[flagged]
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
No, they did it because they viewed "others" as less than human, or less deserving of dignity and respect, no different than a beast of burden. Slavery predates capitalism by millennia, so viewing others this way clearly doesn't share a causative relationship with capitalism. To contend that capitalism caused slavery is absurd. It's the only economic system in history that resulted in the enduring abolition of slavery. Modern, alternative economic systems still devolve into utilizing slavery to this very day.
You should read Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and The Wealth of Nations, which, in great detail, illustrate the economic inefficiency and moral repugnance of slavery in what we now call capitalism. Slavery was definitely not capitalistic, using your definition, purely from a profit motive perspective. It was horrible at maximizing profits.
The economic philosophy of private property, the quintessential foundation of capitalism, is on the basis that everyone has a right to individual liberty and autonomy (again, Adam Smith).
You should also read George Fitzhugh, the most prominent representative of anti abolitionist plantation owners. He was a staunch anti-capitalist specifically because the moral framework it is built on humanized black people and this sentiment was a primary driver in the abolitionist movement. Capitalists and abolitionists were extremely closely associated during the abolitionist movement.
>Maximizing rights and freedoms on the macro scale means limiting some people's edge freedoms on the micro scale.
No it doesn't. It means preventing others from stepping on universal freedoms of others, which is exactly the philosophical foundations of private property. This is categorically different than limiting freedoms. Preserving individual freedoms doesn't mean limiting them for some selectively.
Darwinism predates "Darwinism". Yours is not an argument.
People traded before states existed.
Rational actors didn't appear at the date when the model description of capitalism was defined. People kept slaves because they could (obviously). We can argue that they either did this for profit or for laughs. I know what I'd bet.
> You should also read George Fitzhugh, the most prominent representative of anti abolitionist plantation owners. He was a staunch anti-capitalist specifically because the moral framework it is built on humanized black people and this sentiment was a primary driver in the abolitionist movement. Capitalists and abolitionists were extremely closely associated during the abolitionist movement.
"We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism: the former proposes to abolish negro slavery, the latter all kinds of slavery - religion, government, marriage, families, property - nay, human nature itself. Yet the former contains the germ of the latter, and very soon ripens into it; Abolition is Socialism in its infancy." - George Fitzhugh
> > Maximizing rights and freedoms on the macro scale means limiting some people's edge freedoms on the micro scale.
> No it doesn't. It means preventing others from stepping on universal freedoms of others, which is exactly the philosophical foundations of private property.
Meaning someone enforces your right to property from someone else having a different idea of freedoms.
You're not contradicting me. We can only have rights and freedoms by collectively agreeing where those limits are, and enforcing them as a society. That's what laws and regulations do.
No, I raised a point that countered your claim that Fitzhugh opposed capitalism because it was closely coupled with the abolition. He opposed socialism just as much. Neither of your quotes negate that, which I think illustrates the further point that he's an unreliable narrator.
> Profit motive is not capitalism. Mercantilism is not capitalism. Trade is not capitalism. Feudalism is not capitalism.
May I ask, what is capitalism, to you?
> I know anti capitalists like to label anything that has profit anywhere in it as capitalism but that's intellectually dishonest and completely outside accepted economic history and philosophy.
I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-"one tool for all jobs" and equally simplistic views.
> Slavery isn't practiced in societies where it is morally and ethically opposed.
Sure.
> If profit was the prerequisite for slavery, and not dehumanization, then it would persist regardless of morality.
This absolutely does not follow any chain of logic. There can be more prerequisites than one, and morality can supersede something else.
> Profit seeking via slavery is entirely contingent on dehumanization.
Sure.
> Capitalist societies are the only ones in human history that have enduring humanization of everyone, and that's not a coincidence.
Again, which capitalist societies? The US is a mixed economy, as is every other country in the western world. They are functioning because they have a better or worse enforced playing field and infrastructure, and yes, social programs.
> No, those freedoms and rights exist regardless of whether or not a society does. It's only the imposition of society or others that attempts to take those things away. You don't magically get rights because of society.
But you literally just said:
> We're literally discussing the causative relationship between a specific economic system, with specific foundations and philosophies, and moral and social progression, not the existence of amalgamous profit motive and how it was exercised in various social, political, and economic systems.
So either it existed before society or it didn't? Pick one, you can't have both.
Instead of asking me to read books you've picked out in a Gish Gallop, maybe you use the knowledge you learned from them and explain what capitalism is, when it came into existence, and which societies you believe embodies its principles.
There's no such thing as capitalism to me. The things I listed are demonstrably not capitalism
>So either it existed before society or it didn't? Pick one, you can't have both
Pick one of what? Rights exist independent of society. Society and government trampled on them for most of history. Some guys that led a revolution wrote a lot about this and the self evident nature.
As for your last request, I've done that repeatedly and you've repeatedly resorted to attempts to change the topic.
Capitalism and its principles, capitalist societies, and capitalist philosophers have consistently demonstrated the most rapid and prolific advances in ethics and morality in human history.
I'm asking you specific questions. You are asking me to read books you have dictated, regardless of if I've read them or not. I'm asking about your interpretation, and you repeatedly ignore that simple, basic, foundational component of a discussion. I'm inclined to disagree what constitutes bad faith.
> There's no such thing as capitalism to me. The things I listed are demonstrably not capitalism
So is capitalism everything you haven't listed? Is the question too broad or difficult?
> Pick one of what? Rights exist independent of society. Society and government trampled on them for most of history. Some guys that led a revolution wrote a lot about this and the self evident nature.
Pre-society your rights went as far as you could throw a rock and defend yourself, or your tribe enforced it. You can call rights inherent all you want, but in practice the enforcability is the only thing that matters. Without society person A can walk into person B's house while they're sleeping and remove person A and now there's a new house owner. The rights and freedoms you describe require that we agree what constitutes those rights, so that we can agree on how they're enforced, through police and courts, through elections, and what rights you have to move from point A to point B, given that without this framework you could get landlocked by others ownership.
> As for your last request, I've done that repeatedly and you've repeatedly resorted to attempts to change the topic.
It would be easier to just copy and paste it than to write something else. You haven't though, or I wouldn't have asked. Please argue in good faith.
> Capitalism and its principles...
Which you won't define
> capitalist societies...
which you won't specify
> and capitalist philosophers have consistently demonstrated the most rapid and prolific advances in ethics and morality in human history.
Easy to claim if you don't have to substantiate it.
If you don't want to discuss the topic, and only deflect everything through vague references elsewhere, then what point is there in you posting?
Capitalism is great at what it does. Laws and regulations are also great at what they do. What has worked is the combination.
There has been no pure "capitalist system", at least none that lasted long enough for history to remember.
The point is that this behavior is a bad human problem, not a capitalism problem. And historically, capitalism has lead to a massive reduction in bad human behavior on an unprecedented scale, largely due to the economic and moral foundations upon which it is built. Bad human problems reappear in countries as they reduce their participation in capitalism and reduce private property rights (see this in real-time in China literally right now, Cuba, N Korea, etc). They also magically disappear when former non capitalist states adopt capitalist economic policies and extend private property rights (Estonia & other former socialist states, capitalist African states vs socialist ones, etc.)
Adam Smith and other prominent economic philosophers that examined and supported what is now the capitalist system didn't just sit down and say "Well people ought to be able to maximize profit". There's a whole lot of exposition on how (via private property) and why (because every individual has a moral and economic right to bodily autonomy and the results of its labor).
I don't even know where to start with this, but let's take things that have come up here, like the Boeing MCAS, or WV Diesel-scandal, etc. These were due to lack of regulation. They certainly wouldn't have been avoided by laissez-faire capitalism.
> The point is that this behavior is a bad human problem, not a capitalism problem. And historically, capitalism has lead to a massive reduction in bad human behavior on an unprecedented scale, largely due to the economic and moral foundations upon which it is built.
Sure, I actually agree with that. The point is that capitalism doesn't solve any of those human problems. You mention in passing that they do, due to "moral foundations". Please elaborate on these.
Without "bad human" problems, any economic system ever tested in history would work fine, including the ones you don't like.
The only reason modern "capitalist states" work is because they have a functioning state enforcing the playing field so game is fair.
Can it be abused? Yes, exactly like every other system. Is capitalism abused when no rules or referees are present? Of course, just like any other system.
Both of these are explicit examples of regulatory capture.
The FAA is heavily dependent on aircraft manufacturers to self certify. EU members met in Brussels to discuss the exact metrics VW was spoofing, but failed to implement a measurement strategy that would have easily detected this manipulation due to pressure from companies regarding the expense and time of tests.
>They certainly wouldn't have been avoided by laissez-faire capitalism.
You cannot substantiate this assertion. If the state did not have easily captured, monopolistic, and absolute authority over the certification and other confidence-instilling industries, then it's highly likely trustworthy, neutral third parties would exist and compete to assess and verify the safety and other metrics of various industry. In the restaurant industry, ServSafe and its competitors are a great example. There's also tons of nongovernmental safety and quality certifications in plenty of other fields with the potential for catastrophic failure and loss of human life.
>Please elaborate on these.
I've already cited Smith's books. Derivative and subsequent works regarding the rise and proliferation of the economic philosophy of capitalism are consistent in their message.
>Without "bad human" problems, any economic system ever tested in history would work fine, including the ones you don't like.
No they wouldn't, but that's completely unrelated to what's being discussed. The entire point I'm making is that capitalism's economic and moral foundations minimize the impact and scale of individual bad actors, to a degree unseen by any other system, while simultaneously enabling the common man to participate in innovation. It's an an objective fact consistently observable across time and space.
>The only reason modern "capitalist states" work is because they have a functioning state enforcing the playing field so game is fair.
That's a bold and completely unsubstantiated assertion.
Please actually read some of the foundational literature. Pretty much everything you've said is explicitly addressed.
> The FAA is heavily dependent on aircraft manufacturers to self certify. EU members met in Brussels to discuss the exact metrics VW was spoofing, but failed to implement a measurement strategy that would have easily detected this manipulation due to pressure from companies regarding the expense and time of tests.
Furthering this line of thought, are you suggesting that these companies complaining about expense and time of tests would volunteer into a trade organization (and pay for it no less, which is how they exist), that of course would still require the same tests to be effective? Otherwise the end result would just be another certification that consumers would want before buying, but wouldn't mean anything unless they entail stringent tests.
> You cannot substantiate this assertion. If the state did not have easily captured, monopolistic, and absolute authority over the certification and other confidence-instilling industries, then it's highly likely trustworthy, neutral third parties would exist and compete to assess and verify the safety and other metrics of various industry. In the restaurant industry, ServSafe and its competitors are a great example.
Not to knock the service industry, but airplanes and cars are a bit more complicated to evaluate.
> There's also tons of nongovernmental safety and quality certifications in plenty of other fields with the potential for catastrophic failure and loss of human life.
I would be much more interested in examples here.
> Please actually read some of the foundational literature. Pretty much everything you've said is explicitly addressed.
So please address it using your already obtained knowledge instead of dodging.