Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Manaén
@mana
I am sorry to be the one to break it to you, but if you do not believe that profit = common good, you are either an arrogant brat, a socialist or, most probably, both.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Ferran đ
@ferran
Hey, before jumping to accusations, you might want to approach this topic with a bit more humility. Because maybe you are also lacking knowledge and are being oversimplistic. By making such a claim youâre doing in your cast, youâre falling into the same trap of oversimplification that youâre accusing others of. I wonder if you studied what common goods is as a political economic theory (see Ostrom), it has really specific characteristics. Itâs not socialist (even less State socialism) and is compatible with a free market. I suggest engaging in a more constructive debate without oversimplifying the issue.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Manaén
@mana
Hence, my âoversimplificationâ that the arrogance to even attempt to define categories such as âcommonâ âgoodsâ, ultimately either expresses your socialist identity or turns you to a socialist since there is only one way to realise those ideals: Having people with the ârightâ mindset build and control the institutions capable of suppressing individual freedoms. What about the right to pursue happiness and satisfaction in life? We know that satisfaction and happiness require struggle. But what if struggling was not included in the definition of the common goods? What about entrepreneurial pursuits or the American Dream? Both require the individual freedom to disagree with the definition of what a common good is in order to pursue a better. etc. I guess you get my point.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Manaén
@mana
It certainly is an accusation, but evil needs to be named and ousted. Feeling attacked only reveals that there is an identification on the recipientâs side, i.e., guilty by self-identification. Simpllifications are a necessity since all we do is create âoversimplisticâ models of the world we need to navigate. Plus, why would I need to study a certain branch of (socio-)economics to be able to form and proclaim my own views? But, yes, I studied sociology, welfare states, and the likes and already disagree with the premise that goods can be common. I would prefer a radical individual ownership/responsibilty approach. The notion of common goods is only in so far compatible with free markets as you see the necessity of the state to regulate them, which is a krass contradiction to the âfreeâ part. What Iâm thinking a lot about is how Milei put it while at Stanford earlier this year: Do you know of any example of market failure that was not preceded by government intervention/regulation?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
