That’s called fraud, and it violates consent, and it’s therefore not a free market activity, which makes it more of a breakdown of capitalism than the thing itself.
Capitalism doesn’t qualify as free market activity then. Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things. In the firm, the workers are jointly de facto responsible (DFR) for production, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. DFR isn’t de facto transferred, but legal responsibility is. Morally, this is an institutional fraud @memes
Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things
In what sense, that other economic systems don’t?
This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching.
Not sure what such a principle would mean.
The different levels of involvement in an enterprise reflect the fact that each person is free to enter a variety of types of economic cooperation. When people get choice, diversity of behavior is the result.
What you’re seeing in different people having different levels of risk taking, responsibility, involvement, is evidence that those people entered the contract willingly.
It treats persons like things by not holding them responsible for the results of their actions.
That principle would mean that workers should jointly own the produced outputs and jointly owe the liabilities for the used-up inputs as in a worker cooperative.
An intuition pump for the tenet would be situations where the law doesn’t fail to apply the principle. Consider an employer and employee committing a crime together.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit
Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, profit motive, meritocracy, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage laborand the production of commodities.
The capitalist mode of production is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, extraction of surplus value by the owning class for the purpose of capital accumulation, wage-based labour and—at least as far as commodities are concerned—being market-based.
That’s called fraud, and it violates consent, and it’s therefore not a free market activity, which makes it more of a breakdown of capitalism than the thing itself.
Capitalism doesn’t qualify as free market activity then. Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things. In the firm, the workers are jointly de facto responsible (DFR) for production, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. DFR isn’t de facto transferred, but legal responsibility is. Morally, this is an institutional fraud
@memes
In what sense, that other economic systems don’t?
Not sure what such a principle would mean.
The different levels of involvement in an enterprise reflect the fact that each person is free to enter a variety of types of economic cooperation. When people get choice, diversity of behavior is the result.
What you’re seeing in different people having different levels of risk taking, responsibility, involvement, is evidence that those people entered the contract willingly.
It treats persons like things by not holding them responsible for the results of their actions.
That principle would mean that workers should jointly own the produced outputs and jointly owe the liabilities for the used-up inputs as in a worker cooperative.
An intuition pump for the tenet would be situations where the law doesn’t fail to apply the principle. Consider an employer and employee committing a crime together.
Consent doesn’t transfer responsibility.
@memes
Hey its called catfishing and for some of us it’s the only way we can get a date…
Signed - definitely not a restaurant totally super hunky dream guy
Hey super hunky dream guy! You said we should meet for lunch, what was that restaurant you mentioned?
When my kids were young they called McDonald’s “Dick Donald’s”.
Just wanted to randomly point that out.
Thanks for clarification!
That’s not what clarification means.
Thanks for clarification!
Bad bot.
Thank you, Empricorn, for voting on lugal.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.
^Even if I don’t reply to your comment, I’m still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!^
I do believe we have different definitions of capitalism
From wikipedia:
(emphasis mine)
What definition are you using?
The other one on Wikipedia:
I mean, capitalism seeks monopolies, so capitalism inherently undermines itself
Good luck using them though.