tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669958696229907702.post8319451015027311917..comments2023-10-08T10:57:52.692-04:00Comments on Civics Geeks: The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism - 3Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05397708268816821523noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669958696229907702.post-70059967171464623892008-04-23T10:30:00.000-04:002008-04-23T10:30:00.000-04:00Good point.Certain types of hording would be self-...Good point.<BR/><BR/>Certain types of hording would be self-correcting. Say, if you're taking a hundreds of millions of dollars in cash each year and burning them, that would simply increase the value of the dollar and help everyone out except you.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you'd buy up huge amounts of some resource, say corn, and destroy it. That would drive up the price of the resource, which would hurt others, unless it successfully impelled an increase in supply.<BR/><BR/>So yeah, while a lot of attempts at destructive hording would be self-correcting, some would probably cause pretty genuine damage to others.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669958696229907702.post-88092234799470630362008-04-22T17:43:00.000-04:002008-04-22T17:43:00.000-04:00To play devil's advocate, I think a socialist woul...To play devil's advocate, I think a socialist would argue that an individual in a capitalist society could hoard money and resources and thus deprive others of material well being. <BR/><BR/>But I think you are right generally, in a capitalist society, your money is generally not good unless it is exchanged for something else, and that exchange has to be something mutually agreed upon with another person. Capitalism can, in that sense, draw you out of yourself even if you don't want to be. <BR/><BR/>Novak says something similar in the subsequent chapters of the book; I think he is playing it safe with his passage about the family.Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397708268816821523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669958696229907702.post-10861984213935200912008-04-21T23:26:00.000-04:002008-04-21T23:26:00.000-04:00I'm wondering if perhaps there's a more general po...I'm wondering if perhaps there's a more general point to be made there as well: <BR/><BR/>People often assault Adam Smith's conception of "self interest" as fundamentally selfish. But what exactly does "self interest" get one? Resources. As Novack points out, these are often used to further one's family, but more generally they are used in any way that the self considers good. (According to the Platonic understanding of the good, anything that the self desires it desires out of an idea that it must be good.)<BR/><BR/>Now perhaps I want those resources to feed, house and clothe my family in the best way possible. Or perhaps I want to use them to help my parish, or support my extended family, or patronize a company I approve of, or invest in someone starting a business. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, when you think about it, the only way that I can get any use out of money that I make is by giving it away. Even if I buy things which are strictly personal luxuries, I do that by giving money to others who provide those goods or services to me. <BR/><BR/>Socialism seeks not only the breakdown of the family (to be replaced by the relationship between individuals and the state) but also the breakdown of the capital cycle. Instead of me choosing to give money to a given store because I like it, a planned economy makes sure that I receive exactly me "due" and in turn give exactly everyone else's due to them. Indeed, the most absolute socialism preempts every relationship with the relationship with the state. Even my relationship with my mechanic or my butcher or my yard man, utilitarian though that relationship might seem to some, is replaced with an impersonal relationship with the state.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.com