You aren't wrong, but this is basically the same cope as true-communism-has-never-been-tried.
Markets require a governing entity to set & enforce rules of the market. That used to be US government. But now it's WEF/FederalReserve/NGOs. (USG exists but is owned and controlled by financial shadow government)
Existence of governing entity is inevitable. Can have a virtuous one that operates openly, or an evil one that operates in the shadows.
The issue is that there's no such thing as a free market. Markets must have rules, otherwise the market will create conditions that destroy its own "freedom."
For example, slavery is bad for the free market, but without restraint any economic actor has huge incentive to use slavery, or do other immoral things that can provide huge competitive advantages. That's exactly what we see in all kinds of black markets.
Malicious behavior is potentially economically beneficial, so we must have "law" to restrain it. But all "law" distorts the market in various ways. The question is all about which laws we think are acceptable and which ones aren't. There is no easy way to define this, even if everyone agreed on common principles (which we don't, in reality), there's just too many grey areas.
I've always found this definition to be insufficient. That is how we end up with centrally planned capitalism and free market communism and then pretend everything is well.
What do you mean? It's the accurate definition. If you want to start referring to centralized state power as 'capitalist', then you are misusing the term.
It would be like if people started to consider science a religion, and I said, "no, science is the application of objective standards to remove bias from an experiment", and then you told me that was insufficient since people can have faith in science lol.
But if capitalism is just a private ownership of property, then a system where government decided what citizens do with their privately owned property would be some kind of capitalistic system.
You aren't wrong, but this is basically the same cope as true-communism-has-never-been-tried.
Markets require a governing entity to set & enforce rules of the market. That used to be US government. But now it's WEF/FederalReserve/NGOs. (USG exists but is owned and controlled by financial shadow government)
Existence of governing entity is inevitable. Can have a virtuous one that operates openly, or an evil one that operates in the shadows.
The issue is that there's no such thing as a free market. Markets must have rules, otherwise the market will create conditions that destroy its own "freedom."
For example, slavery is bad for the free market, but without restraint any economic actor has huge incentive to use slavery, or do other immoral things that can provide huge competitive advantages. That's exactly what we see in all kinds of black markets.
Malicious behavior is potentially economically beneficial, so we must have "law" to restrain it. But all "law" distorts the market in various ways. The question is all about which laws we think are acceptable and which ones aren't. There is no easy way to define this, even if everyone agreed on common principles (which we don't, in reality), there's just too many grey areas.
The moment you combine "why does America pay poor people to come here" with "we shouldn't let corporations rule our lives", you're basically Hitler.
Capitalism is just private ownership of property. It has nothing to do with the problems we are talking about here.
I've always found this definition to be insufficient. That is how we end up with centrally planned capitalism and free market communism and then pretend everything is well.
What do you mean? It's the accurate definition. If you want to start referring to centralized state power as 'capitalist', then you are misusing the term.
It would be like if people started to consider science a religion, and I said, "no, science is the application of objective standards to remove bias from an experiment", and then you told me that was insufficient since people can have faith in science lol.
But if capitalism is just a private ownership of property, then a system where government decided what citizens do with their privately owned property would be some kind of capitalistic system.