Tax billionaires $100 every time they flush their toilet. Who knows what they are putting down there.

Unregulated capitalism sucks. Seriously, it corrupts every pleasurable communication experience in human life. I remember when I was growing up in the 1980s and the mail system started to get corrupted.

It went from a social good that delivered letters from friends and postcards from family, to a slop machine where 95% of everything was ads, fake clearinghouse sweepstakes scams, political tracts to anti-abortion screeds with disgusting pictures on them, chainmail letters, bank promotions, CDs from sussy companies and non-stop requests for charity donations. It got so going through the mail for that one letter from someone you actually cared about was another annoying chore.

I remember growing up in the 1990s and the phone system started to get corrupted. Every call was from somebody wanting to give you a survey, long distance services, charity requests, unnecessary duct cleaning services, scam you out of money or robocalls for candidates for public office or in another language entirely. It got so picking up the phone was annoying because 95% of the time it wasn’t anyone you knew who actually wanted to talk to you, just companies after your money.

These were the reasons most of us abandoned phones and mail as the main way of communicating with people and turned to email and other online means. Initially the requests for penis enlargement that came with every refresh of the email account were easy to see and block. The occasional ad on Facebook or corporate account was unobtrusive. But now the corruption has eaten up the internet. Everything is just trying to sell you something and the reason you got on there— to communicate with some other person is getting increasingly more difficult to do.

Some day a new communication technology will come along and everybody will jump ship. Internet companies will bemoan it and blame the technology. Guys, nobody abandoned phones or snail mail “because technology.” The experience of these communication media had to get so corrupted that they no longer were fit to purpose first and then everybody abandoned ship.

That’s what people who are corrupting these platforms with all their ads and BS don’t understand. Through unregulated capitalism they are destroy whatever value these modes of communication had in the first place that made people eager to adopt them. They have now guaranteed their own obsolescence.

Capitalism worked for a good 100 years, but now look at us surely theres a way to level it back down fairly for the people, whilst making it still beneficial for both.

It's all in the title. Does anything think it's possible to find a balance between the two, where the economy does well, but so do the citizens? Or is this asking too much?

I have plenty of issues with Musk - he's an asshole in my opinion, and this is already my second X account that has been suspended while Russian propagandists openly spreading fascist, Nazi, chauvinist and anti-Western views seem to have no problem staying there.

But that's not what I want to talk about.

What is $1,000 worth to you?

For me, $1,000 is:

* 259 hours of work - roughly 43 days of my life.

* One dental implant - and depending on the clinic, possibly only half of the actual cost.

* A car repair, for example, replacing the suspension.

* A portable power station.

* About six months of my mother's pension.

* Food for roughly 2-3 months.

* And in peacetime, it could have paid for around 42 days of traveling through the Canary Islands and Europe, including flights from Ukraine, a rental car, food, and bringing something nice home for my parents.

Do you see what I mean?

When someone says, "It's only $1,000" or "It's just the price of a few coffees," they're talking about the nominal price, not the actual value of that money in someone's life.

The same $1,000 can be a minor expense for one person and several months of life for another.

That's why I think comparisons like "it's only the price of a coffee" can be incredibly misleading.

A $8 coffee isn't necessarily a $8 coffee.

Its real cost depends on how much you earn, where you live, what you have to pay for, and what that money could otherwise do for you.

For someone earning $10,000 a month, $1,000 might be annoying.

For someone earning $5,000 a year, $1,000 can change their entire year.

The price is the same. The cost is not.

Generally, I would consider a good social or economic system to be one that works well for the overwhelming majority of the people participating in it. I would also expect the incentives created by a good system to encourage people to remain meaningfully subject to that system, rather than making the ultimate measure of success the ability to become largely insulated from its negative consequences.

With American-style capitalism, though, it seems like accumulating wealth doesn't just let you consume more. At a certain point, it substantially changes your relationship with economic risk itself.

Losing a job, an unexpected medical bill, a rent increase, a recession, a bad financial decision, or even several years without income can be devastating for an ordinary person while being comparatively inconsequential to someone with enough accumulated capital. And at still higher levels of wealth, you gain access to investment opportunities, legal and financial expertise, credit terms, diversification, and other protections that ordinary participants don't have.

So my question is: does capitalism contain a tension where succeeding within the system increasingly means becoming insulated from the pressures and consequences that are supposed to make the system function?

If not, what am I misunderstanding?

I'm specifically interested in the conservative defense of this feature of American capitalism, rather than responses that amount to "capitalism is better than communism" or arguments over whether perfectly pure capitalism has ever existed.

Capitalism only exists so far as human rights are protected and markets are free of coercion.

This requires tolerance of those you disagree with or dislike.

But tolerating those who seek only to deny human rights and coerce others, often for hubristic notions of knowing better than history and economics, is detrimental to Capitalism and humanity.

If a socialist comes to learn or engage in honest debate, they should be given every opportunity, but if they come to engage dishonestly they should be removed.

Lies are difficult to maintain and the truth will out--socialist nations will crumble and impoverish the people--but lies are also easy to parrot and repeat. With little burden of evidence and no need to go further than simplistic plausibility or spend one's own effort seeking the truth, many lies can be told, adopted, and repeated to crowd out any truth. This goes as much for the recent rise of misinformation-driven populism as it does for the socialists bigading this sub.

One great thing about the Freedom of Speech is that bad ideas can be brought to light and addressed honestly and in view of everyone. But when actors seek to dominate through noise, it is an act against Free Speech.

I found out this fairly recently and thought it was very interestin. Any arguments for or against it?

Remember, Democratic socialism and socialism are not the same thing

Has anyone ever thought about where most of the jobs would come from if there were no Billionaires?

Moldbug think differently than most libertarian. And I agree with him.

I think freedom, peace, and prosperity, notice I am using things that are scientifically testable, is not mainly harmed by

1. Monopoly of power in an area
2. Centralized planning

I think the biggest problem in government is lack of market discipline.

Just look at Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein.

It's small enough that they can't steal from one citizen to another and hide that under rug. The government has to compete with other government. You can print a lot of money willy nilly but no body would care about Liechtenstein dollar. I am not even sure if Dubai's dinar is not pegged to gold.

China has network of train. That's centralized planning. China edge in manufacturing also require some centralized planning. Roads in your town is centrally planned. Google, Microsoft, and so on are also centrally planned.

Now China doesn't have market dicipline but they partially emulate that. Governor in China gets bonus if they increase GDP. The problem is they don't get enough bonus unlike Elon. But that's just me.

Singapore also impose market discipline. Their ministers are paid 20% of median income. So not actually run like a business and I see problems there. They all do fine when it comes to wealth.

Natural corollary of this is that we don't need to abolish government. We need only to privatize it so it has market discipline. And moldbug is right. Just look at those in power and arrange that they are shareholders instead.

In democracy, a political party that create a corporation and reward all eligible voters with shares of the corporation would accomplish that though I don't know the exact Math yet.

Another thing I disagree with libertarian and liberal is the idea that we got to tolerate all kind of neighbors.

Let's take a look Bobby and Hasan. Bobby likes to make jokes about religion. Hasan like to kill people that make jokes about religion.

My solution is simple. Bobby and Hasan shouldn't live in the same city.

A libertarian and liberal would argue that Bobby and Hasan should live in the same city and tolerate one another. That's just disaster waiting to happen.

Again, moldbugian solution address this better.

You go where you like. Instead of bitching tax is high, move to where tax is low.

If CCTV is everywhere, I think that's a good idea if it does reduce violent crime like in Singapore. I also like mandatory paternity tests because I think it's government jobs to reduce fraud if it can be done cost effectively.

Again. Shop around. Another market discipline in action. Not everyone like bigger screen in smartphone. Not everyone like small government.

But what about if people govern so badly they sacrifice civilians to Moloch or cut people hand like Free State of Congo.

Okay. Market discipline is not enough. Perhaps some elements of georgism and or democracy would help. Perhaps international community can help.

That being said market discipline alone is a very strong check and balance system to prevent those things from happening. A CEO paid to raise citizenship valuation won't just cut people hand. Few people want to get there and that means lower citizenship valuation.

And finally I disagree with libertarians and ancap that government is always bad and have to be small. Well, I kind of agree that WE ALL LIKE smaller government. Do all governments should be small? No. Other people can legitimately want bigger governments too. They gonna go bankcrupt anyway if they're stupid. Then we buy their territory.

Government is like silk road. Try buying or selling drugs without silk road and you probably get killed. Try living together without government and you probably get killed too. So some arrangements or pimps that lower transactional complexity and make living together nice is actually a great idea.

What do you think?

Am I still a libertarian? Or Moldbugian is just too different than Libertarian?