Can there be a government funded social safety net consistent with "capitalism"?

[bb113]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

[myrkul]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

[benjamindees]

Maybe.

[bb113]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

[myrkul]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

That's like saying the existence of rape means that voluntary sex is inconsistent with human nature.

[Third Way]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

Human nature is inconsistent with human nature.

[bb113]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

That's like saying the existence of rape means that voluntary sex is inconsistent with human nature.

Capitalist is to Capitalism as Rapist is to Rapism
Socialist is to Socialism as Rapist is to Rapism
etc

The analogy doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Rapism isn't commonly accepted to exist, which is why its underlined in red as i'm making this post.

[myrkul]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

That's like saying the existence of rape means that voluntary sex is inconsistent with human nature.

Capitalist is to Capitalism as Rapist is to Rapism
Socialist is to Socialism as Rapist is to Rapism
etc

The analogy doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Rapism isn't commonly accepted to exist, which is why its underlined in red as i'm making this post.

Capitalist is to Capitalism as voluntary participant is to sex
"biggest gang" is to capitalism as rapist is to sex.

[bb113]

This is a spin off of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135176.0

I can think of problems with all the solutions I come up with.
What do you think?

The usual method is insurance, or mutual aid societies. Both voluntary, both work just fine.

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

That's like saying the existence of rape means that voluntary sex is inconsistent with human nature.

Capitalist is to Capitalism as Rapist is to Rapism
Socialist is to Socialism as Rapist is to Rapism
etc

The analogy doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Rapism isn't commonly accepted to exist, which is why its underlined in red as i'm making this post.

Capitalist is to Capitalism as voluntary participant is to sex
"biggest gang" is to capitalism as rapist is to sex.

Ok, so then it comes down to whether or not it is "human nature" to always have a biggest gang (willing to use aggression to feed itself) around. If so we are doomed to "rape" and are only trying to limit the pain of the rape. Historically this seems to be very common.

[myrkul]

Ok, so then it comes down to whether or not it is "human nature" to always have a biggest gang (willing to use aggression to feed itself) around. If not we are doomed to "rape" and are only trying to limit the pain of the rape. Historically this seems to be very common.

But not universal, therefore not human nature.

There will always be people willing to use aggression. Rational societies call these people "criminals."

[pyra-proxy]

Ok, so then it comes down to whether or not it is "human nature" to always have a biggest gang (willing to use aggression to feed itself) around. If not we are doomed to "rape" and are only trying to limit the pain of the rape. Historically this seems to be very common.

Rape or be raped is what daddy always said....  *feels guilt at this joke :-( just pretend I never said it

In all seriousness .... no the government should not be providing social safety nets, they are completely and utterly incapable of doing this effectively, private organizations (both smaller and localized with possibly wider interconnected relationships to other organizations) serve this purpose much more directly and efficiently.  Also, humans are particularly resilient creatures, when left with no guaranteed safety net provided by someone else we often take certain precautions to make our own safety nets and this is how it should be.  Families and communities should be held accountable for their own and when the problem is too great for them alone be on good relations with their neighbors, it'd make the world a better place.

The government should be there to defend our civil liberties and god-given rights, we need to be smart enough to not hang ourselves in the process.

[TheButterZone]

Ok, so then it comes down to whether or not it is "human nature" to always have a biggest gang (willing to use aggression to feed itself) around. If not we are doomed to "rape" and are only trying to limit the pain of the rape. Historically this seems to be very common.

But not universal, therefore not human nature.

There will always be people willing to use aggression. Rational societies call these people "criminals."

And irrational societies call these people "past, present, and future government".

[bb113]

Well this thread is an ancap circle jerk so far. Anyone else wanna chime in?

[TheButterZone]

Circle jerk? Who the fuck masturbates when they are depressed as FUCK about the state of our dystopic world?

[myrkul]

Well this thread is an ancap circle jerk so far. Anyone else wanna chime in?

"Government funded" means "funded by theft." Since theft is not capitalism, the simple answer to the OP is "no." Anyone else who came in and offered any suggestions would be offering suggestions that either were not government funded (like I did, in the first reply), or not consistent with capitalism.

[bb113]

I just already agree with everyone here. Need new input.

[Luno]

A capitalist society also has to limit the percentage of people scraping the bottom, as too many leads to social unrest.

One can do as China: Let the millions live just above the limit of starvation, but not too many or too hungry that they overpower your law enforcement. If such a government strike that balance they have the added benefit of lowest payed largest sustainable bluecollar workforce. Social safty and other benefits is just another way to pay your workers.

You can't have elections in such a country as the politicians would have to promise more and more and end up with an uncopetitive production.

Ups! non capitalist countries do that too.

So the question is: Can a capitalist society support democratic parlamentarism?

There is a trick: Print more money, so people think they are getting more.

[myrkul]

A capitalist society also has to limit the percentage of people scraping the bottom, as too many leads to social unrest.

One can do as China: Let the millions live just above the limit of starvation, but not too many or too hungry that they overpower your law enforcement. If such a government strike that balance they have the added benefit of lowest payed largest sustainable bluecollar workforce. Social safty and other benefits is just another way to pay your workers.

Ups! non capitalist countries do that too.

Actually, that's what non-capitalist countries do as a matter of course... keep people just above starvation.

In capitalism, you work, or you starve. This provides incentive to work, but most people won't need this incentive, they'll have other desires above and beyond food. It also provides for keeping too many from "scraping the bottom"... at least for very long.

[ImNotHerb]

I'm thinking of it more as a philosophical question. I mean perhaps having a government precludes some peoples definitions of capitalism. The response would be that there will always be a biggest gang and people willing to use aggression which could interfere just as much. So according to that "pure" capitalism is inconsistent with human nature.

There have always been people who are willing to use coercion in order to force their will upon others. But that's hardly a justification for bestowing an air of legitimacy on one particular set of them and accepting their moral authority. All this does is create a society with an entrenched Stockholm syndrome of continued fealty in exchange for ever-increasing levels of parasitism and domination.

[Luno]

A capitalist society also has to limit the percentage of people scraping the bottom, as too many leads to social unrest.

One can do as China: Let the millions live just above the limit of starvation, but not too many or too hungry that they overpower your law enforcement. If such a government strike that balance they have the added benefit of lowest payed largest sustainable bluecollar workforce. Social safty and other benefits is just another way to pay your workers.

Ups! non capitalist countries do that too.

Actually, that's what non-capitalist countries do as a matter of course... keep people just above starvation.

In capitalism, you work, or you starve. This provides incentive to work, but most people won't need this incentive, they'll have other desires above and beyond food. It also provides for keeping too many from "scraping the bottom"... at least for very long.

Yes Myrkul, but there still is the same limit. I think it's in Thailand whole families collect waste from restaurants and deep fry the lot. It's sold as BAK-BAK for a few cents to just as poor hired hands that sleep under sheets of cardboard. In Mexico city I have seen mum and dad with small children pushing cards around at 2 AM collecting plastic bags for the cents they get from the recycler. They all make a living and their only hope in life (I have talked with them) is that their children get some minimum of education so they can have a maginally better life than they had. So you are right, Mexico City uses less on street sweepers and they all persue their dream, but i don't think either of them can tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. As you say, not all are able to provide for themselve for the value of their work, so there is a level of poverty a maximum percentage the population can be below before they either have to get some benefits, or the "not starved to dead" need higher wages for the sake of stability.

Im not talking about us in the western world. We are the 20%. Benefits are given to people considered wealthy in most of the world. With us it's a balance between benefits vs. the willingness to work for minimum wages, but as this is an ideological thread about capitalism and benefits, extreme case examples are relevant.