC logic is pretty much splitting hair and jailing Weinstein for years over splitting hair is absolute garbage.
What next?
I buy candy and hence discriminate based on people giving me candy and get charged with robbery?
This is what chatGPT says:
Walter Block is probably the closest match
Block's libertarian framework puts enormous weight on voluntary exchange and property rights. He has explicitly argued that employers generally have very broad rights to decide who they employ and on what terms. In his work on blackmail, for example, he gives the example of an employer firing someone who refuses to sleep with the boss and argues that, under his framework, the employer's right to terminate the employment relationship matters.
More importantly, Block and Roy Whitehead wrote an entire chapter called “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” in Philosophy of Law, explicitly developing a libertarian/property-rights approach to sexual harassment.
Block also co-authored a paper on prostitution arguing that the libertarian position treats consensual sexual transactions as legitimate because they are voluntary exchanges, while rape is different because it involves coercion/force.
So his framework is roughly:
>Economic benefit + sexual relationship ≠ automatically coercion.
The crucial question is whether there was force/coercion that invalidated the person's voluntary choice.
But there's an important problem with your analogy
Your girlfriend example is:
>“I choose to invest in my girlfriend partly because I have sex with her.”
That is basically sexual favoritism.
A much stronger Weinstein analogy would be:
>“I will invest in your business only if you have sex with me, and if you refuse, I will withdraw the investment.”
That's a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
And there's an interesting libertarian debate here. Some libertarian theorists have argued that even employment conditions can involve coercion in a descriptive sense, while others argue that voluntary contractual relationships can legitimately contain conditions that outsiders consider objectionable.
The EEOC, incidentally, makes exactly the distinction that matters legally: sexual favoritism based on an existing consensual relationship isn't automatically harassment, whereas making sexual submission a condition for receiving a professional benefit can constitute quid-pro-quo harassment.
So if your actual thesis is stronger
If you're arguing:
>“If it is legitimate for me to condition an economic relationship on sexual cooperation, then why isn't Weinstein's conditioning of professional opportunities on sexual cooperation also legitimate?”
then yes, that is a genuine philosophical argument, and some radical libertarians have arguments that can push in that direction.
But if you're asking:
>“Can I find a famous libertarian who explicitly says Harvey Weinstein's conduct was morally equivalent to a boyfriend investing in his sexually active girlfriend?”
I haven't found one. The libertarian literature I found instead draws the line at coercion/force, and Block in particular is unusually permissive about voluntary sexual-economic exchanges.
So your argument is more interesting than “libertarians think Weinstein was okay”: it's really a challenge about whether the distinction between voluntary sexual favoritism and sexual quid-pro-quo coercion is philosophically coherent.
Lots of jews during holocaust, and chinese during batavia massacre survive by bribing government officials.
Lots of drug users and dealers avoid jail by bribing government officials.
If government is being unreasonable, then you shop around for powerful people that make reasonable ruling for you.
That's capitalism. You shop around to get what you want.
Here, the problem is not the bribing itself. It's the bigotry that prohibit victimless acts.
The same with state capitalism.
It's effectively bribing the voters straight.
Moldbug argues that if someone has power, let's just formalize that and let them "own a share". Voters have power. If we formalize that and turn voters into shareholders, we bribe voters to vote for whatever policies bring more prosperity and attract tax payers.
Many successful rich countries, like Singapore and Dubai gives generous welfare to their citizens and hence keep society stable while being very capitalistic.
In fact, I would mention US except that US is too generous to welfare parasites. But 0 welfare is something not going to win election.
Oh here is another reason why I think briber and state capitalism isn't bad.
Without bribery and state capitalism libertarians don't have hard bargaining position to make government "sensible".
If libertarian or republican party say we support 0 welfare, then voters will vote for communist party like democrats.
But imagine if we say, look, there's plenty for everyone. If we can do whatever to attract happy tax payers to our state/cities/profit, all of you get a share of profit.
That's hard bargaining position to vote capitalism nearly all the way, except for the profit share. But state capitalism is capitalism too. Tax payers shop for states with the safest roads and the lowest tax.
So what do libertarians think on this?
This is what other prominent thinker that may align with my thinking according to AI. As usual so you know I am not totally retarded.
>Yes. There are prominent libertarian thinkers who come surprisingly close to the framework you're describing, especially Murray Rothbard. But there are really three separate claims in your argument, and different libertarians support different pieces.
>
>1. Rothbard is the strongest match for the “bribery is a market response to bad laws” argument
>
>This is almost exactly something Rothbard explicitly argued.
>
>In Power and Market, Rothbard has a section literally titled “Bribery of Government Officials.” His argument is that a bribe can economically function as an informal license: the official is selling permission not to enforce a government restriction against you. He says there is no economic difference between purchasing permission through an official license and purchasing it informally through a payment to an official.
>
>Even more directly, in The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard argues that “defensive bribery” can help people evade destructive regulations, and specifically discusses police corruption arising where governments prohibit voluntary activities. His conclusion is that eliminating the underlying prohibition would eliminate the corruption.
>
>So your model:
>
>Government prohibits an otherwise voluntary transaction → people still want the transaction → they pay officials to permit/ignore it → corruption emerges.
>
>is very much a Rothbardian analysis.
>
>There is also a modern academic discussion explicitly called “The Rothbard-Block Theory of Bribery.” It describes Rothbard's position as essentially: the person paying a government bribe has not necessarily done anything wrong; the relevant libertarian question is whether someone's rights have been violated.
>
>2. Walter Block pushes the same idea, with an important qualification
>
>Walter Block is probably the other major name you want.
>
>Block and Rothbard don't quite agree on everything about bribery, but both analyze it through property rights and rights violations rather than the conventional idea that “bribery is inherently immoral.”
>
>That's quite close to your statement:
>
>“The problem isn't the payment itself; the problem is the coercive law that makes the payment necessary.”
>
>The qualification is important: Rothbard/Block aren't saying every bribe is legitimate. If the official uses coercive government power to violate someone else's rights, that creates a different problem.
>
>3. Your “shop around for powerful people” idea resembles anarcho-capitalist polycentric law
>
>This is where I'd modify your analogy.
>
>A classical libertarian wouldn't normally say:
>
>“If the government gives you an unreasonable ruling, shop around for another government official.”
>
>They would say something more radical:
>
>Why have a territorial monopoly on courts and law enforcement in the first place?
>
>David D. Friedman is particularly relevant here. His anarcho-capitalist model imagines competing private protection/law-enforcement organizations rather than one government monopoly.
>
>Friedman also gives an interesting economic analysis of bribery: under private enforcement, an agency that routinely lets criminals off for bribes damages its own reputation and loses customers. Under a government monopoly, taxpayers don't have the same ability to switch providers.
>
>So your intuition about “shopping around” is actually very close to the anarcho-capitalist argument:
>
>Government monopoly
>
>One legal provider → bad decision → you can't switch provider.
>
>Market/polycentric system
>
>Provider A makes bad decisions → customers move to provider B → providers have incentives to satisfy customers.
>
>That's much closer to Friedman than to ordinary minarchist libertarianism.
>
>4. Your Moldbug/shareholder idea is closest to Curtis Yarvin + Hoppe
>
>This is where your argument gets much more unusual.
>
>Curtis Yarvin explicitly conceptualizes government as something resembling a corporation. His proposed “neo-cameralist” system replaces democratic government with sovereign joint-stock corporations, with an executive resembling a CEO and shareholders exercising ultimate control.
>
>That's remarkably close to your:
>
>“If someone has power, formalize that power as ownership.”
>
>But I wouldn't call Yarvin a conventional libertarian. He's generally classified as neoreactionary rather than libertarian, despite having substantial overlap with some anarcho-capitalist ideas.
>
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a much more conventionally libertarian figure who makes a related ownership-incentive argument.
>
>Hoppe's famous distinction is between publicly owned government and privately owned government. His argument is that a monarch has a longer-term incentive to preserve the capital value of the territory because he effectively owns it and can pass it to his heirs, whereas democratic politicians are temporary caretakers.
>
>That's conceptually very close to what you're getting at:
>
>Change political power from a commons into something with an identifiable owner who has a residual claim on the consequences.
>
>Hoppe's conclusion is monarchy/private government rather than shareholder democracy, though.
That is not standard libertarianism, but it has several libertarian relatives:
The libertarian thinkers closest to this idea
I've been trying to map this argument onto existing libertarian thought. The closest matches I found are:
So I'd describe the intellectual lineage as:
Rothbardian on victimless prohibitions + Friedmanian on competition/exit + Hoppean/Yarvinian on ownership incentives.
I don't think any one of them endorses the entire argument exactly as stated, but there seems to be a surprisingly strong overlap.
I was always a person with empathy. And always wanted to help others. A big part of my motivation in getting rich and achieving stuff in life, was that then you could help others. But the more i live and experience how humans are, I realize this is counterproductive.
It seems the more we help others the more we harm ourselves. And i really hate this idea. But its true.
Lets say I give a person on the street a thousand dollars. Thats just one person. That is unlikely to do anything. But lets I'm in a village and I give someone 1 million dollars. Then this person will now be more willing to pay more for something they paid less in the past. So now the things in theory will get more expensive for me.
Now scale it to the whole society. Scale it to helping a lot of other people.
I think we should help other people, but only if there is a direct benefit for us. It is not beautiful to say this. But look how bad things are between us humans. Its a dog eat dog world. You help other people, and they just take advantage of you, and in general, you are basically self-sabotaging in the grand scheme of things.
Our standards also changes, if you give something for free to others. They then value it less. Lets say, artificial inteligence never existed, you would have all these programmers working and earning much more. But now because we have this thing that makes stuff easier, you are less valued. You are basically giving it for free, so now it has no value.
The less you give the more value it has. If everyone was not willing to work for such a low wage, wages would instantly rise. If everyone has a lot of money then nobody is rich. If you can see, in a world where everyone is blind you are a super human.
Isn't it sad that it is this way? What can we do to change this reality we live in?
Hello. I'm not formally educated in any economics related field, but I have long resonated with the principals (what I've been taught) of capitalism and i have always considered the consumer to have a role in making desired changes (ex: boycotting a company for political reasons) rather than always top down policy.
I am in college and I did a presentation on Eleanor Roosevelt for my US history class last semester and I recall her statements about the National Consumers League; women as the primary consumers could create change with their consumer power.
What would this look like on a small, community scale? I have a partial commercial space located very well at the edge of my community, but the staff are very shitty people and there is even a neighborhood Facebook specifically for this store to share bad experiences and who is boycotting. It's unfortunate because this location is extremely convenient; almost like our neighborhood has *its own* store.
So I feel a small calling to prove the ability of a community to realistically improve their commercial surroundings. Besides personal boycotts, what are some bottom-up tools that consumers can create change in a situation like this? We want the store to stay, but the people inside to be changed.
With no frame of reference, I'm limited only by my imagination. Would a petition be something that leads to a business change? Can you put up signs on city grass regarding the establishment, like those signs for political campaigns? Where are the boundaries to making change?
This is not meant to be a political discussion on Consumer role or Capitalism.
Thanks
Sane people with a million dollars buy a luxury sports car or a yacht, I bought acres of dirt, diesel-guzzling tractors, and a hundred cows that actively plot their escape every morning.
You know how to make a small fortune in farming? Start with a large fortune. Most guys have a midlife crisis and buy a Porsche or go to Hawaii. I spent my savings so I could wake up at 4 AM, gamble against the weather, and fight a losing battle against hydraulic leaks in the freezing mud.
So why in the world am I doing this? Because a sports car only serves me—and it's terrible at pulling a trailer. A farm produces real food that feeds thousands of families. I’m risking my savings to make a living serving other people.
That’s how free enterprise works. Government bureaucrats sit in air-conditioned offices writing 500-page rulebooks, while farmers take massive personal risks so your family has food on the table. When corrupt politicians with three homes screech "tax the rich," they usually end up punishing the people doing the heavy lifting—and history shows central planning just leads to empty grocery shelves and starving families.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go write a $3,000 check for a single tractor tire... and pretend that this was all part of the master plan.
or communists or Marxists or tankies or whatever they identify as.
Lefties think with their hearts rather than their brains. Because their arguments don't hold up to logic or reality they typically resort to dirty tricks.
Disarm them of this as soon as you engage them:
"I enjoy debates but unfortunately many people aren't mature enough to have them without resorting to condescending remarks, strawmanning or ad hominem. Attacking the opponent rather than their argument is a sign of insecurity. You don't need to die on a hill for wrong beliefs."
This means being respectful yourself and not getting baited into heated insult exchanges, even when they dig through your profile for any scrap of information that they can weaponise against you.
And don't tell them not to be rude because they will keep being rude to spite you.
The earlier you establish the guard rails the better, in the first post or comment if possible.
Or "Establish the guard rails pt. 2".
Lefties have a habit of running off into the weeds. There are certain phrases that they enjoy using to trip you up like "means of production" about who owns it in Marxist theory, etc.
Don't allow them to drag you into the weeds with them; they will keep moving the goal posts to ensure that you are always 'wrong' about the particular idiosyncrasies of their interpretation of the ideology.
The classic No True Scotsman fallacy, "that wasn't real communism", is the cliched one.
"I'm not interested in the particularities of your definition of socialism. It's never worked."
Stand your ground, brother.
Or "Establish the guard rails pt. 3".
Don't bother going into the Holodomor, the Great Famine, the Khmer Rouge, the Berlin Wall, etc. All you're doing is giving them more weeds to run into and more strawman ammo, even if what you're saying is absolute fact. They may even 'counter' you with irrelevant whataboutery and drag you further into the weeds.
Even when being respectful they often center the argument around you rather than the topic, like your experience with capitalism, what you do for a living, what happens in your life, what your role in the system is, etc. Don't indulge this.
All you need to do is keep repeating the magic phrase:
"It's never worked."
Capitalist: "I think that Marx had good intentions but socialism/communism/Marxism don't translate well to reality."
Socialist: "Congratulations, idiot, you've just demonstrated how ignorant you are. You think that socialism, communism and Marxism are all the same, typical neo-liberal swine."
Capitalist: "It's a shame how rude people are every time this debate comes up. I enjoy debates but only with respectful and mature people. Rudeness is a sign of low self-esteem and insecurity. Do you have an example of when socialism has worked? I can't think of any."
Socialist: "Haha! You've already shown that you have absolutely no idea of what real socialism looks like. And from looking at your profile you're even more of an idiot for thinking that shitty dropshipping business of yours is proof that capitalism works."
Capitalist: "It's never worked and no amount of strawmanning, insults or condescending remarks will change that."
Socialist: *unhinged rant about something irrelevant, goes deep into details, more insults and strawmans*
Capitalist: "OK but it's never worked."
Socialist: *another angry rant and insults, combs deeper through post history for any breadcrumb that they can use to fuel an insult."
Capitalist: "I didn't read that. It's never worked"
And so on and on.
We will have the very wealthy with all the money and power and us citizens with little of the power and wealth. What happens then? Do they just kill us all off? Let us die while they live in their guarded compounds?
What happens to money? They have all of it and we have none of it. Does money still have value in a world without work? I would love to hear your ideas. Please share them.
We need a wealth cap at $10 million
We need a wealth cap at $10 million. Given global wealth inequality, anyone who feels the need to have more than that is a traitor to humanity.
Heck, have your first $10 million tax free, then let's have a 92% tax on everything after that.
For humanity, truth, justice, freedom, health and happiness with mutual prosperity and peace for all. Make democracy untrumpable. #nokings
I always wondered where does the elites put the limit of their riches? I saw a post recently, a CEO of an AI company said people will adapt to the new order and Ai will replace people’s jobs. And my question is. If nature is destroyed and we lose our jobs because of AI and eventually die(since we will be jobless, and sick) what will the elites do with all that money in their hands? Money they got by not employing humans who are probably more expensive. So let’s say we all die, only some thousands of us normal ppl remain and the rest is rich families and people, what will they do with all that wealth?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and honestly can’t decide.
On one hand you’ve got rental properties. On the other, starting some kind of business. Both seem like the classic “build wealth / create cash flow” moves people talk about, but I’m curious what the actual experience is like in the beginning.
Do either of them actually put money in your pocket early on, or do they both just eat cash for a while?
Would love to hear from people who’ve done one (or both):
• How long did it take before you saw real cash flow?
• What surprised you the most?
• If you had to pick which would you choose and why?
Just looking for real experiences and opinions. What’s your take?