Caramel's Ideal Society

1) a) Pro thinks that capitalism conflicts with self ownership, because people who accumulate capital get the "automatic ability to control others". This is a very superficial reading. Capital owners do not order others around as their slaves. Individuals contract with capital owners. It is difficult to see how people leaving farms during the industrial revolution were under the control of evil greedy capitalists. Capitalism is restricted to negative rights of exclusion, not positive rights of control. b) Pro asks "So why would you say that the "brightline" of capitalism is the right to exclude others from using you?" It is the RIGHT to exclude others from using you. So people CAN use you and your property, if you give them permission. I don't know how this could have been confusing. 2) The right to be unabused is a negative right. It is beyond the scope of this debate to prove how such a right would be enforced. If it makes you happier, pretend a minarchist state is enforcing these rights. 3) a) Pro says property rights require exclusion, but doesn't explain what is wrong with this. Private property has a key role in the production of goods and services. The only reason investment can go forward is because you expect to recoup your investment cost. So property rights stimulate investment. Capital owners rent capital to people who haven't invested, spreading the blessings of technology and saving. Pro might complain that this is "usury", but wages are a lot higher if you can use expensive machines over your bare hands. The "profit" paid to evil capitalists is the payoff for investing. Without it, there would be much less machinery in society. b) Pro advocates a cooperative system. He doesn't explain why this is anti-capitalist. I claim it isn't because people within capitalism can simply choose to waive their property rights. For example, the Amish are ultimate capitalists because they respect self ownership and the property rights of others. c) Additionally, the common ownership stock is subject to a tragedy of the commons effect. People are averse to work, and would not see the full benefits of their labor because it would be split among the many. 4) This debate is not about the logistics of my ideal system. It is much simpler. I think Pro's politics is so useless that he cannot make ANY useful policy recommendations. He's dodging his BOP. See 3b) for why co-ops can be capitalist. 5) a) Pro wants things to be provided locally. Division of labor would suffer drastically. We could no longer manufacture computers or medicine at such a small scale. You need only look to isolated villages in the third world to see how much poverty this causes. b) Pro thinks capitalism is bad because of profit. It should be clear from the Amish example that this is wrong. Only SOME people in capitalism seek profit, and their pursuits are largely harmless. People still regularly pursue higher ideals http://en.wikipedia.org... c) Profit often has beneficial effects. For example, competition among profit seeking computer hardware companies has brought prices down to rock bottom. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Pro will counter with negative externalities. See 7a) d) Pro wants it so you can just walk half a mile to get groceries at ye ol' local grocery shop. But without prices for real estate, materials and construction, he can't possibly know the optimal space for a store or anything else. All economic resources are scarce, and will be wasted if they aren't allocated via a price mechanism. He has in his mind a barren patch of land that is close to everyone's house where there should be a store. Well, you can still build one under capitalism, but if the economics aren't good, it means that other projects more urgently require resources. e) Pro thinks that modern zoning is stupid. Modern zoning is controlled by governments, not by the market. http://en.wikipedia.org... The same way that McDonalds tries to put itself in the most convenient place possible, grocery stores and hospitals would easily do the same. f) Pro thinks capitalism is sad because mom and pop stores go under. He's shifting standards here. Walmart is better for the masses, even if it is worse for some small time businesses. But Pro's whole case is that we should always prefer what is better for the collective, not any one individual. g) Without the competition of a larger market, monopolization is much easier under Pro's system. So that's automatically worse for the masses. The only remedy to local monopolies will be violent public appropriation ending in a Tragedy of the Commons. Obviously competition among many suppliers of goods and services is a good alternative to bloody business takeovers. 6) a) Pro thinks we can't cooperate to grow food under capitalism. There is no reasoning or source behind this claim. b) He also claims that there are a lot of problems with our current agricultural practices, but again, this is largely monopolized by government for a few commercial farms. http://en.wikipedia.org... As a counter example, take New Zealand. Their agricultural sector is unsubsidized and relatively unregulated. http://en.wikipedia.org... Apparently, people can cooperate to produce plenty of food. c) For the economic logic, if the supply of food dwindles, its price gets bid up, raising profits in agriculture. The higher profits attract more investors who come in and increase food production. Particularly futures markets preempt temporary shortages of food. 7) a) Pro thinks that pollution is a big problem. Well, the same way that poisoning your water is against capitalism, so is the poisoning of air. Simply put, pollution is illegal under capitalism. b) Pro thinks that small communities are very resilient in times of distress. He doesn't give any citations, claiming that "they produce all their own stuff". Well how productive are they without expensive machines? Output is probably pretty crappy. The initial American colonies suffered extreme starvation and poverty. http://www.suite101.com... Its the closest thing I can find to what Pro wants us to do... 8) Auto companies have wrecked the electric car through lobbying and use of patents, both of which are not capitalist because they use government to bully the private sector. Under capitalism, this kind of innovation would be allowed. 9) a) Even if we live in some magical Pro world people are selfless, so what? Capitalist rights can still exist, but just go unused. For example, if I build a swimming pool I can just choose to let everyone use it if I am virtuous and and honored or whatever Pro thinks. There isn't a fundamental conflict. b) Property rights exist to deal with the asocial aspects of humanity. Most people who are economically related don't even know each other. I don't know who makes my food, clothes, computer, etc. They don't know me. There is no community between us, and yet we trade. This is only possible through prices and property rights. == Conclusion Thus Far == The BOP for Pro is to offer "uniquely anti-capitalist recommendations that will substantially improve the status quo". He only shows us an end-game where we are living in small communities. Is this anti-capitalist? Nope. He hasn't shown why people's rights need to be violated to transition to this system. Is this a recommendation? Nope. "Small sustainable communities" is an outcome, not a recommendation. Will this substantially improve the status quo? It would probably kill a lot of people. The only possible advantage he can claim is environmental. I don't see much point in environmentalism if most people are dead