Any capitalists wanna have a go at responding to this criticism of the free market?

Any capitalists wanna have a go at responding to this criticism of the free market?

(1) Advertising -- a prominent force of capitalism -- leads people to create false needs for themselves, with the assumptions that if these needs are met they will be happy. These might include the latest iPhone (even though their old one works fine), new clothes every season (despite them having a wardrobe full of perfectly fine clothing)... these are the obvious examples, but it goes way beyond this.

(2) These beliefs are misguided because the purchases don't bring them happiness, there's no brass ring: it's a never-ending battle to keep up consumption. And the effort required to maintain such a lifestyle takes its toll. Most people could downgrade to simpler, ascetic living, and not have to slave away 50 hours a week at jobs they hate.

(3) It would be disingenuous to say "nobody's forcing them", i.e. to assume that people have the freedom to work part-time and not buy anything. The tactics used to make people so materialistic aren't just television ads: marketing techniques are so subtle and pervasive that it's some of the most effective propaganda ever contrived. To think the average person can just ignore it is delusional.

In short: advertising -> consumerism -> overworking -> demoralisation.

Another thing I want to elaborate on. The free market isn't some evil entity that specifically targets people to cause them suffering, it's just very resilient to anything that threatens its demise. Let me give you an example. Take the three major health burdens in our society today: obesity, depression and stress. I would argue that all three of these are the result of some aspects of capitalism, and how does capitalism deal with them?

Obesity sparks an entire weight-loss and fitness industry that is overshadowed by the food industry, rendering it mostly useless.

Depression is answered with an ever-growing stack of pharmaceuticals, each to manage the side-effects of the last, rather than getting to the root cause.

Stress: the entirety of mass media is altered to sustain high consumption to an audience which is highly stressed. News is oversimplified and aligned with the political status quo... after a long and strenuous day at work nobody wants to hear views that conflict with theirs.

So you see that ultimately it has a negative effect, but this isn't premeditated -- the mechanism itself just ensures that people continue to consume. If we all became socialists tomorrow I doubt much would change, the advertising industry would probably try to sell us some socialist stickers and t-shirts and documentaries, while safeguarding its survival.

I realise my post might be too long for anyone to bother reading it.

Can someone recommend me some modern Libertarian books that directly discuss free market principles within a technologically advanced society?

I was reading Bastiat's The Law the other day to seek some answers, and I'm finding that most of his arguments don't have the same legs to stand on today.

>These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations.

I mean, this was in 1850, today, I would say that unlike socialist systems, in which a legislator moulds society at his will, there is no single institution behind capitalism, nor is there one man pulling the strings -- the corporate sovereignty is a product of the free market. This doesn't, however, make it any less of a threat to freedom. So the whole freedom argument isn't great, because it is based on a very superficial idea of freedom.

Okay either I'm shadowbanned or nobody gives a fuck. Feels bad man.

Quick bump for a good thread.

Freedom originally meant living in a government of your own people and culture, whether it took the form of an aristocracy, a barbarian tribal democracy, or a king.

Honestly mate I think Sup Forums is the worst place for actual non-bait political discussions. Everyone here has an attention span way too short to read and respond to your post.

Post a picture of a Milton Friedman giving Pinochet a cuddle next time.

A few times I've managed to have in-depth discussions here but you're right, not enough bait.

Hang on nigger I'm trying.
I think thatthe problem lies mainly in the size of economies, which necessitates debt and makes for an environment that makes people who are naturally inclined to do what merchants do go overboard. If local economies had more control and ability to tailor thi gs to their own interests, it might be different, though with modernity everything is connected regardless, since each city or town isn't an independent entity. I don't know if there's a solution in the current state of things. I mean, in antiquity, tribes would agree to fight together against a greater outside threat, and now not being a large, full-fledged country is suicide in many cases. But how is the community supposed to have moral stances if they can't be enforced?

no one is responding because you’re just blaming mental illness on capitalism. all of those things existed under other market conditions and people were culled instead of allowed to live.

Take the three major health burdens in our society today: obesity, depression and stress. I would argue that all three of these are the result of some aspects of capitalism, and how does capitalism deal with them?

>obesity
capitalism: surgery, therapy, medication, healthy food, gyms, etc..
communism: no food leading to a malnourished population
>depression
capitalism: therapy, medication, welfare benefits, etc
communism: labor camps
>stress
is a natural human emotion and has always existed you fucking faggot

PEOPLE HAVE NEVER BEEN RATIONAL ACTORS SEE SNAKE OIL

on advertising:
propaganda was created by communists to convince their population, which lived sheltered from the outside world, that their lives were the best available. they were tricked into working for decades for free until they were sent a government issued car or home

i can’t believe people like you exist and it’s no surprise the only other person on your side is another anglotard

I think that the larger question is about societal standards. There have to be very minimal ones to embrace a live-and-let-live/free market. Countless spikes of social tension in the US over the years seem to support this.
Furthermore, I think that we should acknowledge that these problems are increasing. Obesity in the US at a percentage of the (I think it was adult) population has more than tripled since the 50s, for example. Our markets are constantly undercut by Third world labor and immigration, lowering the living standards. And we are selling/giving the third world the tools, tech, and medicine to worsen the condition of the whole world.

You are right. In fact, one of the facets of the propaganda model is conglomerates. If you look at the entertainment industry there are basically five companies that control 90% of the media. This process by which power is aggregated to a small number of businesses seems to be inherent to capitalism in post-industrial countries - economies of scale cause mergers upon mergers that result in oligopolies.

>tribes would agree to fight together against a greater outside threat
There are plenty of "local" businesses that get together these days to try to drive out the large supermarkets and stuff, but they simply can't compete. Unless the consumers get involved, the efforts are futile, and consumers only care about price.

No I didn't, I said depression, which has become more widespread and prevalent in recent decades.

You're not addressing anything I said, you are comparing capitalism to communism.

If you actually bother responding to a single point I made without misinterpreting it or creating a communist strawman I might take your points more seriously.

obesity is skyrocketing, but the health food and lifestyle marketing is rising exponentially. people are making money off high cost healthy food. it’s disingenuous to compare obesity rates over nearly 70 years when it’s drastically changed in the last 10

you’re using socialist authors to argue against capitalism and all i need to tell you is that no socialist country has ever had a better health standard than a capitalist one

>anti-capitalist
>UK flag
Again?

Stop embarrassing yourselves already

well we’ve just learned that david cameron was a communist so it’s not surprising that their inhabitants are too

Right, I don't see how this is relevant. Propaganda exists in both systems. Again, this isn't about communism.

>you’re using socialist authors to argue against capitalism
Do you expect my arguments against capitalism to have never been uttered by a socialist in the history of political thought?

>and all i need to tell you is that no socialist country has ever had a better health standard than a capitalist one
I guess this ends the argument, since this is an extremely original idea that nobody else here has ever heard. Yeah, no, how about you address the ridiculously high morbid obesity rate instead of comparing it to famine? Seems very defeatist to accept that your country people are suffering this much.

the fact that you think is a good argument is depressing
please learn to think critically. Consider reading some philosophy that isn't jordan peterson

you're a fucking bootlicker. Go suck some bougie asshole, you cuck.

I honestly don't know how you people expect to be taken seriously when you can't read.

If all you took from that was that I am a communist or an anti-capitalist then your reading comprehension is terrible.

More importantly though, resorting to elementary arguments ("b-b-but communism") and name calling shows me you really have nothing and are likely just an angry teenager with very little knowledge of the subject.

using the term bougie tells me everything i need to know. back to your discord. you will never have your utopia in my country

you listed socialist authors you derived your logic from earlier on in the thread. maybe try formulating your own ideas instead of pasting from a discord

Why is it that the UK - the pioneers of global trade, and the greatest innovators of western civilization alongside France - all of a sudden are seen cuckposting this neo bolshevik social justice swill?

I've noticed this in my British friends as well. It shouldn't come as a surprise for university students when even Oxbridge has been corrupted, but why are the otherwise based ones also part of this rot? It's as though political correctness is strangulating who they are, to the point where their decisions are being made for them, and they make cartoonish wide eyes when you explain things that are omitted or half-truthed in the media, but then they go back to their normal lives afterwards. This is sick!

The responses are embarrassing desu. I was interested, as a capitalist myself, to learn how we could solve some of these issues but you people are alienating yourself with such shitty debating skills.

There is no debate. Communism has never been implemented successfully.

hopefully it can be disrupted enough to ruin your fake dream of capitalist success :) seems to be working pretty well atm, as you watch your prospects slide into oblivion.
America's influence will slowly but surely wane in respect to china's and india's and there's NOTHING you cucks can do about it.

Well, it's generally acknowledged that socialist authors brought up some problems of living in a capitalist economy, though their answers leave a lot to be desired.
But do you honestly think that these health foods and trends will change things meaningfully? I severely doubt it. It's like all of these feel-good green initiatives started by Starbucks or McDonald's for advertisement purposes. Meanwhile, we're still creating plastic islands in the ocean, still growing our resource consumption, etc. It seems more likely that things will either crash or, probably more accurate, things will go on a slow slide downward as things become less and less available until we're living in an austere, super-regulated or even socialist state due to urbanization of the population and general scarcity.

Yeah well you sound like a concern troll, and given the track record of posters under your flag no one will treat what you have to say seriously. Everything you typed can be attributed to a radical corbynite pretending to be someone else for political gain.

Is now really the time to be critiquing the most successful societal organisation of the last millennia when you have self proclaimed marxists declaring their will to overthrow it? For gods sake man focus on pragmatic solutions for once

>To think the average person can just ignore it is delusional.
Yes.

Humanity is a tiered species.

Weaklings, those who are physically and mentally weak, as well as unskilled, survive best in socialism. As you mentioned, they lack the mental capacity to shrug off soulless materialism, and are easily ensnared by flashy products and advertisements. These people want socialism because they know, unconsciously or not, that they cannot hope to gather enough resources by themselves, and as such, they are super susceptible to advertisers and conmen (why do you think the most deceitful politicians perform best under socialism/democracy?).

True humans, those who are at least strong, smart, and/or skilled, are distinct from the former. These people survive best in a free market, since their skills allow them to gather/exchange resources in the marketplace. These people may or may not be able to ignore advertising and lead more fulfilling lives. "Lolberts" generally want a free market so they can consume as much as they can afford with their skillsets, which, in addition to food, water, etc. usually includes hentai and shit. More principled libertarians/conservatives generally want a free market so they can live quietly, comfortably, and honestly, since they have the self-control and self-mastery necessary to make their own living, support their friends/family if needed, and shun conmen.

So, this criticism applies to weaklings, who are easily susceptible to dishonest advertisements, but not to developed humans. You have two solutions:

>Set up a welfare state like Sweden wherein the humans, operating at their best in the free market, subsidize the weaklings

or

>Provide security for all citizens, but allow humans to subsidize the weaklings of their own volition; anyone who does not acquire sufficient resources by working must prove to their superiors that they are worthy parasites

Third option:

>Deport all the communists to the ocean floor and provide good enough security so that the industrious and the productive may live in peace and in happiness

Not responding to these two any more

>Oz9qO475
I honestly don't know what the fuck he is talking about. Claims I'm deriving my ideas from socialist authors (???) but that I am also unable to derive my own ideas and that I'm pasting them from discord (???). Genuinely chuckled at how you managed to contradict yourself four times in the space of two sentences.

>1ykJf1d0
Tries to steer the argument away from the main points with current affair, buzzwords and insults based on poster flag. Stop wasting everyone's time.

This is basically social Darwinism... Do you not think that your analysis lacks even a shred of compassion? I'm not talking about socialist-type compassion (the fantasy that we can all be equally well-off) but the concession that large scale suffering is acceptable because of social hierarchies. This is not particularly compelling in democracies.

In fact that might be another reason why democracy isn't compatible with freedom. If the bottom 60% survive best in socialism, then socialism will always prevail.

>You have two solutions:
Do you not see a middle ground?

>middle ground
Did someone say third position?

And you're god damn right people are going to call you a pinko. You have a constitutional crisis with brexit, a deeply divided and dissatisfied population, a furious Scotland that would love to secede, a disproportionately powerful DUP, the worst prime minister in post war history, a neo bolshevik challenger, the law being applied unequally (Rotherham), police publicly threatening private citizens with bureaucratic power on twitter (how would you like to be investigated for right wing radicalism?), an increasingly unskilled yet overqualified population, immigration out of control, no go zones, even female circumcision, and you're concerned about suboptimal capitalism?

Now is not the time. The only people who would engage in such a debate at this time in British history can only be a bitter hyper partisan or radical ideologue. NOW IS NOT THE TIME.

I'm not here to insult you or anyone under the beady flag. Fight for your country, what are you waiting for? Run for office, talk to people. Even if you don't win, you could achieve your goals, just look at the global effect Rand Paul, Nigel Farage, Korwin Mike, Geert Wilders, Le Pen and so many other losers have on the world.

The social cohesion of a group tops out around 200 people, at which point it fractures and the new group needs to define itself in some way to separate from the old.
Society is too large to not have inane variety that provide distinction and at least some friction(barrier of entry) between those groups.
You can tackle this in a variety of ways but some of the more common ones are through status symbols, self improvement/destruction, mental illness, etc.
So you can either participate in company with shared interests, or be autistic.

I'm actually a centrist.

1) There is no false need. The need for status / recognition / safety is real, advertising simply tap into it.

2) As ironic as it might sounds, most capitalists, especially AnCaps KNOW happiness don't come from worldly possession. It comes, mostly, from other humans.

3) Materialism is the simple recognition that having no urgent need go unfulfilled is a prerequisite. Everyone is materialistic up to a point.

In short: If you're so weak-willed that you will enslave yourself for stuff you don't want, maybe it is best you don't get the resources to procreate.

>I was reading Bastiat's The Law the other day to seek some answers, and I'm finding that most of his arguments don't have the same legs to stand on today.
I won't say he wasn't intelligent, but in fairness he was an aristocrat who never really worked a day in his life and it colored his ideas on economics and other writings.

Maybe I ought to give some context. I am not British, I am a Canadian who is here for work. I read politics from mostly an academic/philosophical perspective. I am not involved in activism, I'm interested in policies and their reasoning, not marching on the streets. Or rhetoric -- yes, there have been grooming cases here in the UK, from immigrants, and while we all consider that cause for concern, you can't just bring it up whenever someone critiques capitalism.

Not that there's anything wrong with activism, but how do you expect your opposition, the leftists, the socialists etc. to buy any of your ideas when you don't have a good answer for what you refer to as "suboptimal capitalism"? You can't tell them "hey, look at North Korea!" or any other communist country, because they don't care, the only point of reference they have is the West, and they don't see it as sub-optimal, they see it as a complete failure of capitalism to take care of the lower strata of the population.

>The need for status / recognition / safety is real, advertising simply tap into it.
Interesting. This might well be true, psychologically... it's a bizarre idea that someone would struggle and live a life they hate for status symbols though.

>This is basically social Darwinism...
The first option isn't, the second option is, and the third option was merely a joke. Regardless, I didn't advocate any one of them, though you can probably glean from my word choice which one I prefer.

>Do you not think that your analysis lacks even a shred of compassion?
I think my analysis was just honest; perhaps I could have phrased it all a little nicer, but the point would remain at is is.

>the concession that large scale suffering is acceptable because of social hierarchies
I would say biological hierarchies instead of social. Again, I didn't make any normative claims (at least, I don't think I did) about what's acceptable and not acceptable. Heck, I admitted your criticism was partially valid and proposed some solutions.

>This is not particularly compelling in democracies.
Yes. Con-artist politicians can promise socialistic policies to the weak, unskilled majority at the expense of the democratic minority; honest workers, who want to be left alone, are looted and effectively disenfranchised.

>If the bottom 60% survive best in socialism, then socialism will always prevail
You still need an industrious 40% to provide for both themselves and the lower class. The bottom 60% can't keep up this parasitic arrangement forever. There will always come a point when there is not enough left to be looted and redistributed from the workers; socialism, exhausted of the resources needed to prop itself up, will collapse, and everybody will suffer.

>Do you not see a middle ground?
Perhaps I was a little hyperbolic in offering only those two options, but any solution must be articulated with reference to the binary hierarchy.

Regardless, while I'm all for altruistic endeavors, I think individual workers should decide who to donate their money to, since they are better than bureaucrats at distinguishing those who are weak/unskilled from those who are irresponsible, lazy, etc.

What is a 'false need?' that's called a want. Wants are different from needs. A human being in its natural state requires very little 'needs' - but we would consider that desperate poverty.

Many little things in your life could be viewed as bourgoise 'false needs', like clean tap water, warmth in your dwelling, the pepper in your enchilada. Do you really need those?

I'd rather live in a unequal society of wants than a society of strict necessity.

>I'd rather live in a unequal society of wants than a society of strict necessity.
This, desu

Humans seem to be designed to struggle. Every facet of their biology is geared toward it, and their minds are at a deep level rife with fears based around primal needs.
This might be getting off topic from the discussion of free markets. Hierarchy is good and all, but when you pull your lower class down to the level of all the world's working poor, you are going to get worse results, in my mind.

Status means greater chance to reproduce for males. It's bizarre some men DON'T strive for it.

The problems with planned economies is that they are very sluggish to respond to consumer wants. How is a central committee supposed to understand how many videogames that society needs? How many dakimura pillows? No one wanted or needed a home computer in 1960. Now, it's an essential appliance in every home. How can a non-capitalist society, for instance, produce an iPhone? A Tesla?

Advertising is not a supreme, brainwashing force. There are hundreds of products every year that fail to be recognized as wants, much less essential *needs*. The most efficient signal for a useful product is profit, and innovators are awarded with the prize of new markets for good products by becoming rich as fuck.

How are false needs avoided by installing communism? Doesn't that just create its own false needs?

> capitalism causes advertising

Trivially false. People sought attention for themselves and their wares even in a barter economy.

The scale of what's possible, has happened, and indeed what's happening now is an issue, though. Wouldn't you agree?

>many companies trying to convince you to give them your money
vs
>one company that owns the military telling you exactly how to live your life and how much food you get to eat

>Obesity sparks an entire weight-loss and fitness industry that is overshadowed by the food industry, rendering it mostly useless.
Most countries have universal healthcare. And even in the US insurance is so regulated that they can't really charge you more unless you smoke. Getting in shape so your insurance is cheaper is a very direct economic incentive to live healthier. Not allowing insurance companies to discriminate like this is anti-capitalist.