Zealousideal_Ad3783

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdp2gdn wrote

My response will be short because I don't have enough time to continue writing a bunch of paragraphs.

If you think that only the government can make sure that food is safe, or that buildings are up to code, you just haven't thought about this enough. Of course the private sector can handle those things. Just because the government is currently doing something, that doesn't mean that only the government can do it. I bet if the restaurant industry was controlled by the government, and I was advocating for the government to abolish the Department of Restaurants, you'd think we would never have restaurants again because we need the government for that.

I'll let you have the last word because I don't want to continue this back-and-forth indefinitely.

0

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdp1je0 wrote

It's conceivable that a completely socialist healthcare system might be more efficient than our current quasi-socialist healthcare system. But both of those options are horrible compared to a completely privatized healthcare system. If we imagine a scale from 1 to 10, where a higher number means a greater abundance of affordable high-quality care, maybe our current healthcare system is a 1, a universal healthcare system is a 2, and a completely privatized healthcare system would be a 10.

0

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdo4hxg wrote

I don't understand why you keep asking me about the "real world". I know what the real world is like. I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market. The reason I want us to move to a capitalist system is precisely BECAUSE I know the real world is bad right now. If I thought the real world was all rosy right now, I obviously wouldn't be a fan of capitalism because I would be fine with our current system of statism.

Regarding privatized healthcare: the big picture is that free-market capitalism creates an abundance of high-quality goods/services at a low price. If you want our society to have an abundance of healthcare available to poor people, you should support completely privatizing it.

It's hilarious that as an example of a "truly free market" you talk about illegal drugs. That's like saying "if you want to see how true circles work, look at squares!" Your example shows the problems caused by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION into the free market. By making some drugs illegal, the government prevents legitimate businesses from selling them. So if someone wants to buy an illegal drug, instead of buying it from a reputable company with brand-name recognition and good track records for safety, they have to buy it from some shady guy in a dark alley. If CVS tried to sell marijuana (in a state where that's illegal) they would be stopped by the government. How the hell is that a free market? Your comment makes literally no sense. Look at what happened during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. The mob got involved in alcohol and violence increased. Then, once prohibition ended, the government was no longer implicitly protecting the mob from competition from reputable business. So the mob was pushed out of that sector by market forces. Today it wouldn't make sense to go to some dark alley to buy alcohol, because you wouldn't be sure of its purity. So you go to a business that you trust, and you know that the product is pure. That's what would happen with drugs if the government stopped getting involved.

0

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdnt7kb wrote

I know what the real world is like. It's not great, which is why I want us to move to a capitalist system. And by capitalist system I mean, ideally no government at all, but at a bare minimum, at least completely privatize healthcare, education, banking, housing, money, etc. We are so so so far from that currently.

The government does not protect people, as you presume. The government is basically a giant mafia gang that systematically violates private property rights. It's a parasite that leeches off society. We would be enourmously wealthier right now if not for the government. Food insecurity, homelessness, dying from preventable diseases, these problems could have been eliminated already but so much of our increasing productivity is being syphoned away by the government.

1

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdmylin wrote

Stuff will become dramatically more affordable. One person's job will be able to support an entire family. Later on, one person's job will be able to support multiple households. And so on and so forth. So, fewer and fewer jobs will be needed in the first place. Remember, we don't want jobs, we want goods and services.

Also, UBI is a horrible idea.

0

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdmsomw wrote

An abundance of extremely cheap goods and services disproportionately helps the poorest people. Jeff Bezos can already have whatever he wants, do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. So it won't be a dramatic difference for people who are already extraordinarily wealthy. On the other hand, the lives of the poorest people will be improved by like 1000x.

1

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpfo0b wrote

The phrase “property owners coming together and providing mutual defense of shared interest” does not describe the state, it describes a private company, because it’s consensual. The state is the institution with a monopoly on violence, and by definition it’s not based on consent.

1

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp2gld wrote

If you can’t make money as an artist, that’s society’s way of telling you that your artwork is not good enough to justify your labor being tied up doing that, so your labor should go towards producing things that consumers actually value. If capitalism was destroyed, those market signals would be lost.

Capitalism is about helping other people. It’s selfish to think that you’re entitled to earn a living — meaning other people are obligated to expend resources to support you — without actually doing stuff that other people value.

−4

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_j8vxt3p wrote

No, the productive capacity of humanity would collapse and people would not have access to more resources. I guess an exception is houses and cars because they already exist. But they eventually wear down without human upkeep. I hope you see how your train of thought is extremely dangerous and scary. It’s not good to advocate mass murder.

10

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_j8fvm7u wrote

Your fourth paragraph does not at all follow from what you said in your third paragraph. I don’t understand how you could possibly say that the average person will have a progressively worse quality of life when a few sentences earlier you said people will be able to have a whole army of servants for essentially no cost.

2