You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jiro comments on Why capitalism? - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Algon 03 May 2015 06:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (163)
Tags: advice economics

Comments (163)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 07 May 2015 03:59:30PM *  1 point [-]

By that reasoning, making people slaves isn't less capitalistic, either. The only reason you can or can't control your own life is that the government has asserted that you do or don't, and will protect either you or the slaveowner's claim by force.

Also, by that reasoning, you cannot ever assert that the government is violating someone's rights, since rights do not exist independently of whether the government sets the terms.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 07 May 2015 06:05:17PM -1 points [-]

By that reasoning, making people slaves isn't less capitalistic, either. The only reason you can or can't control your own life is that the government has asserted that you do or don't, and will protect either you or the slaveowner's claim by force.

  • No, your reasoning requires treating capitalism as a system rather than a model, which my opening comment explicitly rejects. Something isn't "more" or "less" capitalistic.

Also, by that reasoning, you cannot ever assert that the government is violating someone's rights, since rights do not exist independently of whether the government sets the terms.

  • And here you're extending the argument into an entirely different domain in which I have thus far made no claims whatsoever. In order for my claim to extend in this manner, two things would have to be true: First, there would have to be a good natural rights argument for land ownership. (There isn't, although there -are- very good natural rights arguments for ownership of other things, including farms and buildings sitting on that land - an important distinction.) Second, I'd have to have rejected natural rights, which I haven't done.
Comment author: Jiro 07 May 2015 06:43:24PM 0 points [-]

No, your reasoning requires treating capitalism as a system rather than a model, which my opening comment explicitly rejects. Something isn't "more" or "less" capitalistic.

If you can't compare how capitalistic two situations are, you can't claim that they are equally capitalistic either, which you are implicitly doing.

And here you're extending the argument into an entirely different domain in which I have thus far made no claims whatsoever.

Being able to justify your argument also implies being able to justify the things that it implies. This is true whether you claim those things or not.

In this case, you've said that you can characterize ownership of land as being enabled by the government on the grounds that you need government force to keep owning it. This argument extends both to other kinds of ownership (including farms and buildings) and other kinds of rights. It is equally true that you rely on government force to keep owning a building, and it is equally true that you rely on government force in order to prevent someone from killing you.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 07 May 2015 07:19:02PM -1 points [-]

If you can't compare how capitalistic two situations are, you can't claim that they are equally capitalistic either, which you are implicitly doing.

  • No, I'm saying "domain error".

Being able to justify your argument also implies being able to justify the things that it implies. This is true whether you claim those things or not.

  • Again: "Domain error". More explicitly, this time.

In this case, you've said that you can characterize ownership of land as being enabled by the government on the grounds that you need government force to keep owning it. This argument extends both to other kinds of ownership (including farms and buildings) and other kinds of rights. It is equally true that you rely on government force to keep owning a building, and it is equally true that you rely on government force in order to prevent someone from killing you.

  • Ownership of land is an exclusive right of conversion, whereas ownership of farms and buildings is an exclusive right of the -product- of conversion. Your argument about preventing people from killing you is yet another attempt to shift domains; domain error, again.
Comment author: Jiro 07 May 2015 11:08:00PM *  0 points [-]

Ownership of land is an exclusive right of conversion, whereas ownership of farms and buildings is an exclusive right of the -product- of conversion. Your argument about preventing people from killing you is yet another attempt to shift domains; domain error, again.

You're shifting arguments. Your argument wasn't "conversion", it was that the government will protect your claim by force. Protecting your claim by force is something that applies to land, buildings, and the right not to be murdered. Of course, if you bring up a new argument, anything I say about your old argument may not necessarily apply.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 08 May 2015 01:24:27PM 0 points [-]

Actually, you shifted arguments, and I permitted it in that case, but nice attempt to try to berate me for what you've been doing all along. But at any rate, at this point I must conclude discussions with you can't be productive, because as soon as you realized I wouldn't permit you to change the subject and pretend we were having the same discussion, you instead resorted to petty debate tactics. Good day.

Comment author: Jiro 08 May 2015 02:58:05PM *  0 points [-]

The only reason you can or cannot own land in the first place is that government has asserted that land is something that you can own, and will protect your claim of ownership by force.

I didn't change the subject. It's right up there.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit