Clarabelle Cow, Capitalist

As I already wrote: in Cohen‘s camp focus is on helping those in need, while in Brennan‘s village, people work in their self-interest (for instance, they build yachts) and only occasionally they help to those in need. Because of that (if everything else is the same) people in Brennan‘s village are less successful in helping those in need, less moral, less empathic than those in Cohen‘s camp. Cohen‘s camp is better.

“There is an essential asymmetry in the capitalist and the socialist visions of utopia. Capitalists allow socialism, but socialists forbid capitalism. … This is a most persuasive argument for capitalism, and Brennan makes it in a very succinct and yet well argued way.”

If you compare worse systems (slavery, feudalism, right of the strongest) with capitalism, you’ll find that worse systems allow construction of capitalist subsystems, while capitalism doesn’t allow feudal and other worse subsystem. Furthermore, slavery system allows feudal subsystem, but feudal system doesn’t allow slavery: peasants cannot be legally enslaved. It appears that more advanced (more free) systems do not allow less advanced subsystems. (Other direction doesn’t hold. The system that doesn’t allow given subsystem is not necessarily better than that subsystem.)

Is it paradox? No, because it is not maximal freedom that counts, but minimal guaranteed freedom. As better system guarantee more, it doesn’t allow worse subsystem. Maximal freedom in slavery system – the freedom of pharaoh – is greater than anything capitalism can offer. Guaranteed minimal freedom – self-ownership is what makes capitalism better. Because of that guarantee – slavery is impossible in capitalism.

The socialist system guarantees just share in total wealth of society. If capitalist and his workers decide to behave like they do in capitalist system, no one of them could have the right to keep the wealth greater than his just share in total wealth of society (according to socialist criteria). That’s why capitalist subsystem is impossible in socialist society.

(Those who want capitalism in socialist society should have the right on secession with proportional territory and wealth of society – so they do not lose that much – but that is another issue.)

Thanks for the kind review!

Pasjer’s critique makes a fundamental mistake, one that David Schmidtz and I pointed out in A Brief History of Liberty: there’s a difference between guaranteeing in the sense of issuing a firm declaration in law to achieve a particular end (as when Bush II guarantees no child will be left behind) vs. guaranteeing inevitable (as when an economist says quadrupling the minimum wage will guarantee rising unemployment). A guarantee in the first sense is not automatically a guarantee in the second sense. And a guarantee in the second sense is, usually, the only thing worth caring about for it’s own sake. We should care about legal guarantees only if they work.

Further, Pasjer’s misunderstands that when it comes to guarantees, there are two ways to generate the needed outcome. One is direct govenrmentalism–as when the government tries to produce good art by giving out art grants–the other is indirect–as when the government ends up supporting good art by supporting a legal structure in which art spontaneously flourishes. Again, the choice between these comes down to which actually works better. Direct governmentalism is no guarantee, and is not always superior.

As it turns out, the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse does guarantee a social minimum. It just does so indirectly and without resorting to institutionalized violence. The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse guarantees a minimal level of positive freedom while also respecting a maximal level of negative freedom. From a left-wing or socialist moral point of view, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse capitalism is as good or better than socialism.

Now if you grant that capitalists have the right to secede and form their own society, what you’ll end up with in utopia is Mickey Mouse Capitalism with pockets of Cohenite Socialism. After all, as I discuss in a footnote, following Nozick, it looks like only a tiny segment of people would actually choose utopian socialism over utopian capitalism.

Note finally that the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse capitalist society has *no* greater degree of selfishness than Cohen’s socialist society, and, also, that there’s every reason to think that it’s social minimum will be higher than Cohen’s social minimum.

Tracy: yes, many real feudal (and capitalist) societies allowed slavery, but these were mixed, not ideal, pure systems. In pure feudal or capitalist society, slavery is illegal contract in feudalism, self-ownership in capitalism.) However, in pure slavery system, slaveowner has the right to release slaves and define new, feudal or capitalist laws on his land.

Jason Brennan: Certainly, inevitable consequences of the system, although not guaranteed by laws can result in rights greater than those guaranteed by law. It matters. Also, I agree that “direct governmentalism is no guarantee, and is not always superior.” However, I do not see that I made mistake misunderstanding that.

“Note finally that the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse capitalist society has *no* greater degree of selfishness than Cohen’s socialist society …”

You wrote in “Why not capitalism?” that Mickey’s club (ideal capitalist society) members follow own goals most of the time. Hence, they have less resources to help those in need than Cohen‘s camp (ideal socialist society) members, where focus is to help those in need. It seems Mickey’s people are more selfish. Except if you assume that capitalism is so efficient, even for morally perfect people that Mickey’s club can accomplish more with less moral effort. However, it is strong assumption, and your main thesis (necessary to oppose Cohen) is that ideal capitalist society is better on purely moral ground, without efficiency argument. (Both Cohen‘s camp and Mickey’s club do not rely on institutional violence. )

Pajser –
You said that “Mickey’s club (ideal capitalist society) members follow own goals most of the time. Hence, they have less resources to help those in need than Cohen’s camp (ideal socialist society) members, where focus is to help those in need”

But given the greater efficiency of an ideal capitalist society, they would have more resources, not less, to help those in need.

You also said “The socialist system guarantees just share in total wealth of society”

I don’t know if this was a deliberate attempt to rig the debate or if you’re really that unaware of the beliefs and opinions of others, but by the standards of most people, the goal of a socialist system is to guarantee an unjust distribution of total wealth. If voluntary, the system that forces a strict distribution fails precisely because most people trapped within the system consider it to be unfair

I recommend the book Hungry Ghosts by Jasper Becker, about China’s Great Leap. Among other fascinating sections, it talks about the communes and the fact that they tended to fail precisely because most members felt that the distribution was unjust. If one person worked harder than another, they felt that it was not fair that the other person got just as much.

Let’s remember that in the 1800s, there were many socialist utopian experiments where people voluntarily formed groups that shared (like the brief camping trip, except for real and not just temporary). The many utopian experiments didn’t work because eventually, in practice, people don’t consider forced sharing to be just. Marx thought that the problem with these utopian experiments was that there weren’t enough people in them, and the people weren’t forced to stay. So, in the 1900s, we experimented with gun-to-the-head, we’ll-shoot-you-if-you-try-to-leave utopias, but they were even worse than the voluntary ones that were allowed to fade away gracefully.

What exactly is new about this camping trip fable that wasn’t known and tried in the earlier utopian experiments?

Except if you assume that capitalism is so efficient, even for morally perfect people that Mickey’s club can accomplish more with less moral effort. However, it is strong assumption, and your main thesis (necessary to oppose Cohen) is that ideal capitalist society is better on purely moral ground, without efficiency argument.

Considering the history of the twentieth century, that’s not really a strong assumption at all. Almost every country that experimented with socialism or had it forced on them gave it up because it failed to produce anything close to the standards of living capitalist countries achieved. And why should it? If the focus is, as you put it, to help those in need rather than pursuing self interest, you shouldn’t expect the same outcomes in efficiency or total output. The fact that people will work harder and longer on their own behalf than they will for others is a pretty plain fact of human nature, and this would lead over time to more total economic output in a capitalist country than a socialist one isn’t exactly a big leap.

Pajser: your theory is wrong. Feudualism is the name given to the societal structure of medieval north-western Europe. There’s no “pure form” independent of that. If those societies had slavery then feudalism had slavery. (And actually modern historians have gotten very doubtful about using the word “feudal” even to discuss that time and location.)

Good job, Tracy W, in bringing the thread back to the key point that Pajser seems to have missed. Holding the people in the group constant, capitalism produces better outcomes.

If the people “do not have dominant self-interest, … are willing to work hard for benefit of others” , then the outcome under capitalism is at least as good as the outcome under socialism. Individual rights don’t prevent people from helping others (for example, voluntary charitable giving of conservatives is higher than of liberals in the US). And, since voluntary help for others is more likely to be effective than forced, centralized help, capitalism will generally lead to a strictly better outcome.

If we have people that “have dominant self-interest”, capitalism produces better outcomes than socialism because it harnesses that self-interest rather than trying to beat it out of people. For any mix, socialism does not produce better outcomes if we hold the group of people constant.

In fact, the camping trip sounds more like capitalism than socialism. Each person voluntarily brought things and voluntarily shared them. The difference between capitalism and socialism is choice versus force, and the description of the camping trip is of people choosing to share.

Tracy W.: “Like all historical constructs “feudalism,” however defined, describes an “ideal type” rather than any particular historical society. ” (Abels, Feudalism)

Tracy W.: “You fail to understand the most important thing about a market society. When I buy a good in a market society it is because I think it will help me pursue my vision of a good life. Consequently, the person who made and the person who sells that good is helping me, by that very process. Working hard to make a profit is working hard to help someone in a market society with good rules. ”

No, I don’t fail to understand that. It is trivial. But helping “someone” is not good enough. For instance, if I make golden ring, and trade it for perfume, both I and perfume maker worked hard and helped ourselves and each other. I smell nice, perfume maker has nice ring. Still, we invested resources we control to help each other, not to satisfy those with greatest needs in society at the moment. It is morally inferior to directing resources where they are most needed, without any selfish bias. Morally perfect person would say “Ring? Perfume? OK, we’ll put it on the list, and now lets start with most important needs that exist in society, no matter whose needs are these.”

That’s why in Brennan‘s village people sometimes help each other directly, not through the market. Self-interest + market alone are not good enough for him. However, it is not clear why they are good for him at all. (Except if he believes it is more efficient – but he doesn’t want efficiency as argument.)

Tracy: “If you do understand it, then why did you claim that people in Brenan’s villager only help people with large important needs occasionally, overlooking that in a market society people are continually helping each other? “

Because helping oneself and someone through trade is not the same thing as helping those with most important needs. It is – occasionally. It is important how much of one’s resources are directed toward satisfaction of the most important needs.

Pajser: Morally perfect person would say “… lets start with most important needs that exist in society, no matter whose needs are these.” Tracy: “Yep, … regardless of what social system they live under. Socialism has no advantages over capitalism on that point.”

OK. Now imagine society in which everyone works that way. In such society no one has profit motive. It is not capitalism any more. It is Cohen‘s camp. It is whole point of my post.

Tracy: “There are some minimum necessities we can agree on … but once those necessities are satisfied, who is to say what the “most important needs” are? Under capitalism, no one needs to, we can each get on with pursuing our own ideas of the good life while helping out each other through trade.”

Let us assume it happened, all basic needs are satisfied and there is no good way to find whose needs are more important. In capitalism, one has few ways to collect resources needed for his project. In least egalitarian forms of socialism, it is the same, except money earned through profit is illegal. State (or some other collective) invests, and benefits are distributed on all uniformly. Individual projects that require enormous resources are, thus, impossible, but more people are able to actualize moderately large individual projects. From utilitarian point of view it is better (if we don’t know the most important needs – we can still assume that $1 on the bottom is worth more than $1 on top). One can criticize that if he believes that profit is legitimate way of earning. But I don’t believe that, in my opinion, appropriation of the profit is unjust.

Tracy: “Capitalism means we can help each others achieve their views of the good life as we go about trying to achieve our view of it, and we don’t need to force our views on anyone.”

You do force your views on me. If you own the beach, and you do not allow me to use that beach or condition the use of that beach with dress code, you force your views onto me, as much as state does. Private property is usually – but not always – smaller but I don’t think it is essential difference. Also, I don’t think that many small owners who restrict my freedom in their own private interest are better than one large collective owner whose goal is common good. Also, socialism can guarantee right on secession; those who prefer something else can get proportional territory and part of the total wealth of the society and do whatever they want. For free.

Tracy: “Are you valuing work for work’s sake? “

Perhaps, in other contex, people need work for their development. But if one works less efficiently only because he can invest all his resources in satisfaction of the most important needs, it would be pointless masochism.

“Mickey Mouse’s village is capitalist because it has private property. “

That’s how they start – but I’m not sure how they could organize distribution, production and particularly new investment without profit motive – and still maintain private property.

“Under capitalism if you want to use a beach you can save up and buy it, or get together with some similarly-minded folks and buy it, or find something the owner would like and trade it for beach access. Under socialism you’re stuck with whatever the central planner wants. “

So, in capitalism I’m stuck with decision of the owners motivated with self-interest, and in socialism I’m stuck with decision of the planner employed to maximize total utility within egalitarian constraints. In practice, almost all publicly owned beaches are free for use but one cannot buy the beach. On the other side, some private beaches are closed, others can be used for fee, but relatively people can buy beach, use it for free and expel other people. I think it is on the line of previous concept – that more advanced systems have larger guaranteed, minimal freedom, and price for that is reduced maximal freedom.

“If socialism does indeed allow people to opt out and be capitalist on their own territory what you’d wind up with is a capitalist society with occasional islands of socialism“

I think that socialist state is possible only if majority want it.

Tracy W.:”Feudalism, to take your example was entirely compatible with slavery. (I note that you attempted to make a reply talking about feudalism referring to an “ideal type”. That doesn’t help you, there’s nothing in the theory of feudalism that rules out some of the population being kept as slaves.)”

Individual rights ruled out slavery; these rights gradually increased – first, citizens couldn’t be enslaved, then existing slaves are released, then enslaved Christians were released, finally, all slaves were released. This last, for instance, happened in France in 1315 and Scandinavia bit later. In reality, many societies mixed feudal and slavery system, or slavery and capitalism,

Tracy W. So, you quote a bit where I point out all the things you can do if you don’t like their decision, and then claim that you’re stuck with it?

I can buy beach, rent it etc. only if private owner allows me. I can do that with central planner as well. So, I’m really stuck with decision of private owner motivated by his self-interest. I prefer to be stuck with elected planner paid to maximize utility under egalitarian constraints. Yes, he can also ask for fee. But usually he doesn’t.

I agree about role of the price.