Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp2gld wrote

Reply to comment by just-a-dreamer- in Midjourney v5 is now beyond the uncanny valley effect, I can no longer tell it's fake by Ok_Sea_6214

If you can’t make money as an artist, that’s society’s way of telling you that your artwork is not good enough to justify your labor being tied up doing that, so your labor should go towards producing things that consumers actually value. If capitalism was destroyed, those market signals would be lost.

Capitalism is about helping other people. It’s selfish to think that you’re entitled to earn a living — meaning other people are obligated to expend resources to support you — without actually doing stuff that other people value.

−4

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp5pxg wrote

Capitalism does not help anybody, that is a dumb statement. I guess you mean trade does help people in a mutual beneficial way, that is true to some extent.

Capitalism is the art of exploitation of men by men in the most efficient way. It has nothing to do with helping anybody.

You are quick to assume every labor must be allocated to "help" someone, but that does not apply to necessities/assets like housing, education, consumer goods, energy,....

Thus for some to live off assets and do next to nothing all day, many must "help" through their labor. An age old problem, hopefully will get solved by AI automation.

For most of human history since the invention of agriculture, slavery of 10%-30% of the human population was the norm throughout all societies.

Capitalism just builds on the human condition, yet it has to be eradicated along the way humans relate to each other in general.

9

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp67o9 wrote

Capitalism is simply a web of voluntary trades. It’s the opposite of exploitative. The exploitative institution in our society is the government, which systematically violates private property rights.

−6

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp7cpw wrote

There is no such thing as private property without the government. The government usually is a mere represention of property owners.

It's a dumb statement to think of property as "private" outside the control of government. Defended by what? Your family? How many men and weapons could you bring to the party?

5

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp7jfq wrote

Defended by private security.

−3

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp9h28 wrote

And they will defend you because? Little history lesson by Niccolò Machiavelli who wrote about the dangers of mercenaries.

"The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;

The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way."

Point is, mercaneries are loyal untill they are not. They band with any gang that is out for plunder and cut your throat.

I recently read an article that 15% of rural families were displaced from their land in cartel controlled areas of Columbia. Where the government is weak, the strong rule eventually and take what they want.

6

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpasv5 wrote

If private property rights are generally respected in a society, violent plunderers would be outcompeted by peaceful organizations. Public opinion would be against the criminal gang.

1

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcpfa3q wrote

That is called government then. Property owners coming together and provide mutual defence of shared interest.

If I lack property and have nothing to lose, why would I respect your property? That is against human nature.

2

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpfo0b wrote

The phrase “property owners coming together and providing mutual defense of shared interest” does not describe the state, it describes a private company, because it’s consensual. The state is the institution with a monopoly on violence, and by definition it’s not based on consent.

1

Dwanyelle t1_jcql6o7 wrote

Who says the state isn't based on consent? There are plenty that aren't, and none that completely do, but it is at least something tried for among certain governments.

1

Dwanyelle t1_jcqlbht wrote

In a representative government, it's whole idea is that it is based on consent. The problem becomes folks with already a ton being greedy fucks who can bride the people running the government, since humans are fallible.

1