Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindslight | Hacker News Reader

It seems like you agree with OP?

"Capitalism" revolves around maximizing what can be owned as capital, including by divvying up what would otherwise be the commons by creating various types of imaginary properties.

One type of capital is government-created privileges obtained through regulatory capture, that keep upstart competitors from entering a market. If you're arguing for having fewer regulations, then you're actually advocating against capitalism! Contrast with focusing on "free markets", which at least keeps the emphasis on the competition mechanic rather than the suffocating dynamic of rent seeking.

View on HN

It seems to me rather, that you are using a definition of "capitalism" that is distinct from and perhaps at odds with how other people are using the term.

The definition you're using seems to be clearly a far-left, anti-capitalism interpretation which has essentially inverted goals/motivations with side-effects/externalities compared to what a pro-capitalist, market-oriented type of person would suggest.

Basically, you're suggesting that regulatory capture is a goal of "capitalism" and while most people would say that's an anti-capitalist failure of government.

Everyone agrees regulatory capture is bad, so maybe we could all work together to fix that badness regardless of abstract differences of opinion.

I agree there is a stark difference between what I'm pointing out and what most people who describe themselves as capitalist would say they're advocating. But there is always a difference between what proponents of an ideology claim in theory, and the actual dynamic of an ideology in practice.

Consider how copyright itself is strong demonstration of the distinction between markets and capitalism. When expressing anti-copyright opinions, one often gets labeled an anti-capitalist even though they're expressing a free market opinion - why is this?

Fundamentally, a free market does not have copyright - if I have series of bits A, and you have series of bits B, then in a free market we can trade copies of each. It's only by creating a privilege of imaginary property that party C can force themselves into our voluntary exchange, declaring that me and you cannot trade our series of bits without their permission. C's privilege of dictating that you and I cannot freely trade is a form of capital that has been created out of whole cloth with the deliberate economic purpose of creating an income stream - aka rent seeking. Arguing against the existence of this privilege is simultaneously anti-capitalist and pro-market.

The distinction between capitalism and markets becomes ever more important as more capitalist activity shifts from direct application to managing intrinsic problems of the natural world (eg facilitating investment in a machine that produces widgets), to the circular application of inventing new forms of intermediated rent streams. For example, the freedom-destroying trend of companies "selling" physical products while retaining control over them through software backdoors makes perfect sense from a capitalist perspective - the ongoing right to control the device is a form of capital that can be separated and retained to create a revenue stream. But from a pro-market pro-freedom perspective, the chipping away of individual autonomy in favor of centrally-owned control is abhorrent.

You have isolated yourself to only one type of capitalism, and then seemly incorrectly extracted free markets from being capitalism, when in reality in lay terms free markets is what people refer to as capitalism. The other esoteric types of capitalism are not widely known and therefore in common language should not be used in place of the more widely accepted understanding of free markets when talking about "capitalism" in colloquial conversation as we are here.

In short when having informal conversations a person referring to "capitalism" should be assumed to be talking about free market capitalism unless they indicate otherwise, Not to be assumed to be referring to corporatism, crony capitalism, mercantilism or any other types of capitalism

>One type of capital is government-created privileges obtained through regulatory capture,

Copyright was not created from regulatory capture, copyright was expanded and abused will beyond its original remit via regulatory capture

What I have said applies to anything that puts "capital" first and foremost. From my perspective, you're trying to write off the critique via no-true-Scotsman.

I agree that people want to think of free markets and capitalism as being intertwined and inseparable, but I'm pointing out how they end up being in conflict. And as capitalism continues to evolve, this conflict continues to grow.

> Copyright was not created from regulatory capture, copyright was expanded and abused will beyond its original remit via regulatory capture

Sure. And every time it was expanded, the amount of capital increased while market freedom decreased! Capitalism and free markets are not one and the same, but rather two different qualities that can end up being in conflict.

Ultimately if one wants to advocate for freedom, one needs to focus on advocating for it directly, rather than for an economic system that is increasingly in conflict with it. You can still think of economics in terms of capital (and I think it makes sense to). But the desires of capital need to be made deliberately subservient to freedom rather than vice-versa.

All Free Markets are capitalist, you can not have a free market without capital

Not all capital markets are free...

You explain to me how a free market would work with out capital

I haven't asserted that all capital is in conflict with free markets or freedom, nor that all forms of capital should be abolished. (FWIW I can't imagine how that would even be possible)

Rather I've pointed out that some forms of capital are directly at odds with freedom and free markets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com