NationStates Jolt Archive

This article pretty much puts it in perspective.

Wealth & Virtue
The moral case for capitalism.



EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the text of a speech delivered before the Mont Pelerin Society in Sri Lanka on January 11, 2004.

It is a special privilege for an American theologian-philosopher to come to this beautiful country. My family is literally married to Asia. My nephew lives and works in Sri Lanka, and is married to a beautiful Bangladeshi woman. My brother was a missionary in Bangladesh, where he lost his life, and another brother spent most of his professional life in Asia, and died from a disease he picked up in Afghanistan. Millions of Asians have taken up residence in the United States during the past five generations, and these days their numbers grow faster than ever. That is why over the years there has been in the United States much concern for the peoples of this region. The bonds between us are familial.


But there has recently been formed yet another bond between us. A deep longing has formed in Asia to build a free society — a society designed for personal responsibility, for initiative and innovation, and for freely given cooperation with others; in short, a society that calls forth and nourishes the three great liberties for which the human spirit has been made.

The first liberty is liberty from tyranny and torture, provided by a democratic republic. The second is liberty of economic initiative, invention, and enterprise, provided by a free and dynamic economy. The third is liberty of conscience and information and ideas, provided by an open and free civic society. These are the three great liberties — political, economic, and moral. Correspondingly, three steps are required to move from the third world into the first world. A nation must create these three systems one by one. Each nation may do this in its own particular way. No two free nations are exactly alike.

Through exercising all three of these liberties, each diverse people utters its own distinctive voice in history. Through these three liberties, humans everywhere answer the two great questions of human life. The first of these questions, the personal one, is: "Who am I, under these stars, with the wind on my face, and so brief a number of years in which to live?" The second, the social question, is: "Who are we? We the people of Sri Lanka? Or we the people of each of the other nations on earth? Who am I? Who are we?" Through answering these two questions, we work out our destiny, personal and communitarian.


l. THE PRACTICAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM
From a long distance away, it seems that at least one of these liberties is easy for the citizens of Asia to understand: economic liberty. In practical terms, neither the traditional economy of centuries past nor the failed socialist experiments of the 20th century came close to matching the productivity, wealth, and rising standards of living generated by the free and inventive economy. But am I wrong to think that the moral case for a free economy — for the market economy, for the enterprise society, for the regime of private property, for capitalism — is more difficult to grasp, and is greeted by some with a traditional hostility?

It is easy to understand who the practical case for capitalism is easy to grasp. No other system so rapidly raises up the living standards of the poor, so thoroughly improves the conditions of life, or generates greater social wealth and distributes it more broadly. In the long competition of the last 100 years, neither socialist nor third-world experiments have performed as well in improving the lot of common people, paid higher wages, and more broadly multiplied liberties and opportunities.

This point needs elaboration since, in Marxist analysis, the only beneficiaries of capitalism are said to be the rich. In actual fact, it is the poor who gain most from capitalism. That is why the poor have always gravitated toward capitalist countries. That is why my own grandparents (and scores of millions of others) left Europe for America. They sought opportunity, and they found it. Desperately poor on their arrival (just before 1900), they lived to own their own homes, watching their children and grandchildren advancing in income and education. "Give me your tired, your poor. . ." the Statue of Liberty beckoned to the world; and nearly 100 percent of Americans did come to America poor. Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four). That means that 88 percent are not poor, and we still have about 12 percent to help. In 1990, 38 percent of the American poor owned their own homes; 95 percent of the poor had their own television sets; and a poor American was more likely to own an automobile than the average Western European. Today, the percentage of the American poor who own their own homes has climbed from 38 to 46 percent; more than half own two or more color televisions; almost two-thirds have cable or "dish" TV; three-quarters have a VCR or DVD player. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more. Beyond the poor, half of all families have incomes above $50,000 per year. About 20 percent have incomes above $91,000 per year.

It is sometimes suggested that American blacks are poor. But in the year 2002, 24 percent were poor; over 75 percent were not poor. Half of all black married couple households had incomes over $52,000 per year. The total income of America's 26 million blacks over the age of 15 came to $650 billion in 2002. This is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of all but 15 nations.

This is not to say that the task of eliminating poverty in America (or other capitalist countries) is finished. It isn't. But it is crucial to grasp that the task of capitalism is measured by how well it enriches the poor. To an amazing extent, it does do this. I would bet you that the great majority of Americans can remember when their families were poor, two or three generations ago; but they are not poor today. In the nations of Western Europe and in Japan, the case is similar. So also in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other newly capitalist countries. Measure capitalism by how well it raises up the poor. That is the test it is designed to meet. Look around the world and see.

A second practical argument is also widely accepted. Every democracy on earth that really does protect the human rights of its individual citizens is based, in fact, upon a free capitalist economy. Empirically speaking, there is not a single contrary case. Capitalism is a necessary condition for democracy. A free polity requires a free economy. It certainly needs a dynamic, growing economy if it hopes to meet the restless aspirations of its citizens.

These two practical arguments in favor of a capitalist economy are powerful. But they do not go to the heart of the matter. One could admit that, yes, capitalism does work better for improving the living standards of ordinary people, stocking the shops with goods in abundance, and imparting broad upward mobility and economic opportunity from the bottom of society. And one could admit further that, yes, capitalism is a necessary condition for the success of democracy, since without economic progress in their own daily lives ordinary citizens will not love democracy. No one will be satisfied merely with the right to vote for political leaders every two years or so, if living standards decline. One could agree with all this. And still one could say: "But capitalism is not a moral system. It does not have high moral ideals. It is an amoral, even immoral, system."

The moral case for capitalism is, therefore, the most important case. In addition to being political animals seeking liberty and economic animals seeking prosperity, human beings are also moral animals, thirsting for fairness, justice, truth, kindness, and love. What has capitalism to do with these?

In the lands of Marx and Lenin, the moral case for capitalism has been understated. To capitalism only evil was imputed. For that reason especially, I thought it useful to articulate for you, briefly and only in outline, the moral case for the goal you have already decided to pursue.

It was precisely through a moral argument that capitalism first commended itself to human consciousness in America, Britain, and France. This is the case that Marx and Lenin overlooked. Indeed, even many in Western lands have also overlooked it, or accepted it only inarticulately and in fragments. Practical people often skip past moral arguments. They thereby run the risk of undermining their own accomplishments. For no historical movement can long outlive the conviction of its protagonists that what they are doing is morally admirable. Moral conviction is one of the greatest forces in history, not even armies can hold it back.


2. THE MORAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM
As it happens, the early rise of capitalist ideas and practices in America, Great Britain, France, and Italy since the l8th century was greeted with hostility from aristocratic, scholarly, artistic, and religious circles. In the ancient and medieval world, commerce was much despised. The desire for money was described as "the root of all evils." Activities that were merely "useful" or even "pleasant" were held to be morally inferior to those that were "noble." An aristocratic bias dominated thinking about wealth. The work of agriculture was honored, along with such arts as architecture, sculpture, and painting. These were identified with "civilization." Grimy industry and sweaty commerce were held to be inferior, servile, and mean occupations, of low moral and social standing. (The disdain in which Communism held merchants, entrepreneurs, and "profiteers," formed on other grounds, nonetheless parallels these ancient aristocratic prejudices.)

Beginning in the mid-18th century, certain thinkers in Scotland (David Hume and Adam Smith, for example) began to unmask the moral pretenses of the landowning aristocracy and the learned clerisy. The latter spoke of "nobility" and praised "leisure," but their allegedly "higher" form of life depended on the servile toil of laborers, their subjects. Roads were poor, markets were few, and the great agricultural abundance produced by the great landed estates had few outlets. With their vast produce, the aristocracy fed legions of retainers and raised substantial armies. When they coveted goods not available to them, they turned these armies loose for war and plunder. That is why the lords lived in castle fortresses, and why cities throughout most of history were walled. In the precapitalist world, wars were frequent, and marauding bands often swept the countryside in search of plunder and booty. The earlier philosophers close to the courts of kings and princes (Machiavelli, for example) wrote of the arts of war and power. For them, power, not plenty, was the social object.

This was the context in which Hume, Smith, and others launched one of the great transvaluations of values of all time. They urged the world to turn from the pursuit of power to the pursuit of plenty. They urged human beings to turn from plunder, brigandage, rapine and warfare to the creative arts of commercial and industrial innovation. Smith, in particular, saw that the cause of the wealth of nations is not war, which impoverishes, but wit — the human capacity to invent, to innovate, to discover, and to organize in new cooperative ways. The cause of the wealth of nations is caput (Latin, head).

To put this in Jewish and Christian terms, God created humans in his own image, to be co-creators. Each woman and man is born with the inalienable right to personal economic initiative, the right to invent and to create. Each human being is an Imago Dei, an image of God, born to be creative and inventive. One sees this in the very opening of Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations (l776), in his example of the invention of the machine for mass-producing pins. Such invention is the chief cause of new wealth.

This emphasis upon invention and creativity is the distinctive characteristic of the capitalist economy. The capitalist economy is not characterized, as Marx thought, by private ownership of the means of production, market exchange, and profit. All these were present in the precapitalist aristocratic age. Rather, the distinctive, defining difference of the capitalist economy is enterprise: the habit of employing human wit to invent new goods and services, and to discover new and better ways to bring them to the broadest possible public.

The history of capitalism is very closely tied to the development of institutions supporting human practical intelligence, wit, and enterprise. Capitalism is, first of all, the stimulation of caput. Its main resource is human capital: knowledge, know-how, skill, the knack of insight into new possibilities for making life easier and better for as many others as possible. Its primary dynamic force is human wit. (That is why I prefer to call the new system foreshadowed by Hume and Smith "capitalism," rooted in caput, even though they never used that name, and even though Marx used it as a name of infamy, quite mistaking its unique and novel character.)



3. TEN MORAL ADVANTAGES OF CAPITALISM
In another place, I have counted ten different moral advantages that Hume and Smith foresaw in the new system they were commending to the practical energies of humankind. Time is too short to do more than mention these moral predictions briefly; I ask you to reflect on which of them still apply in Asia:

l. The rise of capitalism would break the habit of servile dependency, and awaken the longing for personal independence and freedom.

2. It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information.

3. It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry. It would, as Adam Smith writes, introduce "order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency on their superiors." (The Wealth of Nations, III, iv.4).

4. It would bring the peoples of each country and of the whole world into closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange.

5. It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts.

6. It would mightily augment "human capital" by inciting the emulation of new specialties, skills, and techniques. In addition, it would impart new tastes, and encourage the pursuit of new information and new ways of doing things.

7. It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability.

8. It would soften manners and instruct more and more of its participants to develop the high moral art of sympathy. For a commercial society depends on voluntary consent. Citizens must learn, therefore, a virtue even higher than empathy (which remains ego-centered, as when a person imagines how he would feel in another's shoes). True sympathy depends on getting out of oneself imaginatively and seeing and feeling the world, not exactly as the other person may see it, but as an ideal observer might see it. This capacity leads to the invention of new goods and services that might well be of use to others, even though they themselves have not yet imagined them.

9. It would instruct citizens in the arts of being farsighted, objective, and future-oriented, so as to try to shape the world of the future in a way helpful to as large a public as possible. Such public-spiritedness is a virtue that is good, not merely because it is useful, but because it seeks to be in line, in however humble a way, with the future common good.

10. Finally, it is one of the main functions of a capitalist economy to defeat envy. Envy is the most destructive of social evils, more so even than hatred. Hatred is highly visible; everyone knows that hatred is destructive. But envy is invisible, like a colorless gas, and it usually masquerades under some other name, such as equality. Nonetheless, a rage for material equality is a wicked project. Human beings are each so different from every other in talent, character, desire, energy, and luck, that material equality can never be imposed on human beings except through a thorough use of force. (Even then, those who impose equality on others would be likely to live in a way "more equal than others.") Envy is the most characteristic vice of all the long centuries of zero-sum economies, in which no one can win unless others lose. A capitalist system defeats envy, and promotes in its place the personal pursuit of happiness. It does this by generating invention, discovery, and economic growth. Its ideal is win-win, a situation in which everyone wins. In a dynamic world, with open horizons for all, life itself encourages people to attend to their own self-discovery and to pursue their own personal form of happiness, rather than to live a false life envying others.

In brief, a system rooted in the creative capacities of human persons takes as its horizon the whole, interdependent planet; seeks to liberate the poor of the world from the prison of poverty; focuses on the creation of plenty, rather than the pursuit of power; needs, and therefore encourages, a world under the rule of law, a world pacific, lawlike, and alive with voluntary cooperation. Failure at any of these points would indicate a breakdown in the system.

This moral vision, it is important to note, is highly social; its horizon includes every nation on the planet, and it relies throughout on an unprecedented degree of voluntary cooperation and association. You will have noticed that in free economies employees live within a world of incentives and new possibilities and that they are encouraged to smile and to be helpful.

In a certain sense, such a system is designed to get the best out of people, to inspire their creativity and cooperative impulses. You may object, rightly, that I am describing an ideal. But that is the point. A capitalist system does have high ideals. That these ideals are not always met in practice is also true. It is to capitalism's moral advantage, however, that it is driven by internal and necessary reasons to align its incentive structures with its ideals.

The moral genius of capitalism, then, lies in its institutional support for the inalienable capacity of human beings to use their own wits creatively. To this genius it adds, as Abraham Lincoln once put it, the fire of interest. Capitalism attends closely to self-interest, both in a lowly and in a large-minded way. Lincoln, for example, was speaking of the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows to inventors, for a limited time, the right to royalties from their own creations. This, it has turned out, is a magnificent and dynamic way of serving the common good, through stimulating heroic exertions on the part of inventors and discoverers.

In this respect, capitalism has taken man's measure more exactly than any other social system. It has found a better way than any other system to link self-interest to the advancement of the common good. Capitalism is by no means the Kingdom of God. It is a poor and clumsy human system. Although one can claim for it that it is better than any of its rivals, there is no need to give such a system three cheers. My friend Irving Kristol calls his book Two Cheers for Capitalism. One cheer is quite enough. It is not the paradise of humankind, but it is a highly moral system, nourishing the best that is in us and checking the worst.


4. CHECKS AND BALANCES
A capitalist system is only one of three systems composing the free society. The economic system is checked and regulated by both of the other two systems: by the institutions of the political system and by the institutions of the moral/cultural system. Capitalism does not operate in a moral vacuum. Those who fail to live up to the moral standards implicit in its own structure are corrected by forces from outside it. Thus, capitalism supplies only some of the moral energy present in the free society as a whole. There are moral energies in the democratic polity to call it to account. And there are moral energies in families, in the churches, in journalism, in the cinema, in the arts, and throughout civic society to unmask its failings and to call it to account.

This is as it should be. For the free society is not constructed for saints. There are not enough saints on earth to people a free society. A free society must make do with the only moral majority there is — all those citizens called to a noble destiny, indeed, but often weak, tempted, egocentric and quite imperfect. In imagining the free society of the future, it is important not to be utopian. This century has built too many graveyards in its so-called utopias. The citizens of the 2lst century will warn one another against the mistakes of the 20th.

In addition to systemic checks and balances, there must also be internal checks. James Madison wrote that it is chimerical to imagine that a free republic can survive without the daily practice of the virtues of liberty. A free society depends upon habits of responsibility, initiative, enterprise, foresight, and public spiritedness. It depends upon plain, ordinary, kitchen virtues. Citizens who are dependent, passive, irresponsible, and narrowly self-interested will badly govern their own conduct, and their project of self-government is bound to fail.

It is, therefore, a crucial act of statesmanship to identify and nourish the cultural habits indispensable to the practice and survival of liberty. The free society cannot be made to thrive on the basis of any set of moral habits at all. Where citizens are corrupt, dishonest, halfhearted in their work, inert, indifferent to high standards, willing to cheat and to steal and to defraud, eager to take from the public purse but unwilling to contribute to the commonweal, and entirely self-aggrandizing, self-government must fail. Many peoples of the world, in fact, have shown themselves incapable of making the institutions of liberty work. The road to liberty, Tocqueville warned, is a long one, precisely because it entails learning the habits of liberty. Not any habits at all will do. The road is narrow and the gate is strait.


5. THREE PARTING WISHES
As you build a free society here in Sri Lanka, let me voice three wishes:

First, that this new society will be rooted in the realism that underlies democracy — in limited government, under the rule of law, protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, and internally guarded by well-designed checks and balances against every form of power. We call this form of democracy the "democratic republic."

Second, that your new economy will be rooted in the realism of the free, competitive economy, in which rights to personal economic creativity will not be repressed but, on the contrary, will flourish for the common good of all.

And, finally, my third wish is that the ancient spirit of envy will be decisively defeated, by the attractiveness of a dynamic society of liberty and opportunity for all.

Your struggles toward these noble goals are our struggles. Our families in America share them with your families here, and with the whole human family everywhere on earth.

This is a very, very, very good article. Its going to be interesting to see how the America haters, anarchists, and communists all react.

This is a very, very, very good article. Its going to be interesting to see how the America haters, anarchists, and communists all react.
Yeah, it seems they don't want to talk.

How are anarchists not capitalists?

Someone gimme a summary.

Particularly how capitalism prevents war and promotes equality (which I saw as I skimmed through.)

How are anarchists not capitalists?
ooooh, youve got a lot to learn. Ask Letila.

Seems after every line I could totally discredit him by asking how or why. For that part which you could do that for anyway. And all those other lines.

How are anarchists not capitalists?

Capitalism is hierarchial and thus anti-anarchistic.

l. The rise of capitalism would break the habit of servile dependency, and awaken the longing for personal independence and freedom.

BS. Look at the people in cubicles or attaching bolts to cars.

2. It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information.

Where they can be more readily exploited.

3. It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry. It would, as Adam Smith writes, introduce "order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency on their superiors." (The Wealth of Nations, III, iv.4).

Except when war becomes profitable.

4. It would bring the peoples of each country and of the whole world into closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange.

So children in third world countries have the "opportunity" to spend 12+ hours a day making shoes for rich kids in the US.

5. It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts.

Yet social classes still exist today. A CEO get paid as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.

6. It would mightily augment "human capital" by inciting the emulation of new specialties, skills, and techniques. In addition, it would impart new tastes, and encourage the pursuit of new information and new ways of doing things.

If you can afford it.

7. It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability.

In other words, to paint a pretty exterior, even though on the inside, they are still immoral.

8. It would soften manners and instruct more and more of its participants to develop the high moral art of sympathy. For a commercial society depends on voluntary consent.

As though the threat of unemployment and poverty is "voluntary consent".

Citizens must learn, therefore, a virtue even higher than empathy (which remains ego-centered, as when a person imagines how he would feel in another's shoes). True sympathy depends on getting out of oneself imaginatively and seeing and feeling the world, not exactly as the other person may see it, but as an ideal observer might see it. This capacity leads to the invention of new goods and services that might well be of use to others, even though they themselves have not yet imagined them.

Last time I checked, capitalists didn't have much sympathy for sweatshop workers.

9. It would instruct citizens in the arts of being farsighted, objective, and future-oriented, so as to try to shape the world of the future in a way helpful to as large a public as possible. Such public-spiritedness is a virtue that is good, not merely because it is useful, but because it seeks to be in line, in however humble a way, with the future common good.

Which is why corporations ignore the threat of pollution and instead focus on profit.

10. Finally, it is one of the main functions of a capitalist economy to defeat envy. Envy is the most destructive of social evils, more so even than hatred. Hatred is highly visible; everyone knows that hatred is destructive. But envy is invisible, like a colorless gas, and it usually masquerades under some other name, such as equality. Nonetheless, a rage for material equality is a wicked project. Human beings are each so different from every other in talent, character, desire, energy, and luck, that material equality can never be imposed on human beings except through a thorough use of force. (Even then, those who impose equality on others would be likely to live in a way "more equal than others.") Envy is the most characteristic vice of all the long centuries of zero-sum economies, in which no one can win unless others lose. A capitalist system defeats envy, and promotes in its place the personal pursuit of happiness. It does this by generating invention, discovery, and economic growth. Its ideal is win-win, a situation in which everyone wins. In a dynamic world, with open horizons for all, life itself encourages people to attend to their own self-discovery and to pursue their own personal form of happiness, rather than to live a false life envying others.

In other words, the possibility of not judging people by the cold standard of numbers didn't occur to them. Apparently, the author subscribes to the myth that capitalism provides equal opportunity.

In other words, the possibility of not judging people by the cold standard of numbers didn't occur to them. Apparently, the author subscribes to the myth that capitalism provides equal opportunity.
Capitalism, in some cases may not provide equal opportunity, but Communism always provides equal suffering.

ooooh, youve got a lot to learn. Ask Letila.

Really, don't, you'll just get confused, annoyed and ignorant, three thing I'm sure no one wants to be. Suffice it to say that Anarchists can be capitalists or they can not be, there is no strict definition, in keeping with ideals of Anarchism.

Capitalism, in some cases may not provide equal opportunity, but Communism always provides equal suffering.

So? You'd rather have suffering heaped on a single group?

BS. Look at the people in cubicles or attaching bolts to cars.

I agree, look at the pre-capitalist western world. Where there was, arguably, more "personal independence and freedom," as the rise of machinery reduced workers to little more then cogs, rather then independent artisans which were more common before.

2. It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information.
Where they can be more readily exploited.
You missed the oh-so-patronising opinion that the poor are indolent. Also it fails to demonstrate how being a cog in a machine means that one is raised from " isolation and indolence" to a "world of commerce and information."

3. It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry. It would, as Adam Smith writes, introduce "order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency on their superiors." (The Wealth of Nations, III, iv.4).
Except when war becomes profitable.
Agree, with Letila and the article. However, the article hasn't proved the only way to lessen war is to introduce capitalism.

"A witty saying proves nothing."


4. It would bring the peoples of each country and of the whole world into closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange.So children in third world countries have the "opportunity" to spend 12+ hours a day making shoes for rich kids in the US.

Also, how does working in a factory bring people into a world of "closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange."


5. It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts.
Yet social classes still exist today. A CEO get paid as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.

If anything the industrial revolution just reinforced 'class' barriers, literacy didn't improve. You don't need to read to do some jobs so there is not benefit teaching literacy. These are all said without backing them up.

Also, to Letila. How is a CEO of a different class. Do you not see the position as useful? If not, why?


6. It would mightily augment "human capital" by inciting the emulation of new specialties, skills, and techniques. In addition, it would impart new tastes, and encourage the pursuit of new information and new ways of doing things.

Ever hear of the Luddites? I presume you have, but in the negative light that their enemies portrayed them in. They were not anti invention of machinery etc. Which they are usually portrayed as. They were angry that the artisan was now the same as an unskilled labourer, as using a machine required little specialised knowledge.

7. It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability.

BS.l If a worker just gets paid by the hour, there is little to ensure civility, as how well the company does will not effect his pay.

8. It would soften manners and instruct more and more of its participants to develop the high moral art of sympathy. For a commercial society depends on voluntary consent.As though the threat of unemployment and poverty is "voluntary consent".

I am seeing a pattern building up here: "We must civilise the uncouth worker."

Is it any different to your view Letila? Either obey society or go to hell?

Capitalism, in some cases may not provide equal opportunity, but Communism always provides equal suffering.
You do realise that it isn't either...or with Capitalism and Communism.

So? You'd rather have suffering heaped on a single group?
No, my point is, whether or not you agree, is that in Capitalism there is less suffering overall, and even the worst off are better than they would be in Communism. That argument, on which system promotes human suffering, is what all arguments involving Capitalism and Communism boil down to.

Capitalism is hierarchial and thus anti-anarchistic.


There will always be a pecking order, no matter what the system. You can't make everyone play nice together. It is never going to happen.


BS. Look at the people in cubicles or attaching bolts to cars.


I like my cubicle. Ahh...it's nicer than my room...


Except when war becomes profitable.


Wars are started by States. They are not profitable.


So children in third world countries have the "opportunity" to spend 12+ hours a day making shoes for rich kids in the US.


They have it better than they did without the opportunity. How the hell do you expect counties to ever modernize?


Yet social classes still exist today. A CEO get paid as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.


So what?


As though the threat of unemployment and poverty is "voluntary consent".


And I'm forced to eat through the threat of starvation. Tyranny!


Last time I checked, capitalists didn't have much sympathy for sweatshop workers.


*Bangs head against desk in frustration*

*Bangs head against desk in frustration*

No one ever listens to me in time... poor soul.

I agree, look at the pre-capitalist western world. Where there was, arguably, more "personal independence and freedom," as the rise of machinery reduced workers to little more then cogs, rather then independent artisans which were more common before.


Now that's what I call BS. You mean back when people didn't live past 10 and were at the mercy of the local nobility?




Agree, with Letila and the article. However, the article hasn't proved the only way to lessen war is to introduce capitalism.


You don't go to war with a country in which you have investments.



If anything the industrial revolution just reinforced 'class' barriers, literacy didn't improve. You don't need to read to do some jobs so there is not benefit teaching literacy. These are all said without backing them up.



Literacy improved, people started to live longer, child death rate plummeted...

l. THE PRACTICAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM
From a long distance away, it seems that at least one of these liberties is easy for the citizens of Asia to understand: economic liberty. In practical terms, neither the traditional economy of centuries past nor the failed socialist experiments of the 20th century came close to matching the productivity,

Riiight, Russia went from being a largely agriculturialy based peasant society to a Space Age competitor quite quikly you know.


wealth, and rising standards of living generated by the free and inventive economy.

Wealth isn't everything. Also, if the capitalist society is so good at providing high standards of living, why does the Social Democracy Sweden have the highest in the world?

But am I wrong to think that the moral case for a free economy — for the market economy, for the enterprise society, for the regime of private property, for capitalism — is more difficult to grasp, and is greeted by some with a traditional hostility?

Because many property rights are protected with the threat of State violence.

It is easy to understand who the practical case for capitalism is easy to grasp. No other system so rapidly raises up the living standards of the poor, so thoroughly improves the conditions of life, or generates greater social wealth and distributes it more broadly.

Whaaaaaaat? In the US the poor are basically expected to live on dirt and live in slums. How has capitalism helped them? Also, if capitalism is so good at distributing wealth, why is the majotiy of the wealth in the hands of few?


In the long competition of the last 100 years, neither socialist nor third-world experiments have performed as well in improving the lot of common people, paid higher wages, and more broadly multiplied liberties and opportunities.

Hmm, Scandinavian Social Democracies anyone?

This point needs elaboration since, in Marxist analysis, the only beneficiaries of capitalism are said to be the rich. In actual fact, it is the poor who gain most from capitalism.

Proof?

That is why the poor have always gravitated toward capitalist countries.

Just because the poor go to capitalist countries does not mean that the poor gain most from capitalism

nearly 100 percent of Americans did come to America poor.

Many also came before America could properly be called Capitalist too.

Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four).

Fun with numbers. But since I don't know the buying power of the dollar, it is kinda hard to do much.
Also, this is hardly proving that Capitalism is moral.

It is interesting that the speaker never bothers to give a practical definition of his/her concept of capitalism. The purported social and moral benefits of the system depend greatly upon just which type of capitalism is being implemented.

Now that's what I call BS. You mean back when people didn't live past 10 and were at the mercy of the local nobility?

Right, because the US went straight from Feudalism to modern Capitalsim. In fact, I never realise that the US has Feudalism.


Literacy improved, people started to live longer, child death rate plummeted...

Where is the proof that this was caused by capitalism ratehr then legitslation saying that all children had to go to school till age x? Or that discoveries in medical science weren't responsible for lower infant mortality.

Sweden is still run by capitalism...

Right, because the US went straight from Feudalism to modern Capitalsim. In fact, I never realise that the US has Feudalism


you were referring to the Western World earlier - not the US

There will always be a pecking order, no matter what the system. You can't make everyone play nice together. It is never going to happen.

Even when motivations to "play nice" are increased and motivations not to are removed?

I like my cubicle. Ahh...it's nicer than my room...

Well not everyone does. I certainly wouldn't want to work in a cubicle.

Wars are started by States. They are not profitable.

Sure they are. Guns cost money and businesses making weapons can make a lot of money from wars.

They have it better than they did without the opportunity. How the hell do you expect counties to ever modernize?

So because sweatshops are better than the alternative, they are justified? If a cold is better than AIDs, it still isn't a good thing.

As for modernization, I think you overestimate the advantages. I don't like where the future is going. I forsee massive environmental destruction and rule by Patrick Zalas.

So what?

So social classes still exist.

And I'm forced to eat through the threat of starvation. Tyranny!

And capitalists own the food, so to eat, you must take orders from them. Food itself can't order you around.

*Bangs head against desk in frustration*

Well it's true. I don't recall seeing many capitalists giving sweatshop workers minimum wage.

No, my point is, whether or not you agree, is that in Capitalism there is less suffering overall, and even the worst off are better than they would be in Communism. That argument, on which system promotes human suffering, is what all arguments involving Capitalism and Communism boil down to.

Less suffering overall? What about people too poor to afford good food and medical care while rich people ride their stupid yachts?

you were referring to the Western World earlier - not the US
Same applies. We didn't go straight from Dark Ages Feudalism to Modern Capitalism.

Same applies. We didn't go straight from Dark Ages Feudalism to Modern Capitalism.

Vast improvments took place post industrial revolution. How's that?

Sure they are. Guns cost money and businesses making weapons can make a lot of money from wars.

If you go to war with states where you have investments sale of arms may not be enough to make a profit.

So because sweatshops are better than the alternative, they are justified? If a cold is better than AIDs, it still isn't a good thing.

So you would rather have no sweatshops and lots of unemployed people in the 3rd world?

So social classes still exist.

Prove it.

Vast improvments took place post industrial revolution. How's that?
Such as?

Anyway, Iam not nessaserily anti-capitilism, but I find that there can be elements that are de humanising.

Well not everyone does. I certainly wouldn't want to work in a cubicle.


Where are you now? Out in a forest somewhere? I suppose it really depends on who you work with. I like my officemates, so work doesn't much seem like work. It is nice to get some field work in though.


Sure they are. Guns cost money and businesses making weapons can make a lot of money from wars.


How did I know you'd bring this up. Yes, but it would be detrimental to the majority of businesses. And what if the weapons company had branches in both countries? Do you think they would want to bomb their own factories?


So because sweatshops are better than the alternative, they are justified? If a cold is better than AIDs, it still isn't a good thing.


Yes.


As for modernization, I think you overestimate the advantages. I don't like where the future is going. I forsee massive environmental destruction and rule by Patrick Zalas.


I do. I don't


So social classes still exist.


Social classes will always exist. Be it based on money, looks, strength....


And capitalists own the food, so to eat, you must take orders from them. Food itself can't order you around.


I'm trying to grow some things in my backyard, but it isn't going so well. Damn weeds...


Well it's true. I don't recall seeing many capitalists giving sweatshop workers minimum wage.


You mean the artificial wage put in place by the state?


Less suffering overall? What about people too poor to afford good food and medical care while rich people ride their stupid yachts?

Medical insurance is all of $1000/year...I don't see any people who are on the brink of starvation around here - on the contrary

A deep longing has formed in Asia to build a free society - a society designed for personal responsibility, for initiative and innovation, and for freely given cooperation with others; in short, a society that calls forth and nourishes the three great liberties for which the human spirit has been made.

Unproven assumption.

In addition to being political animals seeking liberty and economic animals seeking prosperity, human beings are also moral animals, thirsting for fairness, justice, truth, kindness, and love.

Humans may very well be thirsting for fairness, justice, truth, kindness and love, but that does not mean that these are positive moral values. Humans are also driven by envy, but the writer does not ascribe to is a morally positive value - why?


To put this in Jewish and Christian terms, God created humans in his own image, to be co- creators. Each woman and man is born with the inalienable right to personal economic initiative, the right to invent and to create. Each human being is an Imago Dei, an image of God, born to be creative and inventive.

Once again an unproven statement.

l. The rise of capitalism would break the habit of servile dependency, and awaken the longing for personal independence and freedom.

Where was it shown that personal independence and freedom were positive moral values?

2. It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information.

Where was it shown that isolation and indolence were negative moral values?

3. It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry.

Where was it shown that war was a morally bad thing?

4. It would bring the peoples of each country and of the whole world into closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange.

This seems to be a repetition of the isolation/indolence argument set at a global scale: once again, where was it shown that cultural isolation or indolence was a morally bad thing?

5. It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts.

Again a repetition of the isolation/indolence argument this time set against a backdrop of class division: yet again, where was it shown that cultural isolation or indolence was a morally bad thing?

6. It would mightily augment "human capital" by inciting the emulation of new specialties, skills, and techniques. In addition, it would impart new tastes, and encourage the pursuit of new information and new ways of doing things.

This just seems to be harking back to the unproved claim that God created man as 'co-creators', and as such carries no persuasive weight.

7. It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability.

Where is it shown that civility has a positive moral value?

8. It would soften manners and instruct more and more of its participants to develop the high moral art of sympathy.

It is claimed here that 'sympathy' is a high moral art, yet I see no proof that it is.

9. It would instruct citizens in the arts of being farsighted, objective, and future-oriented, so as to try to shape the world of the future in a way helpful to as large a public as possible. Such public-spiritedness is a virtue that is good, not merely because it is useful, but because it seeks to be in line, in however humble a way, with the future common good.

Empty claim that 'public-spiritedness' is morally valuable because it contributes to a 'future common good' which is both undefined and unexamined, instead it is insinuated that it has a high moral value.

10. Finally, it is one of the main functions of a capitalist economy to defeat envy. Envy is the most destructive of social evils, more so even than hatred.

Blank assertion that envy is a morally bad thing. No evidence is put forward. See earlier comment regarding envy.

Has anyone ever visited a communist country?

Until Vietnam started following the footsteps of China which has embraced some capitalist doctrines, social welfare was almost unheard of. People are living better lives over there and the younger generation are starting to realize that their government is corrupt. Many are beginning to embrace Western culture. This summer, I saw several people wearing t-shirts and hankerchiefs printed with American flags.

Major corporations investing in Vietnam as well as tourism from developed nations has brought in billions, drastically improved living standards for millions. Saigon is currently one of the most breathtaking cities in SE Asia.. especially when compared to what you would have seen less than 10 years ago.

Such as?

Anyway, Iam not nessaserily anti-capitilism, but I find that there can be elements that are de humanising.

The child death-rate was cut in half between 1700-1900....I'm trying to find that book....so those aren't exact of course...

How did I know you'd bring this up. Yes, but it would be detrimental to the majority of businesses. And what if the weapons company had branches in both countries? Do you think they would want to bomb their own factories?

Then they won't be for a war in that country. Still, they need wars if they are going to make a great deal of profit.

Yes.

If the alternative is worse, then the capitalists are taking advantage of it to pay people dirt poor wages.

I do. I don't

Well you shouldn't and should. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wake up, look out my window, and see a complete cage of concrete.

Social classes will always exist. Be it based on money, looks, strength....

Last time I checked, there weren't many societies that gave coersive power based on looks.

I'm trying to grow some things in my backyard, but it isn't going so well. Damn weeds...

And capitalists own all the best farm land.

You mean the artificial wage put in place by the state?

Perhaps, but remember that the reason that sweatshops exist is because they can't abuse workers here badly enough.

Medical insurance is all of $1000/year...I don't see any people who are on the brink of starvation around here - on the contrary

Maybe not here, but there are places where starvation is a common and real threat.

Last time I checked, there weren't many societies that gave coersive power based on looks.

you should visit America, then.

Then they won't be for a war in that country. Still, they need wars if they are going to make a great deal of profit.


That's why global trade prevents conflict. But without states creating wars, they would have no reason to get into the business of creating weapons.


If the alternative is worse, then the capitalists are taking advantage of it to pay people dirt poor wages.


So you agree they are better off with capitalists?


Last time I checked, there weren't many societies that gave coersive power based on looks.


It isn't a matter of society "giving" power. It just happens. Look at the bully on the playground. And there is immense power in sexual appeal.


And capitalists own all the best farm land.


Well, this is ok, but I'm an idiot for trying to plant things so late in the season. Oh well...maybe pot will grow....


Perhaps, but remember that the reason that sweatshops exist is because they can't abuse workers here badly enough.


That's a hell of a way to put it. You should be happy about that.


Maybe not here, but there are places where starvation is a common and real threat.

Not in industrialized nations

you should visit America, then.

Is that a hint of resentment for the status quo? Do you understand how poor people must feel compared to the rich who inherited wealth at least?

That's why global trade prevents conflict. But without states creating wars, they would have no reason to get into the business of creating weapons.

Which is why there have been so many wars in the 20th century and why we are in a war right now.

So you agree they are better off with capitalists?

It isn't a matter of society "giving" power. It just happens. Look at the bully on the playground. And there is immense power in sexual appeal.

The Flay effect aside, maybe bullies are the result of society that has such strong power differences in it.

Not in industrialized nations

And not all countries involved in capitalism are fully industrialized.

Is that a hint of resentment for the status quo? Do you understand how poor people must feel compared to the rich who inherited wealth at least?

nope. i don't resent those who are more attractive than me, i sleep with them.

seriously, though, i don't resent people prettier than me any more than i resent those more wealthy than me. unlike you, i don't define my happiness by what other people have.

also, keep in mind, Letila: i have known what it is to be truly poor. unlike you, who sit safe at your parents' home using a computer somebody else pays for, i have been homeless and showered in my high school lockerroom because i had no place else to clean up. unlike you, who have never held a job, i have held two jobs at a time...three, if you count going to school. unlike you, i know what it is to work, to support myself, and to go without because i wasn't able to make ends meet. you don't know the first thing about being poor, yet you try to get on your high horse to criticize the evil capitalists.

when you sell your computer to pay for somebody else's food then we can talk. when you stop paying for internet in order to give donations to your local homeless shelter, then you can talk about the poor. when you get a job of your own and pay your own bills then you can talk about the fairness (or lack thereof) of capitalism. until then, you have no ground to stand on.

Is that a hint of resentment for the status quo? Do you understand how poor people must feel compared to the rich who inherited wealth at least?

I'm pretty darn poor, and I don't care. According to Forbes, 80% of millionaires are self made. Furthermore, that wealth is tied up in corporations.


Which is why there have been so many wars in the 20th century and why we are in a war right now.


The US wasn't trading with Iraq. But countries that were did not want to see the war take place.


The Flay effect aside, maybe bullies are the result of society that has such strong power differences in it.


Are you suggesting that bullies are the result of capitalism? God I hope not.


And not all countries involved in capitalism are fully industrialized.
Not yet

nope. i don't resent those who are more attractive than me, i sleep with them.

seriously, though, i don't resent people prettier than me any more than i resent those more wealthy than me. unlike you, i don't define my happiness by what other people have.

also, keep in mind, Letila: i have known what it is to be truly poor. unlike you, who sit safe at your parents' home using a computer somebody else pays for, i have been homeless and showered in my high school lockerroom because i had no place else to clean up. unlike you, who have never held a job, i have held two jobs at a time...three, if you count going to school. unlike you, i know what it is to work, to support myself, and to go without because i wasn't able to make ends meet. you don't know the first thing about being poor, yet you try to get on your high horse to criticize the evil capitalists.

when you sell your computer to pay for somebody else's food then we can talk. when you stop paying for internet in order to give donations to your local homeless shelter, then you can talk about the poor. when you get a job of your own and pay your own bills then you can talk about the fairness (or lack thereof) of capitalism. until then, you have no ground to stand on.

So why do you oppose equality if you have suffered under capitalism? You would have a lot to gain if capitalism fell when you were poor.

So why do you oppose equality if you have suffered under capitalism? You would have a lot to gain if capitalism fell when you were poor.
and we finally get to the heart of your philosophy: selfishness and laziness.

unlike you, i don't advocate unfair systems just because they might benefit me. i don't put my own material gain ahead of justice. i don't WANT to be a leech, and i don't WANT to have other people supporting me, even if i would have more stuff and and easier life.

I'm pretty darn poor, and I don't care. According to Forbes, 80% of millionaires are self made. Furthermore, that wealth is tied up in corporations.

You aren't poor. How are you on the internet? As for millionaires being "self-made", I really don't care. Hitler himself was "self-made". Believe it or not, it was the work of employees producing products that gave millionaires their wealth.

The US wasn't trading with Iraq. But countries that were did not want to see the war take place.

I thought that's where we got oil.

Are you suggesting that bullies are the result of capitalism? God I hope not.

No, but social hierarchy probably contributes a great deal to the mindset of a bully.

Not yet

And how long will it take?

"The first liberty is liberty from tyranny and torture, provided by a democratic republic"

Somewhat ironic considering recent events at Abu Gharib and Gutenemao Bay.

"No two free nations are exactly alike."

But all free nations should have the same economic system according to the author.

"It is easy to understand who the practical case for capitalism is easy to grasp. No other system so rapidly raises up the living standards of the poor, so thoroughly improves the conditions of life, or generates greater social wealth and distributes it more broadly. In the long competition of the last 100 years, neither socialist nor third-world experiments have performed as well in improving the lot of common people, paid higher wages, and more broadly multiplied liberties and opportunities. "

The Mont Pelerin society is firmly opposed to minimum wage legislation and any trade union activity that restricts capital.

"Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four). That means that 88 percent are not poor, and we still have about 12 percent to help. In 1990, 38 percent of the American poor owned their own homes; 95 percent of the poor had their own television sets; and a poor American was more likely to own an automobile than the average Western European. Today, the percentage of the American poor who own their own homes has climbed from 38 to 46 percent; more than half own two or more color televisions; almost two-thirds have cable or "dish" TV; three-quarters have a VCR or DVD player. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more. Beyond the poor, half of all families have incomes above $50,000 per year. About 20 percent have incomes above $91,000 per year."

Where are these figures from and who has chosen that defination of poor?

This is not to say that the task of eliminating poverty in America (or other capitalist countries) is finished. It isn't. But it is crucial to grasp that the task of capitalism is measured by how well it enriches the poor. To an amazing extent, it does do this. I would bet you that the great majority of Americans can remember when their families were poor, two or three generations ago; but they are not poor today. In the nations of Western Europe and in Japan, the case is similar. So also in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other newly capitalist countries. Measure capitalism by how well it raises up the poor. That is the test it is designed to meet. Look around the world and see."No evidence provided of this assertion.

A second practical argument is also widely accepted. Every democracy on earth that really does protect the human rights of its individual citizens is based, in fact, upon a free capitalist economy. Empirically speaking, there is not a single contrary case. Capitalism is a necessary condition for democracy. A free polity requires a free economy. It certainly needs a dynamic, growing economy if it hopes to meet the restless aspirations of its citizens.

China has also brought in a capitalist economy so the statement that there is "not a single contrary case" is a lie.

"As it happens, the early rise of capitalist ideas and practices in America, Great Britain, France, and Italy since the l8th century was greeted with hostility from aristocratic, scholarly, artistic, and religious circles. In the ancient and medieval world, commerce was much despised. The desire for money was described as "the root of all evils." Activities that were merely "useful" or even "pleasant" were held to be morally inferior to those that were "noble." An aristocratic bias dominated thinking about wealth. The work of agriculture was honored, along with such arts as architecture, sculpture, and painting. These were identified with "civilization." Grimy industry and sweaty commerce were held to be inferior, servile, and mean occupations, of low moral and social standing. (The disdain in which Communism held merchants, entrepreneurs, and "profiteers," formed on other grounds, nonetheless parallels these ancient aristocratic prejudices.)"

As Conceptulists has already pointed out this author also holds working class people as having "low moral and social standing"

"This was the context in which Hume, Smith, and others launched one of the great transvaluations of values of all time. They urged the world to turn from the pursuit of power to the pursuit of plenty. "

No Smith didn't. He was on record as saying that the main role of the police force was to stop the poor forcibily redistributing wealth.

"It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information."

The authors utter contempt for the poor is clear here.

"It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry. It would, as Adam Smith writes, introduce "order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency on their superiors." (The Wealth of Nations, III, iv.4)."

What evidence is there that wars have decreased under capitalism?

"It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts."

As I have previously shown socio-economic mobility is a myth, at least in the UK. I challenge pro-capitalists to produce figures suggesting the situation is different in their countries.

"It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability."

In the words of Oscar Wilde "disobediance was man's orginal virtue".

"This moral vision, it is important to note, is highly social; its horizon includes every nation on the planet, and it relies throughout on an unprecedented degree of voluntary cooperation and association. You will have noticed that in free economies employees live within a world of incentives and new possibilities and that they are encouraged to smile and to be helpful. "

If capitalism is about "voluntary cooperation" then why does the Mont Pelerin society support laws restricting strike action? It seems the capitalist free market doesn't extend to a free market of labour.

You aren't poor. How are you on the internet? As for millionaires being "self-made", I really don't care. Hitler himself was "self-made". Believe it or not, it was the work of employees producing products that gave millionaires their wealth.


Um, yes I am. My office has internet. I recieve a stipend from the university - it isn't much, less than poverty. But it's cheap to live here. That's just it - even poor Americans can have internet, televisions, and gold chains...thanks to millionaires and corporations.


I thought that's where we got oil.


Nope

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm




And how long will it take?

Don't know, but not as long it did for the first to industrialize. Look at Japan, they were a developing country 50 years ago.

unlike you, i don't advocate unfair systems just because they might benefit me. i don't put my own material gain ahead of justice. i don't WANT to be a leech, and i don't WANT to have other people supporting me, even if i would have more stuff and and easier life.How is direct democracy (which I'd argue is essentially the essence of communism, extended to all social realms of life) an unfair system?

(And ironically working in some crappy jobs in my past made me more of an extreme leftist, not less ;))

How is direct democracy (which I'd argue is essentially the essence of communism, extended to all social realms of life) an unfair system?


democracy leads to tyranny of the majority, which i strongly oppose. something doesn't become more right simply because more people think it's right, so i can't support pure or direct democracy.


(And ironically working in some crappy jobs in my past made me more of an extreme leftist, not less ;))
what's ironic about that? most people who go through hard times become more fiscally left-wing, since they want more services and more safety nets to help people in their position.

democracy leads to tyranny of the majority, which i strongly oppose. something doesn't become more right simply because more people think it's right, so i can't support pure or direct democracy. But at the moment aren't we living under tyranny of the minority? Unlike Letila I've no problem with appearing coercive. If someone doesn't want to live under the rules of their community that's their right. But I don't think they've got a right to impose themselves where they're not wanted.


what's ironic about that? most people who go through hard times become more fiscally left-wing, since they want more services and more safety nets to help people in their position.
I think it's ironic because of the standard argument (that you've touched on with Letila) that revolutionarys stop being such when they get a job and start paying tasks. It's not even that I'm just fiscally left-wing. I can honestly say that it was working life (and various things going on where I was living at the time) that made me a Marxist.

democracy leads to tyranny of the majority, which i strongly oppose. something doesn't become more right simply because more people think it's right, so i can't support pure or direct democracy.


Whereas in a republic* there is what? A tyranny of the minority? Something doesn't become more right simply because a some people think it's right (unless you are prepared to embrace a relativist position), so I can't support a republic.










(* Yes, I am aware that 'republic' refers to any state without a monarchy, but I am using it here in the sense of 'not a democracy').

But at the moment aren't we living under tyranny of the minority? Unlike Letila I've no problem with appearing coercive. If someone doesn't want to live under the rules of their community that's their right. But I don't think they've got a right to impose themselves where they're not wanted.

no, i don't think we are living under tyranny of the minority.

I think it's ironic because of the standard argument (that you've touched on with Letila) that revolutionarys stop being such when they get a job and start paying tasks. It's not even that I'm just fiscally left-wing. I can honestly say that it was working life (and various things going on where I was living at the time) that made me a Marxist.
that's what i am saying: "working life" (read: working at the lower end of the totem pole) is most often what leads people to become Marxist or socialist, much as how a lot of people find God when they lose a family member or endure personal hardship.

i certainly don't think revolutionaries stop being such when they get a job and start paying taxes...i sure didn't :). hell, i had a job and was paying taxes before i was old enough to really understand what it is to be revolutionary, so for me the tax-paying came first!

hehehe their are just to many people making generalizations in this thread you would think people could stop that, also i see people breaking the article up in pieces that end up changes the meaning cause they didn't take the whole idea into account.

Whereas in a republic* there is what? A tyranny of the minority? Something doesn't become more right simply because a some people think it's right (unless you are prepared to embrace a relativist position), so I can't support a republic.










(* Yes, I am aware that 'republic' refers to any state without a monarchy, but I am using it here in the sense of 'not a democracy').

republic does not require the definition of rightness be based on the opinion of the minority, while pure democracy DOES require that rightness be defined by the will of the majority.

witness America, where will of the minority does not define rightness...a minority believe that black people are worth less than white people, yet their will does not supercede that of others. of course, nor does will of the majority; a majority of Americans once believed that women should not be permitted to vote, that black people shouldn't eat in the same restaurants as white people, and that persons of different races should not be permitted to wed. all these things were brought about despite majority opposition at the time.

hehehe their are just to many people making generalizations in this thread you would think people could stop that, also i see people breaking the article up in pieces that end up changes the meaning cause they didn't take the whole idea into account.

OK - lets tackle the 'whole idea' then: the speechwriter took a particular view of Judaeo-Christian religion and stated that certain human attributes were created by God as morally valuable. They then went on to attempt to explain how these morally valuable human attributes could grow under capitalism. The entire piece is based on an arbitrary assumption of what constitutes the 'good', and has no philosophically convincing argument to back up this assumption.

republic does not require the definition of rightness be based on the opinion of the minority, while pure democracy DOES require that rightness be defined by the will of the majority.

There is nothing within democracy which automatically defines that which is decided to be the course taken to be ethically good. The only assumption in a pure democracy is that there is either an ethical right for people to participate in determination of the course to be taken, or an arbitrary choice to set up a democracy taken in an acknowledgement that we have no evidence for determining what is morally good or ill.

There is nothing within democracy which automatically defines that which is decided to be the course taken to be ethically good. The only assumption in a pure democracy is that there is either an ethical right for people to participate in determination of the course to be taken, or an arbitrary choice to set up a democracy taken in an acknowledgement that we have no evidence for determining what is morally good or ill.

forgive me, my language was imprecise and confusing. i agree with your post, let me clarify what i meant:

pure democracy REQUIRES tyranny of the majority, since the whole point is that majority vote rules. republic does NOT require tyranny of the minority, as we can see demonstrated in any republic in the world today. it can lead to that, yes, and perhaps more than one might like, but tyranny of the minority is not a necessary component of republic.

As though the government never oppresses people, bottle.

pure democracy REQUIRES tyranny of the majority, since the whole point is that majority vote rules. republic does NOT require tyranny of the minority, as we can see demonstrated in any republic in the world today. it can lead to that, yes, and perhaps more than one might like, but tyranny of the minority is not a necessary component of republic.

So a democracy always has a tyranny of the majority, whereas a republic at any particular time has a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the minority?

So far it sound like the people who are against capitalism are so because everyone is not treated the exact same way. Well LIFE isn't FAIR. is wealth measured simply through how much money you have. Why is money important? It makes life easier? What about health. People in good health have easier lives right. So should people with poor health, disabilities, diseases be give more money? What about happiness. Shouldn't all people be equally happy. So if they require more money to be as happy as me should they get it? NO that is just plain stupid. Life is not fair. Life is not equal. People gotta stop complaining and get off their lazy ass and work hard. Stop pissing and moaning. But sure the world is not perfect and there are things that need to be fixed.

So a democracy always has a tyranny of the majority
by definition, yes.

whereas a republic at any particular time has a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the minority?
no...how do you reach that conclusion? yes, at any given point or on any given issue you will either have a majority of people happy or a minority of people happy (by definition, since you pretty much can never have all people happy at the same time about the same thing), but that doesn't mean that you will necessarily be allowing either minorities or majorities to dominate one another; just because certain groups are happier about a certain outcome doesn't mean that their happiness was the reason that you made or enforced a given law.

again, to use America as an example: enforcing the Constitution required that black people be allowed to vote. at the time, this was supported by a minority of people, yet today it is supported by the majority of people...does that mean that allowing black people to vote is both tyranny of the minority and of the majority? when it reached the point of 51% of people supporting it, did it transition from being tyranny of the minority to tyranny of the majority?

no...how do you reach that conclusion? yes, at any given point or on any given issue you will either have a majority of people happy or a minority of people happy (by definition, since you pretty much can never have all people happy at the same time about the same thing), but that doesn't mean that you will necessarily be allowing either minorities or majorities to dominate one another; just because certain groups are happier about a certain outcome doesn't mean that their happiness was the reason that you made or enforced a given law.

No, the reason a particular law or course of action was determined was because some amount of people decided that it was the correct thing to do.


again, to use America as an example: enforcing the Constitution required that black people be allowed to vote. at the time, this was supported by a minority of people, yet today it is supported by the majority of people...does that mean that allowing black people to vote is both tyranny of the minority and of the majority?

No, it was a tyranny of the minority and now it is a tyranny of the majority.

when it reached the point of 51% of people supporting it, did it transition from being tyranny of the minority to tyranny of the majority?

Well, 50.00.....001, whatever, but yes, if we are prepared to claim that all democracies are always tyrannies of the majority, then we must follow this conclusion in other systems: whatever body determines action or policy is a tyranny.

No, the reason a particular law or course of action was determined was because some amount of people decided that it was the correct thing to do.




No, it was a tyranny of the minority and now it is a tyranny of the majority.



Well, 50.00.....001, whatever, but yes, if we are prepared to claim that all democracies are always tyrannies of the majority, then we must follow this conclusion in other systems.

i don't see why; enforcing a given law, or enforcing our Constitution, is not about how many people support or oppose it. as history has repeatedly shown, the number of people in support of Supreme Court rulings doesn't determine what they will be; the Constitution is enforced whether the majority supports it or the minority does.

in contrast, in a pure democracy the only rule-stick is the majority vote. the ONLY way something can be law is if the majority wants it.

if you want to use your definitions, that something MUST be either tyranny of the minority or of the majority, then personally i would prefer to live in a society where either is possible. that way at least you get some variety; if you hate the majority you'll have a chance to see them oppressed every now and again, and if you love the majority you'll get to see them oppress everybody else now and again. yay, group hug!

if you hate the majority you'll have a chance to see them oppressed every now and again, and if you love the majority you'll get to see them oppress everybody else now and again. yay, group hug!

Oppress the majority? :rolleyes:

And since when did the 'Constitution' become the New Bible? It was at some point in time written by a tiny minority and gradually amended by various minority groups to reflect the majority.

Oppress the majority? :rolleyes:

And since when did the 'Constitution' become the New Bible? It was at some point in time written by a tiny minority and gradually amended by various minority groups to reflect the majority.
i don't recall claiming the Constitution was infallible or the word of God or above criticism...how exactly do you feel i was claiming it was akin to the Bible? i also would disagree that minorities ammended the Constitution to make it reflect the majority, since (as i have stated) many ammendments were made that opposed the will of the majority. others were made that agreed with the majority, true, but there are still significant examples of the majority not getting its way with Constitutional interpretations or ammendments.

Such as?

Anyway, Iam not nessaserily anti-capitilism, but I find that there can be elements that are de humanising.
Well, which has more de-humanizing elements, Communism, where what you work for is taken away from you, and distributed out to your neighbors, or Capitalism, where you get to keep what you earn, keep the fruits of your labor and hard work?

The nicest place to live in the world is apparently Norway. Its about 50/50

you need a mix of both worlds if you want to maximise the utility as private enterprise alone will not always allocate reasources in the most efficieent way.

Also goods will not be spread to maximise total utility. due to the rules of diminshing returns, the more of something someone has the less satisfaction they get per unit.

Therefore with more money you get less utility from it per dollar if you have more. So one man with 1 million dollars will not have as much total utility from his money as 100 with ten thousand. (and probably less than 50 with ten thousand for that matter, though this would require measurement )

therefore it isnt a case of free markets as these do not balance the need to maximise output through free market efficiency which they do with the fact that spreading it more evenly increases the utility per unit given.

If an economydoes not maximise satisfaction and only maximises output, it is failing to achiev the goal of economics. Free markets alone would fail, and therefore it would be a sad day for economics if it couldnt be argued that pure capitalism is not the awnser.

Yes! i didnt waste my first year at uni then! :P

Leaving aside the BWO/Bottle debate which all hangs on your definition of 'tyranny' - so is no one going to challenge my position that the original speech was just a stating of bland ethical assumptions with no philosophical rationale behind them?

If not, I'll count it as a victory...

The nicest place to live in the world is apparently Norway.

Thanks to their huge oil supply


Also goods will not be spread to maximise total utility. due to the rules of diminshing returns, the more of something someone has the less satisfaction they get per unit.


wealth is not finite - it can be created. My success does not inhibit yours. This argument makes no sense.


Yes! i didnt waste my first year at uni then! :P
Hmmm....

Leaving aside the BWO/Bottle debate which all hangs on your definition of 'tyranny' - so is no one going to challenge my position that the original speech was just a stating of bland ethical assumptions with no philosophical rationale behind them?

If not, I'll count it as a victory...

Argue specifics...you accusations are too generic.

Argue specifics...you accusations are too generic.

Specifics: the original speech writer stated that Judaeo-Christian religion is entirely correct in telling us that "fairness, justice, truth, kindness, and love" are all moral goods, but doesn't go on to explore exactly what is meant by these terms or provide any kind of back-up argument for his assertion: all he does is go on to show how certain aspects of these values can be encouraged under capitalism.

Unless he can prove to me that "fairness, justice, truth, kindness, and love" are in fact ethical goods, then I have no reason to accept his argument for capitalism.

Well, which has more de-humanizing elements, Communism, where what you work for is taken away from you, and distributed out to your neighbors, or Capitalism, where you get to keep what you earn, keep the fruits of your labor and hard work?

BS. Capitalism doesn't even let you get your product before the boss steals it. He just plucks it off the assembly line, sells it, and gives you part of the money made from it.

Capitalism is hierarchial and thus anti-anarchistic.



BS. Look at the people in cubicles or attaching bolts to cars.



Where they can be more readily exploited.



Except when war becomes profitable.



So children in third world countries have the "opportunity" to spend 12+ hours a day making shoes for rich kids in the US.



Yet social classes still exist today. A CEO get paid as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.



If you can afford it.



In other words, to paint a pretty exterior, even though on the inside, they are still immoral.



As though the threat of unemployment and poverty is "voluntary consent".



Last time I checked, capitalists didn't have much sympathy for sweatshop workers.



Which is why corporations ignore the threat of pollution and instead focus on profit.



In other words, the possibility of not judging people by the cold standard of numbers didn't occur to them. Apparently, the author subscribes to the myth that capitalism provides equal opportunity.

Owned. Best post ever.

Well, which has more de-humanizing elements, Communism, where what you work for is taken away from you, and distributed out to your neighbors, or Capitalism, where you get to keep what you earn, keep the fruits of your labor and hard work?

Wow, you really obviously do not have the faintest clue what communism is. There is no "economic freedom" in capitalism. A few thousand people at most currently have total control over the United States' economy

Wow, you really obviously do not have the faintest clue what communism is. There is no "economic freedom" in capitalism. A few thousand people at most currently have total control over the United States' economy

Holy crap! when did this happen?

Owned. Best post ever.

you obviously didn't read the replies....

How are anarchists not capitalists?
Capitalism is hierarchial and thus anti-anarchistic.
False. Capitalism is not heirarchical.


l. The rise of capitalism would break the habit of servile dependency, and awaken the longing for personal independence and freedom.
BS. Look at the people in cubicles or attaching bolts to cars.
Non sequitur.


2. It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information.
Where they can be more readily exploited.
Marxist myth.


3. It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry. It would, as Adam Smith writes, introduce "order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency on their superiors." (The Wealth of Nations, III, iv.4).
Except when war becomes profitable.
Ah, you're thinking of the state.


4. It would bring the peoples of each country and of the whole world into closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange.
So children in third world countries have the "opportunity" to spend 12+ hours a day making shoes for rich kids in the US.
Would you rather they died of starvation? And I want to see you back your claim.


5. It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts.
Yet social classes still exist today.
Prove it, using objective means.

A CEO get paid as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.
So the fuck what?


6. It would mightily augment "human capital" by inciting the emulation of new specialties, skills, and techniques. In addition, it would impart new tastes, and encourage the pursuit of new information and new ways of doing things.
If you can afford it.
Which, amazingly enough, is quite easily done.


7. It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability.
In other words, to paint a pretty exterior, even though on the inside, they are still immoral.
And whose rights are being violated, and what rights are those, and demonstrate that they are rights. No question-begging from you.


8. It would soften manners and instruct more and more of its participants to develop the high moral art of sympathy. For a commercial society depends on voluntary consent.
As though the threat of unemployment and poverty is "voluntary consent".
So if you don't get a job at one particular place, that automatically means you will be destitute? What a fucking load! You don't know shit about shit.

This is why your age is a factor, Letila: you have got 0 real world experience. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


Citizens must learn, therefore, a virtue even higher than empathy (which remains ego-centered, as when a person imagines how he would feel in another's shoes). True sympathy depends on getting out of oneself imaginatively and seeing and feeling the world, not exactly as the other person may see it, but as an ideal observer might see it. This capacity leads to the invention of new goods and services that might well be of use to others, even though they themselves have not yet imagined them.Last time I checked, capitalists didn't have much sympathy for sweatshop workers.
Last time I checked, sweatshops only existed in socialist/communist countries.


9. It would instruct citizens in the arts of being farsighted, objective, and future-oriented, so as to try to shape the world of the future in a way helpful to as large a public as possible. Such public-spiritedness is a virtue that is good, not merely because it is useful, but because it seeks to be in line, in however humble a way, with the future common good.
Which is why corporations ignore the threat of pollution and instead focus on profit.
Which is why We Energies is installing all sorts of antipollution devices, right?

Fucking moron. You know dick.


10. Finally, it is one of the main functions of a capitalist economy to defeat envy. Envy is the most destructive of social evils, more so even than hatred. Hatred is highly visible; everyone knows that hatred is destructive. But envy is invisible, like a colorless gas, and it usually masquerades under some other name, such as equality. Nonetheless, a rage for material equality is a wicked project. Human beings are each so different from every other in talent, character, desire, energy, and luck, that material equality can never be imposed on human beings except through a thorough use of force. (Even then, those who impose equality on others would be likely to live in a way "more equal than others.") Envy is the most characteristic vice of all the long centuries of zero-sum economies, in which no one can win unless others lose. A capitalist system defeats envy, and promotes in its place the personal pursuit of happiness. It does this by generating invention, discovery, and economic growth. Its ideal is win-win, a situation in which everyone wins. In a dynamic world, with open horizons for all, life itself encourages people to attend to their own self-discovery and to pursue their own personal form of happiness, rather than to live a false life envying others.
In other words, the possibility of not judging people by the cold standard of numbers didn't occur to them.
Stalin: 1 death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. Looks like commies judge by numbers.

Apparently, the author subscribes to the myth that capitalism provides equal opportunity.
And you subscribe to the myth that commuism provides equal opportunity.

BS. Capitalism doesn't even let you get your product before the boss steals it. He just plucks it off the assembly line, sells it, and gives you part of the money made from it.
Labor. Theory. of. Value.

Refuted. To. Death.

Why. The. Fuck. Can't. You. Get. It. Through. Your. Head?

I hate this place. I had so much to say, I am just not fast enough.

Capitalism is on the way out. It doesn't work any more and pretty soon the entire world is going to be fed up with it. We need to replace capitalism with communism and replace all governments with socialist governments. That would be the best way to make a better world.

Capitalism is on the way out. It doesn't work any more and pretty soon the entire world is going to be fed up with it. We need to replace capitalism with communism and replace all governments with socialist governments. That would be the best way to make a better world.

How does it not work?

Capitalism is driving the world to an ecological crises and has no means to change direction. Thats how it doesnt work.

Capitalism is driving the world to an ecological crises and has no means to change direction. Thats how it doesnt work.

Ecological crises? Look at China and the Soviet Union. And the biggest polluter in the US is the government.

Leaving aside the BWO/Bottle debate which all hangs on your definition of 'tyranny' - so is no one going to challenge my position that the original speech was just a stating of bland ethical assumptions with no philosophical rationale behind them?

If not, I'll count it as a victory...
you are absolutely correct. The article made extremely broad and unsupported assumptions about the nature and existence of a universal morality to which I for one do not ascribe.

Ecological crises? Look at China and the Soviet Union. And the biggest polluter in the US is the government.
China is distinctly capitalist and Soviet Union does not exist. What is your point? In fact I would go as far as to say that the economic powerhouse that is China demonstrates my point, that capitalism leads us to ecological disaster. For instance, the yellow River is drying up and 300 million people willl be at risk of starvation in the next 20 years

you are absolutely correct. The article made extremely broad and unsupported assumptions about the nature and existence of a universal morality to which I for one do not ascribe.

Yay! Forgive my hubris at claiming an individual victory there. I could accept the speech a lot better if it had of been of the form "If you believe that X, Y and Z are ethically good, then they can be encouraged and the Good can be promoted by operating in this fashion*", but it didn't have the integrity to do so.



* However, I may very well disagree that acting in that fashion would actually promote those ethically positive values.

Yay! Forgive my hubris at claiming an individual victory there. I could accept the speech a lot better if it had of been of the form "If you believe that X, Y and Z are ethically good, then they can be encouraged and the Good can be promoted by operating in this fashion*", but it didn't have the integrity to do so.



* However, I may very well disagree that acting in that fashion would actually promote those ethically positive values.
they dont teach logic to conservatives and capitalists so dont expect sound argument any time soon.

I am an economics undergrad and have some major problems with capitalism, in fact, I would consider myself an anti-capitalist; however, i disagree with most of the posts that sought to rebuff what that speaker was trying to say.

By the way, just in general, the guy(s) who quoted the speech point by point and said, "an unproven assumption" pissed me off. Why don't you do us a favor and find evidence to the contrary. In other words, go prove him wrong. I hate it when people do that.

Many of the arguments i read were good, but at the same time confused socio-economics and related politics and psychology (the whole bully thread - ever read about Cain and Abel? - whether fact or fiction, such a legend exists in pre-Antiquity) with pure capitalism as an economic system. Also, don't forget that the Soviet Union was Leninist, not communist; and Leninism and Marxism are only forms of communism.

Looking for that perfect economic system? it's next to the perfect governmental system, in Shangra-La. Wherever there is the human will, there will always be error (and abuse). As an economic system, in theory, pure communism distributes goods equally.

Pure capitalism however, has serious moral and social flaws. I'll try to get to this tomorrow, so that I can put the whole argumentation with evidence.

Question: how the... what do you mean... er, could you explain the link between capitalism and 300 million starving and the river drying out. I keep looking but still don't see it.

And have you see Canada, or Ukraine, or Kansas? or, have you ever driven through Kansas, etc?

People are starving already, but it has to do with politics, not economics.

i don't see why; enforcing a given law, or enforcing our Constitution, is not about how many people support or oppose it. as history has repeatedly shown, the number of people in support of Supreme Court rulings doesn't determine what they will be; the Constitution is enforced whether the majority supports it or the minority does.

in contrast, in a pure democracy the only rule-stick is the majority vote. the ONLY way something can be law is if the majority wants it.
The Constitution was ratified by the majority of representatives from the states. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that people in a direct democracy could decide to ratify a Constitution of their own.

Has anyone ever visited a communist country?
No, since none has ever existed.

And I'm forced to eat through the threat of starvation. Tyranny!Exactly.

But without states creating wars, they would have no reason to get into the business of creating weapons.
States almost always, if not always create wars for the benefit of the rich.

There is no such thing as capitalism. There is mercantilism - the dominant system in the world today where the govt and big business combine to rig the market in favour of the established rich via tariffs, regulations and taxation - and there is potentially a free market - the system the author of the article was advocating, the "simple and obvious system of natural liberty". The word "capitalism" was invented by Marx in order to confuse the former system (evil, exloitative and oppressive) with the latter (good, libertarian and beneficial for all) and is supposed to imply "rule by capitalists". Once we agree to abandon the unhelpful term "capitalism" we won't have anyone asserting the ridiculous claim that China or even America have free markets.

States almost always, if not always create wars for the benefit of the rich.
Yes, by spreading the cost of the war amongst the population for the benefit of a few the existence of a state can make war profitable for some (the military-industrial complex). However, in a free market with no state to steal everyone's money anybody who wants a war for profit would (a) find it exceptionally difficult to gain any moral legitimacy (would you believe Texaco if they claimed to be "liberating" Iraq or looking for WMDs?) (b) would have to pay for the whole thing themselves, thus making it almost certainly unprofitable if the victims were anybody more technologically advanced than 17th century native Americans.

Capitalism is driving the world to an ecological crises and has no means to change direction. Thats how it doesnt work.
In a free market pollutors could either be forced to pay for any damage they did to your health or property, or forbidden from doing it in the first place (depending on what the court rules in that particular case). This is something govts have specifically refused to do since the start of the industrial revolution in blatent violation of peoples' property rights. This is another example of the confusion between mercantilism ("privilidges for favoured merchants") and the free market (respect others' property rights) inroduced by the word "capitalism". Your problem is a result of mercantilism, the solution is the free market.

In a free market pollutors could either be forced to pay for any damage they did to your health or property, or forbidden from doing it in the first place (depending on what the court rules in that particular case). This is something govts have specifically refused to do since the start of the industrial revolution in blatent violation of peoples' property rights. This is another example of the confusion between mercantilism ("privilidges for favoured merchants") and the free market (respect others' property rights) inroduced by the word "capitalism". Your problem is a result of mercantilism, the solution is the free market.
If a government doesn't have the ability to force polluters to pay for damages, who does? Not to mention that you can't realistically put a price on pollution.

This is a case for America, not capitalism.

If a government doesn't have the ability to force polluters to pay for damages, who does?.
Whether the govt has the ability is irrelevant since it has not the will. The historically successful system of private justice will ensure that the victims are again put at the center of the justice system.
Not to mention that you can't realistically put a price on pollution.
Price of pollution = cost to repair damage + costs of court case. Courts will estimate compensation if I damage your lungs via pollution just as if I broke your arm with a baseball bat.

Price of pollution = cost to repair damage + costs of court case. Courts will estimate compensation if I damage your lungs via pollution just as if I broke your arm with a baseball bat.
What if the pollution led to my death?

Whether the govt has the ability is irrelevant since it has not the will. The historically successful system of private justice will ensure that the victims are again put at the center of the justice system.If they can pay for it.

What if the pollution led to my death?
And which system would bring you back to life? The polluter would be charged with murder or manslaughter and would be forced to compensate your family (and thus has huge incentive not to do it in the first place), what more could you ask for?
If they can pay for it.
Price of pollution = cost to repair damage ***+ costs of court case.*** Loser pays court cost. There exist "no win, no fee" lawyers. If you want to donate money to poor people who have court costs nobody will stop you. They won't be forced to subsidise expensive govt courts as they are now. Courts will be cheaper.

Surely by now you have grasped that the question "how will the poor pay for X?" has the same obvious answer no matter what the X is? If you can afford (and most can for things most necessary) you pay yourself, if you can't you rely on charity. Things are cheaper on the market. If there is a demand for low cost services someone will try to supply them. There will be more jobs and higher wages. etc etc.

Capitalism is driving the world to an ecological crises
How so?

and has no means to change direction.
Again, how so?

And which system would bring you back to life? The polluter would be charged with murder or manslaughter and would be forced to compensate your family (and thus has huge incentive not to do it in the first place), what more could you ask for?

Surely by now you have grasped that the question "how will the poor pay for X?" has the same obvious answer no matter what the X is? If you can afford (and most can for things most necessary) you pay yourself, if you can't you rely on charity. Things are cheaper on the market. If there is a demand for low cost services someone will try to supply them. There will be more jobs and higher wages. etc etc.
I could ask for the polluter not polluting at all, and therefore my death wouldn't have happened. If the polluter is able to compensate my family, that means that you feel that it's possible to put a price on human life.

Well, I forgot that you believe that there will be enough charity to provide for everyone who can't afford something. While I suppose that it's hypothetically possible, historically in societies that are moving towards anarcho-capitalism (yes I realize that they were still mercantilist) this has not been the case. I suppose you would argue that the reason for that is that the government messed things up. Furthermore, a company will only provide low-cost services if it's profitable to do so.

The self-proclaimed "anti-capitalists" will not grant that morals exist.

There can't be any "moral case" for anything with them.

If any inequality is seen as evil, then these people can and will struggle against anything that pisses them off at any time, as capriciously as they want.

Those saying the "speech" is too vague and general is correct, as you need to look at the world (as regards this topic) at that level of detail to keep from being overwhelmed by it.

In essence, those who want "niceness and perfectness for all" are on a fools errand, which is fine.

It points out the really bad abusers of the system, but the system itself will never be "overthrown" by this "opportunistic infection".

This is what the progression of history shows.

That is an interesting article. It definitely puts a positive face on capitalism. However, it's clear that something or other about capitalism in the USA is not working. I post on another board that has an interesting discussion about economics, and here is a series of posts that I thought were meaningful:

Basically, I see how awfully capitalism screws over the poor in our system. Hence, socialism is a good solution. However, I also see how the government is over-controlling. Hence, anarchism. I can't decide which one harms people more, so I can't decide which solution is better. I'd like to combine the best of the two, but that requires trusting people to be nice on their own, which, as is easy to see, just doesn't happen. If it did, there'd be little economic problem in our system.

If everyone were nice on their own, most political systems would work out quite nicely in spite of whatever theoretical flaws they might have.

I agree. The main reason communism hasn't worked and never will, is that people are naturally greedy. People being greedy is what makes a free market economy go. If people were naturally nice and wanted to help the people around them, communism would be the best form of government ever. (and if the leaders of such a government were not greedy, corrupt, and evil) However, this is just not so.

Yeah. The Bible teaches that, and Christians call it "sin nature".

That's why the best systems (free-market economies and democracies) are the best--they do what they can to fit into the mold of natural badness, and possibly create some good from it.

No government system is perfect, though, because of the natural badness.

The thing that really bothers me about capitalism is that it's based on greed. Truly, if greed weren't present, that economic center would fall apart. The fact that is seems to work so well makes me very sad because it shows that mankind is extremely greedy: the only economic system that works is based off of it! Socialism, on the other hand, shows concern for everybody else, it is unselfish and wants to make everything fair and equal, and it doesn't work, or at least hasn't shown any signs of working. Doesn't that depress you? It makes me feel for mankind.

The self-proclaimed "anti-capitalists" will not grant that morals exist.

There can't be any "moral case" for anything with them.It is precisely because morals exist that I am an anti-capitalist.

Quote:
The thing that really bothers me about capitalism is that it's based on greed. Truly, if greed weren't present, that economic center would fall apart. The fact that is seems to work so well makes me very sad because it shows that mankind is extremely greedy: the only economic system that works is based off of it! Socialism, on the other hand, shows concern for everybody else, it is unselfish and wants to make everything fair and equal, and it doesn't work, or at least hasn't shown any signs of working. Doesn't that depress you? It makes me feel for mankind.

__________________
yes, I KNOW it says I joined in june 2004, but that's because I got resurrected after forgetting to turn to vacation mode when I was on a vacation, my REAL join date was june 10 2003, so THERE.

oh and Dennis Kucinich rocks.

and me for president in 2028!

Dennis is..... what Dennis is. :)

Capitalism, like biology, is based on entropy, not greed.

You make the typical mistake of assigning moral value (good/bad) to TOOLS, much as those who say that "a gun is evil" or "atomic weapons are REALLY evil".

It's the wielders of those tools (including "capitalism") that should be checked for moral value.

Simply interpreting the way nature does things via entropy, which is the essence of capitalism, is the very HEART of what the "conservation movement" would call "Proper Ecological Stewardship".

But they'll never admit that.... :)

A damn good article.

It's unfortunate that some people can skim through all that, ignore every principle the US stands for and well, nevermind. Who cares about people like that.

Good article, and a good read, and woe to those who can learn only how to hate because of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The self-proclaimed "anti-capitalists" will not grant that morals exist.

There can't be any "moral case" for anything with them.



It is precisely because morals exist that I am an anti-capitalist.
__________________
Be patriotic - fight the government!


If your morals tell you that capitalism is bad, then you are confusing capitalism with something else.

This is of course, utterly circular logic, and it should be.

It should be because I see "capitalism" as the way that the universe works with the non-uniformity of it's "contents", otherwise known as entropy.

For me, your statement that a basic universal principle is "evil" is ludicrous.

Therefore, what you're describing when you say "capitalism" is not capitalism.

I call what you are apparently calling capitalism "BAD-PEOPLE-BEHAVING-BADLY."

Bad people should be shown were they're being bad, at which point they can correct their behavior, or be shown the door (to a box or the "afterlife").

If your morals tell you that capitalism is bad, then you are confusing capitalism with something else.

This is of course, utterly circular logic, and it should be.

It should be because I see "capitalism" as the way that the universe works with the non-uniformity of it's "contents", otherwise known as entropy.

For me, your statement that a basic universal principle is "evil" is ludicrous.

Therefore, what you're describing when you say "capitalism" is not capitalism.

I call what you are apparently calling capitalism "BAD-PEOPLE-BEHAVING-BADLY."

Bad people should be shown were they're being bad, at which point they can correct their behavior, or be shown the door (to a box or the "afterlife").
I didn't say that capitalism was evil. I said that my morals lead me to be anti-capitalist. The reason for this is that capitalism encourages others to be "evil", and makes it easy for them to do so. If nobody were "evil", then capitalism would be fine, as it is simply a philosophy and isn't "evil" in and of itself. To reiterate, I am anti-capitalist because it encourages negative attributes in people, and makes it easy for them to do behave in a negative manner.

A damn good article.

It's unfortunate that some people can skim through all that, ignore every principle the US stands for and well, nevermind. Who cares about people like that.

Good article, and a good read, and woe to those who can learn only how to hate because of it.Are you actually going to respond to any of the specific points the people against that article have raised?

Goddamn, this is tedious fare. Reading this drivel makes sniffing model airplane glue look like a viable form of recreational activity.

There hain't no moral case for capitalism. It's a system that perpetuates itself by exploiting others. Further, it's ultimately untenable, cause there simply hain't enough resources out there to keep manufacturing all the useless crap we're all told we can't live without by the marketing spokesthingies. More to the point, do we really want to live in a world composed entirely of salesmen selling each other useless crap? Is that how we want to define ourselves, is that the historical legacy we all want to leave? "They sold crap..." hain't how I want my great-great grandneices and nephews to think of me and all the people I know and care about in the here and now.

Are you actually going to respond to any of the specific points the people against that article have raised?

That would require me treading through eight pages of responses. And for something that would most likely a) be ineffective at convincing me to their viewpoint and b) anger me. That would at any rate be my general likely results of listening to 99% of the anticapitalist arguments around here.

Goddamn, this is tedious fare. Reading this drivel makes sniffing model airplane glue look like a viable form of recreational activity.

There hain't no moral case for capitalism. It's a system that perpetuates itself by exploiting others. Further, it's ultimately untenable, cause there simply hain't enough resources out there to keep manufacturing all the useless crap we're all told we can't live without by the marketing spokesthingies. More to the point, do we really want to live in a world composed entirely of salesmen selling each other useless crap? Is that how we want to define ourselves, is that the historical legacy we all want to leave? "They sold crap..." hain't how I want my great-great grandneices and nephews to think of me and all the people I know and care about in the here and now.

Yeah, speaking of crap...

A member of my family works in a business that makes smoke generators and other devices to train firefighters so they can better save lives. Without a free-market system, these devices would not be made. Is this just "selling crap," in your opinion?

That would require me treading through eight pages of responses. And for something that would most likely a) be ineffective at convincing me to their viewpoint and b) anger me. That would at any rate be my general likely results of listening to 99% of the anticapitalist arguments around here.It might actually lead to an interesting discussion. (If you don't want to respond to all of it how about scanning and responding to the points Bodies Without Organs made as nobody's tried yet?)

A member of my family works in a business that makes smoke generators and other devices to train firefighters so they can better save lives. Without a free-market system, these devices would not be made.
Why not?

A member of my family works in a business that makes smoke generators and other devices to train firefighters so they can better save lives. Without a free-market system, these devices would not be made. Sure they would. I can't say that they definitely would, but there are conceivable systems that aren't free-market in which they would be made.

You're evading the question. Is it "just selling crap?"

You're evading the question. Is it "just selling crap?"Oh, I see. Well, since Dobbs Town made the statement, I'll let him answer it.

Yeah, speaking of crap...

A member of my family works in a business that makes smoke generators and other devices to train firefighters so they can better save lives. Without a free-market system, these devices would not be made. Is this just "selling crap," in your opinion?

Who says you need a free market to produce these devices? They sound great. But do you need a dozen varieties of these items? Do you need them in designer colours, or with novelty alarm sounds? Do you need them with extra features? Do you need them with fewer features? Do you need them shaped like Disney characters? Do you need them with English labels? Spanish? Both? This is where the crap starts rolling. Create a useful product, then watch as it is quickly turned into an orgy of marketing, with far more products stocked on shelves than will ever be sold, or put to use. Shelves fully stocked for no other reason than to be esthetically pleasing to the consumer. What happens to all the unsold, lime-green, trilingually signed devices that play 'hail to the chief' with optional GPS and a drinks cabinet built-in?

How much is too much?

Well, so I read BWO's objections. And they're fairly well thought-out. But they don't change my opinion whatsoever.

Basically, it is BWO's unproven assumption that in order to use, for example, truth and justice, as concepts equalling 'good' in an article, one must first prove that they're good. Same with envy being a bad thing. Apparently these have to be proven, logically and philosophically, to be valid for BWO.

Not so with me. I'm close-minded enough that I think poorly of envy, and value those values the author cited as good already- and I'm not even Judaeo-Christian.

And I consider BWO's argument to center around semantics, ignoring most of the main points of the article and calling for more proof, citings of figures, etc. Well, some of us don't need proof about those things every time they're mentioned.

Well, so I read BWO's objections. And they're fairly well thought-out. But they don't change my opinion whatsoever.
It's not that I expect you to change your opinions. I'm genuinely intrigued as to why you thought it was a good article. In my view we get better defences of capitalism on here every day. What was there that appealed to you in the article, because all I could see was a series of vague platitudes.

Oh, fine, but I really don't want to get caught up in these arguments. Here's some choice quotes I agree with and think are apt, then.

"But am I wrong to think that the moral case for a free economy — for the market economy, for the enterprise society, for the regime of private property, for capitalism — is more difficult to grasp, and is greeted by some with a traditional hostility?"

No! Not wrong, in fact the idea that capitalism can be ANYTHING OTHER THAN PURE EVIL seems to be common enough that statements to the contrary need to be made.

"That is why the poor have always gravitated toward capitalist countries. That is why my own grandparents (and scores of millions of others) left Europe for America. They sought opportunity, and they found it. Desperately poor on their arrival (just before 1900), they lived to own their own homes, watching their children and grandchildren advancing in income and education. "Give me your tired, your poor. . ." the Statue of Liberty beckoned to the world; and nearly 100 percent of Americans did come to America poor. Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four)."

Maybe platitudes, but not IMO empty. I have a hard time believing the plight of US poor is worse-off than most other country's poor. For the same reason I'd have trouble believing our middle class is less well off, or our upper class (though here there draws the line, is it better to be a bajillionnaire like Gates, or have traditional 'nobility' like Queen whatsherface?)

"The total income of America's 26 million blacks over the age of 15 came to $650 billion in 2002. This is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of all but 15 nations."

I don't know if this is true or not - all statistics tend to hide the truth as well as express it - but it seems plausible to me, anyway.

"This is not to say that the task of eliminating poverty in America (or other capitalist countries) is finished. It isn't. But it is crucial to grasp that the task of capitalism is measured by how well it enriches the poor. To an amazing extent, it does do this. I would bet you that the great majority of Americans can remember when their families were poor, two or three generations ago; but they are not poor today. In the nations of Western Europe and in Japan, the case is similar. So also in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other newly capitalist countries."

It makes sense from this: in a wealthy country, one who begs will get more than if they were begging in a poor country. America is wealthy, there is simply a larger poole of resources from which to beg from. And there is that whole, freedom thing that means anyone can get a job, as long as they can get a job. It's not that hard. If I can get a job so can anybody, thats my opinion.

I am an economics undergrad ...

I'll try to get to this tomorrow...

Or maybe wait until you get that degree....

China is distinctly capitalist... In fact I would go as far as to say that the economic powerhouse that is China demonstrates my point, that capitalism leads us to ecological disaster.


China is full of government backed factories and mining operations.

From the CIA factbook:

"Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing."

Oh yes, "distinctly capitalist"



For instance, the yellow River is drying up and 300 million people willl be at risk of starvation in the next 20 years
What are you talking about?

I could ask for the polluter not polluting at all, and therefore my death wouldn't have happened.
If it would lead to your death of course you could forbid him to do it and any court would agree.

If the polluter is able to compensate my family, that means that you feel that it's possible to put a price on human life.
No, it means I think if you kill someone part of your punishment should be to financially recompense his family. If I break your arm and have to give you £1000 it doesn't mean your arm bone is worth £1000 or that you would voluntarily allow me to break it for £1000. Your posts are usually more insightful than this, Jello. Don't throw away my respect for you by giving me this "price of a human life" nonsense.

Well, I forgot that you believe that there will be enough charity to provide for everyone who can't afford something. While I suppose that it's hypothetically possible, historically in societies that are moving towards anarcho-capitalism (yes I realize that they were still mercantilist) this has not been the case. I suppose you would argue that the reason for that is that the government messed things up. Furthermore, a company will only provide low-cost services if it's profitable to do so.
Historical examples? I can give many. 19th century US was famous for charity (see "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Toqueville), the welfare programs of moslem churches, the mormons.... Private charity has always been more effective than govt relief in any society IF you adjust for the wealth of that society at the time (so don't compare 19th century US with the present) Your argument is simply untrue.

Or maybe wait until you get that degree....


I think the one I have in Liberal Arts gives me license...besides, I never saw your resume.

I think the one I have in Liberal Arts gives me license...besides, I never saw your resume.

Um, no.

I'll fax it right over...

If it would lead to your death of course you could forbid him to do it and any court would agree.

No, it means I think if you kill someone part of your punishment should be to financially recompense his family. If I break your arm and have to give you £1000 it doesn't mean your arm bone is worth £1000 or that you would voluntarily allow me to break it for £1000. Your posts are usually more insightful than this, Jello. Don't throw away my respect for you by giving me this "price of a human life" nonsense.

Historical examples? I can give many. 19th century US was famous for charity (see "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Toqueville), the welfare programs of moslem churches, the mormons.... Private charity has always been more effective than govt relief in any society IF you adjust for the wealth of that society at the time (so don't compare 19th century US with the present) Your argument is simply untrue.

1) I highly doubt that any court would agree. Courts today are corrupt, sometimes because of the government, sometimes for other reasons. Removing the government would remove one reason for being corrupt, but not all of them.

2) The "price of a human life" argument wasn't going to be an emotive plea. For instance, if someone can give me a good reason to put a price on human life, that's fine, I'm not going to go on about "the sanctity of life." And I agree that in some instances (such as the one that you mentioned) that a polluter should have to pay. If all of the damage can be fixed, then, naturally, a polluter should have to pay to fix it. But I used the death example of damage that can't be fixed. Since it can't be fixed, it seems rather pointless to me to make it a policy that someone will pay compensation for it, unless you have another reason for saying that polluters should pay other than to fix what they've done. (And I appreciate the compliment, your posts usually are insightful, as well.)

3) People in the 19th century US did regularly starve to death, so therefore there wasn't enough charity to go around. This applies to most government programs, too, they're almost always underfunded.

3) People in the 19th century US did regularly starve to death...

Bullshit

Bullshit
In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

in the richest country in the world, there are thousands of people starving right now.

In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

in the richest country in the world, there are thousands of people starving right now.



From Reuters -
More than 40 percent of New York City public-school students are overweight, and nearly one quarter are obese, meaning their health is significantly threatened, New York City health department researchers found in a study published as part of a series in the American Journal of Public Health.

Hmmm..yet 46% of black children are chronically hungry?

From Reuters -
More than 40 percent of New York City public-school students are overweight, and nearly one quarter are obese, meaning their health is significantly threatened, New York City health department researchers found in a study published as part of a series in the American Journal of Public Health.

Hmmm..yet 46% of black children are chronically hungry?
yes.

what makes you think those statistics conflict? yes, most Americans are overweight. doesn't mean that there aren't others starving.

also, you cited stats from ONE CITY. do you really think that statistics on health in New York City can be generalized to cover the entire country?

unless you can prove my stats wrong i think you need to cede the point. no, MOST Americans aren't starving. yes, there are still Americans dying of starvation right now. if you think it's not enough people to worry about, or if you think that the millions of fat Americans "ballance out" the starving ones, that's up to you...but don't try to claim the starving Americans don't exist.

Well, so I read BWO's objections. And they're fairly well thought-out. But they don't change my opinion whatsoever.

Fair enough.

Basically, it is BWO's unproven assumption that in order to use, for example, truth and justice, as concepts equalling 'good' in an article, one must first prove that they're good. Same with envy being a bad thing. Apparently these have to be proven, logically and philosophically, to be valid for BWO.

What I want is a definite of justice to start with. It is pretty much tautological to say that justice is good, but meaningless unless you define exactly what you mean by justice - does justice equal "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? or "pay your debts"? or "God will provide restitution in the afterlife"? or "obey your leaders whatever they say"? or "each man owns that which he labours to create"?

And I consider BWO's argument to center around semantics, ignoring most of the main points of the article and calling for more proof, citings of figures, etc. Well, some of us don't need proof about those things every time they're mentioned.

No, I'm not interested in figures. I'm interested in morality here. To dismiss my argument by labelling it as semantics is either a failing to present it properly on my part or a misunderstanding on your part.

It is true that I ask for a definition of justice above, but that is because it is not clear what justice actually is, if it indeed exists.

I am asking for proof because I am ready to be convinced.

I guess I understand, except I contend that it doesn't really matter. The definition of justice is a rather, well, gigantic topic in and of itself, and I see that as beyond the scope of the article. I saw that particular bit as only being, well, tautological, but circumstantial. Toppings, with the meat being the more emotionally effective and subjective bits. For instance, the general increase in the wealth of each generation (though that's not going to be happening this time around, in the US; but I'd describe it as the basic trend) compared to the previous ones. That just strikes a chord with me, a resonating theme of truth (there are always exceptions, but maybe everyone could agree that at least, our system provides ample opportunities for the skilled and, yes, lucky to rise and improve themselves). Or something.

yes.

what makes you think those statistics conflict? yes, most Americans are overweight. doesn't mean that there aren't others starving.

also, you cited stats from ONE CITY. do you really think that statistics on health in New York City can be generalized to cover the entire country?

unless you can prove my stats wrong i think you need to cede the point. no, MOST Americans aren't starving. yes, there are still Americans dying of starvation right now. if you think it's not enough people to worry about, or if you think that the millions of fat Americans "ballance out" the starving ones, that's up to you...but don't try to claim the starving Americans don't exist.

It is a minute amount. Children who starve to death make the papers. I go to bed hungry all the time, what does that prove?

Or something.

As I see it the article is just an example of circular reasoning: it takes those particular values which are encouraged and praised in capitalist societiy and then uses those same values to argue for a capitalist society solely on the basis that it encourages and praises them.

As I see it the article is just an example of circular reasoning: it takes those particular values which are encouraged and praised in capitalist societiy and then uses those same values to argue for a capitalist society solely on the basis that it encourages and praises them.

It's not circular LOGIC,.. it's circular FEEDBACK..

Morals are based on a groups values.

Why should it be odd that the values that a group have should be used to encourage more USE of those values..?

When a capitalistic group says "The Moral Case for Capitalism" it means "Why what we do works for us as a group."

Is it a rah-rah speech..? Hell yes..!

Does it engender resentment in those with bad experiences of capitalism..? Hell yes..!

Does it inspire those with reasonably good experiences of capitalism..? Hell yes..!

Does it resonate with anyone who has observed nature, and the ebb and flow of resources that is the ecology of this planet and the universe in general..?

Hell yes..!

Do the plants like the storm (except that tree that was ripped to shreds)..? Hell yes..!

Do the little gopher babies that were not-so-safely ensconced in their hole in the ground, not like the storm ONE LITTLE BIT..? Hell yes..!

When a capitalistic group says "The Moral Case for Capitalism" it means "Why what we do works for us as a group."

...

Do the little gopher babies that were not-so-safely ensconced in their hole in the ground, not like the storm ONE LITTLE BIT..? Hell yes..!

Well, I can see that you're agreeing with my take on the speech, but I can't tell whether you are then passing jdugement on us gopher babies* or not.



* I'll just note that some of us gopher babies are actually doing quite well out of the storm, but are still highly dubious as to its morality.

Well, I can see that you're agreeing with my take on the speech, but I can't tell whether you are then passing jdugement on us gopher babies* or not.



* I'll just note that some of us gopher babies are actually doing quite well out of the storm, but are still highly dubious as to its morality.

Just a question in passing BWO, on what do you base your morality? (Not going anywhere near religion with this I was just curious.)

Just a question in passing BWO, on what do you base your morality?

Unproven assumptions.

Unproven assumptions.

*chuckles* Don't we all. I was looking for something more specific.

1) I highly doubt that any court would agree. Courts today are corrupt, sometimes because of the government, sometimes for other reasons. Removing the government would remove one reason for being corrupt, but not all of them.
Thus there would be less corruption. What could a private law system be based on other than private property? How else can you demark who to rule in favour of? If a court couldn't protect your property it wouldn't stay in business very long.

2) The "price of a human life" argument wasn't going to be an emotive plea. For instance, if someone can give me a good reason to put a price on human life, that's fine, I'm not going to go on about "the sanctity of life." And I agree that in some instances (such as the one that you mentioned) that a polluter should have to pay. If all of the damage can be fixed, then, naturally, a polluter should have to pay to fix it. But I used the death example of damage that can't be fixed. Since it can't be fixed, it seems rather pointless to me to make it a policy that someone will pay compensation for it, unless you have another reason for saying that polluters should pay other than to fix what they've done. (And I appreciate the compliment, your posts usually are insightful, as well.)
They can't fix the damage but some compensation is better than none. And of course there's the deterrent argument to punish them. If you make it unprofitable to pollute businessmen won't pollute, except in captain planet cartoons.

Ok, getting back to capistalist principles, two main things I find disturbing:

1. Banking system: banks are constantly creating money out of nothing when they make loans. Money is supposed to stand in the place of wealth; but when the banks create money, there is no wealth that it stands for.

2. New aristocracy: fact of the matter is, there are two types of people, those that accumulate wealth and those who lose it. At the end we arrive with the wealthy and poor. This is inevitable. In the other economic systems, however, there were certain safety nets and institutions to protect the poor not in place under capitalism. The serfs under feudalism never had to worry about property tax; they had taxes, but at least there was the family inheritance. That has not so much to do with capitalism though.
More importantly, capitalism in a democracy creates an aristocracy of the rich, where wealth = power. And there are not in place the same standards for their power as before. For those elected, they owe their responsibility to those who elected them. For those who received their power by inheritance, they owed their responsibility to a tradition, or culture. [all this in theory, of course] Under capitalism, that power comes without responsibility, because it was seized, not received. You make your own money, you put yourself in power, you do whatever you want, without respect to your community. Thus there is no natural relationship between those with money and those without.

Cultural evaluation: suicide rates. Statistically, suicide rates coincide with capital. so maybe life is more than just about money. yeah, I feel sorry for people who, when asked, say they want to be rich. Kind of setting the goals low.

Thus there would be less corruption. What could a private law system be based on other than private property? How else can you demark who to rule in favour of? If a court couldn't protect your property it wouldn't stay in business very long.

They can't fix the damage but some compensation is better than none. And of course there's the deterrent argument to punish them. If you make it unprofitable to pollute businessmen won't pollute, except in captain planet cartoons.
1) Yes, there would be less corruption, but the corruption would be concentrated such that it's used against the poor. See the above post for an example of this, it basically says that wealth = power, and that the more wealth, the more power.

2) Yes, some compensation is better than none. Lemme ask you...is value objective or subjective? And would another way of defining those words be:
Objective - "this item is worth X and will always be worth X (except perhaps adjusted for inflation)"
Subjective - "this item is worth X to me, but might not be worth X to you, and might not be worth X at all."
?

1) Yes, there would be less corruption, but the corruption would be concentrated such that it's used against the poor. See the above post for an example of this, it basically says that wealth = power, and that the more wealth, the more power.

The poor are the one's who suffer from the corruption now. It would be less all the way across the board. The free market is what keeps the wealthy honest. If you read Adam Smith, say, you'll find that it is largely a critique of the system of mercantilism which is the system where we are ruled by a combination of big govt and privilidged merchants. The idea of the free market is that it protects us because "the customer is always right", a principle called "consumer sovereignty". By getting rid of the vehicle through which the wealthy can abuse power (the state) you eliminate, or at least drastically curtail, the abuses.

2) Yes, some compensation is better than none. Lemme ask you...is value objective or subjective? And would another way of defining those words be:
Objective - "this item is worth X and will always be worth X (except perhaps adjusted for inflation)"
Subjective - "this item is worth X to me, but might not be worth X to you, and might not be worth X at all."
?
Subjective, clearly.

The poor are the one's who suffer from the corruption now. It would be less all the way across the board. The free market is what keeps the wealthy honest. If you read Adam Smith, say, you'll find that it is largely a critique of the system of mercantilism which is the system where we are ruled by a combination of big govt and privilidged merchants. The idea of the free market is that it protects us because "the customer is always right", a principle called "consumer sovereignty". By getting rid of the vehicle through which the wealthy can abuse power (the state) you eliminate, or at least drastically curtail, the abuses.

Subjective, clearly.

1) Yes, it's true that the poor suffer from corruption now, but they will also suffer in your system. Yours is preferable, but not the best. I know that the free market essentially means "the customer is always right", but isn't a customer who buys more of your product going to be more right than a customer who doesn't buy as much? Even if the theory holds that this wouldn't be the case, wouldn't merchants (and also private court systems) give preferential treatment to those who use them more?

2) Okay, if value is subjective, that's fine. But isn't a court compensating person X's family (for their loss of person X due to a company's pollution) essentially saying that person X is worth Y amount of dollars? And wouldn't this be true forever? (Barring any appeals.)

Unproven assumptions.
Which begs the question, what is morality anyway?

Which begs the question, what is morality anyway?

It is a mechanism for the regulation of behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertovania
The poor are the one's who suffer from the corruption now. It would be less all the way across the board. The free market is what keeps the wealthy honest. If you read Adam Smith, say, you'll find that it is largely a critique of the system of mercantilism which is the system where we are ruled by a combination of big govt and privilidged merchants. The idea of the free market is that it protects us because "the customer is always right", a principle called "consumer sovereignty". By getting rid of the vehicle through which the wealthy can abuse power (the state) you eliminate, or at least drastically curtail, the abuses.

Subjective, clearly.


1) Yes, it's true that the poor suffer from corruption now, but they will also suffer in your system. Yours is preferable, but not the best. I know that the free market essentially means "the customer is always right", but isn't a customer who buys more of your product going to be more right than a customer who doesn't buy as much? Even if the theory holds that this wouldn't be the case, wouldn't merchants (and also private court systems) give preferential treatment to those who use them more?

2) Okay, if value is subjective, that's fine. But isn't a court compensating person X's family (for their loss of person X due to a company's pollution) essentially saying that person X is worth Y amount of dollars? And wouldn't this be true forever? (Barring any appeals.)

Does Jello wish to "regulate" an economy like a machine..?

Show me the levers (the control structures) of your machine... please.