Socialism(or at least, a version thereof) Vs Capitalism

[Hellestal]

@HMS_Irruncible

No, the implication is that a public firefighting force will direct its efforts to maximize the overall number of home saved

The governmental firefighting force exists. It didn’t vanish into a puff of smoke.

But people’s homes were still burning.

Extra resources, including from insurance premiums, were brought in. The resources from insurance premiums aren’t unencumbered: insurance companies have legal and moral responsibilities to their clients. Their fire suppression efforts existed within the burden of their already-existing obligations

Yet their efforts still saved some homes that would have otherwise burned.

@HMS_Irruncible

If that home gets protected at the expense of possibly protecting 100 other homes, then yes, it was a bad thing to protect that home. Maybe good for that homeowner and the insurance company… not so good for the neighborhood that burned down while the private crew was protecting one home.

This is, of course, fabrication.

Insurance companies weren’t riding into the local fire agencies with tommy guns, commandeering their engines, and steering them toward some small aristocracy of people who had decided in advance to purchase additional fire protection for their homes, while letting everything else burn. The government agencies are still there.

These were additional resources that came from insurance premiums, not government coffers.

More fire suppression caused fewer homes to burn than would have burned otherwise.

Without those extra resources, more homes would have burned.

This is being interpreted as a bad thing because the focus here is on the insufficient purity of their intentions, not the actual result of fewer homes burning than would have otherwise done without them.

@HMS_Irruncible

We’re not talking about the perfect being the enemy of the good here.

Quite to the contrary, that is exactly the topic.

100 homes burning down to save 1 would, quite clearly, be bad. That much is true.

But that is pure fiction. It is a figment of the imagination.

If no additional resources had been brought in, then more homes would have burned.

But more resources were brought in, and so fewer homes burned.

The extra resources saved some extra homes, in this case, the homes of people most significantly concerned about fire such that they were the ultimate source of those extra resources with their policy premiums. That was the actual difference on the ground.

Literally the only complaint here is about impure intentions in an imperfect world.

[msmith537]

I was browsing LinkedIn the other day and came across a typical anti-socialism/pro capitalism post. There were two lions Socialist) a sickly lion in a shitty zoo cage and Capitalist) a proud Mufasa-looking lion staring across the Serengeti. The caption then asks if you would rather be be Socialist lion with all your food, housing, etc taken care of or Capitalist lion who has to survive by his wits and skill.

I always find these simplistic analogies amusing:

• Everyone always assume THEY are a lion in this scenario, and not something like a sickly water buffalo having to survive by their wits and skill.
• It seems to presume society is better off when all the alpha predators are cut loose to pursue their interests.
• No one asked a herd of gazelle about the benefits of socializing risk.

[msmith537]

@Sam_Stone

The underlying assumption is that the government is a better steward of wealth than the person who created it in the first place. All the evidence we have says that’s ridiculous.

Of course it is. Even if it weren’t, you want to have a society where people have the freedom to start businesses and grow them. Amazon didn’t just make Bezos rich. It made a lot of people rich, employed millions of people over the years, and creates huge economic value for the economy. It seems absurd to me to say that the government should just come in at some point and say “your company is too big, you need to sell it off so we can give money to poor people”.

By the same token, you can’t ignore the fact that many of these large corporations often capitalize profits while socializing risk, losses, environmental damage, and other negative externalities.

[smilingbandit]

I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing; however, you are essentially engaging in an argument of values, not outcomes. The outcomes may be partly dependent on the values but they are, so to speak, inarguable. This isn’t a “gotcha” point either way.

Key questions that people have very fundamental disagreements about include some pretty fundamental levels and once you get past ideology, real agreements are mighty difficult. Partly this is because you can have multiple correct answers, but also because

*What is the community? This is a huge question and it’s among the most difficult. Leaving aside that many countries have multiple ethnic groups, languages, and etc, which may not always particular care about the lines on the map that formally unite and divide them, fundamental questions include where to place which government functions in the vast scheme of society. This can be an efficiency question, but also one of basic rights and responsiveness.
*Which risks (note, it’s which and not whether) should be born by the community?
*What should the community not do even though many people might hypothetically want to do it? Governments cannot do everything and cannot be all things to all people.
*What are the costs of doing so and who should bear them? Should everyone contribute something? Is this part of being a responsible citizen?

[RickJay]

@msmith537

By the same token, you can’t ignore the fact that many of these large corporations often capitalize profits while socializing risk, losses, environmental damage, and other negative externalities.

Or achieve monopoly status, then actually reducing the total of entrepreneurship and free market activity in the economy, while increasing rent-seeking and other monopolistic behaviours.

[msmith537]

@smilingbandit

I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing; however, you are essentially engaging in an argument of values, not outcomes. The outcomes may be partly dependent on the values but they are, so to speak, inarguable. This isn’t a “gotcha” point either way.

Key questions that people have very fundamental disagreements about include some pretty fundamental levels and once you get past ideology, real agreements are mighty difficult. Partly this is because you can have multiple correct answers, but also because

*What is the community? This is a huge question and it’s among the most difficult. Leaving aside that many countries have multiple ethnic groups, languages, and etc, which may not always particular care about the lines on the map that formally unite and divide them, fundamental questions include where to place which government functions in the vast scheme of society. This can be an efficiency question, but also one of basic rights and responsiveness.
*Which risks (note, it’s which and not whether) should be born by the community?
*What should the community not do even though many people might hypothetically want to do it? Governments cannot do everything and cannot be all things to all people.
*What are the costs of doing so and who should bear them? Should everyone contribute something? Is this part of being a responsible citizen?

It becomes an argument of both values and outcomes IMHO. Socialism tends to operate from the premise of “we are all part of the community, so let’s collectively decide how we want it to work”. Capitalism tends to be more like “the community is comprised of all these various entities and stakeholders who should be free to enter into arrangements with each other.”

Where it gets messy is in the practical application. The “community” didn’t found and grow Amazon. Jeff Bezos did. But by the same token, Amazon is so large of a business, it significantly impacts whatever community it operates in, often independent of the wishes of the people in that community.