Reddit reviews Why Not Capitalism?

Just good ol' Capitalism. Having Capitalism as an economic system doesn't mean there's no society, or non-commercial bonds. There's always friendship, familial obligations, religious ties, etc. In fact, argument can be made that the more capitalistic the socity, the less individualistic it will be, because people will rely on each other more than on the bureaucracy. Just take the US for example. No one would deny that 50s US was more capitalistic than today's US. At the same time, however, 50s US was far less individualistic. States push the "special snowflake" ideologies upon the populace because it enables the growth of state power. Communism is the ultimate "special snowflake" ideology.

I see there's a sequel

True capitalism has never been tried.

Ok. I do intend to read it.

The camping trip reminded me that it has already been answered by capitalists. I have not read this one either.
https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/0415732972

Broke



Woke

Am înţeles că Why Not Capitalism, de Jason Brennan, ar fi o replică mai bună, n-am început-o, dar recenziile sunt favorabile. Mie mi-a plăcut mult Red Plenty.

https://www.amazon.es/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/0415732972

> Most economists believe capitalism is a compromise with selfish human nature. As Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Capitalism works better than socialism, according to this thinking, only because we are not kind and generous enough to make socialism work. If we were saints, we would be socialists.

> In Why Not Capitalism?, Jason Brennan attacks this widely held belief, arguing that capitalism would remain the best system even if we were morally perfect. Even in an ideal world, private property and free markets would be the best way to promote mutual cooperation, social justice, harmony, and prosperity. Socialists seek to capture the moral high ground by showing that ideal socialism is morally superior to realistic capitalism. But, Brennan responds, ideal capitalism is superior to ideal socialism, and so capitalism beats socialism at every level.

For example

Jason Brennan and his new book "Why Not Capitalism" is pretty popular right now. It's a kind of response to G.A. Cohen "Why Not Socialism," which attacks Cohen's book for comparing ideal socialism to real life capitalism. Brennan then goes on to argue ideal capitalism would be more moral than ideal socialism.

I didn't use any of these justifications to do anything. I quoted the exact arguments Bruenig claimed were wrong, showed how they could be modified to be comparative rather than perfectionist and how that would insulate them from Bruenig's claims. You have re-stated the same claims he makes in the article, which does nothing to the comparative nature of the new claims.

Let me explain what the argument that Bruenig needs to make is: With respect to what he calls desert theory (which isn't actually desert theory, but that's not the point) "The principle 'to each according to what they produce' is good because of x, y, and z. Capitalism cannot satisfy this principle because of a, b, and c (he sort of does this if you accept the labor theory of value, which economists categorically rejected about 100 years ago), but Q can satisfy this principle." Bruenig does not do this ever for anything.

If you would like my justification for capitalism, the short version is that actual humans as they are would chose capitalism over any other practicable system, because they are required to by evolved moral norms and even if they had ideal moral norms, they would still choose capitalism.

The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Michael Huemer

Why Not Capitalism? by Jason Brennan

Link to the book, "Why Not Capitalism?": http://smile.amazon.com/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/0415732972/

Amazon Summary:
>Most economists believe capitalism is a compromise with selfish human nature. As Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Capitalism works better than socialism, according to this thinking, only because we are not kind and generous enough to make socialism work. If we were saints, we would be socialists.

>In Why Not Capitalism?, Jason Brennan attacks this widely held belief, arguing that capitalism would remain the best system even if we were morally perfect. Even in an ideal world, private property and free markets would be the best way to promote mutual cooperation, social justice, harmony, and prosperity. Socialists seek to capture the moral high ground by showing that ideal socialism is morally superior to realistic capitalism. But, Brennan responds, ideal capitalism is superior to ideal socialism, and so capitalism beats socialism at every level.

>Clearly, engagingly, and at times provocatively written, Why Not Capitalism? will cause readers of all political persuasions to re-evaluate where they stand vis-à-vis economic priorities and systems—as they exist now and as they might be improved in the future.

>G.A. Cohen's essay "Why Not Socialism?" is one example among many.

I can't vouch for it, but Jason Brennan's Why Not Capitalism? directly attacks Cohen's argument and spins it to the other side. (note the cover photo)

Here is an article by the author, quoting various passages.

Here is another.