Also what is not shown here are the millions of people that were able to eat fish due to its drastic drop in price. The omega balance raising IQs and resulting in more eco-scientists, sociologists, and general income for the government or charities for retooling of bronze-age fisherpeople.
In the end, a lot of people are getting cheaper food, and more fish is being produced with fewer workers. The suffering is caused by unexpected change, not because the corporate fishing fleet is inherently bad.
I would argue that the poor working conditions are caused by the temporary oversupply of fisherman, not by anything inherent to the job structure. Once that oversupply is corrected, you end up with fisherman working for a good wage to provide cheaper food to thousands of people. The community as a whole can work fewer hours and enjoy more of their life.
So capitalism ruthlessly exploited the people it pushed out of a niche, a one-time cost to a small group of people, in exchange for permanent good effects for everyone.
Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism (the end justify the means, like in The Prince).
> Obviously it would be better if the company was giving good wages from the start, and a social safety net kept that small group from suffering at all. But even with that terrible side effect, the search for efficiency was a good thing.
Our moral compass should tell us that if achieving efficiency without exploitation is possible then it must always be chosen over achieving efficiency with exploitation.
There's another subtle thing to consider here: the capitalists seem to justify and enforce the means when the terrible side effects only apply to others. The line between socialist despotism and liberal despotism is a bit blurry.
I don't understand your argument here. As far as I understand it, totalitarianism means that the government has total control. Whether they do good, or bad, or both, justification doesn't play into it because they are beyond needing justification.
I hope you now better understand my reasoning.
So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
I don't get your point. Clearly here "capitalists" refer to the group the businessman represents in the story. I didn't pass any judgment on the capitalism doctrine here. I passed judgment on the doctrine "the end justify the means", which has nothing to do with capitalism.
> There is no consensus on the directions of moral compass.
In today's western society (let's just assume you are living in a western society), it is now commonly accepted that slavery, for instance, is badbad. This is a moral compass. Of course it hasn't always been like that. And it might change again. But this is still a moral compass.
> So what's left? Oh I got it: CAPITALISM IS BAD.
Are you trying to put words into my mouth ?
The term 'tragedy of the commons' was coined at the time of the biggest transfer of land from common ownership to private interests in the history of GB. It describes the very benefits the businessman in the OP describes - the profit motive of efficiency due to privatisation. It is in itself capitalist fodder.
Over time it has may have come to signify anti-capitalism. Perhaps the only thing that kept the tragedy of the commons in check was social responsibility. Which, by virtue of remote capital, has been decimated - once again, as the OP describes.
Your argument about feeding the millions is both common and fallacious. The world population has increased more than sevenfold from that time.. the increase in population much more closely mirrors the increase in production, than production does the increase in need.
or... do, do that
THE SOLUTION IS TO REGULATE, except that capitalists use their enormous wealth to lobby against any and all effective regulation, but that's not capitalism's fault lolz
But whose fault is it now that someone is trying to apply the system to public/common ownership ?
It's not like even die-hard supporters of capitalism claim that applying it to public property works well. From Mises.org:
On the contrary, when the individual is merely a tenant, either of
a farm or a dwelling or a business site, his interest is in taking
out all he can to compensate for the cost of the rent he pays. This
is true whether his landlord is a private person or a government.
Actually, in those cases where government has become the landlord,
the evidence abounds that tenants are even less interested in
improving or even maintaining the property they occupy.
There is no homogenous group of "capitalists". Many regulations are the product of collective wishes of 99% and its absurd to blame some non-existent group for lobbying against "any and all" effective regulation.
I swear someday I will write browser extension to analyze and hide such hand-wavy arguments like this one.
But the owner of the fishery/cannery is lobbying against quotas, the owner of the fishing boat is lobbying against worker protections that would slow down the harvest, and the restauranteurs sure have a significant interest in keeping the price of fish as low as possible.
Heterogeneous groups, acting in their own interests, end up working towards the same goal - preventing regulation that would slow overfishing. That's the tragedy of the commons.
That naturalistic argument (don't blame it on the missing rain, that your crops died) is good for natural processes. But you are talking about a cultural/societal process here. So this system was designed in a special way. It could have been designed in a more ethical way. In a way to internalize externalities.
It was designed intentionally is what I wanted to say. And that invalidates a naturalistic argument.
In other words, don't blame capitalism (a natural set of incentives aligned around gain from profit) for the disruption of the fish supply in the small town. Blame the Mexican (per the parable) government for not either licensing the fishing rights to a single charter or regulating the amount of fishing in the area. Properly managed, either approach would incentivize business to reign in the take-all (free capitalism) approach for long-term sustainability (and thus, greater overall profit).