>where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place
You've hit the core problem of society/government that countless generations have tried to obfuscate via an academic body that implies that social interactions can be studied/understood like natural sciences.
At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to court, because if you don't you'll get arrested. Run from the police when they try to arrest you? You'll get taken by force.
Reject Capitalism? Starve to death on the streets.
Sure, there's political theory and economics can act like "utility" drives all things, but at the end of the day, it's the threat of some sort of violently bad outcome that keeps society in check.
The recent rub is that we have (probably correctly) decided that violence is bad and we should all just be chill and work together because it's good for all of us. We've also created hyper complex systems that couldn't even theoretically be kept in check with violence (Who am I going to punch when I was duped by a crypto scam?).
So instead of angry mobs tarring and feathering bad politicians/business people (probably bad) we just grouse on the Internet (bad but not as bad).
And stuff like this keeps happening, because an increasingly large number of people (especially the wealthy and politicians) are realizing the threat of violence isn't that great anymore. Like look at Elon Musk - his whole deal is proving that there are no bad consequences to doing whatever he wants and he's revered for it because people who still have a risk of violence in their lives are jealous but believe they one day could get to a similar place.
There's not really a solution other than figuring out how to may people be chill and cooperative on their own (good luck).
>Reject Capitalism? Starve to death on the streets.
What's "rejecting capitalism?" You can't blow up the NYSE, but most everything else is fair game. Your employer isn't going to care if you reject capitalism so long as you get your work done. If you don't want to work under a capitalist, you can join join or start your own cooperative. If you can't do that, you can be an independent contractor. If you don't have the motivation to do that, you can fall back on the charity of others.
>Like look at Elon Musk - his whole deal is proving that there are no bad consequences to doing whatever he wants
Musk got ousted as board chair at at Tesla, and was forced to buy Twitter at a very overpriced valuation.
I am sorry, if you 'reject capitaliam' but have to check if 'your employer' cares, and pay 'your landlord' and go to the same grocery store, what exactly have you rejected?
Based on what you're describing "reject capitalism" is just edgier phrasing for "not respecting property rights" (ie. expecting your employer to give you money for nothing, or for your landlord to house you for free).
Simple example - bhuddist monks, they don't take part in capitalism, they do their own thing.
Would you be allowed to build a monastery on top of a random mountain in America today? Clearly not. Force will be used to remove you.
So you portrailyal of 'anything short of terrorism is fair game' is totally inaccurate - the only way you are allowed to reject capitalism by selling tickets to a concert where you just talk shit.
Social interaction which is based on mutual trust (whether from family or sustained direct interpersonal interaction) is not really what we're talking about here. Folk dance festivals do not feed the world. The social structure of modern society is, by and large, about interactions between mutually distrusting strangers and their agents as they negotiate the exchange and distribution of economic resources. Basically everything you own and consume was produced by people you've never seen or interacted with.
You’re talking about capitalism not social structure. The post above that brought up social structure is also a red herring. This is about legal power and the threat of coercion. It would be trivial to implement a law to punish (say) Eric Adams or someone else in or formerly in nyc government for what they did. There are probably some basic mechanical reasons that is not generally done (although I don’t mean to dismiss the idea).
the idea is that sanctioning past behavior, which was legal at the time, is super extra bad (ie. no retroactive punishment), because then you can never be sure that the the ruling powers that be won't send law enforcement after you. (of course the brutal truth is that you can never be sure, hence people should realize that there's no opt-out from politics)
Positive reinforcement is not antithetical to the threat of violence and can go hand-in-hand. If you're good to me I'll treat you like family. But violate that peace and me and my clan will come down on you with furious anger. That's how people have lived for time immemorial.
Even so, violence isn't so much the basis for society itself, just the govt. And either way, it's only how outliers are dealt with. Most of what most people do all day every day is constrained by things like their family and peers' expectations and their commitments. I'd say social structures are primarily based on cultural norms.
Speaking as the son of someone who runs operations for the a federal district court, every ounce of the “violence” bit is covered by pounds and pounds of cultural norms and a fair bit of ritual as well.
Our aversion to violence is not new. In ancient Rome, it was sacrilegious to bring weapons inside the pomerium.
> At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to court, because if you don't you'll get arrested. Run from the police when they try to arrest you? You'll get taken by force.
Is this true for all social structures, or just our current one?
The social structures that emerge are time dependent. The people living in the middle ages had no way of predicting the social structures of today. Since we can't predict the social structures that the future will bring, how could we know for sure that there isn't X social structure that doesn't need violence to propagate itself?
We can talk about the likelihood of X social structure emerging, sure. But to make the universal claim about all social structures, viz "human nature", is flawed reasoning
> Sure, there's political theory and economics can act like "utility" drives all things, but at the end of the day, it's the threat of some sort of violently bad outcome that keeps society in check.
Being incarcerated or dead is very low utility for most people ;)
>At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence
This is completely wrong. Our current social structure in the United States is build on the threat of violence. Sense of duty, sense of shame, fear of ostracism, respect for tradition and family are all forms of social structure that have existed since we were crafting tools from stone. Of course all of these non-violent forms of social structure require a somewhat homogeneous population that shares the same values and culture. Many native American tribes had social structures like this where there was no police force, no threat of violence to enforce social norms. However, when a hodgepodge of people with different beliefs, different cultures, different educational levels, different educational values, different religions and different histories are jammed together in overcrowded cities the result is always going to be the same. Perhaps we should write "Our diversity is our strength!" On the side of all the prisons and police cars to make people feel better.
Elon is bound by all the modern societal rules, markets and law.
He wanted to weasel out of his M&A agreement with Twitter. No luck, contract law is well established.
He is also wanted to just do automatic assembly for Tesla, no luck there. You might remember when they had to set up tents connected to the factory building to extend the assembly line, etc. all because the markets demanded results. (Many people were shorting Tesla.)
...
Sure, he built a nice cult of personality for himself, it allows him a few degrees of freedom in the eyes of those people. But the vast majority of the people don't know much about him, and don't care. Not everyone is glued to Twitter, HN, Forbes billionaires toplists, etc.
Similarly Trump built a bigger one. And a lot of authoritarian assholes too. It was the norm for a long time after all, pharaohs, divine kings, etc.
>Who am I going to punch when I was duped by a crypto scam?)
This is what group violence is historically used for. When responsibility was so diffused among so many people that you couldn't fix things by picking one of the most responsible and making an example out of them the king or whoever would have everyone in the group subjected to violence or some other punishment under credible threat of violence.
You've hit the core problem of society/government that countless generations have tried to obfuscate via an academic body that implies that social interactions can be studied/understood like natural sciences.
At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to court, because if you don't you'll get arrested. Run from the police when they try to arrest you? You'll get taken by force.
Reject Capitalism? Starve to death on the streets.
Sure, there's political theory and economics can act like "utility" drives all things, but at the end of the day, it's the threat of some sort of violently bad outcome that keeps society in check.
The recent rub is that we have (probably correctly) decided that violence is bad and we should all just be chill and work together because it's good for all of us. We've also created hyper complex systems that couldn't even theoretically be kept in check with violence (Who am I going to punch when I was duped by a crypto scam?).
So instead of angry mobs tarring and feathering bad politicians/business people (probably bad) we just grouse on the Internet (bad but not as bad).
And stuff like this keeps happening, because an increasingly large number of people (especially the wealthy and politicians) are realizing the threat of violence isn't that great anymore. Like look at Elon Musk - his whole deal is proving that there are no bad consequences to doing whatever he wants and he's revered for it because people who still have a risk of violence in their lives are jealous but believe they one day could get to a similar place.
There's not really a solution other than figuring out how to may people be chill and cooperative on their own (good luck).