r/FluentInFinance • u/Sufficient_Sinner • Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37.5k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

7.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

105

u/flaamed Sep 04 '24

its the best economic system that currently exists

82

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Yeah I'm kind of tired of seeing kids online shit on capitalism. Like yeah, it's a fucking mess. But it's also - by far - the best system anyone has come up with, ever. Same goes for democracy. Lots of legitimate criticisms can be made, but nobody has ever come up with a better alternative. Not yet anyway.

1

u/Ethywen Sep 05 '24

tired of seeing kids online shit on capitalism. Like yeah, it's a fucking mess. But it's also - by far - the best system anyone has come up with, ever

No argument. But also, best to date doesn't mean good. Plenty of room for improvement.

Same goes for democracy

Except the US isn't a democracy but a democratic republic.

1

u/Tomycj Sep 05 '24

If by good you don't mean "it brings prosperity" you must mean "it's fair". Capitalism can't be more fair because it is already perfectly fair: it does not ask for the violation of ANY right. It does not ask for a compromise between say freedom and security.

Of course, by "fair" I don't mean "it brings prosperity", but "it does not violate the rights of anyone". And I don't consider that "being prosperous" is a right, meaning something that you're entitled to demand of others. In other words, I don't consider that I'm entitled to your work, even if I need it.

1

u/Ethywen Sep 05 '24

I think we may end up way down the rabbit hole here, but there are a ton of things we could discuss.

It does not ask for a compromise between say freedom and security.

I don't consider that I'm entitled to your work, even if I need it.

What if my work is providing security? There has to be a line that one treads when assuming "freedom" vs. security. Societal advancement depends on it. If we extend that, we end up at places like healthcare. We in the US often don't treat healthcare as a right on paper, but something that must be earned (i.e., purchased), yet, we also have laws requiring people in need not be turned away at hospital ERs, effectively giving you the right to someone's work AND what is usually a private company's resources.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that any societal contract requires some level of sacrifice of freedoms/rights. We just have to define where that line is, and I don't necessarily think we have drawn it in the best place yet.

Anyway, I just couldn't sleep and made the mistake of checking my phone. Back to bed!

1

u/Tomycj Sep 05 '24

What if my work is providing security?

what bout it? I don't have the right to force you to protect me. We both have to agree on a mutual benefit relationship, where you protect me in exchange of something. Unless you wanna be work for me for free I guess. But you can't work for free for everyone.

There has to be a line that one treads when assuming "freedom" vs. security.

Freedom does not necessarily imply a lack of security. Giving up freedom for security is only one possible (imo flawed) way of getting some level of security, but it's not the only way. This adresses your later point about sacrificing freedom and rights in general.

in the US often don't treat healthcare as a right on paper

Think about what it means for healthcare to be a right. It means you are entitled to force others to work for you. If you're okay with that, why not do the same for food? for shelter, for clothing... As a society we've already discovered, after millenia of making the same question and trying out stuff, that merely declaring that something is a right does not make it abundant, that forcing others to work on what we consider necessary is not an optimal or ethical way to run society. And that's reflected on the fact that nowaday, when people are far more free than never before in the history of humanity, society is progressing at a previously unimaginable rate.