So it’s best not to use “capitalism” in the leftist sense and expect people to understand you. I also think there is a very serious and legitimate concern over the power of the state. The US state killed the leader of the Black Panthers, for example. We need regulatory control in the hands of the people. You may do well to study leftist critiques of the state. Mikhail Bakunun was active at the same time as Marx and was a critic of Marxism. Bakunin famously said in 1873:
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"
For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting.
One purpose of regulation is to improve the situation. If the FAA certifies a plane as safe, then consumers can rely on that certification and don't need to do their own safety research. They still don't have "perfect information", but it's a lot better than without it.
Good regulation is not "antithetical" to capitalism, it is often necessary for it.
And of course advertising, a nefarious tool to lead people to make decisions which otherwise they would have not.
If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.
I actually agree with you. Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one). Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a result, and it's fair to call into question the legitimacy of the entire enterprise.
That said, there are good ideas in capitalism, and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Perfect information isn't part of the foundation of capitalism.
It's part of rational choice theory, which didn't exist until long ashtray capitalism. (There are arguments for capitalism rooted in rational choice theory, but those are retroactive justifications not the foundation of the system.)
> Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a resul
The abuse predates the theory “justifying” it, the theory isn't the cause of the abuse. Capitalism historically wasn't grounded in theory, it was grounded in the opportunism of the mercantile class under late feudalism leverage wealth, power, and the opportunities created by new technology to rearrange society so that the mercantile class (the subset that became the capitalist class) could displace the economic (and also political) power for the feudal nobility.
I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it, and if you don't restrict me then the thing is unregulated. I consider this statement a tautology. I don't know what you mean by "good regulation" and "capitalism", but I'll stand by my original phrasing.
Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade.
A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade.
However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.
As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.
If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority).
Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.
In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".
You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.
Again, if you can't agree with my use of words then please provide a term you find suitable for the concept I'm trying to convey. I provided two terms I find suitable for the concept you're trying to convey, but you've provided me none despite an explicit request. To me, when somebody refuses to find common language it seems like they're using language as a barrier rather than a bridge. To disagree on a definition can be understandable, but refusing to provide any alternative looks like rhetoric rather than a legitimate attempt at mutual understanding. What do you call unrestricted exchange of items between individuals regardless of differences in knowledge or legal ownership? I want a term that will clearly convey this concept to you, and others who are using language in a similar manner. [Edit: how would you feel about "unrestricted object swapping" or "unrestricted barter"?]
> If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange.
I don't think I've said anything that would suggest this example is a free exchange, but the other two which don't involve coercion through threats of force I will stand behind (as free exchange, not necessarily as nice things to do to people).
Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).
One of the responses was to restrict capitalism (it became fettered vs. unfettered at the point). And it was a good one, one that has seemingly been forgotten or ignored.
Unfettered capitalism, through history, is a net loss for society. But the more we deregulate and seek profit at any cost, the more we re-align with that old view.
In this instance, Boeing seems to be ok with the death of ~350 people.