I think capitalism is the second most natural state, as in the natural state after violence is removed. In the presence of some authority that prohibits violence, people default to mutually beneficial yet self-interested cooperation.
For instance, imagine that you’re a kid in kindergarten and you have some toys. Another kid has different toys. You want some of theirs and they want some of yours. You can’t use violence, so what you default to is trade, since we have some natural sense of property and ownership.
Someone could now use the personal/private property argument, but that argument is retarded by definition. If you can use your own property for some uses but not other uses, it’s not your property.
And the kindergarten example could also work with kids agreeing to a form of communism, but I think the property ownership is more natural and common.
But yes, the debate is dumb and neither is really natural, though it’s probably accurate to argue that the order of what’s natural is violence > trade > everything else. I like your point of capitalism being in a way the opposite of evolution. Both are spontaneous order, but working in opposite directions. Though I guess despite communist type organizations being present in nature, communism itself is even more anti-evolution than capitalism, but that depends on whether you’re only arguing about economic policy, or also social programs and related things.
What's the connection thiel sees between economic growth and mimetic violence? no economic growth, economic activity becomes zero sum therefore more violent as participants desire fixed amounts of wealth -> classic mimetic violence spiral. or is it to do with 0 to 1
I think capitalism is the second most natural state, as in the natural state after violence is removed. In the presence of some authority that prohibits violence, people default to mutually beneficial yet self-interested cooperation.
For instance, imagine that you’re a kid in kindergarten and you have some toys. Another kid has different toys. You want some of theirs and they want some of yours. You can’t use violence, so what you default to is trade, since we have some natural sense of property and ownership.
Someone could now use the personal/private property argument, but that argument is retarded by definition. If you can use your own property for some uses but not other uses, it’s not your property.
And the kindergarten example could also work with kids agreeing to a form of communism, but I think the property ownership is more natural and common.
But yes, the debate is dumb and neither is really natural, though it’s probably accurate to argue that the order of what’s natural is violence > trade > everything else. I like your point of capitalism being in a way the opposite of evolution. Both are spontaneous order, but working in opposite directions. Though I guess despite communist type organizations being present in nature, communism itself is even more anti-evolution than capitalism, but that depends on whether you’re only arguing about economic policy, or also social programs and related things.
What's the connection thiel sees between economic growth and mimetic violence? no economic growth, economic activity becomes zero sum therefore more violent as participants desire fixed amounts of wealth -> classic mimetic violence spiral. or is it to do with 0 to 1