I don't understand how someone can be a supporter of freedom yet question what the answer to this is.

Changes in rights have winners and losers. Because of NAFTA, what most people would call "property rights" were established in the Ejidos of rural southern Mexico. Up until then communities managed the farm land without such rights. Indigenous people felt hurt enough by the privatization that they declared war.

The land had been "worthless" because it wasn't really ownable in the same way as private land. The situation was capitalized - capitalism - but that didn't work out well for people without money.

The two things, efficiency and freedom, aren't the same. Within reason I choose freedom over efficiency, but that's a different question.

The irish famine is more complicated and i think it's a stronger point against free markets (not against capitalism directly though).

Basically the famine depended on potatos suddenly disappearing because of a plant disease. But yes the economical organization of agricultural ireland had a role because ireland had become entirely dependant on potatos for economic reasons. Otherwise the famine would have happened anyway but it's consequences would have been less severe.

Among those reasons there were chiefly export of meat to england. And that could happen only because of trade of course.

All this though is not necessarily and fully linked to capitalism. As in theory even a communist society could decide to produce a lot of potatos because they grow in "bad land" and use "good land" to produce stuff to sell to other countries to get more stuff for the population.

But it's undubitable that capitalism make that happen more quickly and more often because it's more efficient in resource allocation in general.

Longtermism lacks in all kind of society but capitalism could have some naivety in that sense, especially in the early phases (remember we were at the beginning of the capitalistic era in 1845).

So ye blunt, unregulated, shorttermist capitalism can create bad situation sometimes. That's why i am not an absolutist state-hater in all occasion and i accept a modicum of regulations especially in the vital compenents of the economy

Ye i read it.

But then you disagree with banning the speech of people who want to remove a "tool" that has massively improved quality of life.

Because you don't want to call it a basic human right even if it's a core principle of what make our societies better.

Why so?

re: The Great Bengal Famine

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in characterizing a private company's takeover of a country and raising of tribute to compensate itself for the loss of the lives of the peasants that it owned as attributable to capitalism. I mean this was the result of a lack of morality inherent in capitalism. This was a private company and they owned India. Those were fees, not taxes.

I think we have proof that the economy is too complex a system and information is not availlable to plan unless you let people act to be able to discover their preferences (hayek again).

Although it is not about "loving freedom per se", it's the other way around at least for me.

I love freedom because it's more conductive to wellbeing.

In some , special circumstances a voluntary reduction in freedom helps, and in that cases i am not against it. Monastery life can be a great way of living for a small minority of the population with special characteristics.

So for me well being is paramount, freedom is usually "just the best way to get it".

That's very convoluted, but there are a lot of things that I think people should be able to advocate for that have or would lead to deaths without being banned. I don't think anti-vaxxers or luddites should be banned. I don't think people who support the second amendment should be banned. I don't think people who support private ownership of cars should be banned even if they have a "no seat belts" avatar. People who smoke should even be allowed to post and say that they like it even though I'm dialed up to 11 on anti-smoking.

Luciom,

Open borders or not?

I am sure you are not alone in trying to attribute to capitalism bad actions made for reasons that are not at all attributable to capitalism.

But i think i have made myself clear why reading facts that way is wrong (and imho dishonest).

Because here i am arguing agaisnt having the combination of state powers and productive capital in the same hands.

And an example of how that combination can be disastrous is proof that i am right, not that i am wrong.

Capitalism is exactly having a insurmountable barrier between the public (= state power), and productive capital, at least most of the times.

Is the belief that public power is in no way better at economic decisions that privates are in aggregate, at least most of the times. Is the belief that concentration of power of that kind (state power + all productive capital) always degenerates into something that is really really bad for the population as whole.

But here i am battling against more than a century of incessant denialism by the intellectual left. The intellectual left (which at times has been ultra-dominant, like in europe after ww2) had too much proximity for too long of a time with radical political leftism to be able to separate itself from its atrocities.

So what did they do? they re-read all history trying in every single occasion to demonize capitalism , attributing to it the worst outcomes they could find in every capitalistic society, with a profound denial of the fact that societies in general will do a lot of terrible things no matter the kind of economical organization they decide to implement.

All this to basically cover their asses. Because too many people had wrote too many good things about marx and his heirs, to accept that whole disciplines were completly corrupted at their core by the worst ideology humanity ever created.

So now dismantling this widespread belief, the idea that several disasters in the past were capitalism fault, is really really hard.

It's like, say, the folly of saying that poor people have a bad time in usa because capitalism. Even if poor people existed in most societies for most of human history, now if a capitalistc society brings about enormous wealth for most of its citizen, it's guilty of the presence of poor people and those poor people are poor BECAUSE capitalism is in place, not because, as history taught us, that's an automatic and almost impossible to eradicate phenomenon in every single society since agrarian times.

Yes at 0 welfare, with a path to citizenship linked to measurable wealth production (corrected if possible by other non-monetary positive elements if present).

Harsher penalties for breaking the law until citizenship is met (including sequestration of all property and immediate repatriation for everything that is not really minor).

No ius soli otherwise you have the terrible situation of non citizens being parents to a citizen and then you cant deport and basically that creates exploitability (think pregnant mothers coming to the open border society, child is citizen, no-welfare provision no longer applies, you are ****ed with millions of poors you have to provide for).

In case it's too hard to implement because you are alone at doing it and too many people come togheter all at the same time (think italy going open border), a point system with quotas.

Ok i am trying to understand your point but for me the examples you bring aren't not the same at all.

For example in your list i would definitely ban antivaxxers.

No-seat belters and smokers aren't in the same class at all and i don't understand how they could possibly be. They advocate for something that if it has widespread applications only kills people who make specific choices. When people suffer the consequences of their own action 100% of the fault is on them, not on the system that allow them to take those decisions.

Notice that i would like to be able to ban somebody advocating for no seatbelt for minors, or somebody advocating freedom for parents to have their 8y old smoke.

Because in that case those policies would result in the deaths and suffering of many innocents. Like in the antivaxxing case.

For the 2nd amendment you have a big problem with it being part of your constitution. No real answer there, but i understand how it would be gross to ban 2nd amendment people from an american forum.

EDIT = but ye i can see that if you don't want to ban antivaxxers (btw, question, is antivaxxing allowed in this forum???) you accept communists too. Even if the damage communism can do is orders of magnitude greater than antivaxxing.

You're mixing up capitalism with free markets. A company owning India is definitely capitalism. A company have massive state like power is definitely capitalism. Them maximizing profits for their share holders by raising tribute to compensate for their dead peasants is definitely capitalism. Adam Smith, advocated for free markets, railed mostly against monopolies and the market destroying power of large concentrations of capital.

The problem with capitalism is really exactly the same as the problem with communism and it's that power accumulates and corrupts. The economic system makes hardly any difference. Both systems are dehumanizing because of the commodification and alienation of everything in markets and the amorality of capital/fiduciary duty/profit and the subordination of individuality in mass collectivism.

The state is whatever entity can enforce its will violently. Capitalism for me is the separation of powers to enforce will violently, and possession of productive capital. Not only for me, i mean, those are core tenents of the current capitalistic societies.

If a private company BECOMES a state, that's a state with productive capital. If it has most or all productive captial that's communism/socialism/negationism of the need of private property rights.

Power accumulates and corrupts far more easily when productive capital is in the same hands of those that can fire guns legally.

A system that has a definite distinction and separation between the two is less de-humanizing that a system that allows for the combination of most productive capital + violent enforceability of will in the same entity.

Regarding monopolies, yes i couldn't agree more. Anyone advocating for the removal of all public checks on monopoly power is almost as bad as a denialist of private property rights.

We are basically talking about "stuff" that we have definite proof works to have higher quality of life for the median resident.

I don't understand how in general people who advocate for removing elements that we are 100% sure work for the embetterment of society can have a place in a decent conversation.

Conversation should be inside a box built on the foundation of what we know works.

A list of people saved by socialism needs to be made for a counter point. Here's a start:

James O'Dwyer developed the first successful treatments for Diptheria as well as pioneering intubation at the New York City Hospital. Couple hundred thousand deaths a year worldwide prevented by socialism.

Care to elaborate on why hat should be accounted for as a success of socialism?

Our government (in the US) is utterly dominated by capital. It's silly to assert that the state is separate from productive capital here or probably in most countries.

Perhaps I'm arguing a bit like you're an absolutist, but you're definitely doing it to me. The 1890s are long gone and it's as true to say that the success of the US and Western Europe is based on socialism as it is based on free market capitalism. The economic success you are talking about peaks in the New Deal/Bretton Woods Democratic Socialism of the post WW2 era.

Capital was taken from rich people by the state and the state directed the production of the vaccine/treatment.

From a laissez-faire capitalist pov open borders is an absolute slam dunk. And it's hard to take your deep concern for the lives of people in these communist countries all that seriously if you're going to subject them to productivity tests before you allow them to live on land inside some invisible lines on maps of land that you don't own and are only controlled by the state violence that you seem to loathe.

Perhaps Stalin did his own productivity test on the people of Ukraine and decided that they didn't pass, so **** 'em.

No it's definitly not. It *COULD* be argued that the safety net is relevant for the success of those societies. And it probably is to some extent , even if it's probable at least for me that we already went way beyond what's optimal as far as total welfare is concerned.

But it's really hard (and wrong for me) to say that public property of productive capital has done a better job at improving people lifes except in a few sectors where either monopolies, or incredible externalities (basic research), allow for a public role (or at least, allow for the private to not necessarily be more efficient than the public).

I know that some people in the usa call "socialism" any form of welfare but that's not AT ALL what i am doing here, so any benefit to societies that depends on welfare is completly orthogonal to the socialism-capitalism debate, at least when you are talking with me and sane people like me.

Btw in theory you could have a socialist country with very little welfare. Wages are still allowed in the socialist model, people could have great wage inequality and only very basic necessities be given for free to everybody. All companies public, no savings, and you would still have socialism.

To better describe what i mean with an exact example:

it's not socialism if the governement pays for all health care. (could be good/bad/debatable; still not socialism)
It's socialism if the government owns all hospitals and it is forbidden to own a private one.
It's hybrid if you have some government hospitals, some private hospitals, and here it gets complicated depending on details.

Socialism in the US and Europe is hardly just the safety net. And, while the government doesn't direct the production of many consumer goods, it directs PLENTY of production.

seeing your last post - It's pretty much all a hybrid.

I am not sure i get the meaning of "slam dunk". Can you explain that?

I am concerned about what system produces the best outcome for the median resident. It's not that i will sacrifice myself to save OTHERS from communism though. I don't owe others anything. I am not a democracy exporter. I would risk my life to save me or my family from communism though (and that could require some preventive actions in some cases). So i care very much about communism never becoming a thing where i live, and i think that the less it becomes a thing in general the better the chances are it does not become a thing where i live.

I don't see how it follows that i owe something to unlucky people and part of my efforts should be spent to help them. I don't owe anything to anyone except when i enter a contract voluntarily that tells otherwise, or to my children.

I don't loathe state violence. I want it used in very small amounts, smaller than currently, but i understand its necessity. And i want it separated from productive capital control.

Stalin KILLED people actively. By using force, including all manners of "state management" that removed the possibility of people to care for themselves.

I am saying not to spend my money to help poor people coming from abroad, until and unless they show they deserve it. But this false equivalence is super-standard on the left, i know. "not giving money to some1 = killing him if he is hungry". NOT AT ALL.

Welfare has some reason to exist inside a society basically for reasons similar as to why people pay the mafia. You pay welfare mostly because otherwise people vote for socialism-communism and that's really bad for everyone.

Then there are some positive externalities too but the main reason welfare is necessary is that in a democracy that's the racket money to pay to avoid disastrous electoral outcomes.

But there are NO reasons at all to pay welfare to non voting human beings. EDIT= on voting human being that you can deport if you want to

Because even if you think they deserve some help, and i could agree in some cases, that's what private charity are for. At least they can select on merit (which is subjective).

But all this has nothing to do with capitalism/socialism

Not pretty much all hybrid. Some sectors are hybrid. And lo and behold, those are the less productive sectors! incredible coincidence.

Like education.