The debate "Elizabeth Warren's Accountable Capitalism act is anti-capitalist." was started by
August 30, 2018, 9:24 pm.
28 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
lachlan2 posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan2 and 27 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, TheExistentialist, fatin and 7 visitors disagree.
I'm sorry, there was so much wrong here, I needed to take a break. as i said, the problem with libertarianism is oversimplifying everything, so although it sounds logical, it falls apart when brought into the real world. just like communism.
for starters... what makes the governments certification arbitrary? your desire to send unlicensed doctors to the poor shows you dont understand what licensing means. it doesn't mean you are marginally better, it means you know what your doing to being with. licensing is a certification of *minimum compentency*
for example, with lawyers, the bar exam doesnt test them on how well they perform at trial or whether their arguments are convincing. it simply tests if they know they law or not. if someone doesnt know the law they shouldnt be a lawyer for the poor, they shouldnt be a lawyer at all. if a doctor cant diagnose properly, and causes perforations and hemorrhage everytime he does a procedure... he shouldn't be a doctor to anyone cause he will harm more than he will help.
these non government entities that certify the doctors, obviously in libertarianism they will be private entities.... where do they get their money? who is their customer? what is their motivation? you are trying to make the world fit your view instead of adapting your view to reality.
Elizabeth Warren's bill is absolutely not anti-capitalist. Capitalism is not synonymous with laissez faire markets. We settled that debate a long time ago when we enacted child labor laws, minimum wages, and worker safety standards.
Warren's bill does nothing to undermine the principal characteristics of a capitalist economy, the private ownership of enterprise for the purpose of turning a profit. What it does do is shift the responsibilities of publicly traded companies from having a primary fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to being able to consider other stake holders.
Currently a publicly traded company is legally obligated to make decisions based on shareholders interests first. If they don't do so, shareholders are able to file suits against a company or it's board. So a company which does more than the minimum required in terms of environmental impact can be sued for lowering it's profit margins and costing the shareholders money. A company can also be sued if it pays workers more than the companies in the same market.
Essentially, the bill Warren is writing would simply force companies to evaluate all stake holders when making decisions rather than being handcuffed to only considering shareholders.
There is absolutely nothing in this bill that interferes with the concept of enterprise being privately owned for profit however, and thus it is not in any way anti-capitalist.
Again, the only way to make a profit is to provide a good or service that people are willing to pay for. The only way to do this is by creating things that people want that imprpve their level of satisfaction. So the only way to make a profit is by providing for other people. Saying the opposite with abstract terms like "society" over and over again like a chained seal dosent make it true.
your argument is painfully simplistic. no one is arguing that trade isn't good. at a very simple level it is. but to extend your argument about cars.
I sell cars cheaper than anyone else can driving the majority of my competition out of business. I then raise prices because most of my competition has collapsed. this is an example of how trade can be used to do bad things.
companies care about doing what is best for their bottom line. they don't care what is best for society, their workers or the nation as a whole. laws and regulations necessary to make sure we are protected.
the examples I provided are just a few of a huge list if terrible things companies have done to make a quick buck. if we stopped regulating them it would get much, much worse.
Doctors can be certified but not by arbitrary government standards. I think they wpuld probably be certified by non government groups that test and approve products or services. This is a marketing strategy and helps the doctors get clients as well.
This would be enforced with profit and loss. If no customer wants to pay for an unapproved doctor they become unemployed. If they get patronized without approval then the public evidently dosen't care.
Now, going further the non-approved doctors will probably be lower priced than approved. This is just a different price structure for different quality services.
This solution also solves the problem of the shortage of doctors.
So like Nemiroff said, calling someone greedy is just an arbitrary judgement of value on another individual.
Every action we make is to better improve our situations to what we percieve. This is called the action axiom. Many of our actions are trading with others.
And to this your probably going to bring up your articles again, but violent acts outside of a market dont change the fact that trade makes both parties better off.
So for instance if I sell you a car we are both better off after the deal. If I kill ypu that evening it dosent mean the free market has failed.
1. Murder is a social issue. If you think capitalism is condoning murder your an idiot, I'm advocating non-aggression.
2. Poisoning a pond sounds like a lack of property rights enforcement- no not a problem with the free market.
3. And another social issue that is not a free market problem. again, I don't think murder should be legal.
So again none of those things have anything to do with voluntary trade. Voluntary trade is not violent or aggressive.
here's an article about coca cola murdering union leaders in Columbia.
here's an article about a bottled water company dumping arsenic in a pond.
here's an example from China where 500 children were poisoned.
do you want to try to argue that companies don't need regulations when it took less than 5 minutes to find tons of examples of companies killing and poisoning people.
should doctors be certified with determined standards? and how could those standards be enforced?
to be honest, corporate greed is just human greed. the corporation itself isnt to blame, in the end it's always people, and their ingenuity. good and bad.
there is nothing emotional about my argument. companies have killed alot of people to make or save money. they pollute, they kill. this is well established fact. I would be glad to provide examples.
people need to be protected from corporate greed.
Ok Nemiroff whats your question?
Historybuff your comments are so emotionally charged with retoric and ypu clearly dont read anything from your political opposition ever. Do you want me to just start attaching pdf books for you?
you haven't said a single thing about Warren's policy. your argument is entirely based on the fact that regulations and government interference is wrong, not only in general, but seemingly in ALL cases. so that is what I'm replying to.
so, please answer the questions.
I know they are impossible to answer from your perspective but that's doesnt make them unrealistic, they are indeed historical facts.
Alright then. yes laws controlling what companies can or cannot do are anti capitalist.
but if we didn't have these laws then companies would treat the whole world like shit. they would pollute, abuse and destroy whatever they wanted to make a quick buck. and that is well established fact, not conjecture. we need laws like this to protect us.
so you say anti capitalist like it is somehow bad. but anyone who isn't an idiot knows that a multinational corporation doesn't give a shit about you and needs to be kept in check.
Every time I make a real thread you just repeat your textbook lines, " In a free society the world will burn! " and then use it as a justificiation for the state controlling some action that you dont like.
Do you want to have a different thread about intellectual property?
My thread is about Warren's legislation, and that it does not preserve capitalism as she preaches, it destroys it.
If ypu want to ask me if I believe in regulation "x" start your own thread.
A case of defective cars isnt even something governmebt could prevent. And even so the profit and loss system dosent create an incentive for bad products. This is an arbitrary way of pointing out human error and making it a problem with capitalism and using it as an excuse for the governnebt to seize control of people's actions. If there was a real incentive for bad quality capital so that capital would have to be replaced sooner, this wpuld be a systematic problem, but its not. The few cases that result in human error create a natural market for insurance.
do you want intellectual property to be protected? that's government interference, and without which anyone can steal and monetize other peoples ideas.
that will discourage innovation... is that good?
the free market is important, but so are government enforced rules and regulations of the market. libertarianism is as foolish as socialism. but both have great ideas if applied properly to balance each other.
that's the key to a functional reality. balance.
I'm not even reaching for the easy target of alcohol and tobacco which people are aware of the dangers... how does Taurus stay in business while selling crappy products that misfire randomly!?
heck most people never even heard about the issue....
do you want to go back to the unregulated past with snake oil salesman selling false cures?
the industrial revolution with all its horrors?
how about your claim that doctors shouldn't be certified with stable standards?
it's convenient you avoid convenient issues, it's the only way to make such an ideology work. please don't turn America into a 3rd world country.
good question, we should ask Taurus gun manufacturer who the government refuses to regulate and has continued to make guns that misfire in the holster, with the safety on, killing their customers.
Take the case of car companies. if they have a critical flaw in one of their cars that is killing people, they don't always trigger a recall. they compare how much money they will lose in law suits from grieving families against how much the recall will cost and take the cheaper option. they will literally let you die from their mistake to save money.
this is why laws and regulations on companies are so important. they don't give a shit about you or if you die. they only care about maximizing their profits. one of the roles of government is protecting it's people. one of the things they need protection from in the modern world is corporations.
So in ypur business model how do you get customers to voluntarily pay for your product or service if you've killed them?
No country in the world has pure capitalism, and for very good reason. corporations will literally kill people to save money. they do not do what is in the common good, they do what is in their own best interest.
laws and regulations curtailing them are absolutely necessary to protect people. you say anti capitalist like that is somehow a bad or unusual thing. but it is totally normal to put laws in place to protect people.
It forces them to make decisions that they otherwise would not have made.
Dumping is a result of tragedy of the commons not free market capitalism.
I do think anti-discrimination laws are anti-capitalist, given that they force people to make contracts or work.
that depends what you mean by anti capitalist. there are a large number of laws controlling what companies can and cannot do. for example they cannot dump toxic waste in your water supply or fire employees based on their race. are these laws anti capitalist?