Any books portraying capitalism in a positive light?

[DimesDan]

^A system which rewards such business skills. Somehow, I sincerely doubt a socialist/communist/fascist/generally-tyrannical system would allow for a positive contribution.

You're seriously lumping those together with a straight face?

I think he very well may be doing so. Then again, he does base his political world view (and his posting style I would assume) on a man who equates the pill or contraception in general with prostitution. The fact that socialism and communism are completely polar opposite to fascism are no-doubt lost completely on him.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I'm sure the fact that both "opposites" are generally-tyrannical systems--as I stated in that post--are completely irrelevent to my point...?

 

[DimesDan]

^I'm sure the fact that both "opposites" are generally-tyrannical systems--as I stated in that post--are completely irrelevent to my point...?

Sorry, what is your point as I'm trying to find one, as it ain't there.

As they are opposites, they can not be both, something can not be communist/socialist AND fascist, they're either one or the other, if you want to call the Federation tyrannical, call it tyrannical.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I'm sure the fact that both "opposites" are generally-tyrannical systems--as I stated in that post--are completely irrelevent to my point...?

Sorry, what is your point as I'm trying to find one, as it ain't there.

My point--which I'm astonished you didn't see--was that they are both tyrannical--and that someone like Offenhouse could not contribute positively to society when said society has an economy based on government tyranny--whatever its form.

 

[Sci]

Any economic system that produces homelessness, starvation, poverty, and extreme inequality should be seen as discredited -- especially in the world of Star Trek.

I am romanian and we had the same stuff in the Soviet Union despite being the great socialist experiment.

No doubt -- which is why it's a false dichotomy to think one must support either the false socialism that existed in the Soviet bloc (which was actually nothing more than a totalitarian hierarchy to prop up members of the ruling elite based on party membership) or the false capitalism that exists in the American hegemony today (which is actually nothing more than a plutocratic system designed to prop up that small elite who achieve great wealth).

Any economic system that produces homelessness, starvation, poverty, and extreme inequality should be seen as discredited -- especially in the world of Star Trek.

To be fair, that would mean either inventing a new economic system out of whole cloth (since those problems haven't been dealt with in the real world)

Yeah, pretty much.

Has it been discredited?

Any economic system that produces homelessness, starvation, poverty, and extreme inequality should be seen as discredited -- especially in the world of Star Trek.

You are assuming that an economic system is the root cause of those situations,

Let me put it this way:

I grew up in a poor family. My mother, who was single, never made more than $13,000 or so a year when I was growing up. I was fortunate enough to be able to get enough scholarships and loans that I could go to college -- and then I graduated into a Great Recession where it's damn near impossible to find a full-time job that pays decently. Meanwhile, I've seen my mother lose her job and struggle to find new employment because, hey, the economy sucks. The only thing that's kept her afloat was unemployment benefits, and it's even odds whether she's able to find a job before those run out and she's suddenly not able to pay the rent anymore.

I know from personal experience that, yes, capitalism is what created the inequality that has been threatening my family for a very long time. Don't give me a five-paragraph lecture about how it's somehow not the capitalist system's fault and it's somehow "natural" that some people get stepped on. That's a choice -- it's a choice in how we treat each other and how we structure our economy. We, as a society, have deliberately chosen an economic system called capitalism that we know creates extreme inequality, a system that we know leads to some people being impoverished and others being so wealthy it's virtually unimaginable.

Attributing it all to some unnamed natural flaw in humanity and then waxing philosophical about the impossibility of utopia -- as though suggesting that poverty should not exist in a world where Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian have more money than most people see in their lifetimes is the same thing as asking for perfection -- is nothing more than an attempt to evade acknowledging was is unjust and evil in capitalism.

Of course, though I can't help but think of pre-TNG fiction, such as The Final Reflection, which certainly depicted capitalism, with only limited critique of its effects, and the new Trek film, which suggested a residual capitalist world too.

The existence of a market and individual trade of some sort is not the same thing as the existence of a capitalist system, per se. And I'm not sure what in ST09 suggested a capitalist system to you.

^I'm sure the fact that both "opposites" are generally-tyrannical systems--as I stated in that post--are completely irrelevent to my point...?

Sorry, what is your point as I'm trying to find one, as it ain't there.

My point--which I'm astonished you didn't see--was that they are both tyrannical--and that someone like Offenhouse could not contribute positively to society when said society has an economy based on government tyranny--whatever its form.

Don't be silly. A man like the pre-Federation Offenhouse -- an arrogant, bullying man who enjoyed ordering others around -- could have found a way to push himself into a position of power in a tyrannical society, too. Tyrannical societies are full of bullies like him.

One only hopes that, living in the Federation, he would have seen the error of his earlier ways.

 

[BritishSeaPower]

There are a few references scattered among the DS9 Relaunch to the Federation being an "Abundance Economy." Basically, the Federation has so many resources, in such abundance that they are basically valueless. So it's not quite communist/socialist, as it is that a system exists where there's no reason for anyone to be without food or water. (The advent of replicators and the "unlimited" power of matter/antimatter reactions being the motivators.)

To crib from Durkheim, in order for society to continue to exist in a system like this, people have to become more interdependent then they are now! (The organic model of society.) If there's no monetary benefit, you're working to ensure the system of perpetual resources continues as opposed to working to get some money and then trade it for subsistence items. If everyone lazed out, then the whole system crashes down even if there are a billion billion apples for everyone to eat. So the motivation to continue working is to keep the system going. As well, it also seems that the "crappy" jobs have gone away so people are able to go into whatever field they desire. (Garbage is not thrown out but fed back into the replicator, meaning no garbage men.)

Something like Starfleet works on the idea that you volunteer your service to serve with perk of becoming a trained engineer, a career officer, trained doctor, or a scientist who can do their work freely (and without having to vie for funding!) by joining the military. In a way it's feudalism, you get protection and food in return for your service, in another way you get the benefit of all this training, exploration, life experience just for signing up. It's not quite the modern conception of specialized labor, but somewhere in-between.

It's certainly fun to think about.

 

[Cybersnark]

Y'know, as much as we insist that the UFP isn't a communist state(*). . . what if it is?

Poverty, inequality, and crime are only side-effects of a capitalist system, not deliberate goals. I doubt any healthy mind wants to consign people to living in cardboard boxes.

What if; everyone in the Federation gets a regular "allowance" of government-provided scrip --something that can be "spent" like currency but isn't backed by any physical asset. (Thus Jake's complaint that he has no money --he does have UFP credits in his account, but the exchange rate between "imaginary" scrip and cold hard latinum would be so out of whack that he might as well be broke.)

(And as far as the Ferengi are concerned, this scheme sounds a lot like charity, and we know how they feel about that.)

This allowance is basically minimum-wage: literally the lowest amount that is possible to live on (and still have a little savings), and it's used for things like paying for housing and energy (to run your replicator), non-emergency medical procedures (tooth-straightening, curing baldness, ingrown toenails, etc), interplanetary transportation, or too-large-to-replicate items (like if you want to buy your own ship).

People get jobs to earn above minimum-wage --not necessarily because they need to (a Federation citizen could live perfectly comfortably without doing anything constructive), but because they want access to things they wouldn't necessarily be able to afford. The major difference is that, in this environment, raising yourself up doesn't mean you have to step on anyone. (Indeed, those who do step on people could probably face public censure, if not actual legal charges.)

These earned credits can't be banked (to earn interest), or willed to one's offspring --thus preventing the dynastic fortune-building that led us to the current financial collapse. When you die, your credits are erased (though your inheritors will, by simple virtue of being UFP citizens, have more than enough to live on).

Then there's education (and job training specifically); the trouble we run into today in the real world is that education is often out of reach of the people who most want it. If education is free (provided by the government), this problem pretty much handles itself; anyone can cross-train for any career they want --thus finding fulfillment in their jobs and being able to say it's worth more than money (because they've never had to choose between "fulfillment" and "knowing where your next meal is coming from").

Of course, some things really are universal. Utopia or not, it doesn't matter if you want to run your own Cajun restaurant; you're not gonna get there without cleaning up kids' puke at Chuck-E-Cheese.

(* And I feel we need to distinguish between actual Marxist post-revolution Communism and the "Communism-in-name-only" dictatorship that is the only kind that has ever been actually tried.)

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Well, poverty, inequality, and crime are side effects of communism too, if history is any indication.

(As for the argument that "actual communism has never been tried", that begs for the question: why not?)

You also need incentive for quality in education. What's the incentive for presenting challenging, stimulating curriculum without some kind of tangible reward?

And if, as you say, "Federation citizen could live perfectly comfortably without doing anything constructive" (including hair restoration and buying your own ship, you say?)--what would be the real incentive for people to contribute? There may be some who would want to "be something more"...but the truth is, the fact that people would be living comforably anyway is a clear incentive to stangnate.

If your monetary assets--credits--are erased at your death--what is the incentive to contribute as much as possible, to gain as much as possible?

(Finally: inheritance of wealth leading to the '08 crash? First I've heard of that one....)

Sorry, what is your point as I'm trying to find one, as it ain't there.

My point--which I'm astonished you didn't see--was that they are both tyrannical--and that someone like Offenhouse could not contribute positively to society when said society has an economy based on government tyranny--whatever its form.

Don't be silly. A man like the pre-Federation Offenhouse -- an arrogant, bullying man who enjoyed ordering others around -- could have found a way to push himself into a position of power in a tyrannical society, too. Tyrannical societies are full of bullies like him.

One only hopes that, living in the Federation, he would have seen the error of his earlier ways.

Key word: contribute positively.

 

[Sci]

As for the argument that "actual communism has never been tried", that begs for the question: why not?

Karl Marx's vision of "actual Communism" (a society that has no government, where everyone shares everything) has never been tried for the same reason that Santa Claus never gave you any presents, that the Tooth Fairy didn't give you a dollar, and that Ayn Rand's vision of a Capitalist utopia has never been tried:

Because there's no such thing as magic.

It's far more practical to speak of the forms of Communism and Capitalism that have existed and which do exist than it is to speak of their hypothetical "pure forms" that have only ever existed in someone's imagination.

My point--which I'm astonished you didn't see--was that they are both tyrannical--and that someone like Offenhouse could not contribute positively to society when said society has an economy based on government tyranny--whatever its form.

Don't be silly. A man like the pre-Federation Offenhouse -- an arrogant, bullying man who enjoyed ordering others around -- could have found a way to push himself into a position of power in a tyrannical society, too. Tyrannical societies are full of bullies like him.

One only hopes that, living in the Federation, he would have seen the error of his earlier ways.

Key word: contribute positively.

But Offenhouse didn't contribute positively to 20th Century America. He perpetuated the system of inequality and economic oppression and profited off of others.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The existence of a market and individual trade of some sort is not the same thing as the existence of a capitalist system, per se.

That's...kind of the definition, Sci. A market run by individual trade.

Still, I'm glad you admit this--

...the false capitalism that exists in the American hegemony today (which is actually nothing more than a plutocratic system designed to prop up that small elite who achieve great wealth).

In a true, free-market capitalist system, force in all its forms are abolished from trade--as is fraud. Such is the central duty of government: to protect against and prevent fraud and force.

 

[Rush Limborg]

As for the argument that "actual communism has never been tried", that begs for the question: why not?

Karl Marx's vision of "actual Communism" (a society that has no government, where everyone shares everything) has never been tried for the same reason that Santa Claus never gave you any presents, that the Tooth Fairy didn't give you a dollar, and that Ayn Rand's vision of a Capitalist utopia has never been tried:

Because there's no such thing as magic.

It's far more practical to speak of the forms of Communism and Capitalism that have existed and which do exist than it is to speak of their hypothetical "pure forms" that have only ever existed in someone's imagination.

More appropriately--the reason we've never seen true-blue, free-market capitalism is because government always desires to expand.

The reasons we didn't have true capitalism in early America was: 1) Slavery--a form of force; and 2) the government sponsering monopolies in such areas like steamboats and railroads, "to encourage industrialization"--again force.

Don't be silly. A man like the pre-Federation Offenhouse -- an arrogant, bullying man who enjoyed ordering others around -- could have found a way to push himself into a position of power in a tyrannical society, too. Tyrannical societies are full of bullies like him.

One only hopes that, living in the Federation, he would have seen the error of his earlier ways.

Key word: contribute positively.

But Offenhouse didn't contribute positively to 20th Century America. He perpetuated the system of inequality and economic oppression and profited off of others.

And you know this...how? The only time we see Offenhouse in 20th Century Earth was in the Eugenics Wars miniseries--and then, we never saw his business, or his means of profit.

It seems as if you're prejudging him on the basis of his (to you) unlikeable personality, and the fact that he was rich.

 

[Sci]

The existence of a market and individual trade of some sort is not the same thing as the existence of a capitalist system, per se.

That's...kind of the definition, Sci. A market run by individual trade.

No, a Capitalist system means that all or most economic activity is conduct through private markets run by non-governmental (not individual -- you can't reasonably call a system where corporations are considered legal persons to be one where the actors are individual) actors. But private markets run by individual actors can exist within larger non-Capitalist economic systems, or can co-exist with non-private systems within mixed economies.

...the false capitalism that exists in the American hegemony today (which is actually nothing more than a plutocratic system designed to prop up that small elite who achieve great wealth).

In a true, free-market capitalist system, force in all its forms are abolished from trade--as is fraud. Such is the central duty of government: to protect against and prevent fraud and force.

Of course, the problem that a "true, free-market capitalist system" -- which is as much a fantasy as Marx's "true Communism," and has never existed -- is that it overlooks the rule of economic coercion in inhibiting individual freedom, what playwright Jason Grote called the "soft handcuffs of modern capitalism."

And that's to say nothing of the danger author David Brin points to here: The historical tendency of any elite group to corrupt the competitive principle of "pure Capitalism" with an idolatry of private property, which erodes the idea of genuine competition and leads to the rise of an aristocracy, and to the transformation of Capitalism back into something akin to Feudalism.

Capitalism, by itself, cannot be trusted. It inevitably leads to the sorts of extreme economic disparities that erode freedom, creating a vast servant class and a small elite. Capitalism is not the answer: It's based on competition, but its winners inevitably rig the game.

And neither is Communism the answer, as we've seen in the Soviet bloc. Its stated motives may be different, and its vision of a "pure state" no less an example of magical thinking, but ultimately it produces the same effect.

Capitalism and Communism are both the enemies of freedom.

It seems as if you're prejudging him on the basis of his (to you) unlikeable personality, and the fact that he was rich.

Anyone who gets rich in America today (or in the 1980s) has by definition contributed negatively to society, because he or she has by definition accumulated more value than he or she created, and has hoarded wealth when millions of others are struggling to survive.

 

[Rush Limborg]

BTW, somone asked where in JJ-Trek do we see evidence of capitalism.

In the wide shot of San Fransico, we can see in the mist the "in-joke" names of fictional corporations that the team has used in other films of theirs.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The existence of a market and individual trade of some sort is not the same thing as the existence of a capitalist system, per se.

That's...kind of the definition, Sci. A market run by individual trade.

No, a Capitalist system means that all or most economic activity is conduct through private markets run by non-governmental (not individual -- you can't reasonably call a system where corporations are considered legal persons to be one where the actors are individual) actors. But private markets run by individual actors can exist within larger non-Capitalist economic systems, or can co-exist within mixed economies.

...the false capitalism that exists in the American hegemony today (which is actually nothing more than a plutocratic system designed to prop up that small elite who achieve great wealth).

In a true, free-market capitalist system, force in all its forms are abolished from trade--as is fraud. Such is the central duty of government: to protect against and prevent fraud and force.

Of course, the problem that a "true, free-market capitalist system" -- which is as much a fantasy as Marx's "true Communism," and has never existed -- is that it overlooks the rule of economic coercion in inhibiting individual freedom, what playwright Jason Grote called the "soft handcuffs of modern capitalism."

And that's to say nothing of the danger author David Brin points to here: The historical tendency of any elite group to corrupt the competitive principle of "pure Capitalism" with an idolatry of private property, which erodes the idea of genuine competition and leads to the rise of an aristocracy, and to the transformation of Capitalism back into something akin to Feudalism.

Private property's a central tenet of capitalism--or weren't you aware of that?

When you trade, you trade your property with someone else's property. Last I checked, that property is considered private.

So...you think private property is not an individual right?

 

[Sci]

Private property's a central tenet of capitalism--or weren't you aware of that?

Read Brin's article for a full explanation on why, even if you're coming from a Libertarian POV -- and Brin has actually addressed the Libertarian Party's conventions, mind you -- the principle of private property cannot be allowed to become the be-all, end-all of one's philosophy.

So...you think private property is not an individual right?

I think that private property, like all principles, has its limits, and that, like many philosophies, if taken to an extreme, merely becomes another system of tyranny.

 

[Sci]

Brin on the conflict between the principle of private property and the principle of competition:

So where’s the problem? The problem is that it’s all lip service on the right! Those who most-loudly proclaim Faith In Blind Markets (FIBM) are generally also those proclaiming idolatry of private property as a pure, platonic essence, a tenet to be clutched with religious tenacity, as it was in feudal societies. Obdurate, they refuse to see that they are conflating two very different things.

Private property - as Adam Smith made clear - is a means for encouraging the thing he really wanted: fair and open competition. Indeed, the propertarian reforms that Peru instituted under the guidance of Hernando de Soto, vesting the poor in the land they had always farmed, resulted in a boom that delighted both libertarians and socialists. Safe and secure property rights are a boon... up to a point.

But anyone who actually reads Adam Smith also knows that he went on and on about that "fair and open" part! Especially how excessive disparities of wealth and income destroy competition. Unlike today's conservatives, who grew up in a post-WWII flattened social order without major wealth-castes, Smith lived immersed in class-rooted oligarchy, of the kind that ruined markets, freedom and science across nearly 99% of human history. He knew the real enemy, first hand and denounced it in terms that he never used for mere bureaucrats.

When today's libertarians praise the creative power of competition, then ignore the unlimited propertarianism that poisoned it across the ages, we are witnessing historical myopia and dogmatic illogic, of staggering magnitude.

The Irony of Faith in Blind Markets

When Adam Smith gets over-simplified into a religious caricature, what you get is "faith in blind markets" - or FIBM - a dogma that proclaims the state should have no role in guiding economic affairs, in picking winners of losers, or interfering in the maneuvers or behavior of capitalists. Like many caricatures, it is based on some core wisdom. As Robb points out, the failure of Leninism shows how state meddling can become addictive, excessive, meddlesome and unwise. There is no way that 100,000 civil servants, no matter how well-educated, trained, experienced, honest and well-intentioned, can have enough information, insight or modeling clarity to replace the market's hundreds of millions of knowing players. Guided Allocation of Resources (GAR) has at least four millennia of failures to answer for.

But in rejecting one set of knowledge-limited meddlers -- 100,000 civil servants -- libertarians and conservatives seem bent on ignoring market manipulation by 5,000 or so aristocratic golf buddies, who appoint each other to company boards in order to vote each other titanic "compensation packages" while trading insider information and conspiring together to eliminate competition. Lords who are not subject to inherent limits, like each bureaucrat must face, or rules of disclosure or accountability. Lords who (whether it is legal or not) collude and share the same delusions.

Um... in what way is this kind of market "blind"? True, you have gelded the civil servants who Smith praised as a counter-balancing force against oligarchy. But the 5,000 golf buddies -- despite their free market rhetoric -- aren't doing FIBM at all! They reverting to GAR. To guided allocation, only in much smaller numbers, operating according to oligarchic principles of ferocious self-interest that go back at least to Nineveh.

If you want to explore this further, including how the notions of "allocation" and "faith in blind markets" get weirdly reversed, and how Smith and Hayek are betrayed by the people who tout them the most, see:
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/06/allocation-vs-markets-ancient-struggle.html

Hence, at last, the supreme irony. Those who claim most-fervent dedication to the guiding principle of our Enlightenment: competition, reciprocal accountability and enterprise -- our neighbors who call themselves conservative or libertarian -- have been talked into conflating that principle with something entirely different. Idolatry of private wealth, sacred and limitless. A dogmatic-religious devotion that reaches its culmination in the hypnotic cantos of Ayn Rand. Or in the Norquist pledge to cut taxes on the rich under all circumstances -- during war or peace, in fat years or lean -- without limit and despite the failure of any Supply Side predictions ever, ever, ever coming true.

An idolatry that leads, inevitably to the ruination of all competition and restoration of the traditional human social order that ruled our ancestors going back to cuneiform tablets -- Feudalism.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Private property's a central tenet of capitalism--or weren't you aware of that?

Read Brin's article for a full explanation on why, even if you're coming from a Libertarian POV -- and Brin has actually addressed the Libertarian Party's conventions, mind you -- the principle of private property cannot be allowed to become the be-all, end-all of one's philosophy.

Well, needless to say, I find fault with Brin's argument--and so, it seems, do a good amount of those in the comments section. The points thereof--and the debate that forms, there--is quite thought-provoking, and quite telling.

Still, I would contend that Brin is a scientist, not an economist. While he may raise thought-provoking points, he doesn't quite have the credentials for one to refer to as a "credible source" to cite.

So...you think private property is not an individual right?

I think that private property, like all principles, has its limits, and that, like many philosophies, if taken to an extreme, merely becomes another system of tyranny.

Curious. So you hold no principles as absolute, then?

 

[Sci]

Private property's a central tenet of capitalism--or weren't you aware of that?

Read Brin's article for a full explanation on why, even if you're coming from a Libertarian POV -- and Brin has actually addressed the Libertarian Party's conventions, mind you -- the principle of private property cannot be allowed to become the be-all, end-all of one's philosophy.

Well, needless to say, I find fault with Brin's argument--and so, it seems, do a good amount of those in the comments section. The points thereof--and the debate that forms, there--is quite thought-provoking, and quite telling.

Sure. I find fault in Brin's argument, too. Brin seems to think that Capitalism can be "fixed" to work the way it's "supposed" to. I contend that Capitalism's "blind market" inevitably collapses back into what he calls the "GAR system" where plutocratic elites undermine competition and erode freedom, that what Brin describes the corruption of Capitalism is actually Capitalism's inevitable result if it's not tempered by Socialistic elements through a mixed economy.

Still, I would contend that Brin is a scientist, not an economist. While he may raise thought-provoking points, he doesn't quite have the credentials for one to refer to as a "credible source" to cite.

A nice way of avoiding providing a counter-argument.

So...you think private property is not an individual right?

I think that private property, like all principles, has its limits, and that, like many philosophies, if taken to an extreme, merely becomes another system of tyranny.

Curious. What principles do you hold as absolute, then?

Here's a clue: I just described both Capitalism and Communism as its enemies.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Read Brin's article for a full explanation on why, even if you're coming from a Libertarian POV -- and Brin has actually addressed the Libertarian Party's conventions, mind you -- the principle of private property cannot be allowed to become the be-all, end-all of one's philosophy.

Well, needless to say, I find fault with Brin's argument--and so, it seems, do a good amount of those in the comments section. The points thereof--and the debate that forms, there--is quite thought-provoking, and quite telling.

Sure. I find fault in Brin's argument, too. Brin seems to think that Capitalism can be "fixed" to work the way it's "supposed" to. I contend that Capitalism's "blind market" inevitably collapses back into what he calls the "GAR system" where plutocratic elites undermine competition and erode freedom, that what Brin describes the corruption of Capitalism is actually Capitalism's inevitable result if it's not tempered by Socialistic elements through a mixed economy.



A nice way of avoiding providing a counter-argument.

Cute. Credibility is credibility, Sci. If the source you cite isn't an expert in the field being discussed, his ideas are hardly more valid than yours or mine. He is interpereting sources that are credible--but he himself is not a credible source.

It's the same reason heresay is frowned upon as legit evidence in courts.

My counter-argument? You refer to Bin--I refer to those who debate with him in the comments thread.

And again, I will repeat what I'd said:

When you trade, you trade your property with someone else's property. Last I checked, that property is considered private.

I think that private property, like all principles, has its limits, and that, like many philosophies, if taken to an extreme, merely becomes another system of tyranny.

Curious. What principles do you hold as absolute, then?

Here's a clue: I just described both Capitalism and Communism as its enemies.

You mean liberty?

Frankly, Sci, I'm curious as to how you define that. If private property has it limits, than freedom of ownership is not absolute.

I find it interesting you don't seem to hold that to "count" regarding liberty. You claim to hold liberty as an absolute, yet you claim that freedom of ownership has its limits.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree, mind you--"private property" has been used to justify slavery, after all. But I'm curious: What freedoms do count as absolute, for liberty to be absolute?

 

[Sci]

Well, needless to say, I find fault with Brin's argument--and so, it seems, do a good amount of those in the comments section. The points thereof--and the debate that forms, there--is quite thought-provoking, and quite telling.

Sure. I find fault in Brin's argument, too. Brin seems to think that Capitalism can be "fixed" to work the way it's "supposed" to. I contend that Capitalism's "blind market" inevitably collapses back into what he calls the "GAR system" where plutocratic elites undermine competition and erode freedom, that what Brin describes the corruption of Capitalism is actually Capitalism's inevitable result if it's not tempered by Socialistic elements through a mixed economy.
<SNIP>
A nice way of avoiding providing a counter-argument.

Cute. Credibility is credibility, Sci. If the source you cite isn't an expert in the field being discussed, his ideas are hardly more valid than yours or mine. It's the same reason heresay is frowned upon in courts.

My counter-argument? You refer to Bin--I refer to those who debate with him in the comments thread.

Yet more attempts to evade formulating a counter-argument.

Curious. What principles do you hold as absolute, then?

Here's a clue: I just described both Capitalism and Communism as its enemies.

You mean liberty?

Frankly, Sci, I'm curious as to how you define that. If private property has it limits, than freedom of ownership is not absolute.

I find it interesting you don't seem to hold that to "count" regarding liberty. What freedoms do count for liberty?

Amazingly enough, Rush, no, I do not think that in a situation where, say, one man is starving and one man has more money than he could possibly spend in his lifetime, that both people are free. In fact, I would contend that the starving man does not have freedom by any meaningful sense of the term, and that if the rich man is forced to give up some of his wealth by the rest of society (even as he retains enough wealth to perpetuate his elite social status), he has not lost his freedom in any meaningful sense of the term.

And, no, I would not contend that a society where the rich get to endlessly inherit their wealth while the rest must convince the rich to hire them just to survive is free; that's an aristocracy, and aristocracies are inherently oppressive. Nor would I contend that a system in which huge inheritances are taxed is in any meaningful sense undermining of freedom; that's just ensuring that you have to actually earn your station in life instead of inheriting it from daddy.

ETA: Which is, after all, the essential problem. Personal property rights as an absolute would be a nice idea... if everyone actually earned their station in life from an even playing field. But they don't. Everyone starts off life unequal, and have to fight from an unequal start to get to whereever they end up. There's no "pure state" from which everything is earned. End Edit.

Saying that personal property rights are absolute and inviolate in a free society is as absurd as saying the same thing of free speech, or privacy. Even the most ardent free speech advocate recognizes the necessity of censoring some speech, such as child pornography. Even the most ardent privacy rights advocate recognizes some limits to one's privacy rights, even if only through warrants based upon probable cause.

You need personal property rights to be free, yes -- but that doesn't mean that there should be no limits to how much you own. By comparison, you need caloric intake to be alive -- but that doesn't mean that there should be no limits to how much you eat.