See, the trick there is in your first paragraph I feel like. Under mercantilism, trade is under the almost exclusive purview of the government. So I would argue this doesn’t really meet the definition of “free trade.”

But, to steel man a bit, when “the government” is fairly unstructured, like in a feudal system, the line between government control of trade and “private citizen” control of trade can be a bit blurry. And over time I’m sure it gets messy whether a person is a “government entity” or not.

I do also feel like there’s a “difference of scale is difference of kind” problem here. Obviously if you own a copper mine and employ hundreds of people to go down and mine it for you, you own the means of production. But also, if you run a small restaurant in a strip mall and hire a half dozen servers to wait tables, you also own the means of production.

And, to your point, there probably were private innkeepers under mercantilism that took coin in exchange for goods and services. They probably employed people to help work the place. Does that make it capitalism? What if the owner used the money from that inn to build another, then another and another, and eventually had the money to buy a title and become part of the “noble class”? Is it capitalism then? Does a system that allows for that count as a capitalism, or does it need to actively encourage it?

Idk. I think my big issue, at the end of the day, is that the word capitalism doesn’t really mean anything. Or, rather, no one can really agree on what it means, and it just turns into a tribalism stand in word for “anyone who disagrees with me on economic policy.” But that’s so unspecific as to be totally useless. What parts of “capitalism” are you decrying? What would you replace it with? But I feel like any questions are met with anger that you’re not bought into the anti-capitalist agenda, even though no two people seem to agree on what that actually means.

So, it isn’t the ownership and trade of capital that makes something capitalism, it’s when someone is allowed to accumulate too much capital?
What constitutes “enough” capital to push it over the edge into capitalism?

Or is it that you cannot have non-owner workers? That you can’t employ additional help without those people buying into the business?

Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand the distinction. I genuinely don’t know what “all the requirements” necessary to make it capitalism are, and try as I might I am not finding any beyond the literal definition in the dictionary, which doesn’t have any.

What is the source for this definition of capitalism? Just trying to figure out if this is, like, the “academic definition” or something. Cause, as you say, what words mean does mean something, which is why we have different words for different things.

I do think it’s really easy to redefine words in a “no true Scotsman”-y way, where you redefine a general word to mean “just the versions of that thing I don’t like,” in order to tribalise it. Which doesn’t mean that’s what you’re doing here. I’m just trying to understand, and I think if we can’t agree on what the word capitalism even means, we aren’t exactly going to get anywhere. So I’m just trying to figure out what definition of the term you are using and why.

I was being pithy. I think it’s a bit absurd to say that corruption is impossible under anarchism because no one has power.

Power disparity is an unavoidable fact in every society, no matter the structure (or lack thereof). Some will be popular and some unpopular. Some will be physically strong and others physically weak. Some will seek to build up community and some will seek to tear it down.

And any amount of power disparity is prone to corruption. Surely I don’t need to point out examples of an absolute asshole getting popular and then using that popularity to take advantage of or hurt other people.

Anarchism, if it has one thing going for it, is that these problems tend to stay fairly local. But it also doesn’t give any solutions to these problems other than lynchmobs. So its a bit of a tradeoff. But it absolutely isn’t immune from corruption.

I mean, this feels semantic. The word capitalism is obviously of the modern era, but there are governments and economic systems going back to antiquity that I think meet all of the definitional requirements of “capitalistic.”

Really, I just lack a vision of what “free trade but not capitalism” could possibly mean. Could you describe that system for me?

When I try to do so, the result always meets the literal, dictionary definition of capitalism, as listed above.

Genuine question. How do you have free markets without the existence of capital and the pursuit of its accumulation?

The definition of capitalism per the dictionary is:

an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

How do you have free trade without people who own things trading them?

Roving bands of bandits would disagree.

Right? It’s literally Trader Joe’s and Aldi that have handled bags where I live. Every single other store only has handleless bags. It’s terrible.

Happy to pay for paper. As I said, I’d gladly pay $1/bag for them if they’d just put effing handles on them.

I do buy paper. That was literally how I started this thread. I’m happy to buy paper bags. I just wish they had handles more often.

Fair on all counts. I don’t disagree with you that the situation is bad.

I do think it’s somewhat hard to feel it for a lot of people. Partly, as you said, exponential growth is hard for most people to grasp. I also think a lot of older people who have followed climate science over the years are a little jaded too, as climate science has, rightly or not, beat the drum of “imminent global destruction within the next decade” for the past 7+ decades now, and I think people have gotten a bit of a “boy cried wolf” mentality about it.

But one would have to be blind to not see that things are getting noticeably worse, and as you say, exponential growth is a mofo. The jar is half full with one second to midnight, as they say.

But understood on all counts, and definitely no hard feelings on my end either. I tend to see the good in people, even those that make decisions I wouldn’t. I think it probably leads to a happier life, but then again, how much of that is choice vs disposition?

And seriously, all that said. I simply cannot stress enough how much better the bags with handles are. And if the earth burns to a crisp because of them, well, was that not a sacrifice worth making?

To be fair, it’s probably only been, like, an hour. Just spaced out over 24hrs, lol.

But I think we’re talking past each other a bit. The point of me bringing up eating food out of the trash (and sure, donuts count) wasn’t to chastise you for not doing it. I’m not trying to call you a hypocrite or something.

My point was more about charity and empathy. It was about viewing the decisions that people wo are “worse than you” (my words not yours) not as people to be looked down upon, but as people to be encouraged.

I think it’s tied up in the brinkmanship of your last statement. Will climate issues be a major problem that we’ll have to grapple with in the coming century? Absolutely. But allowing that to lead to misanthropy is unhealthy.

My man looks kinda like a homeless Ryan Reynolds.

I think the issue is that we each have our own internal line of “acceptable participation in the upkeep of the world around us,” and they’re different.

So, like, if there’s a line graph here, it has the following points: 1: not throwing cigarette butts on the ground 2: not using disposable bags 3: eating food out of trash cans.

I’ve said, existing between points 1 and 2 is my personal level of “acceptable participation,” and you have said it’s between 2 and 3. Many people exist above point 3, and many exist below point 1.

And someone above point three might approach you and say, “why are you letting perfectly good food go to waste,” and hit you with all the stats and figures about how food waste is destroying the earth. And it would be such a tiny change for you to, instead of making or ordering food, just find some in a nearby trashcan. It’s all over the place, and super accessible. And it’s really dangerous. Freshly thrown away food is pretty much always potable.

But you have chosen that your personal level of “acceptable participation” doesn’t require that of you. Should the “above point 3” people judge you for not making that tiny lifestyle change?

And honestly, perhaps they should? You are living below what they have determined is the “minimal acceptable level of social responsibility.” You aren’t doing your part to help combat a real environmental problem.

But a majority of people have chosen not to eat out of trash cans. Just as a majority of people don’t bring reusable bags into the grocery store. And the only difference between those things is where your personal line of “acceptable participation” is.

And yes, there is a “generally societally agreed upon level of participation” which would say that throwing your cigarette butts on the ground is unacceptable. But you know why I know that’s the generally agreed upon standard? Because only a minority of people do it. The general societal standard for disposable bags is on the “use them” side.

And sure, would it be beneficial to put in work to shift the Overton window on that issue, sure. Campaign for it. Push the cause. (Which I recognize is kind of what you’re doing here). Who knows, maybe I’ll pick up some bags and forget them in my car next time I hit the store, only to get mad the stores paper bags don’t have handles.

But I think there’s a big difference between advocating for a shift in the societal expectation, and investing emotional energy into despairing over the condition of your fellow man. You can recognize that, just because someone is on the other side of an issue than you, doesn’t mean they’re “bad” or deserve derision. None of us, yourself included, are doing all the “little” things we could be doing to make the world a better place. There’s always a higher level of societal participation. But I think my concern here is that your mentality is, “people who chose differently than me are bad,” not, “how can I best advocate to help encourage people to improve.”

I think that it’s a bit of a false equivalent to say that since we can’t convince people to use reusable bags, we can’t get Jeff Bezos to reduce his.

They’re different problem sets. Industrial pollution (or pollution from people with access to industry levels of capital) is something that can be addressed with legislation. It’s also something with fairly broad, populist appeal. And it’s something that, if addressed might make meaningful and lasting impact.

The “people need to take personal responsibility for recycling” narrative has been largely funded by oil companies and polluting industries as a cover to avoid people realizing that those things make up such a tiny fraction of the overall problem. They work to turn people against each other so that were too busy fighting to address the much bigger environmental issues.

Also, I love straws. If I don’t have one the drink gets in my moustache.

Look, it’s easy to have the viewpoint that anyone who isn’t doing everything you’re doing to save the world is a shitty person, and anyone who does more than you is obviously just a try-hard.

Everyone, yourself included, makes “shitty” decisions for convenience sake every day. I assume you buy food from the grocery store instead of foraging through trash cans. I’ve had friends who did the latter, and called the rest of us shitty if we ever threw anything away.

Just because someone looks at a situation and comes out with a different “worth the effort” assessment than you, doesn’t make it “shitty.” That’s just life man. Are you driving a car instead of a motorcycle? Using toilet paper? Buying food from restaurants instead of eating out of trash cans? These are all decisions you could trivially change in your life today to make the world a little greener. So why aren’t you?

But, really, I think our actual disconnect here is that I’ve not articulated my position well enough. I’m talking paper bags with handles! I mean, if that’s not worth a dollar, what is?

I think the “more than I thought it would be” comment was more a reflection on how low I thought it would be than on how high it is. It’s still a pretty tiny fraction of the overall problem.

But, like, look. The optimal decision, and the only way to “stop accepting shit” as you put it, is for every single person to drop what they’re doing and go live as a hermit in the woods, and never produce or consume another product.

That isn’t realistic for the majority of people though. And while I could succumb to self-flagellation as a form of symbolic protest, I think my time and effort is spent participating in the system as it is, and donating to organizations that can make more systematic changes that might ultimately do some good.

Beating yourself (or others) up for “not doing enough” is at best a form of coping with things that are beyond your control, and at worst a form of alienating people who broadly agree with you.

And, to be clear, I didn’t say I’d pay a dollar a bag for any old paper bag. I said I’d pay that much for one with handles. Big difference.

I think there’s a couple of things in play here though.

First, this kinda has, “if millennials just didn’t drink Starbucks they could afford rent” energy. Would it make a difference? Maybe. But in the grand scheme what it would do is just take away something they enjoy, while they remain unable to make their student loan payments, much less but a house. The actual problems are more systematic, and the “don’t buy Starbucks” argument is to some degree just a distraction from fixing those more systematic problems (or an intentional effort to divide people so they can’t cooperate to fix those systematic issues.)

Second, I think you’re maybe exhibiting a little bit more brinkmanship than is warrented. It’s important to care about the environment, and there’s obviously a ton that needs to be done there. But as you say, there are bigger and worse threats out there than people buying paper bags, and it sounds like you’re letting your existential dread over the environment sour your actual, meaningful interpersonal connections. It feels a bit over the top to “lose faith in humanity” just because most people buy paper bags. Most people are good people, and it’s not unreasonable for them to take small conveniences, even if those conveniences aren’t environmentally “optimal.”

I think you’re overstating my position. It’s not that I’m “not willing to carry bags.” It’s that I’ve weighed the options and decided that the provided disposable bags are more convenient, so I’m just gonna do that. I’m unconvinced that switching would do much beyond slightly inconvenience me.

And you say it’s just a “me problem,” but a quick and unverified Google search says that 70% of people in the US don’t use reusable bags (and 57% worldwide). So it seems like it’s not so much a “me problem” as a “literal majority of the world” problem. Though I’m sure it probably felt good to attack me personally, as that gives you someone to lash out at.

I do think the BTUs portion is less concerning in the greater context. Both 600 and 2500 are negligible compared to, say, my daily commute, or a single plane trip, or basically any other activity that requires energy.

But the first part is kinda interesting. Doing some super sloppy back of the napkin math, I think that makes paper shopping bags about 6.5% of all paper products made in the US. Paper products account for around 50% of all wood products in the US, so call it just over 3% of total wood use (which may have gone up some due to increased prevalence of paper lately.)

Which isn’t nothing for sure. I would have guessed lower. I do think it may be overstating it to say we’d see a huge shift if everyone started using reusable bags overnight. A 3% drop in timber harvesting would be good, but not world changing I would think. But not insignificant either.

I think the reason it feels like schadenfreude is the context of the community.

Like, the only version of why someone would post this here that makes sense to me is, “haha, yeah, go gang members, eff those cops.” The person with that mentality would view this as “upliftingnews,” which would fit in the schadenfreude bucket to me.

Is that what OP thought? I can’t possibly know. But I don’t know why else they would have posted it here if they didn’t.