I get what you’re saying but “choosing to become dependent” on drugs is… icky, addiction is a disease. Maybe we need to start treating capitalism as a disease too not something the very vast majority of us are “choosing to become dependent on” it’s simply the best or only solution we currently have access to that seems to solve our current problem, even if it creates more in the long run. People need help and guidance not judgment and holier than thou attitudes
I agree with most of this, but while it is a disease and addiction does require help and support, you really can’t take the volition out of it. Generally choices are involved and in most circumstances we are all accountable for our choices.
Are we accountable for our choices when we are influenced so strongly by society to agree with the status quo? I see it all the time, people just repeat what’s socially acceptable, and many of us were taught blindly accept big brands like Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. . .
I just used drugs as an example, because it’s almost like people lose volition when they are swayed by social forces to almost never question the status quo, because like addiction, there’s a bond with the familiar.
Yes. We are nearly always accountable for our choices, and addiction doesn’t take away choice; it just makes it harder. Think of all the people who have ever quit. They should be proud of that, because they made a choice and put in the work. Suggesting it was never their choice to succeed isn’t compassion in my view.
I think you’re onto something real here, about social influence and other pressure. Not arguing that. I’m only talking about choice being a part of all this.
This is why a capitalist society needs robust antitrust regulation and enforcement. When a company gets too big or has too much influence it either gets socialized (nationalized) or is broken up into smaller, competing companies.
Capitalists will attack government and try to capture regulatory bodies, including antitrust. If you let that happen, then the market will get dominated by a handful of conglomerate companies and will start charging more for less value, or rent resources for no gain in value. This is where we are now.
So you have to hit businesses hard when they try to influence government or capture regulatory bodies. Just having a lobbyist talking to elected officials should be fineable. And if there are gifts or favors or other self-dealing promises, then the company and the official should be penalized as if it was a transaction with international spies.
We didn’t do that. In fact, the US historically has under-sanctioned businesses.
I get what you’re saying but “choosing to become dependent” on drugs is… icky, addiction is a disease. Maybe we need to start treating capitalism as a disease too not something the very vast majority of us are “choosing to become dependent on” it’s simply the best or only solution we currently have access to that seems to solve our current problem, even if it creates more in the long run. People need help and guidance not judgment and holier than thou attitudes
I agree with most of this, but while it is a disease and addiction does require help and support, you really can’t take the volition out of it. Generally choices are involved and in most circumstances we are all accountable for our choices.
Are we accountable for our choices when we are influenced so strongly by society to agree with the status quo? I see it all the time, people just repeat what’s socially acceptable, and many of us were taught blindly accept big brands like Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. . .
I just used drugs as an example, because it’s almost like people lose volition when they are swayed by social forces to almost never question the status quo, because like addiction, there’s a bond with the familiar.
Yes. We are nearly always accountable for our choices, and addiction doesn’t take away choice; it just makes it harder. Think of all the people who have ever quit. They should be proud of that, because they made a choice and put in the work. Suggesting it was never their choice to succeed isn’t compassion in my view.
I think you’re onto something real here, about social influence and other pressure. Not arguing that. I’m only talking about choice being a part of all this.
I’m an ideal sense, capitalism is supposed to give us choice. That’s the promise. That’s why we’re supposed to be able to “vote with our wallets”.
Unfortunately, maintaining that ideal requires regulation, otherwise we end up with oligarchies.
Now, where can I find capitalism?
This is why a capitalist society needs robust antitrust regulation and enforcement. When a company gets too big or has too much influence it either gets socialized (nationalized) or is broken up into smaller, competing companies.
Capitalists will attack government and try to capture regulatory bodies, including antitrust. If you let that happen, then the market will get dominated by a handful of conglomerate companies and will start charging more for less value, or rent resources for no gain in value. This is where we are now.
So you have to hit businesses hard when they try to influence government or capture regulatory bodies. Just having a lobbyist talking to elected officials should be fineable. And if there are gifts or favors or other self-dealing promises, then the company and the official should be penalized as if it was a transaction with international spies.
We didn’t do that. In fact, the US historically has under-sanctioned businesses.
And so here we are.