NationStates Jolt Archive

A main argument of free market capitalism is that wealth brings justice. I mean, that's essentially what it boils down to. Start with sweatshops, build wealth, sweatshops close and living standards increase, build more wealth and things just kind of creep upwards on the social justice scale. Closing down sweatshops (according to this theory) is therefore bad, and works AGAINST the 'evolution' of social justice.

Other people say, whoa there fella! Why should we wait for justice and put up with human rights abuses in the meantime?? And I ask...can we build justice INTO capitalism? There are some examples of such attempts, fair trade is an example of capitalism bound by certain ethical rules. But could we do it on a larger scale?

Define "social justice".

Furthermore, what is so unjust about sweatshops? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head...

I like to think, that maybe, I mean aside from evidence to the contrary, that what you're talking about is part of the basis for the American Experiment... no, nevermind, I'll shut up now.

I really don't see how an institution which, at its core, runs off greed, praises manipulation, and worships the dollar sign can be considered an socially just institution.

Furthermore, what is so unjust about sweatshops? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head...

No, just starvation. We've been over this before. Property can be just as coercive as weaponry, because life depends on property.

I really don't see how an institution which, at its core, runs off greed, praises manipulation, and worships the dollar sign can be considered an socially just institution.
Capitalism isn't an institution. It's an economic theory. There are institutions that practice various forms of capitalism while committing varying degrees of human rights abuses. That doesn't mean the theory itself is fit for the trash.

No, just starvation. We've been over this before. Property can be just as coercive as weaponry, because life depends on property.

If that's the case, then I guess all homeless people must not be alive.

If that's the case, then I guess all homeless people must not be alive.

They get food, somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be.

Define "social justice". Let's define it at this point loosely as adhering to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Furthermore, what is so unjust about sweatshops? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head...
Oh really (http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/index.php?s=68)?

On August 2, 1995, the American public was horrified by press reports about the discovery at an apartment complex in El Monte, California, of seventy-two Thai garment workers who had been held in slavery for up to seventeen years, sewing clothes for some of the nation's top manufacturers and retailers. The workers labored over eighteen hours a day in a compound enclosed by barbed wire. Armed guards imposed discipline.

Capitalism isn't an institution. It's an economic theory. There are institutions that practice various forms of capitalism while committing varying degrees of human rights abuses. That doesn't mean the theory itself is fit for the trash.

You're right, perhaps I used the wrong word.

And I knew the second I wrote that thing that I was just talking out my ass. I try desperately not to play the "commie-card" (as I call it). It's hard after researching early American capitalism, seeing all the injustices involved.

No, just starvation. We've been over this before. Property can be just as coercive as weaponry, because life depends on property.

One can always choose to starve if he finds it more attractive than the alternatives.

Fundamentally, each individual can choose whether he wishes to live or die. Since no one else gets to make that decision for him, it is not incumbent upon anyone else to assist him in fulfilling the requirements of that decision.

Let's define it at this point loosely as adhering to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.


Oh really (http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/index.php?s=68)?

Did anyone force them to come in the first place? Were they dragged out of their homes and told "Here, you're going to work here now whether you like it or not"?

Capitalism isn't an institution. It's an economic theory. There are institutions that practice various forms of capitalism while committing varying degrees of human rights abuses. That doesn't mean the theory itself is fit for the trash.

Capitalism is perfectly fine with proper democratic oversight. The moment you take society's method of overseeing what's in their best interest, such as unfettered Capitalism or Free Trade without reservations or even limited disfuntional democracy, than Capitalism is a potential tool of oppresion.

Keep Capitalism, but be sure it remains as a means to an end for society, rather than an end unto itself.

One can always choose to starve if he finds it more attractive than the alternatives.

Fundamentally, each individual can choose whether he wishes to live or die. Since no one else gets to make that decision for him, it is not incumbent upon anyone else to assist him in fulfilling the requirements of that decision.

Then nothing is coercive. If someone is holding a gun to my head, I can choose to be shot, too. Even if I want to live, it is not incumbent on the shooter to fulfill the requirements of my decision.

Did anyone force them to come in the first place? Were they dragged out of their homes and told "Here, you're going to work here now whether you like it or not"?

It is VERY possible.

They get food, somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be.

Yet they have no property.

We'd all die without food, but property is clearly optional.

Capitalism isn't an institution. It's an economic theory.

It warms my cold black capitalist heart to hear you make this important distinction.

Yet they have no property.

We'd all die without food, but property is clearly optional.

They get property in the form of food, thanks to the kindness of others.

One can always choose to starve if he finds it more attractive than the alternatives.

Fundamentally, each individual can choose whether he wishes to live or die. Since no one else gets to make that decision for him, it is not incumbent upon anyone else to assist him in fulfilling the requirements of that decision.
Fundamentally, the choice is not entirely up to the individual. There are many factors that limit the ability to choose. One of those factors, in regards to sweatshops (and let's not just focus on sweatshops people, come on!) is the ability to find better paying work. When there is no option, the choice is limited. Work for a pittance, or starve. The individual of course, had he or she the power to open up the choices, would not remain bound by those two alone. The 'freedom of choice' is just a nice little fantasy well-to-do Westerners like to make themselves feel better with.

Fundamentally, the choice is not entirely up to the individual. There are many factors that limit the ability to choose. One of those factors, in regards to sweatshops (and let's not just focus on sweatshops people, come on!) is the ability to find better paying work. When there is no option, the choice is limited. Work for a pittance, or starve. The individual of course, had he or she the power to open up the choices, would not remain bound by those two alone. The 'freedom of choice' is just a nice little fantasy well-to-do Westerners like to make themselves feel better with.

Exactly. Free will has less significance if your choices are all bad. That is where the very idea of "coercion" comes from. If someone points a gun to my head, I don't lose free will; it's just that my options are reduced to "get shot" and "do what the person tells me to do."

Did anyone force them to come in the first place? Were they dragged out of their homes and told "Here, you're going to work here now whether you like it or not"?
I don't know, and neither do you. If the answer was yes, they were dragged away, how would your stance change? Your original statement was just 'no one holds a gun to their head'. Well, in some cases, that is exactly what happens. In India, you have examples of children being sold off as slaves so the parents can get out of debt, and those children are not free to leave their factory. You think the children make that choice?

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]Fundamentally, the choice is not entirely up to the individual. There are many factors that limit the ability to choose. One of those factors, in regards to sweatshops (and let's not just focus on sweatshops people, come on!) is the ability to find better paying work. When there is no option, the choice is limited. Work for a pittance, or starve.

Precisely.

You can choose to starve if you find it is better than the alternatives.

That you chose to live is nice, but it is not up to anyone else to enable you to fulfill that choice.

Exactly. Free will has less significance if your choices are all bad. That is where the very idea of "coercion" comes from. If someone points a gun to my head, I don't lose free will; it's just that my options are reduced to "get shot" and "do what the person tells me to do."

Coercion does not come about because the range of options available to you is reduced. It comes about because someone is threatening to take from you something that was yours to begin with if you don't comply with his wishes.

And refusing to provide someone with something is not the same as taking something away.

Precisely.

You can choose to starve if you find it is better than the alternatives.

That you chose to live is nice, but it is not up to anyone else to enable you to fulfill that choice.

In other words, you don't really believe in "non-coercion." You just don't believe in coercing the masters.

I don't know, and neither do you. If the answer was yes, they were dragged away, how would your stance change?

I would be opposed to it.

However, if that is what happened and those who performed it were allowed to get away with it, then the system in place there cannot properly be called "capitalism".

Capitalism is the status quo that exists when each individual is left free to do as he wishes so long as he honors all contracts into which he has willingly entered and refrains from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.

Precisely.

You can choose to starve if you find it is better than the alternatives.

That you chose to live is nice, but it is not up to anyone else to enable you to fulfill that choice.
:rolleyes:
Anyway, let's not get sidetracked by this ridiculous argument.

Coercion does not come about because the range of options available to you is reduced. It comes about because someone is threatening to take from you something that was yours to begin with if you don't comply with his wishes.

Your life was yours to begin with, right? Thus, it is incumbent on me not to take it away, that is, not to violate the conditions that permit its continued existence. So, therefore, if life needs food to continue, I must permit that person to take food. Private property? So much for that.

I would be opposed to it.

However, if that is what happened and those who performed it were allowed to get away with it, then the system in place there cannot properly be called "capitalism".

Capitalism is the status quo that exists when each individual is left free to do as he wishes so long as he honors all contracts into which he has willingly entered and refrains from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.You are confusing capitalism as an economic theory with capitalism the political theory.

Your life was yours to begin with, right? Thus, it is incumbent on me not to take it away, that is, not to violate the conditions that permit its continued existence. So, therefore, if life needs food to continue, I must permit that person to take food. Private property? So much for that.
Just let it go. It's much more constructive to consider how social justice (not this guy's...particular theory...of such) has been tied into certain capitalist practices, and whether those 'experiments' were ultimately successful, or counterproductive.

So let's consider this:

If we practice capitalism keeping the following in mind:

In our economic pursuits, we will not deprive people of their lives, their liberty or their security of person. We will not make people subject to torture, and we will recognise everyone as a person, and equal before the law. We will not subject people to arbitrary arrests, detention or exile. We will respect the due process of law for all people. We will not curtail freedom of thought, religion, conscience or expression.

Now I'd like to throw in education, healthcare, and certain other guarantees, but to me, the above are the primary ones that I feel should be guaranteed, and tied into capitalism. I know you can read a lot into each of those rights, especially the right to life, but just for a moment let's confine that right to life to the right not to be murdered directly.

Would requiring that all business be conducted with these basic guarantees in place be doable?

So, therefore, if life needs food to continue, I must permit that person to take food.

I must refrain from obstructing his attempts to obtain food in a non-coercive manner.

I am NOT obligated to provide him with food; to claim that I am would be to infringe upon my right to my own self. And just as I am not more important than he is, neither is he more important than I.

Furthermore, what is so unjust about sweatshops? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head...
Why are objectivists so fond of that particular image?

Why are objectivists so fond of that particular image?
Better yet, why, when presented with an example of that happening in real life, do they then skirt the issue?

Anyway. Don't get caught up.

I must refrain from obstructing his attempts to obtain food in a non-coercive manner.

I am NOT obligated to provide him with food; to claim that I am would be to infringe upon my right to my own self. And just as I am not more important than he is, neither is he more important than I.
You are in a paradox now, because the person has a right to take what he/she needs to live, but you have the right to not give them anything.

Anyways, on to the real question. IMO capitalism cannot and will not ever be able to contain social justice. Capitalism is the theory that we are all unequal and the "best" (most dubious and greedy) will come out on top while the "worst" will either die or be forced into something very similar to slavery in order to survive.

Anyways, on to the real question. IMO capitalism cannot and will not ever be able to contain social justice. Capitalism is the theory that we are all unequal and the "best" (most dubious and greedy) will come out on top while the "worst" will either die or be forced into something very similar to slavery in order to survive.
How about, capitalism as we know it is predicated on the belief that we are all unequal? Because that belief exists independently of capitalism.

So can you envision a capitalism that is based on a different kind of belief?

What capitalism are we talking about? Are we just throwing out the entire system of capitalism and making a new one that kinda seems like it could maybe be capitalism or are we still talking about RL capitalism?

I'd have to say that the belief we are unequal is inherent in capitalism.

Better yet, why, when presented with an example of that happening in real life, do they then skirt the issue?

Anyway. Don't get caught up.
They're out there with the "pure anarcho-communism" crowd, dreaming up unworkable theories.

I won't say much. Soheran already made most of the points that I would have.

What capitalism are we talking about? Are we just throwing out the entire system of capitalism and making a new one that kinda seems like it could maybe be capitalism or are we still talking about RL capitalism?

I'd have to say that the belief we are unequal is inherent in capitalism.
I am talking about creating a new kind of capitalism, yes, one that is tied into social justice. There are examples of this already...again, the example of certain fair trade brands that still exist within a capitalist framework.

The problem inherent in Capitalism, is that it relies on individual choices from both the consumer end and producer end of the marketplace. While this is what lends it strength, it also means that consumers don't necessarily have to care about what goes into production, so long as they get their bottom price.

As long as there are options for Capitalist organizations to reduce their wage costs such as 'sweat shops', they are always going to go for it since it is in their best interest from an economic point of view. It's also in the best interest for consumers to keep that price low.

So the problem isn't that Capitalism creates underclases or brutal living conditions for livestock, or destroys the environment. It's because we LET it, through our economic choices either as a consumer or producer. It is incumbent upon society to determine the boundaries within which Capitalism can function. Fire is a wonderful tool, and a boon to civilization, but it doesn't mean we should let it burn our house down.

So in order to create a fuctioning socially just capitalist system, it requires informed consumers who make their choices based on socially just purchases and by electing officials to enforce socially just perameters for capitalism to work in. (i.e. - force clothing manufacturer's to investigate where their labour is coming from and punish them for neglecting to do so. That way all clothing manufacturers are on the same playing field and they aren't competing with slave labour.)

You are in a paradox now,
No, I'm not.
because the person has a right to take what he/she needs to live,
No, he has a right to obtain it by non-coercive means. There is a difference.

Furthermore, a right to do something is not the same as a guarantee of practical ability to do it. It simply means that no one may coercively interfere in one's attempts to do something.

What capitalism are we talking about? Are we just throwing out the entire system of capitalism and making a new one that kinda seems like it could maybe be capitalism or are we still talking about RL capitalism?

I'd have to say that the belief we are unequal is inherent in capitalism.

We are unequal in ability and luck.

We might try to control for luck, but it's so incredibly hard to figure out how much of success is attributable to luck and how much is attributable to desire, intelligence, HARD WORK, etc.

In the United States, if someone wants to be his own boss, he can go down to the bank and take out a loan and start his own business. If he's messed up his life (bankruptcy, felony, etc.) it might be hard to take out said loan, but there are other legal means of obtaining start-up capital.

Free enterprise is built loosely on this:

-What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. You do not have a right to my things, as I do not have a right to yours (takes theft out of the question and instills the sense of propriety).

If you want to buy things, you need money. If you want to have money, you need to work or attain money by other legal means. If you don't want to work for somebody else, start your own business or simply don't work at all.

By working, you earn the right to make money. If you DON'T work, you've offered nothing to anyone, so you can't expect to be paid.

Inserting some socialism gives us welfare... perhaps what some would call social justice -- to me it's only justice if the person in queswtion CAN'T work/provide for himself, due to one factor or a combination of possible factors.

Is stealing from some to give to others, WHO MAY SIMPLY BE LAZY (as main reason for their not having money), indicative of justice?

......
Would requiring that all business be conducted with these basic guarantees in place be doable?

Yes. It is a legislative choice. Either there is totally laissez-faire capitalism, which is bound to end up in perfect monopoly, or not totally. In case of the latter, there are restrictions. Those are subject to law, which is subject to the choice of law-makers.

No, I'm not.

No, he has a right to obtain it by non-coercive means. There is a difference.

Furthermore, a right to do something is not the same as a guarantee of practical ability to do it. It simply means that no one may coercively interfere in one's attempts to do something.

This is the last post I'm going to make on this subject, because Sinuhue has asked nicely that I stop hijacking her thread, and she's right.

There is no difference between "denying practical ability" and "coercively interfering," except for the terms you use. Either way, certain actions of yours violate a person's rights. If rights do not obligate anyone else to do anything, then rights not only do not obligate me to give a starving person food, but they also do not obligate me not to shoot anyone. "Non-coercion" is a fantasy. All rights are only rights if they are protected from those who would take them away, and taking away their capability to exist is just the same as taking them away. Coercion is sometimes necessary in order to protect them.

The whole idea of "free contracts" with property is a fantasy as long as scarcity exists, and if scarcity is eliminated there is no need for "free contracts" in the first place.

What "absolute property rights" mean in practice is that the rich have the right to coerce everyone else into becoming their servants, and any efforts by those subordinated to their "natural masters" to resist is condemned as the height of immorality. At heart, it is little more than ex post facto ethics invented to justify class privilege, and taken up by whoever is foolish enough to buy into it.

As for Sinuhue's question, my answer is "maybe." The most important problems would be ensuring egalitarianism and democracy, both of which are severely compromised by the hierarchical structures caused by the capitalist system of production.

The problem inherent in Capitalism, is that it relies on individual choices from both the consumer end and producer end of the marketplace. While this is what lends it strength, it also means that consumers don't necessarily have to care about what goes into production, so long as they get their bottom price.

As long as there are options for Capitalist organizations to reduce their wage costs such as 'sweat shops', they are always going to go for it since it is in their best interest from an economic point of view. It's also in the best interest for consumers to keep that price low.

So the problem isn't that Capitalism creates underclases or brutal living conditions for livestock, or destroys the environment. It's because we LET it, through our economic choices either as a consumer or producer. It is incumbent upon society to determine the boundaries within which Capitalism can function. Fire is a wonderful tool, and a boon to civilization, but it doesn't mean we should let it burn our house down.

So in order to create a fuctioning socially just capitalist system, it requires informed consumers who make their choices based on socially just purchases and by electing officials to enforce socially just perameters for capitalism to work in. (i.e. - force clothing manufacturer's to investigate where their labour is coming from and punish them for neglecting to do so. That way all clothing manufacturers are on the same playing field and they aren't competing with slave labour.)
I'm going to point to this because it deals with a lot of what has been tossed around over the course of this conversation.

It's great for you to say that you care about these people and their plights, but use your purchasing power to make your point. Don't shop at Walmart. Support small town stores. Either make sure your purchases reflect your values or don't complain about it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. The man who wants the government to fix things that he is unwilling to fix is a hypocrit, and the man who wants the government to fix things that he can fix for himself is supporting wasteful bureaucracy.

So let's consider this:

If we practice capitalism keeping the following in mind:

In our economic pursuits, we will not deprive people of their lives, their liberty or their security of person. We will not make people subject to torture, and we will recognise everyone as a person, and equal before the law. We will not subject people to arbitrary arrests, detention or exile. We will respect the due process of law for all people. We will not curtail freedom of thought, religion, conscience or expression.

Now I'd like to throw in education, healthcare, and certain other guarantees, but to me, the above are the primary ones that I feel should be guaranteed, and tied into capitalism. I know you can read a lot into each of those rights, especially the right to life, but just for a moment let's confine that right to life to the right not to be murdered directly.

Would requiring that all business be conducted with these basic guarantees in place be doable?No. You will need government or society to grant the positive right of property ownership. Possibly, capitalism would be doable then.
I'm going to point to this because it deals with a lot of what has been tossed around over the course of this conversation.

It's great for you to say that you care about these people and their plights, but use your purchasing power to make your point. Don't shop at Walmart. Support small town stores. Either make sure your purchases reflect your values or don't complain about it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. The man who wants the government to fix things that he is unwilling to fix is a hypocrit, and the man who wants the government to fix things that he can fix for himself is supporting wasteful bureaucracy.Wal-Mart isn't affected by the fact that I don't shop there.

Wal-Mart isn't affected by the fact that I don't shop there.

Fact. And some of us (such as myself) don't have the money to shop at independent stores. We're pretty much forced to shop at the cheaper supermarkets.

Not to mention that the independent stores won't honor food stamps, which I have to use.

Wal-Mart isn't affected by the fact that I don't shop there.
It is if enough people support your cause. If people don't support your cause, then maybe your cause isn't that virtuous.

And some of us (such as myself) don't have the money to shop at independent stores. We're pretty much forced to shop at the cheaper supermarkets.
But then you have to realize that any legislation forcing Walmart to change its habits will be passed on through higher prices and put you in a tighter financial position anyway.

But then you have to realize that any legislation forcing Walmart to change its habits will be passed on through higher prices and put you in a tighter financial position anyway.

Ideally, such legislation would create a better paying job at home, and improve his financial situation.

Ideally, such legislation would create a better paying job at home, and improve his financial situation.
Which leaves the Chinese person who had that job in even more dire straits then he was in before. Now, if you just don't care about any other people that aren't of your nationality, that's fine, but even solely based on your own self-interest, withdrawal from the world economy has shown to be a factor in the decline of great powers over the past 500 years, so you'd be better off keeping the government out of this.

For this topic, I recommend two particular works of Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith).


The Theory of Moral Sentiments (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments)
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations)


In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith first introduces his concept of the "invisible hand." Essentially, an individual satisfies his/her self-interest by finding ways to satisfy the self-interest of others. The baker desires to secure his livelyhood by offering baked goods that will enable me to satisfy my desire to eat. Thus, the baker's self-interest is satisfied in that I pay him/her money, and my self-interest is satisfied in that I no longer hunger. This concept of what is essentially mutual cooperation driven by individual self-interests is today commonly called enlightened self-interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest), and is at the heart, I think, of capitalism's ability to deliver social justice.

In fact, it is upon this potential for social justice that Smith bases his moral justification for the economic system he advocated. I read The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and his argument seemed to me to be saying that despite the fact that human beings are often fickle, selfish, and greedy, given the proper institutions, that selfishness and greed can be exploited in such a way as to increase the overall welfare of society. Smith did not advocate selfishness and greed so much as he recognized that good can still be done even if immediate relationships are motovated by such factors.

Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations goes into more detail applying the concept of the "invisible hand" to the proto-capitalist/anti-mercantilist economic model he describes.

Smith was also highly critical of those by which selfishness and greed resulted in injustice, by collusion with government or other means...


Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.



All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.



The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.


Smith also criticised the bosses...


We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… [When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.


...and workers alike.


People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.


These Adam Smith quotes, with info on original sources, can be found here. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith)

No.

Capitalism is social justice. What exactly are you defining 'justice' as? If justice is rewards going to the deserving and the able, rather than to the incompetent or otherwise undeserving, the advancement of the achievers, the pegging of position in life to personal merits, than that's practically the definition of capitalism.

If justice is rewards going to the deserving and the able, rather than to the incompetent or otherwise undeserving, the advancement of the achievers, the pegging of position in life to personal merits, than that's practically the definition of capitalism.

even if that was the definition of justice, that has no relation at all to the definition of capitalism

even if that was the definition of justice, that has no relation at all to the definition of capitalism

It's the point of capitalism, an inherent trait of its structure.

There are a few ideas that are counter to the idea of "Pure capitalism" The first is the idea of minimum standards, in working conditions, in products, and in quality of living. Should people be allowed to starve on the streets if they can not or will not support themselves? What minimum should be provided for such people?
What can we accept in products on the market? What if a soup company starts selling a really, really cheap brand of soup, which they can make so cheaply because of their cheap canning practices, which introduce a significant risk of botulism? Should that soup be allowed on the market? Is it a person's right to buy a product that might kill them? What efforts must be made to educate consumers on such risks. During the industrial revolution they had children working in factories where they might lose fingers to unsafe machinery, or even be killed. In some country (I can't remember where) they had kids mining for coal. What minimum standards are acceptable? And if we limit companies to safe work environments and products, that eliminates the laborers willing to work in those conditions or buy those unsafe products.

Another thing is the effect of advertising. A good advertising campaign can often cause a person to buy a product with less value at a higher price than a cheaper, better product that might be available.

Sadly, many problems with capitalism are caused by corruption in regards to the regulations. Unsafe drugs get through the FDA while much cheaper versions are deemed illegal, even though often safe.

DC is absolutely correct, the virtue of capitalism is in "enlightened self-interest." There is a reciprocal arrangement between the members of society where one must be the means to another to also be one's own end.

Now, there are shortcomings of society that show strong symptoms within a capitalist system, and socialism does work to alleviate those symptoms.

I prefer capitalism, however, because while socialism treats the symptoms, while capitalism treats the sickness. The progress made by a capitalist society will always work to level out the distribution of resources through technology. Since one can build wealth by allowing others to build wealth, there is a constant force pushing to expand the spectrum of those who can build wealth.

Another problem with capitalism is how to determine who gets acess to what resources. Why does one person own a piece of land, and not another? I may have all the skill at woodworking in the world, but unless I can secure a supply of lumber, I cannot produce anything. So of course, if I want to control the lumber supply, I could buy a small forest, and harvest the wood myself. (or hire people to do it) But when the forest was initially discovered, how should it be descided who gets to own it?

Lastly there is the effect on the few remaining public resources, by necessity air and (debatably) water. No one owns the air, so theoretically, no one should be allowed to poison it with pollution. How do we work with this?

Capitalism is social justice. What exactly are you defining 'justice' as? If justice is rewards going to the deserving and the able, rather than to the incompetent or otherwise undeserving, the advancement of the achievers, the pegging of position in life to personal merits, than that's practically the definition of capitalism.

Your definition of capitalism is overly burdened with emotionalized political ideology. One should strive to make one's definitions as simple as possible, in order to avoid bias and to make analysis and discussion meaningful. Capitalism is nothing more than the ownership and direction of the means of production as private property, by private owners. That's it.

Additionally, this divide between "deserving and able" and "incompetent and undeserving" is a false dicotomy. There are all kinds of possible third cases (which an overburdened definition of "capitalism" causes us to miss); for instance, I can have a disability or illness that prevents me from being productive, even if I otherwise desire to be so. Shall I simply be abandoned to the jungle because I am of no use to the economic system? Even being convinced of the superiority of the capitalist model, I would find such a practice morally repugnant.

Finally, reserving high social status for the "achievers" based on "personal merits" is usually called "meritocracy." One can certainly mix meritocracy with capitalism, but the two are, in and of themselves, seperate concepts.

Capitalism is nothing more than the ownership and direction of the means of production as private property, by private owners.

with the possible additional requirement of a system of wage-labor, depending on who you ask.

Who gets initial control over new resources? This is an important question. If we go to the moon and start making it livable, how do we descide which parts of the moon belong to who? If I want to buy a house or farm or mine on the moon, who do I have to buy it from.

(I use the moon because it is the biggest undiscovered resource I can come up with. An uncharted island would be in similer circumstances.)

with the possible additional requirement of a system of wage-labor, depending on who you ask.

I wouldn't call it a requirement, per se. The "co-operative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative)" or "employee/worker owned and operated" sort of model, either for-profit or not-for-profit, is also a possibility. Such organizations present a way to blend aspects of worker self-organization with those of the market process.

As long as things get better for the worse-off (or at least the bulk of them), there is a grain of ethical justice to capitalism.


Capitalist (and communist) countries are unjust to the extent that they fail to maximize this gain.

I wouldn't call it a requirement, per se. The "co-operative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative)" or "employee/worker owned and operated" sort of model, either for-profit or not-for-profit, is also a possibility. Such organizations present a way to blend aspects of worker self-organization with those of the market process.

yeah, but most of the people who advocate that sort of thing be made system-wide have called themselves anticapitalists of one sort or another

As long as things get better for the worse-off (or at least the bulk of them), there is a grain of ethical justice to capitalism.

Capitalist (and communist) countries are unjust to the extent that they fail to maximize this gain.

You cannot begin to rationally show that justice lies in improving the worse-off at the expense of the best-off.

yeah, but most of the people who advocate that sort of thing be made system-wide have called themselves anticapitalists of one sort or another

I have never understood why profit-share market socialists disassociate themselves with capitalism. They claim the validity of market effects, private property ownership, and profit. They have more in common with capitalists than Marxists.

I have never understood why profit-share market socialists disassociate themselves with capitalism. They claim the validity of market effects, private property ownership, and profit. They have more in common with capitalists than Marxists.

I can see why right-libertarians wouldn't. Like most people, they see "capitalism" and the "free market" as synonymous. They're not. The central element in the socialist critique of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production - the class division between workers and owners. Eliminate that division, and you do not have capitalism, you have socialism. Free market socialism is still socialism.

You cannot begin to rationally show that justice lies in improving the worse-off at the expense of the best-off.
Who says it's at anyone's expense? The worse off can improve themselves through their own effort, so long as avenues are left open for them to do so.

I can see why right-libertarians wouldn't. Like most people, they see "capitalism" and the "free market" as synonymous. They're not. The central element in the socialist critique of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production - the class division between workers and owners. Eliminate that division, and you do not have capitalism, you have socialism. Free market socialism is still socialism.

Market socialism (of the profit sharing kind) does not eliminate the private ownership of the means of production. It only makes it joint ownership amongst employees. There is no tenet of capitalism against joint ownership of the means of production.

You cannot begin to rationally show that justice lies in improving the worse-off at the expense of the best-off.


I cannot *only* begin!

For the most complete education, you should turn to John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice."

Rawls posited an 'Original Position' from which the social contract was agreed upon unanimously by equals.

This social contract derives is just authority from the fact that it is completely unanimous.

The absence of morally aribtrary factors is what makes all parties equal in negotiating this contract, and any unanimous outcome based on self-interest (or, to be more precise, absence of altruism) is one in which the good of the least well off is maximized. Inequality is just, in this unanimous contract, so long as it serves to increase the well-being of the least-well-off.

The term used is "maximin," which comes from game theory and means the outcome where the "minimum gain is maximized."

Who says it's at anyone's expense? The worse off can improve themselves through their own effort, so long as avenues are left open for them to do so.

For the maximization of gain amongst the worst-off, there must be equality.

When system has equality of output with inequality of input, someone is benefitting through another's loss.

Market socialism does not eliminate the private ownership of the means of production. It only makes it joint ownership amongst employees. There is no tenet of capitalism against joint ownership of the means of production.

Serious market socialism would involve depriving individuals of the ability to turn money into capital. Instead of exchange being the basis of ownership of the means of production, the determinant would be whether or not one works at the relevant institution. It eliminates the class distinction between workers and capitalists.

That is fundamentally different from the current system, and because it is democratic worker ownership of the means of production, I think it qualifies as a variety of decentralized socialism.

Which leaves the Chinese person who had that job in even more dire straits then he was in before. Now, if you just don't care about any other people that aren't of your nationality, that's fine, but even solely based on your own self-interest, withdrawal from the world economy has shown to be a factor in the decline of great powers over the past 500 years, so you'd be better off keeping the government out of this.

If the entire world was one superstate, with everyone following the same set of laws, this would be an acceptable line of thinking. However, since we are limited to legislating within our own national borders, and to a very limited degree international treaties, the only control we have is for our nation, and ourselves.

It's great to complain about the welfare of foreign workers, but that's generally not the concern of free trade capitalists. The concern is lower costs. I'll agree that the economy of China is obviously much better, but in order to compete with China do we need to lower our safety/wage/work hour standards?

I feel like I'm back on the free trade thread here, but the message is the same; without oversight, Capitalism is dangerous. Unfettered Capitalism in a world with no enforcable trade rules results in citizens living in nationstates at the whim of Capitalist business.

I'm all for free trade with countries of similar levels of development, but we should ask ourselves some serious questions before we allow homegrown businesses to conduct business in a fashion overseas that we would find reprehensible here.

You cannot begin to rationally show that justice lies in improving the worse-off at the expense of the best-off.


Actually, a sojourn into Rawls was unneccessary to answer this unreasonable point.


A thousand starving people are justified, by myriad rational theories of justice, in appropriating food from three people with enough food for three thousand.

If the entire world was one superstate, with everyone following the same set of laws, this would be an acceptable line of thinking. However, since we are limited to legislating within our own national borders, and to a very limited degree international treaties, the only control we have is for our nation, and ourselves.

It's great to complain about the welfare of foreign workers, but that's generally not the concern of free trade capitalists. The concern is lower costs. I'll agree that the economy of China is obviously much better, but in order to compete with China do we need to lower our safety/wage/work hour standards?

I feel like I'm back on the free trade thread here, but the message is the same; without oversight, Capitalism is dangerous. Unfettered Capitalism in a world with no enforcable trade rules results in citizens living in nationstates at the whim of Capitalist business.

I'm all for free trade with countries of similar levels of development, but we should ask ourselves some serious questions before we allow homegrown businesses to conduct business in a fashion overseas that we would find reprehensible here.
True, but the best way to discourage the reprehensible practices around the world is to provide the people there with additional options that don't require them to accept lower safety/wage/work hour standards. We can do that by allowing more businesses to move to the area. This increases the ratio of workers to businesses and gives them more bargaining power. Unless the corporations collude to keep wages low, which is illegal pretty much everywhere, standards will go up for workers.

While worker standards may temporarily suffer at home, this will be made up for even in the short term by reduced costs of goods, and over the long term, the equalization process that will occur in the less developed countries will allow them to adopt the same standards as us, something that is currently impossible.

Rawls posited an 'Original Position' from which the social contract was agreed upon unanimously by equals.

This social contract derives is just authority from the fact that it is completely unanimous.

The social contract has never and will never be a unanimous agreement by equals. The social contract is an agreement made within the state of nature, and the state of nature does not create equals. The social contract throughout history has been a coersive contract.

The absence of morally aribtrary factors is what makes all parties equal in negotiating this contract, and any unanimous outcome based on self-interest (or, to be more precise, absence of altruism) is one in which the good of the least well off is maximized. Inequality is just, in this unanimous contract, so long as it serves to increase the well-being of the least-well-off.

Explain why a unanimous outcome based on self interest necessitates the "maximin."

I have never understood why profit-share market socialists disassociate themselves with capitalism.

history, terminology, and general affinity i guess.

Serious market socialism would involve depriving individuals of the ability to turn money into capital. Instead of exchange being the basis of ownership of the means of production, the determinant would be whether or not one works at the relevant institution.

If I understand correctly, there is still a system of exchange within a market socialism. So what hinders a worker from rolling his profit share back into his business to generate capital?

It eliminates the class distinction between workers and capitalists.

I will agree there, but it performs this through capitalist-compatible measures.

I have never understood why profit-share market socialists disassociate themselves with capitalism. They claim the validity of market effects, private property ownership, and profit.

The bolded items above are not necessarily true. Some market anti-capitalists of anarchist persuasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) reject the notion of private property as legally created and enforced by the government/state entity while defending personal possession and use not so created and enforced. There is also the conflict between the labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) and subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value) theories of value; anti-capitalists prefer the former, capitalists the latter.

The bolded items above are not necessarily true. Some market anti-capitalists of anarchist persuasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) reject the notion of private property as legally created and enforced by the government/state entity while defending personal possession and use not so created and enforced. There is also the conflict between the labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) and subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value) theories of value; anti-capitalists prefer the former, capitalists the latter.

I assumed that profit-sharing market socialists don't reject the notion of private property, as they recognize the private determination of capital usage by democratic process. It is no different from a co-op, and a co-op is private property.

I also thought that market socialists rejected the labor theory of value.

I assumed that profit-sharing market socialists don't reject the notion of private property, as they recognize the private determination of capital usage by democratic process. It is no different from a co-op, and a co-op is private property.

I also thought that market socialists rejected the labor theory of value.

Give an example of who (a specific individual) or what (a specific state) is a "market socialist."

enough of this high falootin' 'reasonable discourse' and your fancy french 'meeting of minds':

commie, commie, commie!!!! i win.

I assumed that profit-sharing market socialists don't reject the notion of private property, as they recognize the private determination of capital usage by democratic process. It is no different from a co-op, and a co-op is private property.

I also thought that market socialists rejected the labor theory of value.

Explanations of views related to profit and property from the Mutualist (which I have seen described as "free-market anti-capitalism") perspective can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#Mutualist_thoughts_on_capitalism

some excerpts:


In terms of employment, an employer should not be paid unless he labors, and if he labors less than an employee then he should be paid less than that employee. Therefore, if the cost principle is followed, profit to an employer through the labor of others is not possible --everyone receives the "full produce" of his own labor and receives no produce of the labor of another unless he pays with an equivalent amount of labor. Warren says that this is in contrast to "Value the limit of price" where the only limit to price is the highest amount someone is willing to pay for a thing based on his own subjective valuation (see subjective theory of value).



Pierre Jospeh Proudhon was one the most famous philosophers to have articulated thoughts on the nature of property. He is known for exclaiming "property is theft!", but is less known for also exclaiming "property is freedom," and "property is impossible." According to Colin Ward, [4] Proudhon did not see a contradiction between these slogans. This was because Proudhon distinguished between what he considered to be two distinct forms of property often bound up in the single label. To the mutualist, this is the distinction between property created by coercion and property created by labor. Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation - but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property.

The bolded items above are not necessarily true. Some market anti-capitalists of anarchist persuasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) reject the notion of private property as legally created and enforced by the government/state entity while defending personal possession and use not so created and enforced.

Yeah, I was thinking Proudhon, too. The rejection of capitalist property without the rejection of private property and markets. Though he did hold to the Labor Theory of Value, which most market socialists today (and plenty of other socialists too) would reject.

I assumed that profit-sharing market socialists don't reject the notion of private property, as they recognize profit.

No, they don't recognize profit. This is one of the crucial elements implied by the elimination of the capitalist/owner distinction. In capitalism profit is the revenue minus expenses; the expenses here include wages, the money going to the workers. There is no "profit" in a market socialist economy because the workers get the whole thing. What Marx called "surplus-value" (and the market socialist Proudhon, dispensing with the niceties, called "theft") does not exist.

If I understand correctly, there is still a system of exchange within a market socialism. So what hinders a worker from rolling his profit share back into his business to generate capital?

Chiefly, because it doesn't benefit him unless all the other workers do it too. He doesn't get any larger share of the company; that runs contrary to the egalitarian democratic principles upon which the system is based. The means of production are not on the market.

I will agree there, but it performs this through capitalist-compatible measures.

There is no "capitalist." Or, the workers are the capitalists, which amounts to the same thing.

Give an example of who (a specific individual) or what (a specific state) is a "market socialist."

From what I understand, market socialism is just how it sounds. A socialist view of creating a system of worker or society owned means to production, but a reliance on the pricing and efficiency of the market.

Oskar Lange (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/lange.htm) is the predominant market-socialist, I think. Although he wanted societal ownership, and not worker ownership.

AnarchyeL would be the one to ask if you want more than that. He may state that I am completely wrong.

No, they don't recognize profit. This is one of the crucial elements implied by the elimination of the capitalist/owner distinction. In capitalism profit is the revenue minus expenses; the expenses here include wages, the money going to the workers. There is no "profit" in a market socialist economy because the workers get the whole thing. What Marx called "surplus-value" (and the market socialist Proudhon, dispensing with the niceties, called "theft") does not exist.

Couldn't labor be priced even within this system. It certainly doesn't lose its subjective values.

I don't see why there would be no labor cost within a market system, and if you can determine a labor cost, you could determine a profit.

I of course am coming from a capitalist view on profit, but assume for a second that capitalist profit does exist without exploitation.

Chiefly, because it doesn't benefit him unless all the other workers do it too. He doesn't get any larger share of the company; that runs contrary to the egalitarian democratic principles upon which the system is based. The means of production are not on the market.

Maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't the means of production necessarily be on the market to support a market pricing structure within the industry?

And while the worker doesn't get a larger share, the results from his share are larger.

There is no "capitalist." Or, the workers are the capitalists, which amounts to the same thing.

Well, yes, the workers are capitalists, but that is not the same thing. There is a huge difference between a worker who receives the true value of his labor, and the worker who receives the revenue of his investment of labor.

The social contract has never and will never be a unanimous agreement by equals. The social contract is an agreement made within the state of nature, and the state of nature does not create equals. The social contract throughout history has been a coersive contract.



Explain why a unanimous outcome based on self interest necessitates the "maximin."



That was the problem of social contracts until Rawls came up with the notion of the 'veil of ignorance' - which is the hypothetical situation where all parties are made completely equal by virtue of their lack of morally arbitrary charactaristics.

Because of this, it is in the self-interest of each party to agree only to a social contract such that even if, upon being born into the world, he is at the lowest rung of society, his gain is as large as possible. The self interest (/lack of altruism) on the part of every party makes this outcome necessarily unanimous.

Couldn't labor be priced even within this system. It certainly doesn't lose its subjective values.

I don't see why there would be no labor cost within a market system, and if you can determine a labor cost, you could determine a profit.

I of course am coming from a capitalist view on profit, but assume for a second that capitalist profit does exist without exploitation.

There is no distinction between labor cost and profit, because there is no distinction between worker and owner. All the workers are part-owners of the company, and get the full value of their labor (unless the decision is collectively made to re-invest a portion). Call it wages or call it a share of the profit, in this case it amounts to the same thing.

Maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't the means of production necessarily be on the market to support a market pricing structure within the industry?

If I'm understanding your point, yes, you're right; that's the problem with market socialism. The private purchase of the means of production, necessitated by market socialism, and the egalitarian ownership of the means of production, also necessitated by market socialism, don't synchronize very well. Since the workers do not make profit off other workers, rather only off their own labor, they have little reason to employ other workers, to start factories elsewhere, etc. They will maximize productivity, if they're smart, but except for reasons of economies of scale, they have no reason to expand.

For socialism to work, you have to have an institution accountable to society and not to a specific collective that accumulates (through taxes) and invests capital. You can still have market mechanisms and worker self-management, though the advisability of either can be questioned, but ultimately the means of production have to at least be distributed by a government-like institution.

And while the worker doesn't get a larger share, the results from his share are larger.

I could see that being justified, in some forms of market socialism.

Well, yes, the workers are capitalists, but that is not the same thing. There is a huge difference between a worker who receives the true value of his labor, and the worker who receives the revenue of his investment of labor.

With the maintenance of egalitarian management and the elimination of class privilege - that is, a situation in which those re-investing the value of their labor are not simply better off enough over those who are not re-investing that they need not keep the value for themselves - I could see the latter system working as a form of market socialism as well as the former one.

It is if enough people support your cause. If people don't support your cause, then maybe your cause isn't that virtuous.There is a difference between supporting the cause of getting rid of Wal-Mart and not shopping there. Given that people haven't been asked in the form of a referendum if they would like to get rid of Wal-Mart entirely, it can't be said that they don't support the cause.

I assumed that profit-sharing market socialists don't reject the notion of private property, as they recognize the private determination of capital usage by democratic process. It is no different from a co-op, and a co-op is private property.It's hard to say. Co-operatives tend to allow temporary workers, which would seem to be against the concept of market socialism. Co-ops also don't allow a worker to sell his "share" in the company to another worker, which would seem to violate another tenet of market socialism. I am not well versed in market socialism, so I can't say that this is definitely true, but I believe that it is.

That was the problem of social contracts until Rawls came up with the notion of the 'veil of ignorance' - which is the hypothetical situation where all parties are made completely equal by virtue of their lack of morally arbitrary charactaristics.

Because of this, it is in the self-interest of each party to agree only to a social contract such that even if, upon being born into the world, he is at the lowest rung of society, his gain is as large as possible. The self interest (/lack of altruism) on the part of every party makes this outcome necessarily unanimous.

The 'veil of ignorance' only exists prior to the interaction of two individuals.

Conflict in the state of nature would immediately eliminate the 'veil', and a state of nature without conflict eliminates the need for a social contract.

There is a difference between supporting the cause of getting rid of Wal-Mart and not shopping there. Given that people haven't been asked in the form of a referendum if they would like to get rid of Wal-Mart entirely, it can't be said that they don't support the cause.
If over 50 percent of people were okay with Walmart being completely banned, I don't think Walmart would still be around today, what with it needing people to be its customers. Walmart is a business designed to give people what they want. Surely it's success indicates that either not enough people know about the bad things Walmart does, which is quickly changing, or more startlingly, that people don't care what bad things Walmart does.

If over 50 percent of people were okay with Walmart being completely banned, I don't think Walmart would still be around today, what with it needing people to be its customers. Walmart is a business designed to give people what they want. Surely it's success indicates that either not enough people know about the bad things Walmart does, which is quickly changing, or more startlingly, that people don't care what bad things Walmart does.Walmart wouldn't exist in the form it does today, but it would still exist. Even if 99.99% of people don't shop at a business, that other .01% could keep it open and profiting.

There is no distinction between labor cost and profit, because there is no distinction between worker and owner. All the workers are part-owners of the company, and get the full value of their labor (unless the decision is collectively made to re-invest a portion). Call it wages or call it a share of the profit, in this case it amounts to the same thing.

The value of labor is in the margins. A company will hire a worker only if his labor provides more benefit than cost. Therefore a company owned by workers would only hire another worker if it resulted in receiving a greater revenue from the same amount of work.

So would you say that the hiring of an additional worker gave their labor a greater value, or would you say that there is profit involved?

If I'm understanding your point, yes, you're right; that's the problem with market socialism. The private purchase of the means of production, necessitated by market socialism, and the egalitarian ownership of the means of production, also necessitated by market socialism, don't synchronize very well. Since the workers do not make profit off other workers, rather only off their own labor, they have little reason to employ other workers, to start factories elsewhere, etc. They will maximize productivity, if they're smart, but except for reasons of economies of scale, they have no reason to expand.

Demand for goods will determine the demand for labor. Once one company reaches the optimal, then another company will start and begin hiring until it reaches the optimal.

For socialism to work, you have to have an institution accountable to society and not to a specific collective that accumulates (through taxes) and invests capital. You can still have market mechanisms and worker self-management, though the advisability of either can be questioned, but ultimately the means of production have to at least be distributed by a government-like institution.

This is why I said:

"I have never understood why profit-share market socialists disassociate themselves with capitalism."

Your description of socialism precludes all market socialists.

The 'veil of ignorance' only exists prior to the interaction of two individuals.

Conflict in the state of nature would immediately eliminate the 'veil', and a state of nature without conflict eliminates the need for a social contract.



I believe that rawls maintained that his social contract was one entered into after the needs for simple safety, &c, were fulfilled. It is a theory of justice for more or less stable countries, though I may be confusing this with someone else. More sophisticated Rawlsians can correct me.

At any rate, the veil of ignorance is a state without the morally arbitrary factors that cause conflict, it is meant to determine which policies and ideas people would agree to, unanimously, if they were deprived of knowledge of their luck in the lottery of birth.

At any rate, the veil of ignorance is a state without the morally arbitrary factors that cause conflict, it is meant to determine which policies and ideas people would agree to, unanimously, if they were deprived of knowledge of their luck in the lottery of birth.

If a veil of ignorance exists, then yes, it makes sense to me.

That is a HUGE if, though.

True, but the best way to discourage the reprehensible practices around the world is to provide the people there with additional options that don't require them to accept lower safety/wage/work hour standards. We can do that by allowing more businesses to move to the area. This increases the ratio of workers to businesses and gives them more bargaining power. Unless the corporations collude to keep wages low, which is illegal pretty much everywhere, standards will go up for workers.

While worker standards may temporarily suffer at home, this will be made up for even in the short term by reduced costs of goods, and over the long term, the equalization process that will occur in the less developed countries will allow them to adopt the same standards as us, something that is currently impossible.

While I follow your line of thinking on this, I'm not so sure I agree 100%. For instance, if a major shoe company moves production out to a country that has no child labour laws, aren't we effectively saying that it's okay, as long as it doesn't happen within our borders? Also, aren't we submitting nations to a constant 'low-bid' war with corporations?

A main argument of free market capitalism is that wealth brings justice. I mean, that's essentially what it boils down to. Start with sweatshops, build wealth, sweatshops close and living standards increase, build more wealth and things just kind of creep upwards on the social justice scale. Closing down sweatshops (according to this theory) is therefore bad, and works AGAINST the 'evolution' of social justice.In the first place, I would distinguish questions of "justice" from questions of a "public good." The argument that you describe maintains that capitalism leads to a particular set of public goods: higher standards of living, and others such as a diversity and freedom in consumer choice.

Now, it may be that it provides these public goods and capitalism is characterized by justice (or fairness). Justice is, however, a more difficult concept to define than "good." Some may argue that since all workers are "necessary," in some sense, to the economy, all deserve (a "justice word") an equal share in the outcome; others will argue that different contributions deserve different shares; still others may complain that regardless of the outcome, if the means of reaching a decision was not fair (say, democratic), then the system is unfair.

That having been said, there is no theoretical contradiction between capitalism and justice. In theory, the two are reconcilable.

Of course, I say this as a socialist. But the reasons for my position on these issues is not purely theoretical in the sense that I think capitalism is "inherently" or "morally" evil; rather, I think that in practice it cannot in fact live up to the justice claims that it makes.

These are very different ways to look at the problem, and should be distinguished.

You cannot begin to rationally show that justice lies in improving the worse-off at the expense of the best-off.

Actually, one can make a reasonable argument that this has something to do with justice. Certainly many people have... and whether or not they are correct, they generally seem to be just as reasonable and rational as people who argue the reverse.

Anyway, I think the previous poster was alluding to Rawls' argument that rational self-interested individuals, regarding distribution from a standpoint of hypothetical ignorance of their own position, would all agree to any change that benefits all (including the worse-off) at no one's real expense.

In other words, as long as someone goes up and no one goes down, everyone should be happy... with one caveat that distinguishes it from simple equilibria in market economics: namely, given a choice between two acceptable changes, one in which the most advantaged benefit at no cost to the least advantaged, and a second in which the least advantaged benefit at no cost to the most advantaged, then justice prefers the latter.

I'm going to back off from my original statement and say that I was wrong. Not because I truly feel myself to be wrong, but because I certainly don't want to back up the statement.

Anyway, I think the previous poster was alluding to Rawls' argument that rational self-interested individuals, regarding distribution from a standpoint of hypothetical ignorance of their own position, would all agree to any change that benefits all (including the worse-off) at no one's real expense.

I understood the point he was making, however, this "veil of ignorance" seems like a ridiculous assumption.

In other words, as long as someone goes up and no one goes down, everyone should be happy... with one caveat that distinguishes it from simple equilibria in market economics: namely, given a choice between two acceptable changes, one in which the most advantaged benefit at no cost to the least advantaged, and a second in which the least advantaged benefit at no cost to the most advantaged, then justice prefers the latter.

That is reasonable.

But maximizing the gain of the worst off necessitates equality. And there is way that a society can maintain equality without benefitting the worst off at the expense of the better off.

I have never understood why profit-share market socialists disassociate themselves with capitalism. They claim the validity of market effects, private property ownership, and profit. They have more in common with capitalists than Marxists.If by "profit-share" market socialists you mean socialists who believe that business firms should be owned collectively by the workers who run them, and who should therefore receive any profits the firm makes, then you are absolutely correct: this is a form of capitalism, with some changes as to who is permitted to own particular kinds of property, as well as to the terms of incorporation.

If, however, you refer to market socialists who believe that some (or all) firms should be owned by the state/society but operated according to market principles (a scheme that I have described before), then in this case the profits of all publicly owned firms are collected by the government itself and distributed according to political decisions. While these "profits" are "shared," in this case profit does not play the same role that it does in capitalism, so that this system is properly distinguished from capitalism.

That having been said, a note of caution in using the term "socialist." Oskar Lange, a central figure in market socialism, defined "socialist" economics as that which is premised on the assumption that economic systems are adopted in order to acquire public goods, to attain the best economic situation for all.

From this perspective, "socialism" does not refer to any one system: rather, it refers to the notion that systems should be designed to benefit everyone (or, alternatively, to attain social goals). The system that "works" may differ depending on the time and place in which one must design and implement it. What works now may not work in fifty years.

Importantly, Lange emphasized that this entails that a "socialist" economist might recommend a capitalist system, if he believes that capitalism will produce advantages that other modes of organization would not.

"Socialism" in this sense does not advocate a particular system. Thus, it is not opposed (in principle) to capitalism; instead, it is opposed to the notion that any economic system is "inherently" right, or has a right premised on "natural right" or "natural justice." Thus, if someone argues that capitalism is appropriate regardless of the effects it produces because individuals have an unalienable right to capital property, this person is not a socialist in Lange's sense. Meanwhile, if a person argues for communism or some socialist system regardless of the effects it produces based on a concept of common ownership as "right" and private ownership as "inherently" wrong... then this theorist is not a socialist in Lange's sense of the word.

To avoid confusion, I sometimes refer to Lange's perspective as "meta-socialism" to distinguish it from what we normally call "socialist systems."

Anyway, I think the previous poster was alluding to Rawls' argument that rational self-interested individuals, regarding distribution from a standpoint of hypothetical ignorance of their own position, would all agree to any change that benefits all (including the worse-off) at no one's real expense.
Rawls, as I have no doubt you know, built into his conditions the outcome that he wished to argue for. There is a huge presumption made that it is rational to prefer an equitable situation to one in which you are taking a risk but may end up better off. Risk taking is not, per se, irrational. It depends on whether you can survive a failure. As such, individuals behind a veil of ignorance are as likely, rationally, to choose a highly inequitable society in which the worst off can survive as they are to choose an equitable one. If one assumes that people, or at least some people are motivated by issues of merit and 'just' reward (a justice term I believe) then the equitable society of Rawls is one that they are unlikely to choose on a rational basis.

In other words, as long as someone goes up and no one goes down, everyone should be happy... with one caveat that distinguishes it from simple equilibria in market economics: namely, given a choice between two acceptable changes, one in which the most advantaged benefit at no cost to the least advantaged, and a second in which the least advantaged benefit at no cost to the most advantaged, then justice prefers the latter.
Why does justice prefer the benefit of the least advantaged over the most advantaged? Only equity prefers this, and there is no link that has been shown so far between equity and justice.

If a veil of ignorance exists, then yes, it makes sense to me.

That is a HUGE if, though.


It's a hypothetical position, like any social contract.

The point it makes is that the only unanimous and uncoerced social contract is one made by equals, and the only way to equalize all parties to the contract is to remove their knowledge of morally arbitrary position in the world.

Deprived of knowledge of your position, you and every other rational individual would choose a contract such that the minimum gain was maximized, since it would not be in your interest to dimish your own minimum gain.

For the maximization of gain amongst the worst-off, there must be equality.

Not at all. Only if you make a zero-sum assumption (which no self-respecting capitalist would).

This is easier to explain with graphs, but I'll do my best without. Suppose the default distribution (actually something of a problem for Rawls, but we'll let him go on this one) is equality:

A = 3
B = 3
C = 3

A, B, and C are the three people in our little society.

Now, they have four options for how to deal with distribution.

Option 1: Keep things as they are, x=3.

Option 2:

A = 10
B = 6
C = 1

Option 3:

A = 7
B = 6
C = 3

Option 4:

A = 8
B = 5
C = 4

Rawls would say that option 2 is unjust, because while A does very well, C actually loses out. Option 3 would be acceptable to everyone, as no one loses, and it would be preferable to option 1 (equality), since at least some people gain. Option 4, however, would be the natural choice out of them all, since everyone gains... even though they become less equal.

Now, if the starting position were Option 4, and the following were the new possibilities...

Option 4.1:

A = 9
B = 5
C = 4

Option 4.2:

A = 8
B = 5
C = 5

... then Rawls would say that 4.2 is more just than 4.1. While no one loses in either, the position of the least well-off is improved in 4.2. (And, arguing from a position of ignorance, people should prefer the one in which the least well-off does better.)

Thus, Rawls' theory does not inherently tend toward equality... It all depends on where things start, and where it is possible to take them. The "ideal" for Rawls is the distribution in which everyone benefits.

Explain why a unanimous outcome based on self interest necessitates the "maximin."

According to Rawls, to have rational self-interest I must remain mindful (in the hypothetical state of ignorance) of the possibility that when the veil is removed, I will turn out to be the least well-off. I should therefore care, above all, about maximizing that position.

From a psychological perspective he is correct to the extent that people tend to be risk-managers. Tell them that they can take Option A, in which they have a 1/3 chance of being extremely wealthy and a 2/3 chance of being devastatingly poor; and Option B, in which they have a 2/3 chance of being "middle class" and a 1/3 chance of being moderately poor (but not as bad as A), and most people will forego the chance to be extremely wealthy in favor of the "safe bet" in Option B.

The whole veil of ignorance idea is, of course, still fraught with difficulties. But as you learn to tear it apart, you might as well have an accurate reading of Rawls' logic... such as it is.

If I understand correctly, there is still a system of exchange within a market socialism.Always. That's what makes it market socialism.

So what hinders a worker from rolling his profit share back into his business to generate capital?I'll assume you're referring to what this discussion has called "profit-share" socialism... but which I would be more inclined to call profit-share capitalism.

And the answer is... Nothing. In the profit-share model, the actual distribution of profits would be subject to the collective decision of the worker-shareholders (or the decision of their appointed/elected managers). Thus, they might decide to re-invest some part (or all) of their profits, while distributing the remainder to themselves as profit shares. (This might be done equally, or they might decide that some people contributed more than others... whatever, they're the shareholders.)

Now, is it also possible for an individual to save his wages/profits in order to invest in her/his own business, to become a private entrepreneur?

Sure it is. He could open his own shop, and run his own business. The laws of this profit-share capitalism would merely require that if he hired anyone else to work with him, that person would automatically become an equal shareholder in the business. (I happen to think there are serious practical problems with this idea, but I won't get into them here.)

I assumed that profit-sharing market socialists don't reject the notion of private property, as they recognize the private determination of capital usage by democratic process. It is no different from a co-op, and a co-op is private property.Right. That's why I don't consider it socialist, but rather a form of capitalism.

I also thought that market socialists rejected the labor theory of value.Everyone who does not have his head stuck in the nineteenth century has rejected the labor theory of value. Unfortunately, less analytical communists gravitate toward it because it appears to offer an easy, objective demonstration of "capitalist exploitation." They rarely let the fact that it has been roundly discredited get in the way of their imagination.

Give an example of who (a specific individual) or what (a specific state) is a "market socialist."I've already mentioned Oskar Lange, probably the most famous theorist of market socialism.

Belgium's education system is run along essentially market socialist principles. Many social healthcare programs are basically market socialist, to the extent that through centralized payment they equalize all consumers, compelling firms (whether public or private) to compete for customers rather than wealthy customers--since with central payment there is no practical difference between the two.

No, they don't recognize profit. This is one of the crucial elements implied by the elimination of the capitalist/owner distinction. In capitalism profit is the revenue minus expenses; the expenses here include wages, the money going to the workers. There is no "profit" in a market socialist economy because the workers get the whole thing. What Marx called "surplus-value" (and the market socialist Proudhon, dispensing with the niceties, called "theft") does not exist.This whole argument presupposes the Labor Theory of Value, which is the only way it can draw an equivalency between the money workers earn as a profit-share (revenue-expenses) and the wages they pay themselves for working, which have to be treated as costs of doing business.

If you adopt the Labor Theory of Value, then you run into all sorts of paradoxes when worker-owned businesses run (for any period) at a loss... seemingly the only way this can happen is if you employ labor with negative value (i.e. they would have been more valuable had they done nothing).

This is a broader version of the classic problem: If I start with two identical fields, and invest identical amounts of labor in them, but in one I planted wheat and in the other I planted poison ivy... then my labor made one field better, the other field worse (since presumably we prefer an empty field to one full of poison ivy).

No. It makes both theoretical and practical sense for worker-shareholders to pay themselves a wage, which they count as a cost. At the end of the day, if revenue exceeds costs, they have made a profit in addition to their wages.

The 'veil of ignorance' only exists prior to the interaction of two individuals.

Conflict in the state of nature would immediately eliminate the 'veil', and a state of nature without conflict eliminates the need for a social contract.For purposes of clarification, Rawls does not claim any sort of "real" or even hypothetical "state of nature" anterior to society.

Rather, he invents the veil of ignorance as an imaginative device. He says that, assuming you and I both want to know what would be fair, we should say, "let's imagine we don't know anything about ourselves. We don't know whether we're winners or losers in the social race. What sort of society would we agree to before finding out our place?"

*snip*AB, I suspect we would both agree to the same very valid criticisms of Rawls... I'm definitely no supporter. I do like to give him the best presentation possible, however, against those who too easily reject his argument without actually trying to grapple with what he's about.

Think of me as applying the 14th Amendment to philosophers... None shall be deprived of credibility without due process and equal protection. ;)

While I follow your line of thinking on this, I'm not so sure I agree 100%. For instance, if a major shoe company moves production out to a country that has no child labour laws, aren't we effectively saying that it's okay, as long as it doesn't happen within our borders? Also, aren't we submitting nations to a constant 'low-bid' war with corporations?
We're saying that it's better than people starving to death. Let's face it, the only reason kids are going to submit to working like that is if their family is already desperate. We are giving them a way out of that desperation. I will admit it is a crappy way out, but banning crappy aid when little to no good aid is forthcoming is not going to help anyone.

As for you second question, that low-bid scenario can only occur when there are nations desperate enough to lower their bid. As more companies move into those locations, they won't be willing to bid so low, and things will balance out. I think it's naive to assume that we can turn the least developed nations in the world into bastions of social justice without having a foundation to build that social justice on, and that foundation has always been the strength of the market and economy. All these social programs that we cherish have been made possible because corporations produce and we take a cut of it to apply for social justice. Without the corporations in the first place, who are these desperate nations going to tax to provide free schooling, health care, pensions, etc?

Walmart wouldn't exist in the form it does today, but it would still exist. Even if 99.99% of people don't shop at a business, that other .01% could keep it open and profiting.
Then why can't the people who are opposed to Walmart, and they represent more than .01% of the population, keep open the small town shops they cherish so much. It's a double standard to claim that Walmart could endure the public's change in shopping habits when so many other companies have shown that they cannot.

We're saying that it's better than people starving to death. Let's face it, the only reason kids are going to submit to working like that is if their family is already desperate. We are giving them a way out of that desperation. I will admit it is a crappy way out, but banning crappy aid when little to no good aid is forthcoming is not going to help anyone.

There's no reason to stop financial aid and industrial build-up in poorer economies. In fact, I commend it. But we can certainly provide restrictions to the types of behaviour we can allow our home-grown companies to behave in other countries. For instance, exploiting child labour in africa could result in fines in North America. Wage levels are of course debatable, since it's all relative to the size of your economy.

As for you second question, that low-bid scenario can only occur when there are nations desperate enough to lower their bid. As more companies move into those locations, they won't be willing to bid so low, and things will balance out. I think it's naive to assume that we can turn the least developed nations in the world into bastions of social justice without having a foundation to build that social justice on, and that foundation has always been the strength of the market and economy. All these social programs that we cherish have been made possible because corporations produce and we take a cut of it to apply for social justice. Without the corporations in the first place, who are these desperate nations going to tax to provide free schooling, health care, pensions, etc?

The situations that arose for social development in the west occured because people protested and demanded it through strike action or legislation. Business owners of the day had to deal with the issue if they wanted to keep things running. Nowadays, they can pull up stakes and move somewhere else, perhaps a country that's willing to cut corners to get more jobs. Worse yet, some companies, particular resource based ones, can simpy 'buy' the bureacrat in charge to make sure that employees don't have a fair bargaining position.

There's no reason to stop financial aid and industrial build-up in poorer economies. In fact, I commend it. But we can certainly provide restrictions to the types of behaviour we can allow our home-grown companies to behave in other countries. For instance, exploiting child labour in africa could result in fines in North America. Wage levels are of course debatable, since it's all relative to the size of your economy.
We can do that, but remember that some of the most effective campaigns against child-labour have been grass-roots, not government, initiatives. It was angry consumers like you and me that threatened Nike's profits and got Nike to stop employing child labour, not the threats of government fines.

The situations that arose for social development in the west occured because people protested and demanded it through strike action or legislation. Business owners of the day had to deal with the issue if they wanted to keep things running. Nowadays, they can pull up stakes and move somewhere else, perhaps a country that's willing to cut corners to get more jobs. Worse yet, some companies, particular resource based ones, can simpy 'buy' the bureacrat in charge to make sure that employees don't have a fair bargaining position.
First, bribery is a problem everywhere, and what's more, it's illegal. It's not like we'ren't taking action to stop bribery. Leaving that aside, I predict that sooner or later citizens will start protesting the conditions in their less fortunate countries. When people started protesting in the United States in Canada, the businesses they were protesting could always move to another state or province, but in the end, the people's resolve was strong enough to force a change. By the same token, businesses may be able to buy themselves some time by moving around, but as the world economy grows, the time that businesses have to engage in questionable practices shrinks.

A main argument of free market capitalism is that wealth brings justice. I mean, that's essentially what it boils down to. Start with sweatshops, build wealth, sweatshops close and living standards increase, build more wealth and things just kind of creep upwards on the social justice scale. Closing down sweatshops (according to this theory) is therefore bad, and works AGAINST the 'evolution' of social justice.

Other people say, whoa there fella! Why should we wait for justice and put up with human rights abuses in the meantime?? And I ask...can we build justice INTO capitalism? There are some examples of such attempts, fair trade is an example of capitalism bound by certain ethical rules. But could we do it on a larger scale?
I think so, yes. Two good examples are the "suffer to work" provision of the employment compensation law, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) here in the US.

"Suffer to work" means that if you allow someone to work in your business, wheather for compensation or not, you're liable under the law for whatever happens to them as a result ( e.g. strained back from lifting heavy products ).

OSHA provides stiff penalties for failure to comply with accepted safety and health requirements.

Though some businesses raise hell about the paperwork involved, most simply factor the expense of compliance into the cost of doing business. Few ( if any ) have gone out of business as a result of compliance.

Not at all. Only if you make a zero-sum assumption (which no self-respecting capitalist would).

This is easier to explain with graphs, but I'll do my best without. Suppose the default distribution (actually something of a problem for Rawls, but we'll let him go on this one) is equality:

A = 3
B = 3
C = 3

A, B, and C are the three people in our little society.

Now, they have four options for how to deal with distribution.

Option 1: Keep things as they are, x=3.

Option 2:

A = 10
B = 6
C = 1

Option 3:

A = 7
B = 6
C = 3

Option 4:

A = 8
B = 5
C = 4

Rawls would say that option 2 is unjust, because while A does very well, C actually loses out. Option 3 would be acceptable to everyone, as no one loses, and it would be preferable to option 1 (equality), since at least some people gain. Option 4, however, would be the natural choice out of them all, since everyone gains... even though they become less equal.

Now, if the starting position were Option 4, and the following were the new possibilities...

Option 4.1:

A = 9
B = 5
C = 4

Option 4.2:

A = 8
B = 5
C = 5

... then Rawls would say that 4.2 is more just than 4.1. While no one loses in either, the position of the least well-off is improved in 4.2. (And, arguing from a position of ignorance, people should prefer the one in which the least well-off does better.)

Thus, Rawls' theory does not inherently tend toward equality... It all depends on where things start, and where it is possible to take them. The "ideal" for Rawls is the distribution in which everyone benefits.

I am not assuming zero-sum. I assumed the creation of wealth, and I assumed that Rawls's philosophy would lead the creation of wealth towards those that are worse off. The pressure of this constant swing of wealth to the low end would make a constant pressure towards equality. In fact, those that were well off could not improve themselves until the curve had brought them into a lower bracket.

If you consider a series of changes, the effect would be to level out the differences between A, B, and C.

That would be the nature of the measure, a push towards equality.

Not to mention that the independent stores won't honor food stamps, which I have to use.

Oh, so you're pure evil.

Worthless thieving subhuman scum. Get lost.

There is no difference between "denying practical ability" and "coercively interfering," except for the terms you use. Either way, certain actions of yours violate a person's rights. If rights do not obligate anyone else to do anything, then rights not only do not

Except, there's not, and they don't.

That you patently refuse to understand what a "right" is is your moral and intellectual failing, not mine.

For purposes of clarification, Rawls does not claim any sort of "real" or even hypothetical "state of nature" anterior to society.

Rather, he invents the veil of ignorance as an imaginative device. He says that, assuming you and I both want to know what would be fair, we should say, "let's imagine we don't know anything about ourselves. We don't know whether we're winners or losers in the social race. What sort of society would we agree to before finding out our place?"

Even there Rawls implies that fairness is based in equality, as he believes that we must set ourselves as equals in order to determine what would be a fair society.

I am not assuming zero-sum. I assumed the creation of wealth, and I assumed that Rawls's philosophy would lead the creation of wealth towards those that are worse off. The pressure of this constant swing of wealth to the low end would make a constant pressure towards equality. In fact, those that were well off could not improve themselves until the curve had brought them into a lower bracket.

If you consider a series of changes, the effect would be to level out the differences between A, B, and C.

That would be the nature of the measure, a push towards equality.

Now that I'm reading your interpretation of Rawls, I'm starting to wonder if my own is not correct...but I always understood Rawls to stand for individual accountability, in cognizance of the fact that people never have been, aren't, and never will be, equal. However, what Rawls suggests is a level playing field at the moment of birth, epitomized best by a UNIVERSAL good education for all, especially the poorest, as they have the fewest natural advantages in a capitalist society.

This isn't to say that Rawls' theories aren't inherently redistributionist, there is quite a case to be made that education is infact money, but skewing the education benefit curve towards the lower end acts as a stabilizing device from which the playing field is leveled and those who deserve success can achieve it, no matter their beginning station in life.

Oh, so you're pure evil.

Worthless thieving subhuman scum. Get lost.

This post strikes me as hilarious, though that's probably not what you were shooting for.

We can do that, but remember that some of the most effective campaigns against child-labour have been grass-roots, not government, initiatives. It was angry consumers like you and me that threatened Nike's profits and got Nike to stop employing child labour, not the threats of government fines.

I don't see why you couldn't treat it with both scenario's; grass-roots protest through selective purchasing and government legislation. It's not like there isn't precedent for such legislation. The Helm's-Burton act was created to punish companies who operate in the United States who deal with Cuba. Although incredibly unpopular with the rest of the world, the effect was there - If you want to do business in the States, you can't support something that the American government finds reprehensible (in this case, supporting a totalitarian regime in Cuba with business.)

First, bribery is a problem everywhere, and what's more, it's illegal. It's not like we'ren't taking action to stop bribery. Leaving that aside, I predict that sooner or later citizens will start protesting the conditions in their less fortunate countries. When people started protesting in the United States in Canada, the businesses they were protesting could always move to another state or province, but in the end, the people's resolve was strong enough to force a change. By the same token, businesses may be able to buy themselves some time by moving around, but as the world economy grows, the time that businesses have to engage in questionable practices shrinks.

Regarding bribery, I know there's some thinking on changing the nature of business in resource-based economies, allowing for more transparency. There was an interesting article on it... might have been the Economist.

Regarding business running out of time to engage in questionable practices... I only hope you're right. I remain slightly sceptical...

.....
Regarding business running out of time to engage in questionable practices... I only hope you're right. I remain slightly sceptical...
The concept of questionability evolves, for one. But obligatory disclosure of business practices, especially regarding adherence to basic human rights stuff, is generally on the increase.

A main argument of free market capitalism is that wealth brings justice. I mean, that's essentially what it boils down to. Start with sweatshops, build wealth, sweatshops close and living standards increase, build more wealth and things just kind of creep upwards on the social justice scale. Closing down sweatshops (according to this theory) is therefore bad, and works AGAINST the 'evolution' of social justice.

Other people say, whoa there fella! Why should we wait for justice and put up with human rights abuses in the meantime?? And I ask...can we build justice INTO capitalism? There are some examples of such attempts, fair trade is an example of capitalism bound by certain ethical rules. But could we do it on a larger scale?

No. We can't. Else it isn't capitalism.

Next question.

Now that I'm reading your interpretation of Rawls, I'm starting to wonder if my own is not correct...but I always understood Rawls to stand for individual accountability, in cognizance of the fact that people never have been, aren't, and never will be, equal. However, what Rawls suggests is a level playing field at the moment of birth, epitomized best by a UNIVERSAL good education for all, especially the poorest, as they have the fewest natural advantages in a capitalist society.

This isn't to say that Rawls' theories aren't inherently redistributionist, there is quite a case to be made that education is infact money, but skewing the education benefit curve towards the lower end acts as a stabilizing device from which the playing field is leveled and those who deserve success can achieve it, no matter their beginning station in life.

Note: That wasn't an interpretation of Rawls, that was an interpretation of someone else's interpretation of Rawls. I have never read more than a short summary on Rawls's philosophy.

That interpretation would make the "veil of ignorance" make more sense, but I would think that it would apply to changes concerning full grown adults as well.

I am not assuming zero-sum. I assumed the creation of wealth, and I assumed that Rawls's philosophy would lead the creation of wealth towards those that are worse off. The pressure of this constant swing of wealth to the low end would make a constant pressure towards equality. In fact, those that were well off could not improve themselves until the curve had brought them into a lower bracket.

If you consider a series of changes, the effect would be to level out the differences between A, B, and C.

That would be the nature of the measure, a push towards equality.

No, you've really just moved from "zero-sum" which would require equality, to now "not a very big sum" which would exert "pressure" towards equality.

Rawls has been taken to make a very fine theoretical justification for modern liberal democracies under capitalism. The reason capitalism is included is because he basically concedes to the "rising tide" argument: as long as everyone's position improves (and/or no one loses out), justice is satisfied.

He is willing to accept even the most radical inequality, so long as the least well-off benefit.

Thus

A = 40,000
B = 10,000
C = 5,000

is inherently better, for Rawls, than

A = 15,000
B = 6,000
C = 4,000

Certainly the latter is more equal, but since everyone is worse off he assumes no one would choose it.

Even there Rawls implies that fairness is based in equality, as he believes that we must set ourselves as equals in order to determine what would be a fair society.He assumes moral equality, but doesn't care one bit for substantive economic equality. Really, he could hardly care less.

No, you've really just moved from "zero-sum" which would require equality, to now "not a very big sum" which would exert "pressure" towards equality.

Rawls has been taken to make a very fine theoretical justification for modern liberal democracies under capitalism. The reason capitalism is included is because he basically concedes to the "rising tide" argument: as long as everyone's position improves (and/or no one loses out), justice is satisfied.

He is willing to accept even the most radical inequality, so long as the least well-off benefit.

Thus

A = 40,000
B = 10,000
C = 5,000

is inherently better, for Rawls, than

A = 15,000
B = 6,000
C = 4,000

Certainly the latter is more equal, but since everyone is worse off he assumes no one would choose it.

I took from your earlier explanation that the poor have precedent to new generation of wealth.

You had this example:

Option 4.1:

A = 9
B = 5
C = 4

Option 4.2:

A = 8
B = 5
C = 5

... then Rawls would say that 4.2 is more just than 4.1. While no one loses in either, the position of the least well-off is improved in 4.2.

Taking this principle of justice into consideration, it would reason that justice would cause the poor to gain wealth faster than the wealthy. Unless the creation of wealth is equally divisible among all members of society, then some group will gain more than another, creating a push towards equality.

I am saying that the wealthy can benefit greatly, doubled, tripled, but to satisfy this theory of justice, we must assume that the poor will benefit at a greater rate, creating an equalizing pressure.

That is not an attack on Rawls' position, though, as were Rawls correct, equality would be justified.

He assumes moral equality, but doesn't care one bit for substantive economic equality. Really, he could hardly care less.

First how does he get moral equality?

Second, doesn't the ignorance of oneself necessity perceived economic equality? I thought that was the point of the their agreement to the system of distribution.

First how does he get moral equality?

Second, doesn't the ignorance of oneself necessity perceived economic equality? I thought that was the point of the their agreement to the system of distribution.


He strips people of everything morally arbitrary by means of the 'veil of ignorance.'


Knowledge of economic equality or inequality is something lacking in the 'ignorance of oneself.' The parties to the negotiation 'know' only that they all have equal chances of having any combination of morally arbitrary characteristics on the other side of the 'veil.'

As has been explained above, Rawls' theory does not push for equality, it pushes to maximize the minimum gain. If this makes gross inequality a necessity, then gross inequality is the best policy.

Whatever solution works in the real world to maximize that gain is probably very complicated, but it is superlatively just.

I don't see why you couldn't treat it with both scenario's; grass-roots protest through selective purchasing and government legislation. It's not like there isn't precedent for such legislation. The Helm's-Burton act was created to punish companies who operate in the United States who deal with Cuba. Although incredibly unpopular with the rest of the world, the effect was there - If you want to do business in the States, you can't support something that the American government finds reprehensible (in this case, supporting a totalitarian regime in Cuba with business.)
First, government legislation can create the illusion that the problem is fixed when in reality the company has just slightly altered its practices to fit the technicalities. Secondly, and more importantly, laws against businesses that apply to the whole country often do not reflect the views of all of society. Take, for instance, that exact example you gave me. A lot of people don't care if the businesses in America do business in Cuba. Unfortunately, they are never given a chance to voice that when the government steps in on their behalf.

I took from your earlier explanation that the poor have precedent to new generation of wealth.No. I said that if there is an option in which everyone gains, and an option in which only the rich or only the poor gain, people thinking from a position of ignorance would choose the one in which everyone gains.

Thus, if under one system the rich gain and the poor get nothing, and in another system the poor gain and the rich get nothing, and yet one more in which everyone gains, people should choose the one in which everyone gains.

But, it is always possible that you may have a more restricted choice: perhaps between an option in which the rich gain, and the poor get nothing; and another option in which the poor gain and the rich get nothing... and no other choices.

In this case, Rawls argues that everyone (from a hypothetical position of ignorance) would agree to the option in which the poor gain and the rich get nothing... so that their own worst-off possibility is slightly better.

This makes many huge assumptions. For one thing, as has already been suggested, it does not take into account the possibility that a rational person may choose a slim chance at great wealth over guaranteed mediocrity. The "justice" of it also rests on one of two assumptions: Either you assume determinism, so that people are not responsible for their personal decisions, so that it would be unjust to choose any economic decision that distributes wealth based solely on "merit;" the alternative assumption being that this "veil of ignorance" is so complete as to allow people to abstract even from their definition of "merit," so that they don't employ moral arguments that contradict their theoretical self-interest. In other words, no rational person would say to himself, "If I were someone with those characteristics, I wouldn't deserve to have a 'share' in the wealth." To do this, a person would have to be so alienated from herself as a moral being that it would be difficult to understand how she could participate in an act of moral creation at all.

Certainly the latter is more equal, but since everyone is worse off he assumes no one would choose it.

though that would possibly depend on how far the veil extends, as actual humans have a noted tendency to perceive inequality beyond a certain level as a wrong - even to the point where they are willing to take less than they otherwise would get.

Then why can't the people who are opposed to Walmart, and they represent more than .01% of the population, keep open the small town shops they cherish so much. It's a double standard to claim that Walmart could endure the public's change in shopping habits when so many other companies have shown that they cannot.I've already stated that there is a difference between not wanting Walmart to exist and not shopping there.
Furthermore, any random small town shop does not have access to .01% of the population of a large country like the U.S., whereas Walmart does.

Except, there's not, and they don't.

That you patently refuse to understand what a "right" is is your moral and intellectual failing, not mine.I hope Soheran doesn't mind me answering for him, but I have to ask: upon what basis do you form your concept of what rights are? For instance, some people will use the concept of natural rights as the basis to all rights. What basis do you use?

First, government legislation can create the illusion that the problem is fixed when in reality the company has just slightly altered its practices to fit the technicalities. Secondly, and more importantly, laws against businesses that apply to the whole country often do not reflect the views of all of society. Take, for instance, that exact example you gave me. A lot of people don't care if the businesses in America do business in Cuba. Unfortunately, they are never given a chance to voice that when the government steps in on their behalf.

You can't rely completely on consumer spending, because that relies on consumers having options which may or may not exist. It makes the assumption that there will be enough people with enough cash to afford a more expensive product due to ethical choice in order to facilitate a business providing that product. For instance, if you're against animal abuse such as factory farming, etc. you may wish to purchase only free-range chicken, or buy only organic food. This might not be readibly affordable for you, espescially in economic circumstances where you could have worked in a garment factory somewhere at a relatively decent wage, instead of that job being done by an immigrant hidden away somewhere at slave wages.

A lot of people (prior to the civil war) didn't care that the clothes that were made for them were made from cotten picked by slaves. Does that mean that as long as there is a consumer for that product, that government shouldn't step in with legislation? Laws don't have to reflect the view of all of society, just the majority (within constitutional limits.)

What I'm getting at here, is that society has both the consumer and legislative tools at its disposal to handle the excess of capitalism. While perhaps legislation might create the 'illusion' that a problem is solved, it's a step in the right direction. If our legislation isn't perfect, perhaps it means that we are simply in need of democratic reform and better civic education (imho, definitely so.)

I've already stated that there is a difference between not wanting Walmart to exist and not shopping there.
Furthermore, any random small town shop does not have access to .01% of the population of a large country like the U.S., whereas Walmart does.
True, but you're ignoring that Walmart's tiny customer base is going to be spread out in a way that makes it impossible for it to target that market. That's why I use the small town example, because Walmart needs enough of a customer base to exist in particular locations. Saying that they have .01% support across the US does not mean that they can establish even a store or two because of the geographical factors.

You can't rely completely on consumer spending, because that relies on consumers having options which may or may not exist. It makes the assumption that there will be enough people with enough cash to afford a more expensive product due to ethical choice in order to facilitate a business providing that product. For instance, if you're against animal abuse such as factory farming, etc. you may wish to purchase only free-range chicken, or buy only organic food. This might not be readibly affordable for you, espescially in economic circumstances where you could have worked in a garment factory somewhere at a relatively decent wage, instead of that job being done by an immigrant hidden away somewhere at slave wages.

A lot of people (prior to the civil war) didn't care that the clothes that were made for them were made from cotten picked by slaves. Does that mean that as long as there is a consumer for that product, that government shouldn't step in with legislation? Laws don't have to reflect the view of all of society, just the majority (within constitutional limits.)

What I'm getting at here, is that society has both the consumer and legislative tools at its disposal to handle the excess of capitalism. While perhaps legislation might create the 'illusion' that a problem is solved, it's a step in the right direction. If our legislation isn't perfect, perhaps it means that we are simply in need of democratic reform and better civic education (imho, definitely so.)
Legislation must be enacted to prevent one person from intentionally harming another, which is exactly why slavery should have been illegal, despite what the people said. It was pure and simple looting.

However, it does not make sense to say that while the demand for a product might exist, the supply would not and that we can fix that by limiting business. If you want to be the most responsive to consumer demands, you need businesses to be free to establish themselves in a position to capture that market share. Basically, in a capitalist system, business responds to what people want, so if people truly want alternatives, all it takes is an entrepreneur or two to provide them with just that. That's why you see so many more organic stores these days. Business has flourished to meet with changing demands.

Similarly, you have to realize that government regulations upon business hurt the poor most of all. If a governmet requires businesses to have free-range chickens instead of factory farms, that business's costs will go up, and prices will go up to offset those higher costs. This means that the poor people who could not afford free-range eggs but could afford factory farm eggs now still can't afford free-range eggs and also can't afford any eggs at all.

Legislation often has the interests of the people in mind, but it backfires a lot more often than a lot of people realize. That's why I say the best solutions are consumer-based solutions.

Obviously, I haven't been participating in this particular conversation, but I do want to take issue with the following claim.Similarly, you have to realize that government regulations upon business hurt the poor most of all. If a governmet requires businesses to have free-range chickens instead of factory farms, that business's costs will go up, and prices will go up to offset those higher costs. This means that the poor people who could not afford free-range eggs but could afford factory farm eggs now still can't afford free-range eggs and also can't afford any eggs at all.Actually, this type of regulation probably benefits the poor more than anyone else.

For purposes of this argument, let's assume that there are real demonstrable health benefits to free-range eggs. (I wouldn't know anything about it, I don't eat eggs.) If that doesn't work for you, assume we're talking about something in which there is a real health issue, like the quality of meat.

Now, in the unregulated market free-range eggs serve a particular niche: people who are willing and able to pay premium prices for healthy food. Only the rich get good food.

The government introduces regulations requiring supermarkets to carry only free-range eggs precisely so that demand at the supermarket-farm exchange level increases... presumably forcing factory-egg farms out of business and increasing the number (and/or the size) of free-range egg farms.

Thus, free-range eggs are transformed from a premium niche product into a broad market in which supply should be high (relative to factory-farm eggs, which are banned), thus exerting downward pressure on prices.

The poor can get healthy, disease-free food now, too.

Legislation must be enacted to prevent one person from intentionally harming another, which is exactly why slavery should have been illegal, despite what the people said. It was pure and simple looting.

However, it does not make sense to say that while the demand for a product might exist, the supply would not and that we can fix that by limiting business. If you want to be the most responsive to consumer demands, you need businesses to be free to establish themselves in a position to capture that market share. Basically, in a capitalist system, business responds to what people want, so if people truly want alternatives, all it takes is an entrepreneur or two to provide them with just that. That's why you see so many more organic stores these days. Business has flourished to meet with changing demands.

Similarly, you have to realize that government regulations upon business hurt the poor most of all. If a governmet requires businesses to have free-range chickens instead of factory farms, that business's costs will go up, and prices will go up to offset those higher costs. This means that the poor people who could not afford free-range eggs but could afford factory farm eggs now still can't afford free-range eggs and also can't afford any eggs at all.

Legislation often has the interests of the people in mind, but it backfires a lot more often than a lot of people realize. That's why I say the best solutions are consumer-based solutions.

I'll agree with you that the consumer-based solution is the most effective in a capitalist system, but I believe AnarchyeL's previous post gets at the heart of what I was trying to say about the legislation side of the equation. I don't see why both methods shouldn't be used to tackle thorny issues.

*snipped* Now, in the unregulated market free-range eggs serve a particular niche: people who are willing and able to pay premium prices for healthy food. Only the rich get good food.

The government introduces regulations requiring supermarkets to carry only free-range eggs precisely so that demand at the supermarket-farm exchange level increases... presumably forcing factory-egg farms out of business and increasing the number (and/or the size) of free-range egg farms.

Thus, free-range eggs are transformed from a premium niche product into a broad market in which supply should be high (relative to factory-farm eggs, which are banned), thus exerting downward pressure on prices.

Precisely. (Although I believe that getting away from factory farmed eggs and poultry would increase the price simply due to the less efficient methods and lesser volume. But if a majority of people felt ethically that it was wrong, that's what legislation is for, and gets at the heart of 'tying social justice into capitalism.')

True, but you're ignoring that Walmart's tiny customer base is going to be spread out in a way that makes it impossible for it to target that market. That's why I use the small town example, because Walmart needs enough of a customer base to exist in particular locations. Saying that they have .01% support across the US does not mean that they can establish even a store or two because of the geographical factors.Whether or not this is true, Walmart does not have a tiny customer base.

Now I've caught on. I was caught up on the preference of the worse-off in mutually exclusive situations. That would cause pressure towards equality, by raising the worst possibility and maintaining the best possibility. But other factors could counteract that.

A quick question, though: How does Rawls propose the valuation of determining benefit? Could his theory of justice be used to justify enslaving homeless people (as long as they were provided for), for example?

This makes many huge assumptions. For one thing, as has already been suggested, it does not take into account the possibility that a rational person may choose a slim chance at great wealth over guaranteed mediocrity. The "justice" of it also rests on one of two assumptions: Either you assume determinism, so that people are not responsible for their personal decisions, so that it would be unjust to choose any economic decision that distributes wealth based solely on "merit;" the alternative assumption being that this "veil of ignorance" is so complete as to allow people to abstract even from their definition of "merit," so that they don't employ moral arguments that contradict their theoretical self-interest. In other words, no rational person would say to himself, "If I were someone with those characteristics, I wouldn't deserve to have a 'share' in the wealth." To do this, a person would have to be so alienated from herself as a moral being that it would be difficult to understand how she could participate in an act of moral creation at all.

Rawls assumption of risk aversion was the first thing that popped out to me.

If one thought of morality as only being present in human interaction, the veil of ignorance could preclude someone from understanding themself as a moral being.

I can't imagine justice not having some basis in merit, though.

I can't imagine justice not having some basis in merit, though.
I can't see how it could. Justice is, or at least is supposed to be objective, and merit is always subjective.

I can't see how it could. Justice is, or at least is supposed to be objective, and merit is always subjective.

How can justice be applied if we do not consider the merit of an action?

This makes many huge assumptions. For one thing, as has already been suggested, it does not take into account the possibility that a rational person may choose a slim chance at great wealth over guaranteed mediocrity. The "justice" of it also rests on one of two assumptions: Either you assume determinism, so that people are not responsible for their personal decisions, so that it would be unjust to choose any economic decision that distributes wealth based solely on "merit;" the alternative assumption being that this "veil of ignorance" is so complete as to allow people to abstract even from their definition of "merit," so that they don't employ moral arguments that contradict their theoretical self-interest. In other words, no rational person would say to himself, "If I were someone with those characteristics, I wouldn't deserve to have a 'share' in the wealth." To do this, a person would have to be so alienated from herself as a moral being that it would be difficult to understand how she could participate in an act of moral creation at all.

Rawls argues for the latter, that the veil of ignorance is so complete as to abstract people from their notion of merit; in other words, you are assumed not to know what kind of traits benefit a person in society.

There is in fact a good reason for this, because in some sense you really don't deserve to have a 'share' in the wealth, because to a great extent no one earns the things that make the most difference in whether or not we get wealth.

For instance, you have some traits that may very well serve to make you wealthy; you are a well-educated scholar with sufficient skill in reasoning and logic to understand a difficult text like Rawls. Such skill don't come cheap, and in our society often merits high pay. But the fact that you have these skills is hardly owing solely to your own initiative. You had to have the natural faculties sufficient to build your skills upon. You also had to live in a society in which you had sufficient time and plentiful resources to devote your intellectual pursuits; the smartest farmer in Africa is probably never going to develop himself into your peer, but only because working 80 hours a week stifles intellectual development. Neither your placement in a bourgeouis liberal society, nor our natural faculties, were anything you "earned". To claim that you therefore earned the products of that placement and faculties simply because you took advantage of opportunities to develop them is a bit like claiming to scale Everest when you were born two feet below the summit.

Moreover, I would argue that your arguments about his assumptions are unfounded, because he is in fact making only one common-sense assumption. That assumption is that justice presumes that there should be no arbitrary distinctions between people in society. In other words, Rawls assumes solely that in a just society, no one will get what they don't deserve. If you follow the above inference that the greatest contributors to our success are often the things we had the least to do with, then it naturally follows that a just society is not one that punishes someone on the basis of those arbitrary distinctions.

How can justice be applied if we do not consider the merit of an action?Well, I suppose you can use the term "merit" to do so, but typically when talking of merit, people refer to a meritocracy, which usually involves some discussion of the character of an individual. Justice should not discuss individual character, only individual actions.

Well, I suppose you can use the term "merit" to do so, but typically when talking of merit, people refer to a meritocracy, which usually involves some discussion of the character of an individual. Justice should not discuss individual character, only individual actions.

The merit of individual character and individual actions are very closely linked. I would tend to say that I agree with you, but we do often judge the merits of a person's actions to judge the merit of the person's character.

Whether or not this is true, Walmart does not have a tiny customer base.
And that's because despite what people say about Walmart, they actually don't care enough to do anything constructive about it.

The merit of individual character and individual actions are very closely linked. I would tend to say that I agree with you, but we do often judge the merits of a person's actions to judge the merit of the person's character.True, and also we tend to say that certain actions are less bad if a person of good character does them than a person of bad character - I'm not sure whether or not this is just, though.

And that's because despite what people say about Walmart, they actually don't care enough to do anything constructive about it.Voting against its existence would be something constructive, if people were given the option to do so.

Voting against its existence would be something constructive, if people were given the option to do so.
So the next one can take its place? You are not going to solve this problem through legislation. You will solve it by making people care through public awareness. That's why I don't shop at Walmart.

So the next one can take its place? You are not going to solve this problem through legislation. You will solve it by making people care through public awareness. That's why I don't shop at Walmart.
If they do it right, they can keep the next one from taking its place. For instance, if they defined what a sweatshop was, in law, and people voted to refuse to import anything made in a sweatshop, Walmart would go broke. (Assuming that the legal definition used is similar to what our idea of a sweatshop is now, that is.)

If they do it right, they can keep the next one from taking its place. For instance, if they defined what a sweatshop was, in law, and people voted to refuse to import anything made in a sweatshop, Walmart would go broke. (Assuming that the legal definition used is similar to what our idea of a sweatshop is now, that is.)
And those that honestly don't care suffer at the tyranny of the majority.

And those that honestly don't care suffer at the tyranny of the majority.They're welcome to live in a country that imports things made in sweatshops or go work in one themselves if they feel so strongly about it.

They're welcome to live in a country that imports things made in sweatshops or go work in one themselves if they feel so strongly about it.
And gay people are welcome to go marry in a country that does allow gay marriage if there's a law against it in their current place of residence.

Both of those cases are examples of the moral majority dictating policy onto a minority. One of these cases is, in our opinion, obviously a correct action (banning sweat shops being good), and other one, I'm assuming from your demeanor, you would agree with is an incorrect option (banning gay marriage being bad). Regardless, it demonstrates that when you go beyond the basic tenet that one person causing another person harm without a contract is wrong, you run the risk of depriving some individuals of the freedom to decide right and wrong for themselves.

And gay people are welcome to go marry in a country that does allow gay marriage if there's a law against it in their current place of residence.

Both of those cases are examples of the moral majority dictating policy onto a minority. One of these cases is, in our opinion, obviously a correct action (banning sweat shops being good), and other one, I'm assuming from your demeanor, you would agree with is an incorrect option (banning gay marriage being bad). Regardless, it demonstrates that when you go beyond the basic tenet that one person causing another person harm without a contract is wrong, you run the risk of depriving some individuals of the freedom to decide right and wrong for themselves.Typically, when people argue against sweatshops, they argue that people are being caused harm, and that any contracts signed or agreements made are not valid for various reasons.

One can always choose to starve if he finds it more attractive than the alternatives.

Fundamentally, each individual can choose whether he wishes to live or die. Since no one else gets to make that decision for him, it is not incumbent upon anyone else to assist him in fulfilling the requirements of that decision.

Isn't libertarianism sweet?

:fluffle:

Capitalism is social justice. What exactly are you defining 'justice' as? If justice is rewards going to the deserving and the able, rather than to the incompetent or otherwise undeserving, the advancement of the achievers, the pegging of position in life to personal merits, than that's practically the definition of capitalism.

Capitalism is all about capital, the ability of money to make money. It is an inherently unstable system. Those who have a little bit more money, regardless of the reason(whether luck or some virtue), can make a little bit more money without working any more or any better than others with a little less money. This gives them still more money, with which they make money even faster. This is the reason why monopoly is inevitable given unfettered capitalism. Small differences in initial conditions propagate into huge differences in time. Eventually the concentration of wealth becomes so extreme as to be invulnerable to even epic stupidity.

The Walton kids would really have to try in order to lose money.

But if a majority of people felt ethically that it was wrong, that's what legislation is for,

No, it isn't.

No majority, however large, is ever entitled to violate individual rights.

No, it isn't.

No majority, however large, is ever entitled to violate individual rights.What about when the right exists only because the majority grants it?

Typically, when people argue against sweatshops, they argue that people are being caused harm, and that any contracts signed or agreements made are not valid for various reasons.
People sign the contracts because they are desperate for work, which is a valid reason. If they are physically forced to sign up, that's wrong, but that's not usually the case.

It's like I said before, the people in these countries do not have a strong base of businesses they can work at. This means that when a business does present itself, there are lots of people who want a job and only space for a few of them. Therefore, the business does not need to pay its employees much money at all: there are always more to take its place. However, as more businesses arrive, the number of options available to each person increases. They can choose not to work at business x because terms are better at business y. It's funny how so many people are against outsourcing when in reality it is one of the best ways to lift the least developed nations out of poverty. It doesn't require the taxpayer to spend a single dime. If you ban businesses from going to these places, or enact huge fines to keep them from going, you only continue the cycle that sees the rest of the world get more poor so people like you and me can keep cushy jobs at home.

Sweat shops come first. Then social programs take hold. It's the same as the industrial revolution. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Were there other reasons why the contracts were invalid?

People sign the contracts because they are desperate for work, which is a valid reason. If they are physically forced to sign up, that's wrong, but that's not usually the case.They are physically forced to sign up, not by their employer, but by their lack of access to food.

It's like I said before, the people in these countries do not have a strong base of businesses they can work at. This means that when a business does present itself, there are lots of people who want a job and only space for a few of them. Therefore, the business does not need to pay its employees much money at all: there are always more to take its place. However, as more businesses arrive, the number of options available to each person increases. They can choose not to work at business x because terms are better at business y. It's funny how so many people are against outsourcing when in reality it is one of the best ways to lift the least developed nations out of poverty. It doesn't require the taxpayer to spend a single dime. If you ban businesses from going to these places, or enact huge fines to keep them from going, you only continue the cycle that sees the rest of the world get more poor so people like you and me can keep cushy jobs at home.If foreign aid was increased, that would be one way of helping these countries.

Sweat shops come first. Then social programs take hold. It's the same as the industrial revolution. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.Pretty much every country that has industrialized has done so behind a wall of protectionism. This isn't the case here.

Were there other reasons why the contracts were invalid?Just the ones I've mentioned.

Typically, when people argue against sweatshops, they argue that people are being caused harm, and that any contracts signed or agreements made are not valid for various reasons.

The trouble is, how do you improve the lives of the people who work in sweatshops without sweatshops?

Introduce labor laws in those countries and guess what, no jobs.

The trouble is, how do you improve the lives of the people who work in sweatshops without sweatshops?

Introduce labor laws in those countries and guess what, no jobs.The way which would involve the least amount of change would be to increase foreign aid to those countries, especially with regard to educating the people there.

The way which would involve the least amount of change would be to increase foreign aid to those countries, especially with regard to educating the people there.

Education without improved purchasing power is worthless. They can be the most literate, educated people on earth and they still won't get a job if there is no consumer demand.

The economy must be built, then education will take place on its own. And guess who ends up working in sweat shop conditions while the economy builds itself.

Education without improved purchasing power is worthless. They can be the most literate, educated people on earth and they still won't get a job if there is no consumer demand.

The economy must be built, then education will take place on its own. And guess who ends up working in sweat shop conditions while the economy builds itself.All right, then increase foreign aid to help with education (and other things), and give rebates to consumers at home who purchase products which are made in shops with acceptable working conditions.

What about when the right exists only because the majority grants it?

That is impossible.

One possesses rights due to the mere fact of his own existence. Rights are not something granted by fiat.

You simply refuse to understand the concept of "rights". That is your moral, intellectual, and personal failure--not mine.

That is impossible.

One possesses rights due to the mere fact of his own existence. Rights are not something granted by fiat.

You simply refuse to understand the concept of "rights". That is your moral, intellectual, and personal failure--not mine.False. The right to healthcare (not to mention ownership) is one which could be granted by the majority of society, and therefore could be taken away.

False. The right to healthcare (not to mention ownership) is one which could be granted by the majority of society,
If it is "granted", then it is, by definition, not a right. QED.

If it is "granted", then it is, by definition, not a right. QED.If a right isn't granted by a society, then one cannot be said to have that right within that society, as to have a right within a society is to have that right be protected within that society. Is a society states that it will not be protecting a right, then you do not have that right within the society. Part of a society granting a right is the society promising to protect that right.

(Feel free to insert 'government' instead of 'society', if you wish.)

Nope.

The existence or one's possession of a right is conceptually separate from the freedom of restraint acting against one's exercise of that right. One possesses a right regardless of whether or not the government in his locality prevents him from exercising that right. If the government DOES prevent the exercise of that right, that does not mean that he does not possess that right; it simply means that government is acting illegitimately.

Again, your refusal to understand this is your moral, intellectual, and personal failure, not mine.

The existence or one's possession of a right is conceptually separate from the freedom of restraint acting against one's exercise of that right. One possesses a right regardless of whether or not the government in his locality prevents him from exercising that right. If the government DOES prevent the exercise of that right, that does not mean that he does not possess that right; it simply means that government is acting illegitimately.

1. This does not show that a government cannot issue and protect legal rights.

2. In the absense of society one has the right to any action which promotes one's self-interest. Does this mean that government is acting illegitimately when it stops me from killing you for a soda?

Nope.

Again, your refusal to understand this is your moral, intellectual, and personal failure, not mine.

Or, it could simply be that you are wrong, which I find more likely.

Rights are not natural. They are not things that exist independent of the society one lives in. If the government reflects that society, as they most often do, then they will protect those rights that the society sees as valid. One possesses the right simply and purely because the society grants it to you, and normally the government reinforces this.
The government can act contrary to the norms of the society and deny a right that the society bestows. That is what you are describing as an illegal action. It then becomes questionable as to where the mismatch is: between the claimed right and those that the society bestows, or between the government and the society it represents. Often the mismatch is in a person claiming a right that the society simply does not confer.

Or, it could simply be that you are wrong, which I find more likely.

Rights are not natural. They are not things that exist independent of the society one lives in. If the government reflects that society, as they most often do, then they will protect those rights that the society sees as valid. One possesses the right simply and purely because the society grants it to you, and normally the government reinforces this.
The government can act contrary to the norms of the society and deny a right that the society bestows. That is what you are describing as an illegal action. It then becomes questionable as to where the mismatch is: between the claimed right and those that the society bestows, or between the government and the society it represents. Often the mismatch is in a person claiming a right that the society simply does not confer.

I would argue that there are natural rights and that there are legal rights. I believe that you are accurately describing legal rights, but I see some rights as existing independent of society.

They are physically forced to sign up, not by their employer, but by their lack of access to food.
And without that employer there they still would not have food. It's a rational choice for them to make based on maximizing their gain. By that logic, every choice is forced upon people because the alternative provides less gain. However, the fact that it is the best rational choice is not sufficient to consider it a forced choice any more than my decision to sleep at night is forced because I would rather sleep than not or my decision to buy a CD is forced because I would be less happy without it. If these companies weren't there employing people in the first place, you likely wouldn't even know these people were starving to start. The fact that you're only aware of their plight now does not mean that they were not suffering before.

If foreign aid was increased, that would be one way of helping these countries.
Or it would be a way of handing over large sums of money to dictators while their people continue to starve. Businesses pay wages directly to the people, which means that at least the individuals get to see some of their money before an oppressive dictator tries to tax it away.

Pretty much every country that has industrialized has done so behind a wall of protectionism. This isn't the case here.
I seem to recall that Britain went through the industrial revolution with no protectionism at all, at least according to British historian Niall Ferguson and the data he gathered. First, that propelled Britain forward throughout the industrial revolution. Second, protectionism actually slows down the development of a country. Consider what happened to China as it adopted more fiercely protectionist policies. It lost access to the rest of the world that was trading with each other and fell behind relative to the other countries of the world. The same sort of thing happened to the Ottoman Empire and the Mogol Empire in India, as well as later happening to the Spanish Habsburgs. The freedom and competition amongst the several different powers in Europe, according to Paul Kennedy, is what propelled Europe to the centre stage of world affairs instead of the empires in the Middle East and China.

I would argue that there are natural rights and that there are legal rights. I believe that you are accurately describing legal rights, but I see some rights as existing independent of society.

Natural rights are inalienable: the right of a potential worker in a libertarian society to choose starvation over a contract signing over his rights to privacy, free speech and freedom of movement for bare survival-level wages, or the right of an african slave in 1850s Virginia to run away from the plantation with his family rather than see his wife and children sold away. The unpleasant consequences of these decisions don't invalidate these rights they are merely the, "normal and inevitable result of their exercise." One also has the, "natural and inalienable right," to the use of violence. The more interesting and valuable rights are hardly natural and not at all inalienable. They only feel that way because you've been fortunate enough to live in a state that is generally fairly good at supporting them.

If it is "granted", then it is, by definition, not a right. QED.
Perhaps, in which case the set of "rights" is a very small one that does not include property or freedom from violence.

This statement does not mean I weep for murderers when they enjoy the, "normal and inevitable result of," the, "exercise," of their natural right to violence. I simply see it as an artifact, a good produced by the state's power of coercion.

Define "social justice".

Furthermore, what is so unjust about sweatshops? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head...

I honestly had my mouth wide open in shock for a good few seconds after reading that

I honestly had my mouth wide open in shock for a good few seconds after reading that

Don't be shocked by what he writes. Many Objectivists are sheep, and he's no exception.

I would argue that there are natural rights and that there are legal rights. I believe that you are accurately describing legal rights, but I see some rights as existing independent of society.

Such as?

The only thing that comes to mind is the right to form your own opinion, or some such, which is necessarily independent of other people and their actions. I, however would not call these rights, I would call them abilities.

Don't be shocked by what he writes. Many Objectivists are sheep, and he's no exception.

They think they're wolves. Which is understandable, Objectivism and most variations on Libertarianism aren't all that attractive if you think you're going to be another regular-Joe in line to get shorn. Most of them would be, but they don't see themselves that way.

Not coincidentally, most libertarian fiction you see is either about poor downtrodden victims of the big evil state, or lords of the corporatist utopia to come. I've yet to find any libertarian stories with an average laborer in the mills of the Distributed Individuals of Objectivonia. L. Neil Smith came the closest, this is a guy who could say, "An armed playground is a polite playground," with an apparently straight face. He could write a better story than Ayn Rand too. Which is damning with faint praise. I completed two of his stories before I got tired of the BS.

Such as?

The only thing that comes to mind is the right to form your own opinion, or some such, which is necessarily independent of other people and their actions. I, however would not call these rights, I would call them abilities.

A person can live independent of other people, a person can claim property independent of other people, a person can labor independent of other people.

They think they're wolves. Which is understandable, Objectivism and most variations on Libertarianism aren't all that attractive if you think you're going to be another regular-Joe in line to get shorn. Most of them would be, but they don't see themselves that way.

Not coincidentally, most libertarian fiction you see is either about poor downtrodden victims of the big evil state, or lords of the corporatist utopia to come. I've yet to find any libertarian stories with an average laborer in the mills of the Distributed Individuals of Objectivonia. L. Neil Smith came the closest, this is a guy who could say, "An armed playground is a polite playground," with an apparently straight face. He could write a better story than Ayn Rand too. Which is damning with faint praise. I completed two of his stories before I got tired of the BS.

Glad to see I'm not alone here :) they always seem to have a sob-story of how they would be succesful if it weren't for the state. The parallels between this and communism always make me smile - the government is your traditional scape goat in this situation.

The other thing that has been suggested is that these theories may be so popular on the internet because of the implied lack of social awareness in some of the users of messageboards.

Glad to see I'm not alone here :) they always seem to have a sob-story of how they would be succesful if it weren't for the state.

Is this "make up shit about Libertarians" day? I have never once seen a libertarian say that they would have been a great success if not for the government.

Most libertarians follow libertarianism out of a duty to their morality, not as some self-serving political crusade.

EDIT: Oh, you were talking about Libertarian literature. I read about 200 pages of Atlas Shrugged and decided it wasn't for me. It was a bit of sob story, but the sob story was meant to arouse an understanding for the morality behind it.

Is this "make up shit about Libertarians" day? I have never once seen a libertarian say that they would have been a great success if not for the government.

Most libertarians follow libertarianism out of a duty to their morality, not as some self-serving political crusade.

Well, I've heard Libertarians blame their problems on all kinds of things, from drug laws to affirmative action.

</snip>I'm not ignoring you, but others have answered this as well or better than I can.

And without that employer there they still would not have food. It's a rational choice for them to make based on maximizing their gain. By that logic, every choice is forced upon people because the alternative provides less gain. However, the fact that it is the best rational choice is not sufficient to consider it a forced choice any more than my decision to sleep at night is forced because I would rather sleep than not or my decision to buy a CD is forced because I would be less happy without it. If these companies weren't there employing people in the first place, you likely wouldn't even know these people were starving to start. The fact that you're only aware of their plight now does not mean that they were not suffering before.Without government enforcement and protection of ownership, they could forage for their own food, or squat on some farmland and grow their own. Since the government provides the positive right of ownership, it should at the very least provide the positive rights of providing people with the basic necessities of life.

Or it would be a way of handing over large sums of money to dictators while their people continue to starve. Businesses pay wages directly to the people, which means that at least the individuals get to see some of their money before an oppressive dictator tries to tax it away.That's one way of providing foreign aid, but not all foreign aid goes through dictators; one could argue that charities usually provide foreign aid without going through that country's government first.

I seem to recall that Britain went through the industrial revolution with no protectionism at all, at least according to British historian Niall Ferguson and the data he gathered. Do you mean Britain, with its colonies stretching over 1/4 of the globe, and enacting things like the Stamp Act, and the Act which told the Colonies that they could only trade with Britain was not employing measures of protectionism?

First, that propelled Britain forward throughout the industrial revolution. Second, protectionism actually slows down the development of a country. Consider what happened to China as it adopted more fiercely protectionist policies. It lost access to the rest of the world that was trading with each other and fell behind relative to the other countries of the world. The same sort of thing happened to the Ottoman Empire and the Mogol Empire in India, as well as later happening to the Spanish Habsburgs. The freedom and competition amongst the several different powers in Europe, according to Paul Kennedy, is what propelled Europe to the centre stage of world affairs instead of the empires in the Middle East and China.The Middle East and China are still going through the process of industrialization, so it can't be said that protectionism hindered their ability to do so as they are not being protectionist now.

A person can live independent of other people, a person can claim property independent of other people, a person can labor independent of other people.

But none of these are necessarily independant of others. If you want to claim that there is a natural right to life, property and/or work then you will have to show how these are not socially negotiated rights. There have been plenty of societies in human history where one or another of these has been denied to large numbers of people, and even societies where all of these have been denied to certain groups (women in ancient Greece for example). Thus they can not be natural rights as they can be removed.

Well, I've heard Libertarians blame their problems on all kinds of things, from drug laws to affirmative action.

Either they were falsely claiming to be Libertarians or you did not understand what they were saying. (I am refering to the political philosophy here, not the members of a US political party)

Either they were falsely claiming to be Libertarians or you did not understand what they were saying. (I am refering to the political philosophy here, not the members of a US political party)

Could you explain why this would be at odds with being a Libertarian?

Could you explain why this would be at odds with being a Libertarian?

Being a member of the party you mean? It is not necessarily, it is simply that there are many people who support the party that simply fail to grasp the philosophy involved. The same way as happens with socialist parties etc. As such I distinguish between the party members/supporters and those that follow the philosophy. (they are not mutually exclusive but they are also not coincident).

Being a member of the party you mean? It is not necessarily, it is simply that there are many people who support the party that simply fail to grasp the philosophy involved. The same way as happens with socialist parties etc. As such I distinguish between the party members/supporters and those that follow the philosophy. (they are not mutually exclusive but they are also not coincident).

Could you explain why the complaints of the people I described above would mean that they were not Libertarians

Could you explain why the complaints of the people I described above would mean that they were not Libertarians

Anyone who follows a libertarian philosophy can not blame the actions of others for their circumstances. As such that this law, or that rule exists is a problem only in that they have not managed to remove these impediments. A libertarian holds himself responsible for his circumstances.

Anyone who follows a libertarian philosophy can not blame the actions of others for their circumstances. As such that this law, or that rule exists is a problem only in that they have not managed to remove these impediments. A libertarian holds himself responsible for his circumstances.

haha, good luck with that

I mean, it's complete rubbish. I'm a very succesful man, modesty aside for the sake of the point, and I know that it is precisely because I was fortunate enough to be born a white middle class male with a good, stable, supportive family. I'm in the position I am today, because of what other people have made me - my parents, my friends, my teachers, my lecturers, my colleagues and so on. If I was born a poor black in the ghetto, I wouldn't be where I am today.

Either they were falsely claiming to be Libertarians or you did not understand what they were saying. (I am refering to the political philosophy here, not the members of a US political party)

This is kind of akin to the, "Soviet Union was not a true communist state," argument put forward by modern communists. It's actually less convincing. The whiners are puting forward the same arguments espousing the same ideas as the True Libertarians. Therefore it's the same philosophy.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

The fact that some of your fellow believers aren't as erudite and self-possessed as you does not make them non-libertarian.

Tom and Jerry's and Halliburton are both businesses. I know which one I'd rather work for in an anarcho-capitalist "regime."

And without that employer there they still would not have food. It's a rational choice for them to make based on maximizing their gain. By that logic, every choice is forced upon people because the alternative provides less gain. However, the fact that it is the best rational choice is not sufficient to consider it a forced choice any more than my decision to sleep at night is forced because I would rather sleep than not or my decision to buy a CD is forced because I would be less happy without it. If these companies weren't there employing people in the first place, you likely wouldn't even know these people were starving to start. The fact that you're only aware of their plight now does not mean that they were not suffering before.

You have one squirrely definition of force, and probably wrong at that. It may be in my kid's best interest to get a shot for tetanus, but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't like shots and I very well might have to force him to do it.

In your case, however, that is a fairly severe violation of libertarian ethos. After all, I was under the impression that it was never acceptable to use coercive means to achieve your goals.


Or it would be a way of handing over large sums of money to dictators while their people continue to starve. Businesses pay wages directly to the people, which means that at least the individuals get to see some of their money before an oppressive dictator tries to tax it away.


I seem to recall that Britain went through the industrial revolution with no protectionism at all, at least according to British historian Niall Ferguson and the data he gathered. First, that propelled Britain forward throughout the industrial revolution. Second, protectionism actually slows down the development of a country. Consider what happened to China as it adopted more fiercely protectionist policies. It lost access to the rest of the world that was trading with each other and fell behind relative to the other countries of the world. The same sort of thing happened to the Ottoman Empire and the Mogol Empire in India, as well as later happening to the Spanish Habsburgs. The freedom and competition amongst the several different powers in Europe, according to Paul Kennedy, is what propelled Europe to the centre stage of world affairs instead of the empires in the Middle East and China.

Oh, boy. I see that you have an expert grasp on fantasyland, but here in the real world, that analysis has some severe flaws. For one, if competition is so universally good at all times, then why were China and Arabia so much more technologically advanced in 1200 A.D. than the tribal European states? For that matter, why when competition between Visigoths, Romans, Huns, Celts, Saxons, etc. increased during the late Roman empire did overall technology decline rather than increase? For that matter, if nationstate competition is so important, then the most technologically advanced part of the world today ought to be Sub-Saharan Africa, so clearly the analysis is spot on. . .oh wait.

What most elevated Europe, at least here in the real world, wasn't competition between states, but access to resources combined with a willingness to exploit them. The Europeans methodically found new areas, conquered them, colonized them, and systematically removed their material wealth for the benefit of the European continent. The problem is twofold, however. The first problem is that such systematic transfers of goods only benefitted one party, namely the Europeans. Those colonies, however, including China, fell behind because they provided only cheap markets for finished goods and raw materials. It was the Europeans who owned the means of production, thus they had the political power of deciding who got what and how much. It wasn't protectionism that stifled China; it was the flood of European-made opium, as well as the war Britain fought with China to keep such opium entering into the country, that stifled China.

The second and greater problem is that this same system of exploitation is going still going on, only now it isn't governments openly colonizing and mercantilizing the Third World, but business masquerading as "raising the standard of living". You mentioned that lots of those countries had dictators--who in the hell do you think props those dictators up? If you look at any example of a modern Third-World country: Nigeria, Sierra Leone, French Guiana, China, etc., what you will find is large sums of money being funnelled by business to the heads of state in those countries. You will also, wouldncha know, find armed militias sponsored by those heads of state actively suppressing any free organization of workers, as well as any attempt by the people of that country to ensure that they get a share of the wealth that their country is being divested of. Now, maybe I'm being a cynic here, but I look at those two conditions, and I see a case of quid pro quo: the warlord secures his power and opulence with a shitload of money, while the company makes off like bandits with the natural wealth. Of course, that couldn't be how it works, because despite the fact that we've seen business company-store, scam, and overwork their own workers in this country, we of course know that they would never do it to our little brown brothers in another country. Don't we?

Anyone who follows a libertarian philosophy can not blame the actions of others for their circumstances. As such that this law, or that rule exists is a problem only in that they have not managed to remove these impediments. A libertarian holds himself responsible for his circumstances.

Well, not completely.

A libertarian does not hold himself responsible for his legs being missing if, while asleep in his bed, an intruder snuck in and cut them off with his chainsaw. He does hold himself responsible for how he adapts to that situation, certainly--but not for the fact of his missing legs itself.

Without government enforcement and protection of ownership, they could forage for their own food, or squat on some farmland and grow their own.

I agree with this. Although I suspect some of them would make pointy sticks to force others to grow their food.

Since the government provides the positive right of ownership, it should at the very least provide the positive rights of providing people with the basic necessities of life.

I partially agree with this. The government should provide a basic safety net. For the rest, the government should require employers to provide decent living wages and some minimum standard of retirement plan. Contracts that amount to serfdom should be banned. If you want to live off of other people's labor, the minimum you can do is give them the opportunity to live off of their own labor.

The definition of small government is a capacity for enough force to keep the lumpen masses from taking our stuff, but not enough to keep our Pinkerton thugs from beating up union activists. Except for the social freedoms, that they don't really seem that concerned about, the age of the robber-barons is pretty much exactly what libertarians desire.

But none of these are necessarily independant of others. If you want to claim that there is a natural right to life, property and/or work then you will have to show how these are not socially negotiated rights. There have been plenty of societies in human history where one or another of these has been denied to large numbers of people, and even societies where all of these have been denied to certain groups (women in ancient Greece for example). Thus they can not be natural rights as they can be removed.

Why must they be inalienable?

But none of these are necessarily independant of others. If you want to claim that there is a natural right to life, property and/or work then you will have to show how these are not socially negotiated rights. There have been plenty of societies in human history where one or another of these has been denied to large numbers of people, and even societies where all of these have been denied to certain groups (women in ancient Greece for example). Thus they can not be natural rights as they can be removed.

To be a natural right is not the same as an unremovable right. It is merely what we would rationally assume that people would fight to the death to protect, whether in society or (perhaps especially) in the state of nature. In the state of nature, we would not assume that any rational person would simply let some other person kill him; instead, we expect to fight up to including killing the other person to stop him from doing so. On that basis, we call life a natural right. A society emerges when the possibility of total abridgement of natural rights in the state of nature outweighs the certainty of some limited abridgement of rights in that society. We agree, for instance, in our society that when the draft occurs we ought to go to war even unto death, so we accept a limited abridgement of our right to life. We don't revolt, however, because we deem this limited abridgement a fair trade compared to the uncertainties of the state of nature.

Without government enforcement and protection of ownership, they could forage for their own food, or squat on some farmland and grow their own. Since the government provides the positive right of ownership, it should at the very least provide the positive rights of providing people with the basic necessities of life.
Now you're hitting the nail on its head. Who determines ownership in the first place? Excellent. That is one of the primary mistakes of most governments. If they are going to provide land to a business on the behalf of their people, they have a right to a significant chunk of what it produced on that land. Let the business keep what it makes and let them be free to make it, but how can they claim land when their only validation is sticking a flag in it and wielding guns to keep the flag in it? That, in my opinion, is what government should be legislating, because it is the actual failing of capitalism. What people like you and I can make is our own. Our ideas and our applications of them is our own. But how can we lay claim to the materials needed to make what we conceptualize? We can't, and that's why we pay taxes.

That's one way of providing foreign aid, but not all foreign aid goes through dictators; one could argue that charities usually provide foreign aid without going through that country's government first.
The aid I'm suggesting is free though, and its accountable, and with the exception of the consideration above that I just mentioned, it's fair.

Desperation is an economic tool. It is what allows people around the world to undercut the workers in the developed world, and it's one of the great equalizers. Those who are more desperate will work for less, which means they will get job contracts over others, which relieves their desperation. In general, it is the human desire to improve one's situation that drives capitalism. As long as we keep wanting to improve our standard of living and don't prevent people from working to reach that goal, each person, ability permitting, will be able to improve his or her standing in the world.

Do you mean Britain, with its colonies stretching over 1/4 of the globe, and enacting things like the Stamp Act, and the Act which told the Colonies that they could only trade with Britain was not employing measures of protectionism?
1820's on, after the Liberal Tories came to power, saw the adoption of free trade, which is after your example and coincides with Britain second wave of power.

The Middle East and China are still going through the process of industrialization, so it can't be said that protectionism hindered their ability to do so as they are not being protectionist now.
That's kind of the point. China is catching up now after years of being protectionist by opening its doors.

You have one squirrely definition of force, and probably wrong at that. It may be in my kid's best interest to get a shot for tetanus, but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't like shots and I very well might have to force him to do it.

In your case, however, that is a fairly severe violation of libertarian ethos. After all, I was under the impression that it was never acceptable to use coercive means to achieve your goals.
There's a big difference between what you suggested and what I suggested. Your kid does not get the final decision in the matter. You could quite literally hold him down and give him the shot if necessary.

If the business refused to allow people access to food unless they worked there, that would be coercing. The fact that they are starving and business offers them a chance to not starve does not mean business was causing them to starve in the first place.

Oh, boy. I see that you have an expert grasp on fantasyland, but here in the real world, that analysis has some severe flaws. For one, if competition is so universally good at all times, then why were China and Arabia so much more technologically advanced in 1200 A.D. than the tribal European states? For that matter, why when competition between Visigoths, Romans, Huns, Celts, Saxons, etc. increased during the late Roman empire did overall technology decline rather than increase? For that matter, if nationstate competition is so important, then the most technologically advanced part of the world today ought to be Sub-Saharan Africa, so clearly the analysis is spot on. . .oh wait.
I'll ignore the tone for a moment because you bring up a mostly valid point. However, the early stages of the development of human civilization are determined more by geography than economics. After all, if you haven't discovered a use for oil, uranium or aluminum, you don't very well need to visit your neighbours to trade for some. The early focus of human society was on self-sufficiency, so let's apply that to the question of how the Middle East and China developed first and why Africa lagged so far behind. The Fertile Crescent in the Middle East is considered to be one of the first place where human civilization flourished, like Ancient Babylon. It also featured the most abundant supply of domesticable crops and domesticable animals. China, I believe, came in second. Most of Africa and the Australian continent were in dead last. All of this is according to Jared Diamond's "Gun, Germs and Steel", which I would refer you to for further information. Thus, when the growth of civilization was focused more on self-sufficiency than trade, those nations with the most natural resources to start were the ones that took off. Fortunately for Europe, prevailing winds allowed the crops of the Fertile Crescent to spread along the Mediterranean while maintaining a climate they could still grow in because Eurasia moves mostly East-West, unlike the North-South orientations of Africa and North America, which made it difficult to spread their limited numbers of domesticable crops in the first place.

What most elevated Europe, at least here in the real world, wasn't competition between states, but access to resources combined with a willingness to exploit them. The Europeans methodically found new areas, conquered them, colonized them, and systematically removed their material wealth for the benefit of the European continent. The problem is twofold, however. The first problem is that such systematic transfers of goods only benefitted one party, namely the Europeans. Those colonies, however, including China, fell behind because they provided only cheap markets for finished goods and raw materials. It was the Europeans who owned the means of production, thus they had the political power of deciding who got what and how much. It wasn't protectionism that stifled China; it was the flood of European-made opium, as well as the war Britain fought with China to keep such opium entering into the country, that stifled China.
That would be true of the mercantalist view of the world, but inevitably that gave way to a greater focus on open markets, especially in Great Britain. China was in relative decline well before the opium wars. In "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", Kennedy puts that decline's start towards the middle of the 15th century, around the same time that China banned the construction of new ships (1436) and later banned ships with greater than two masts (date unknown). China was deliberately cut off by its leader from the rest of the world, which is precisely why when China re-opened its borders under the Manchus it was primarily importing rather than exporting. The Opium Wars, while unfortunate, do not coincide with the decline of China's powers on the world stage.

The second and greater problem is that this same system of exploitation is going still going on, only now it isn't governments openly colonizing and mercantilizing the Third World, but business masquerading as "raising the standard of living". You mentioned that lots of those countries had dictators--who in the hell do you think props those dictators up? If you look at any example of a modern Third-World country: Nigeria, Sierra Leone, French Guiana, China, etc., what you will find is large sums of money being funnelled by business to the heads of state in those countries. You will also, wouldncha know, find armed militias sponsored by those heads of state actively suppressing any free organization of workers, as well as any attempt by the people of that country to ensure that they get a share of the wealth that their country is being divested of. Now, maybe I'm being a cynic here, but I look at those two conditions, and I see a case of quid pro quo: the warlord secures his power and opulence with a shitload of money, while the company makes off like bandits with the natural wealth. Of course, that couldn't be how it works, because despite the fact that we've seen business company-store, scam, and overwork their own workers in this country, we of course know that they would never do it to our little brown brothers in another country. Don't we?
And that's wrong, but it's wrong because bribery is wrong, not because it's businesses doing it. It's a strawman argument. You're saying, if I follow correctly, that businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay workers low wages because they are bribing the officials in a country. However, if a business were just paying low wages without systematically bribing officials and undermining fair government, would you still have grounds for complaint? I won't deny that there are some rotten companies out there. I'm asking you to stop condemning all of them because of the actions of a few.

I hope you continue this conversation, but I would prefer it if you were a little nicer about it.

A quick question, though: How does Rawls propose the valuation of determining benefit? Could his theory of justice be used to justify enslaving homeless people (as long as they were provided for), for example?

I don't think so... Although at this point I must present the caveat that I am by no means an expert on Rawls, per se. I do know that he taught himself Kant in an academic environment that had all but forgotten him. In the process, I think he got Kant wrong in many important ways; but one thing he got completely right is the relationship between healthy self-esteem, mutual respect, and the concept of human dignity. The imaginative leap to the original position is one in which the participants ask for the recognition of a certain fundamental human dignity, and each participant gives the same in return. It is this mutual respect that allows us to ask the question, "what would be best for anyone?" And when my own self-interest tells me which conditions I would not inflicted on me, my respect for the dignity (the equality) of others leads me to conclude that I should not wish on anyone else, either. From this, rationally it seems that the condition of the worst-off is a gauge of the justice of a particular system/distribution of goods.

Rawls is often criticised for the fact that it is "impossible" to voluntarily give up the socialization and conditioning of our particular circumstances. To a large extent this is a valid criticism. However, Rawls replies that the purpose of his veil of ignorance does not require that anyone attains perfect objectivity--indeed, he can admit the impossibility of this prospect without damaging his theory. Rather, his theory is designed to answer the question, "what is just?" Thus, he assumes an individual who is, if not objective, at least making the attempt to think about what would be "just" or "fair" to everyone. As finite beings, we may not be very good at this... but it is only a small logical leap to conclude that those of us who are trying to think about fairness probably achieve better results than those who do not care. In this pursuit, Rawls believes that he has justified a new "tool" that should help people to conceive of the "just." This tool may not solve all problems of the imagination, but it should take us several steps along the way.

Rawls assumption of risk aversion was the first thing that popped out to me.Yes, this is a serious problem. He also ignores the possibility that someone might use something like the following reasoning: "the wealthiest class supports some of the best artwork, so the more money they have the more art will be in the world; while I would hate to wind up being especially poor, I also would not want to live in a world without fine art. I therefore prefer some obscene inequality in wealth that benefits the wealthiest, even if the poorest lose out." In other words, Rawls makes all kinds of assumptions about how moral and aesthetic reasoning interact (or not), as well as about the scale of preferences behind the veil of ignorance. His Kantian reasoning about mutual respect may at least partially answer this, but unfortunately any such argument remains essentially implicit.

If one thought of morality as only being present in human interaction, the veil of ignorance could preclude someone from understanding themself as a moral being.Well, but the original position is really all about human interaction: it is about a free and equal discussion of distributive justice.

I can't imagine justice not having some basis in merit, though.Me neither, and I think it's a problem for Rawls. In itself, there is nothing contradictory about a discussion of merit behind the veil of ignorance. The real problem is, where do we get our standard of merit? Rawls might argue, as above, that the assumption of mutual respect (necessary to have this discussion at all) answers the question: assuming mutual respect, one must conclude that by and large all people work as hard as I do, or at least as hard as people I know and respect. The basis for this conclusion is that if I believe otherwise--if I believe, for instance, that people poorer than me simply don't work as hard as I do--then I am presuming to judge their circumstances better than they can. This is a basic violation of the principle of mutual respect, so that if I want to take part in a discussion about justice.

Now, this does not preclude the possibility of extreme cases. Even under an assumption of respect, it is possible for some people to so frequently and so heinously break this trust that there can be little doubt of their violations. The assumption of mutual dignity is compatible with the existence of criminals and the downright lazy or anti-social. Thus the rule of merit, derived from the rule of mutual respect, is something like this: "Assume roughly equal merit among those participating in the social contract, and judge others according to the degree of their violation." It is a very "thin" rule of merit as compared to our accustomed work-ethic/financial-success standard.

I agree with this. Although I suspect some of them would make pointy sticks to force others to grow their food.Possibly, which is one of the reasons that people put up with governments, in the belief
that the government will prevent individuals from doing things like that.

I partially agree with this. The government should provide a basic safety net. For the rest, the government should require employers to provide decent living wages and some minimum standard of retirement plan. Contracts that amount to serfdom should be banned. If you want to live off of other people's labor, the minimum you can do is give them the opportunity to live off of their own labor.

The definition of small government is a capacity for enough force to keep the lumpen masses from taking our stuff, but not enough to keep our Pinkerton thugs from beating up union activists. Except for the social freedoms, that they don't really seem that concerned about, the age of the robber-barons is pretty much exactly what libertarians desire.Oh, I'm a Communist, I agree with you here, but I was just trying to get a tiny concession out of whoever it was I was talking to.

Now you're hitting the nail on its head. Who determines ownership in the first place? Excellent. That is one of the primary mistakes of most governments. If they are going to provide land to a business on the behalf of their people, they have a right to a significant chunk of what it produced on that land. Let the business keep what it makes and let them be free to make it, but how can they claim land when their only validation is sticking a flag in it and wielding guns to keep the flag in it? That, in my opinion, is what government should be legislating, because it is the actual failing of capitalism.Well, I'll let you slide on the language of 'the actual failing of capitalism' as there are many, but this is the biggest one.

The aid I'm suggesting is free though, and its accountable, and with the exception of the consideration above that I just mentioned, it's fair.

Desperation is an economic tool. It is what allows people around the world to undercut the workers in the developed world, and it's one of the great equalizers. Those who are more desperate will work for less, which means they will get job contracts over others, which relieves their desperation. In general, it is the human desire to improve one's situation that drives capitalism. As long as we keep wanting to improve our standard of living and don't prevent people from working to reach that goal, each person, ability permitting, will be able to improve his or her standing in the world.There are two problems with this. Firstly, why should we allow someone to take advantage of the desperation of others? Secondly, people will strive to improve their situations even if they have their basic necessities met, because people like luxuries.

1820's on, after the Liberal Tories came to power, saw the adoption of free trade, which is after your example and coincides with Britain second wave of power.Well, it is true that this is after my example, however, according to Wikipedia:

The dating of the Industrial Revolution is not exact. T.S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830 (in effect the reigns of George III, The Regency, and part of William IV)[2]. Which says it ended shortly after free trade was enacted. The Second Industrial Revolution did happen after this. Do you dispute what the article says?

That's kind of the point. China is catching up now after years of being protectionist by opening its doors.The point is that countries don't (usually) industrialize with open borders.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, why should we allow someone to take advantage of the desperation of others?
I don't call it taking advantage at all. These people need jobs and businesses provide them. It's a fair deal. We have a limited supply of jobs and there is a large demand for them. Therefore, the cost of getting yourself hired is high, or in other terms, your wage is low. That can change though. As the supply of jobs increases, the cost of getting yourself hired goes down and your wage goes up. That's why I'm saying these areas need more business in them rather than less. It's the only way to equalize wages. Are you saying we should give them whatever they want purely on the basis of need alone? I would contend that instead we should let them earn what they need unless they are incapable of earning, which these people are not.

Secondly, people will strive to improve their situations even if they have their basic necessities met, because people like luxuries.
That's the point. As long as people want more, standard of living will increase because the market responds to that demand. It also naturally equalizes, because those that need more (because they're hungry etc.) will find it easier to make more. However, as they acquire more, their marginal propensity to work will decrease because there is less they want to do with that money.

Well, it is true that this is after my example, however, according to Wikipedia:
Which says it ended shortly after free trade was enacted. The Second Industrial Revolution did happen after this. Do you dispute what the article says?
That was my mistake, and I should have corrected it sooner. I meant to say it coincides with the second rise of Britain as a Great Power, which was in the time frame I provided.

The point is that countries don't (usually) industrialize with open borders.
And I think that's a mistake. Economic theory would suggest that the quickest way to industrialize is to have open borders. The fact that we haven't seen many countries industrializing with open borders is due to the fact that we don't see many countries with open borders in the first place, not an indication of any failures in an open marketplace.

There's a big difference between what you suggested and what I suggested. Your kid does not get the final decision in the matter. You could quite literally hold him down and give him the shot if necessary.

If the business refused to allow people access to food unless they worked there, that would be coercing. The fact that they are starving and business offers them a chance to not starve does not mean business was causing them to starve in the first place.

There are two qualms I have with this line of analysis. The first is that in many circumstances, businesses do refuse people access to food unless they work for them. If you read any of the literature on the World Bank, for instance, you will find that one of the preconditions for economic aid is that farm land must be converted from food crops to cash crops for export. In effect, the process goes a little something like this: Western governments, for a variety of reasons (colonialism, anti-communism, protection of regional interests) screw over a backward nation. Eventually, said backward nation becomes too burdensome for the amount of direct resource extraction taking place, and it gets left to its own devices. Because it's entire economy is built on export, the economy collapses, general douchebaggery ensuing. Country goes into debt to finance internal turmoil. When turmoil ends, First World nations use debt as leverage to "rebuild" internal economy of country, incidentally once again around an export model. Because goods are being exported rather than retained in country, because food crops need to be imported, and because said country effectively has no choice in who it sells its exports to (only First-World Nations, for instance, buy bananas), the First World nations, with of course business as intermediaries, effectively have the ability to dictate terms of the arrangement and keep said nation in debt into perpetuity by ensuring that the amount paid for cash crops never allows them to both pay for food crops and pay off debt. As one consequence, people starve because of lack of food, all because of business and government practice.

Second, you are missing the point of my analogy. The point wasn't that I can impose my will on my kid, rather it goes much deeper. My point was that the relationship between myself and a six-year old son is inherently unequal because of the unequal power relationship between us. At root, if I have to, I can force him to do something, and he cannot reciprocate. Thus, we would hardly call me asking my son to go rake leaves a freely-consented contractual arrangement, because that isn't what the relationship is about at all; it's about me not using coercive means to make him do something. In the same way, we could hardly call a worker's contract into a company store a voluntary and freely-consented one, because of the inherently unequal power relationships. My son doesn't want to be spanked. The Malaysian doesn't want to starve. Such circumstances are necessarily coercive.


I'll ignore the tone for a moment because you bring up a mostly valid point. However, the early stages of the development of human civilization are determined more by geography than economics. After all, if you haven't discovered a use for oil, uranium or aluminum, you don't very well need to visit your neighbours to trade for some. The early focus of human society was on self-sufficiency, so let's apply that to the question of how the Middle East and China developed first and why Africa lagged so far behind. The Fertile Crescent in the Middle East is considered to be one of the first place where human civilization flourished, like Ancient Babylon. It also featured the most abundant supply of domesticable crops and domesticable animals. China, I believe, came in second. Most of Africa and the Australian continent were in dead last. All of this is according to Jared Diamond's "Gun, Germs and Steel", which I would refer you to for further information. Thus, when the growth of civilization was focused more on self-sufficiency than trade, those nations with the most natural resources to start were the ones that took off. Fortunately for Europe, prevailing winds allowed the crops of the Fertile Crescent to spread along the Mediterranean while maintaining a climate they could still grow in because Eurasia moves mostly East-West, unlike the North-South orientations of Africa and North America, which made it difficult to spread their limited numbers of domesticable crops in the first place.

My tone is reflective of the fact that you're endorsing exploitation as a legitemate economic policy, but that is of no matter here. What is of import is that the distinction you've made is one that completely agrees with my analysis of the importance of economic factors rather than competition between nationstates in determining dominance. Arabia had power in the medieval era because it controlled trade routes and funnelled goods from Africa, Europe, and China to all other places. Once Europe found ways around Arabia and other sources of materials than China and Arabia, then Arabia's influence declined. By the same token, China's failing wasn't that it failed to compete head-on with other nationstates. The failure to compete is only a problem when other nations achieve economic dominance by comparison, which is in the 1500's what the European states were doing with resources from the New World. As such, it isn't self-sufficiency or complacency that is the problem, it's maintaining an advantage in productive power, which Europe achieved through exploitative means.


That would be true of the mercantalist view of the world, but inevitably that gave way to a greater focus on open markets, especially in Great Britain. China was in relative decline well before the opium wars. In "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", Kennedy puts that decline's start towards the middle of the 15th century, around the same time that China banned the construction of new ships (1436) and later banned ships with greater than two masts (date unknown). China was deliberately cut off by its leader from the rest of the world, which is precisely why when China re-opened its borders under the Manchus it was primarily importing rather than exporting. The Opium Wars, while unfortunate, do not coincide with the decline of China's powers on the world stage.

Allright, let me rephrase. The reason why I have a problem with modern neo-liberal economics is because it's mercantilism, merely in a different form. Instead of funnelling wealth out of a poor country for the benefit of the motherland, it funnels wealth out of a poor country for the benefit of a few rich people in that motherland and the head honcho in the poor country.
That is why when you look at global trade patterns, you don't see trade between states flourishing so much as you see a lopsided trade whereby poor countries are flooded with dollars that mysteriously vanish into the coffers of the ruling party, America is flooded with cheap goods from those countries, and workers in both countries get screwed.

Now, as for China specifically, I already mentioned this above, but I will mention it again for the sake of completeness. It wasn't China's isolationism that caused it's problem. China had been isolationist for thousands of years, yet it was always one of the two or three strongest nations because it's strong internal economy was nevertheless completely capable of meeting its own internal needs. In effect, it didn't need trade with Europe because there was nothing Europe could produce that Chinese couldn't. It was caused by the fact that starting in the 1500's, it's economy remained fairly stable while the economic and productive powers of Europeans exploded; as such China didn't fall apart so much as fell behind. Because of this falling behind, they were not in a position to keep increasingly aggressive Europeans from entering, a state which culminated in the Opium wars with Britain.


And that's wrong, but it's wrong because bribery is wrong, not because it's businesses doing it. It's a strawman argument. You're saying, if I follow correctly, that businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay workers low wages because they are bribing the officials in a country. However, if a business were just paying low wages without systematically bribing officials and undermining fair government, would you still have grounds for complaint? I won't deny that there are some rotten companies out there. I'm asking you to stop condemning all of them because of the actions of a few.

I hope you continue this conversation, but I would prefer it if you were a little nicer about it.

No, it's not a strawman, because you don't seem to understand my argument. My argument is that when people act purely out of self-interest, and self-interest may well be better served by destroying a free market and using local strongmen to exploit local workers, then that is what people are going to do. As such, you can't seperate bribery from capitalism, because capitalism's inherent flaw is that it can lead to bribery, and there is no internally competing mechanism to stop it. Say all you want about competition; if you are the student of history that you claim to be, then you would know that the most profitable way of running a business is to eliminate competition, not foster it.

In short, I'm not being nice because you seem as deluded as any hard-core Marxist, and I'm hoping that by not being nice I can shake you out of it. In theory, capitalism is just as rosy as Marxism, and I would gladly endorse a capitalism if it ever could exist. In practice, however, when you promote self-interest, you also promote people's attempts to screw with the system; consequently, free enterprise remains free absent outside coercive measures to keep it free for only a very short period. In the international system, there are no coercive measures to keep companies from exploiting their workers, and there is plenty of incentive to do so. As such, it isn't a few bad apples I'm pissed off about; it's a systemic problem endemic to the entire root of capitalism, namely the pursuit of self-interest above all else.

I have a feeling this is going to get more and more drawn out, so I'll concede a few things right now.

There are two qualms I have with this line of analysis. The first is that in many circumstances, businesses do refuse people access to food unless they work for them. If you read any of the literature on the World Bank, for instance, you will find that one of the preconditions for economic aid is that farm land must be converted from food crops to cash crops for export. In effect, the process goes a little something like this: Western governments, for a variety of reasons (colonialism, anti-communism, protection of regional interests) screw over a backward nation. Eventually, said backward nation becomes too burdensome for the amount of direct resource extraction taking place, and it gets left to its own devices. Because it's entire economy is built on export, the economy collapses, general douchebaggery ensuing. Country goes into debt to finance internal turmoil. When turmoil ends, First World nations use debt as leverage to "rebuild" internal economy of country, incidentally once again around an export model. Because goods are being exported rather than retained in country, because food crops need to be imported, and because said country effectively has no choice in who it sells its exports to (only First-World Nations, for instance, buy bananas), the First World nations, with of course business as intermediaries, effectively have the ability to dictate terms of the arrangement and keep said nation in debt into perpetuity by ensuring that the amount paid for cash crops never allows them to both pay for food crops and pay off debt. As one consequence, people starve because of lack of food, all because of business and government practice.
And that's the trap of accepting loans and terms from institutions like the world bank, but that is not the same case as allowing direct foreign investment from businesses, which is what I advocate.

Second, you are missing the point of my analogy. The point wasn't that I can impose my will on my kid, rather it goes much deeper. My point was that the relationship between myself and a six-year old son is inherently unequal because of the unequal power relationship between us. At root, if I have to, I can force him to do something, and he cannot reciprocate. Thus, we would hardly call me asking my son to go rake leaves a freely-consented contractual arrangement, because that isn't what the relationship is about at all; it's about me not using coercive means to make him do something. In the same way, we could hardly call a worker's contract into a company store a voluntary and freely-consented one, because of the inherently unequal power relationships. My son doesn't want to be spanked. The Malaysian doesn't want to starve. Such circumstances are necessarily coercive.
And when the policy of a country has been dictated by outside institutions rather than the people of a country, that is true. Please don't think that I'm advocating the kinds of strings attached policies that are currently used by many intergovernmental organizations. I'm talking about simple direct foreign investment. The business buys land that was already crown land, builds a factory, and lets the people there decide whether or not they want to work at the factory or on their farms. There's no illusions about this being "aid" in any sense of the word, so the governments and people can evaluate the contract on its actual terms rather than the current "trust us on this one" system.

My tone is reflective of the fact that you're endorsing exploitation as a legitemate economic policy, but that is of no matter here. What is of import is that the distinction you've made is one that completely agrees with my analysis of the importance of economic factors rather than competition between nationstates in determining dominance. Arabia had power in the medieval era because it controlled trade routes and funnelled goods from Africa, Europe, and China to all other places. Once Europe found ways around Arabia and other sources of materials than China and Arabia, then Arabia's influence declined. By the same token, China's failing wasn't that it failed to compete head-on with other nationstates. The failure to compete is only a problem when other nations achieve economic dominance by comparison, which is in the 1500's what the European states were doing with resources from the New World. As such, it isn't self-sufficiency or complacency that is the problem, it's maintaining an advantage in productive power, which Europe achieved through exploitative means.
I think you're overstating the effect that the exploitation of the New World had, but I will join you in condemning the exploitative practices of the European powers. Most colonization of the New World took place in the 17th century, well after Europe had begun its ascent, with the exception of the Spaniards. Even for the Spaniards who did reap benefits from the New World (roughly a quarter of the government's total revenue), the exploitation hardly made a dent in the overstretch they suffered in Europe which led to the decline of the Spanish Habsburgs in the 17th century. However, this analysis is not mutally exclusive. It was the necessary competition for resources in Europe, sadly through exploitation, that led to the rise of Europe. If the European states had not been striving to outdo each other, they would not have gained so quickly. Again, the biggest mistake was to funnel the wealth to the motherland.

Allright, let me rephrase. The reason why I have a problem with modern neo-liberal economics is because it's mercantilism, merely in a different form. Instead of funnelling wealth out of a poor country for the benefit of the motherland, it funnels wealth out of a poor country for the benefit of a few rich people in that motherland and the head honcho in the poor country.
That is why when you look at global trade patterns, you don't see trade between states flourishing so much as you see a lopsided trade whereby poor countries are flooded with dollars that mysteriously vanish into the coffers of the ruling party, America is flooded with cheap goods from those countries, and workers in both countries get screwed.
And my point is that it's stupid and that anyone with a little foresight could see that we actually gain more when we don't try to funnel money out of the country in question at all. You will see more profit in the long-run investing in a country rather than marauding it, but business people aren't quite as rational as I'd like, which I recognize. That said, I think that's we in the developed world have a responsibility to make sure we are intelligent in our purchasing. Part of the idea behind capitalism is that it would factor in morality by the consumer's refusal to buy goods that are not ethically produced. The idea is that price alone does not determine our decision of whether or not to buy an item and it's a standard that I personally hold myself to. Sadly, the greatest flaw that we see repeated over and over again is that people are idiots. The people running businesses are idiots. The people buying goods are idiots. If they just listened to me we'd be doing much better, but I'm not going to force them to do it.

Now, as for China specifically, I already mentioned this above, but I will mention it again for the sake of completeness. It wasn't China's isolationism that caused it's problem. China had been isolationist for thousands of years, yet it was always one of the two or three strongest nations because it's strong internal economy was nevertheless completely capable of meeting its own internal needs. In effect, it didn't need trade with Europe because there was nothing Europe could produce that Chinese couldn't. It was caused by the fact that starting in the 1500's, it's economy remained fairly stable while the economic and productive powers of Europeans exploded; as such China didn't fall apart so much as fell behind. Because of this falling behind, they were not in a position to keep increasingly aggressive Europeans from entering, a state which culminated in the Opium wars with Britain.
I don't agree with the "China was always isolationist" contention. Until 1433, historians believe that Cheng Ho's navy was capable of sailing as far as Portugal while the Portugese were still trying to making it down along the coast of Africa and back.

No, it's not a strawman, because you don't seem to understand my argument. My argument is that when people act purely out of self-interest, and self-interest may well be better served by destroying a free market and using local strongmen to exploit local workers, then that is what people are going to do. As such, you can't seperate bribery from capitalism, because capitalism's inherent flaw is that it can lead to bribery, and there is no internally competing mechanism to stop it. Say all you want about competition; if you are the student of history that you claim to be, then you would know that the most profitable way of running a business is to eliminate competition, not foster it.
I understand now, but that needs to be fixed by enforcing the the current rules against collusion, monopolies and other anti-market forces.

In short, I'm not being nice because you seem as deluded as any hard-core Marxist, and I'm hoping that by not being nice I can shake you out of it. In theory, capitalism is just as rosy as Marxism, and I would gladly endorse a capitalism if it ever could exist. In practice, however, when you promote self-interest, you also promote people's attempts to screw with the system; consequently, free enterprise remains free absent outside coercive measures to keep it free for only a very short period. In the international system, there are no coercive measures to keep companies from exploiting their workers, and there is plenty of incentive to do so. As such, it isn't a few bad apples I'm pissed off about; it's a systemic problem endemic to the entire root of capitalism, namely the pursuit of self-interest above all else.
I'll be quite honest. This analysis has opened my eyes to some new possibilities in analyzing the way the world works, and I appreciate it. Hopefully, at some point people will realize that enlightened self-interest dictates that you can gain the most by raising up others rather than cutting them down. Until then, you're right, we need to do a better job enforcing the rules that currently exist. I don't think, like some people do, that we will accomplish that by limiting foreign investment in general, as it still has the potential to grow industries in developing countries. I do think, however, that we need to re-double our efforts to make sure people follow the rules of the system off-shore. If they want to offer lower wages, fine, but bribery and strong-arm tactics are not acceptable, and government's role should be to stop that. Our failure to care enough to enforce the rule of law is something we need to fix if we are going to move towards a global economy.

Rawls is often criticised for the fact that it is "impossible" to voluntarily give up the socialization and conditioning of our particular circumstances. To a large extent this is a valid criticism. However, Rawls replies that the purpose of his veil of ignorance does not require that anyone attains perfect objectivity--indeed, he can admit the impossibility of this prospect without damaging his theory. Rather, his theory is designed to answer the question, "what is just?" Thus, he assumes an individual who is, if not objective, at least making the attempt to think about what would be "just" or "fair" to everyone. As finite beings, we may not be very good at this... but it is only a small logical leap to conclude that those of us who are trying to think about fairness probably achieve better results than those who do not care. In this pursuit, Rawls believes that he has justified a new "tool" that should help people to conceive of the "just." This tool may not solve all problems of the imagination, but it should take us several steps along the way.

It seems more like Rawls decided what he felt was just, then invented a tool that he thought would bring about his conclusion.

As a way of determining justice, the veil seems rather lacking.

Well, but the original position is really all about human interaction: it is about a free and equal discussion of distributive justice.

I assumed the original position was a negotiation that preceded human interaction.

Me neither, and I think it's a problem for Rawls. In itself, there is nothing contradictory about a discussion of merit behind the veil of ignorance. The real problem is, where do we get our standard of merit? Rawls might argue, as above, that the assumption of mutual respect (necessary to have this discussion at all) answers the question: assuming mutual respect, one must conclude that by and large all people work as hard as I do, or at least as hard as people I know and respect. The basis for this conclusion is that if I believe otherwise--if I believe, for instance, that people poorer than me simply don't work as hard as I do--then I am presuming to judge their circumstances better than they can. This is a basic violation of the principle of mutual respect, so that if I want to take part in a discussion about justice.

Why should one make any assumption concerning other people? It seems to me that justice should be retroactive, rather than proactive to be accurate.

Couldn't retroactive justice constitute a mutual respect, in that no one has their merit assumed for them?

And that's the trap of accepting loans and terms from institutions like the world bank, but that is not the same case as allowing direct foreign investment from businesses, which is what I advocate.


And when the policy of a country has been dictated by outside institutions rather than the people of a country, that is true. Please don't think that I'm advocating the kinds of strings attached policies that are currently used by many intergovernmental organizations. I'm talking about simple direct foreign investment. The business buys land that was already crown land, builds a factory, and lets the people there decide whether or not they want to work at the factory or on their farms. There's no illusions about this being "aid" in any sense of the word, so the governments and people can evaluate the contract on its actual terms rather than the current "trust us on this one" system.

Ah. Now this is much easier a pill to swallow. If business worked like this, I wouldn't necessarily support it (I'm still of the opinion that the only proper way to act out of is an intent to treat all men as ends in themselves and not a means to your own end), but it's much easier to work with than the capitalism-red-in-tooth-and-claw species that I was under the impression you were advocating.

That being said, I do not think that very many corporations would practice something like this without being dragged kicking and screaming into it. They have too much interest in next-quarter's stock dividends not to go for such a short-term advantage, and not to call in government favors they've accrued. That tends to manifest itself as action by NGO's and IGO's, if not direct action by the government.


I think you're overstating the effect that the exploitation of the New World had, but I will join you in condemning the exploitative practices of the European powers. Most colonization of the New World took place in the 17th century, well after Europe had begun its ascent, with the exception of the Spaniards. Even for the Spaniards who did reap benefits from the New World (roughly a quarter of the government's total revenue), the exploitation hardly made a dent in the overstretch they suffered in Europe which led to the decline of the Spanish Habsburgs in the 17th century. However, this analysis is not mutally exclusive. It was the necessary competition for resources in Europe, sadly through exploitation, that led to the rise of Europe. If the European states had not been striving to outdo each other, they would not have gained so quickly. Again, the biggest mistake was to funnel the wealth to the motherland.


This is historical analysis I can more or less agree with, although I think you undervalue the effect that pre-colonial European actions had. Really, the Spaniards and the others only started colonizing after they had effectively strip-mined the New World of its most easily accessible resources like gold and silver. They would move into new areas looking for gold, and if they didn't find it, then they switched over to simply converting the local population into serfs and farming. The fact that colonization only happened after the wealth was removed however, doesn't discount the original impact that transfer of wealth had.


And my point is that it's stupid and that anyone with a little foresight could see that we actually gain more when we don't try to funnel money out of the country in question at all. You will see more profit in the long-run investing in a country rather than marauding it, but business people aren't quite as rational as I'd like, which I recognize. That said, I think that's we in the developed world have a responsibility to make sure we are intelligent in our purchasing. Part of the idea behind capitalism is that it would factor in morality by the consumer's refusal to buy goods that are not ethically produced. The idea is that price alone does not determine our decision of whether or not to buy an item and it's a standard that I personally hold myself to. Sadly, the greatest flaw that we see repeated over and over again is that people are idiots. The people running businesses are idiots. The people buying goods are idiots. If they just listened to me we'd be doing much better, but I'm not going to force them to do it.

You won't hear any claims to the contrary from me, but you must also note that many modern business practices today force people to avoid looking out for the long-term. The emphasis on quarterly dividends and it's impact on share valuations, for instance, as well as the heavy investment by CEO's in stock rather than in salaries, often drive CEO's out of self-interest to pursue penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions. In other words, in order to really fix the problem, you'd have to undercut much of modern corporate capitalism to do it.


I don't agree with the "China was always isolationist" contention. Until 1433, historians believe that Cheng Ho's navy was capable of sailing as far as Portugal while the Portugese were still trying to making it down along the coast of Africa and back.

While this is absolutely true, it's nevertheless also true that the Chinese viewed this fleet as more or less an extravagance brought on by the predilections of one emperor, sort of like Tiberius' predilection for screwing the wives of the Roman nobility, only more constructive. It was never meant to serve as the vanguard for a long-term, sustained effort by the Chinese, and the reason why is because they didn't need it. Aside from novelties like giraffes and elephants, they had everything they needed in the Middle Kingdom, and they also had monopoly power on useful trade goods like spices and silk, and because of that, they had no need to be anything but insular.


I'll be quite honest. This analysis has opened my eyes to some new possibilities in analyzing the way the world works, and I appreciate it. Hopefully, at some point people will realize that enlightened self-interest dictates that you can gain the most by raising up others rather than cutting them down. Until then, you're right, we need to do a better job enforcing the rules that currently exist. I don't think, like some people do, that we will accomplish that by limiting foreign investment in general, as it still has the potential to grow industries in developing countries. I do think, however, that we need to re-double our efforts to make sure people follow the rules of the system off-shore. If they want to offer lower wages, fine, but bribery and strong-arm tactics are not acceptable, and government's role should be to stop that. Our failure to care enough to enforce the rule of law is something we need to fix if we are going to move towards a global economy.

Well, for my part, I was under the impression that injustice was just a necessary means toward some glorious capitalist end for you, which was why the gloves came off. I ultimately don't see truly enlightened self-interest as being anything different than altruism. I also see global trade as, at least theoretically, a universal good in the same way Smith and Riccardo saw it. But I can't stand the way modern society twists Smith and Riccardo to justify robber barons reborn. It offends morality and human decency.

Well, for my part, I was under the impression that injustice was just a necessary means toward some glorious capitalist end for you, which was why the gloves came off. I ultimately don't see truly enlightened self-interest as being anything different than altruism. I also see global trade as, at least theoretically, a universal good in the same way Smith and Riccardo saw it. But I can't stand the way modern society twists Smith and Riccardo to justify robber barons reborn. It offends morality and human decency.
I agree.

Do you have e-mail/MSN/AIM/Yahoo?

It seems more like Rawls decided what he felt was just, then invented a tool that he thought would bring about his conclusion.Partlly. He was certainly pleased to have produced a viable justification of liberal democracy, and from what I remember one of his guiding principles was that "a" theory of justice should be at least reconcilable with what people think is "just" anyway. It should guide us to better, more complete answers... If it starts to contradict what we firmly believe, then it is doing more than should be expected of it, and it probably cannot be grounded on very solid ground.

This is a common assumption of many political and ethical philosophers. I happen to think it is a cowardly way of avoiding critical philosophy.

As a way of determining justice, the veil seems rather lacking.It has its strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses are fairly obvious, at least to a casual reader or to someone who is going on merely secondary reports. I have been trying to emphasize the strengths, which are very real, but which are premised on more abstract philosophy, so that they are harder to show casually.

The best way to see what Rawls was up to, and why it is (if not correct) at least very interesting, is to look at him in the context of the history of philosophy.

It might be appropriate to start with Rousseau, who reasoned that the only "social contract" to which people would submit would be one in which they are regarded as morally, politically equal. Given certain economic conditions (most importantly relative but never absolute equality), people could learn to approach political issues asking themselves, "what would be best for everyone" rather than "what would be best for me."

Immanuel Kant was fascinated with this theory of Rousseau's, and saw himself as providing the metaphysical, logical, and moral grounding to the "kingdom of ends" envisioned by Rousseau. Among his many advances was a deep understanding of how rational self-respect demands mutual regard for others. If I insist that I am an end-in-myself, and I believe that others should treat me as such, the nature of this "should" is that it has to work both ways: to put it simply, a "should" is not a should if it does not apply universally. I can use this as a way to test my moral decisions: I may do only those things that I would allow anyone else can do, too. The political reasoning is similar: in a democracy, people should advocate only those public positions that regard everyone as an end-in-themselves; i.e. those decisions that do not merely use some people for the benefit of others.

As a basic assumption about what it means to make decisions in a democracy, I think this is perfectly sound.

What Rawls tries to do is to apply this Rousseauan/Kantian reason to distributive justice, which neither of them really considered. For Rousseau, a certain balance in distribution was necessary to get people to regard one another as ends in the first place: thus, distribution was not a matter of justice so much as a matter of practical political necessity. Kant thought he had advanced past Rousseau by showing that the reason leading a person to regard others as ends applies equally to all people, so that he avoided the distributive assumptions; moreover, distribution was simply not a great concern of Kant's: he thought that if people were politically equal, the rest would work itself out.

Now, between Kant and Rawls we have the whole history of capitalism, and the Marxist reaction against it. Liberal democracy as we know it, including its deep relationship with capital, was on increasingly shaky philosophical ground. Rawls thought he could shore up that support by applying Kantian reason to the problem of distribution... and he did so by employing an imaginative device that would (he thought) help people to consider what the world should look like from a position of mutual respect and equality.

I assumed the original position was a negotiation that preceded human interaction.This is a common misconception stemming from the fact that a) Rawls calls it the "original position" for no particularly good reason; b) he generally employs social contract language that is overly reminiscent of the "state of nature" theorists. He does not mean it this way at all. He conceives of the social contract in a Rousseauan sense, as the legitimate form of government that people choose for themselves, probably after they have long associated under illegitimate (or at least unreflective) social forms.

Why should one make any assumption concerning other people?Only because it is the same assumption you demand that they make about you. You are an end in yourself, not merely a means to their ends. If we cannot agree to this basic assumption, then we cannot possibly succeed in free society.

It seems to me that justice should be retroactive, rather than proactive to be accurate.A certain kind of justice, yes. Rawls would argue that distributive justice is different, because it describes social circumstances rather than individual incidents. Since much of an individual's economic destiny is determinable before he/she is born, the rules that govern distribution are separable from information about individuals.

This may not be a perfect argument, but it is at least a coherent one.

Couldn't retroactive justice constitute a mutual respect, in that no one has their merit assumed for them?Yes and no. The short answer is that I think Rawls makes a mistake in muddying the concepts of "dignity" and "merit." I think the condition of mutual dignity is necessary to free politics; I think that merit should be earned.

I don't call it taking advantage at all. These people need jobs and businesses provide them. It's a fair deal. We have a limited supply of jobs and there is a large demand for them. Therefore, the cost of getting yourself hired is high, or in other terms, your wage is low. That can change though. As the supply of jobs increases, the cost of getting yourself hired goes down and your wage goes up. That's why I'm saying these areas need more business in them rather than less. No, they need to eat, and the have to submit to taking those jobs.

It's the only way to equalize wages. Are you saying we should give them whatever they want purely on the basis of need alone? Yes, although I really don't need to say this, because...

I would contend that instead we should let them earn what they need unless they are incapable of earning, which these people are not.The wages in some sweatshops are so low that they aren't capable of earning what they need.

That's the point. As long as people want more, standard of living will increase because the market responds to that demand. It also naturally equalizes, because those that need more (because they're hungry etc.) will find it easier to make more. However, as they acquire more, their marginal propensity to work will decrease because there is less they want to do with that money.I don't see why the marginal propensity to work would be a bad thing, all that means is that companies will have to offer more incentives to the people they wish to hire.

That was my mistake, and I should have corrected it sooner. I meant to say it coincides with the second rise of Britain as a Great Power, which was in the time frame I provided.Fair enough. :)

And I think that's a mistake. Economic theory would suggest that the quickest way to industrialize is to have open borders. The fact that we haven't seen many countries industrializing with open borders is due to the fact that we don't see many countries with open borders in the first place, not an indication of any failures in an open marketplace.<shrug> I don't think too highly of economic theory, so I can't agree or disagree with this, but I wanted to point out that closed borders have proven themselves to be good things, at least part of the time.

No, they need to eat, and the have to submit to taking those jobs.

Yes, it is such a horrible form of exploitation that people actually have to work for a living....:eek:

In my view, a system where people didn't have to work for a living would be much more exploitive than the opposite. Think about it: who makes this (for example) food that these people don't work for? Answer: Someone working. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to make that food. They have to expend time, effort, thought, and personal value to produce that asset.

Then someone consumes that asset with no exchange of equivalent value, for no effort, without the necessity of working? Sounds like exploitation of the producer by the lowlife, to me. If one person uses their energies to make something, and are forced at the point of an implied gun by "the government" or "society" to give that up for nothing to someone who does no work, either in general or in exchange, that's exploitation.

The idea of jobs, money, trade, etc. is not exploitation. It's the opposite of exploitation. The entire point of those systems is to facilitate exchanges of value. Exploitation is something-for-nothing, an imbalance between pay given and work expended in favor of one side. If you pay someone a penny a day to do highly valuable work, that's exploitation. If you enslave someone, that's exploitation. But the mercantile paradigm is the opposite of that. It's based on balanced reciprocal transfers of value. It's when you give one person something for nothing at the expense of the person who actually produced that something that you're engaging in exploitation.

Yes and no. The short answer is that I think Rawls makes a mistake in muddying the concepts of "dignity" and "merit." I think the condition of mutual dignity is necessary to free politics; I think that merit should be earned.

I agree with this statement, and I certainly agree that all should be ends in themselves.

The main reason I see Rawls's original position to be ineffectual, is that the results it projects would be almost completely dependent on the individual considering it.

I, for example, would look at the original position and think that society would form a system where distribution were based on merit. People would see merit in themselves and would consider there to be an entitlement with that merit. Everyone would see themselves as able enough to acheive the entitlement to their share.

That of course leads right into my view that distribution is just if the process of acquiring it is just. Distribution doesn't require justice in and of itself.

This is also why I asked the question about slavery.

A person can live independent of other people, a person can claim property independent of other people, a person can labor independent of other people.
It seems to me that there is some crazy notions flying about among the more erudite portions of this thread, but this particular piece of craziness really took me by surprise.

Honestly how may I ask does a human being make it past infancy 'independent of other people'? People cant live independently of other people.

It seems to me people are over-complicating things. Capitalism is simply a mode of production whereby the means to produce (aka capital) generates capital (aka the means of production). In theory social justice is not excluded by such a mode of production so far as I can tell.

As for 'natural rights' I know of no sub-natural or super-natural rights - the whole notion of 'natural rights/natural law etc, rests on (imo) very dubious/questionable grounds (in most cases, so far as I can tell, specifically on the false dichotomy between the social/cultural and the natural in one of its numerous incarnations/rephrasings).

All rights are natural. If it is a right then something or someone 'upholds' that right (as AB has already pointed out), if something is not 'upheld' by someone or something, then whatever that something is, it isnt a 'right'.

It seems to me that there is some crazy notions flying about among the more erudite portions of this thread, but this particular piece of craziness really took me by surprise.

Honestly how may I ask does a human being make it past infancy 'independent of other people'? People cant live independently of other people.

The condition of life does not necessitate the intervention of other people. Yes, an infant would surely not maintain its life without other people, but that does not mean that life itself is contingent on interaction.

Would my life, as a 23 year old man be contingent on the intervention of society?

The condition of life does not necessitate the intervention of other people. Yes, an infant would surely not maintain its life without other people, but that does not mean that life itself is contingent on interaction.

Would my life, as a 23 year old man be contingent on the intervention of society?
You didnt state 'the condition of life does not necessitate the intervention of other people' rather you spoke of people living independently of people.

We already can see that your or anyone else's likelyhood of making it to 3 much less 23, independently of other people is at best doubtful.

Your life as a 23 year old man (forgetting the inability to get to that point independent of other people) wouldnt be 'your life' (imo) but for your interdependence with other people.

The most significant point though is even with the assumption that your 'post-dependence' be viewed as 'independence', if you are a healthy functional human being, then your future health and well-being requires that you interact with other human beings. The extent of damage that would accrue from you not doing so can extend to premature death.

As it happens I know of no experiment that would allow us to ascertain whether or to what degree your particular life-span would be shortened by, if you were deprived of any and all future human interaction. What I do know is that human beings are social animals and our healthy functioning as adults depends on our socialisation as younglings and that socialisation as younglings necessitates the continuity of interaction with other human beings in order to maintain our well-being.

You didnt state 'the condition of life does not necessitate the intervention of other people' rather you spoke of people living independently of people.

We already can see that your or anyone else's likelyhood of making it to 3 much less 23, independently of other people is at best doubtful.

Your life as a 23 year old man (forgetting the inability to get to that point independent of other people) wouldnt be 'your life' (imo) but for your interdependence with other people.

The most significant point though is even with the assumption that your 'post-dependence' be viewed as 'independence', if you are a healthy functional human being, then your future health and well-being requires that you interact with other human beings. The extent of damage that would accrue from you not doing so can extend to premature death.

As it happens I know of no experiment that would allow us to ascertain whether or to what degree your particular life-span would be shortened by, if you were deprived of any and all future human interaction. What I do know is that human beings are social animals and our healthy functioning as adults depends on our socialisation as younglings and that socialisation as younglings necessitates the continuity of interaction with other human beings in order to maintain our well-being.

First off, the right to life is the ability to conduct your own self-preservation, it is not the right to have life provided for you.

Secondly, possible life-span is not relevant to this. The only relevance is whether someone is possible to have the right to life at any instance without human interaction.

Thirdly, regardless of what I did or didn't state in the post you responded to, my reply was an explanation that was not at all contradictory to my initial statement on the matter.

First off, the right to life is the ability to conduct your own self-preservation, it is not the right to have life provided for you.
The right to life is not what I was commenting on. I was commenting on a particular statement, I should have thought that was very clear from the content of my comment (I even quoted the particular comments concerned right above my commentary of them)...:confused:

Secondly, possible life-span is not relevant to this. The only relevance is whether someone is possible to have the right to life at any instance without human interaction.
No, it isnt possible so far as I am aware.

Thirdly, regardless of what I did or didn't state in the post you responded to, my reply was an explanation that was not at all contradictory to my initial statement on the matter.
That's as may be, but my earlier comments can hardly be expected to take that into account (which was my intended point in stating the divergence between your original comment and the post-posted clarification thereof).

No, they need to eat, and the have to submit to taking those jobs.
Somebody already said something about this.

The wages in some sweatshops are so low that they aren't capable of earning what they need.
Which is why I suggested allowing more business in because as you realized.

I don't see why the marginal propensity to work would be a bad thing, all that means is that companies will have to offer more incentives to the people they wish to hire.
I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said it's the equalizer. Let's try it a mathematical route.
You have 1000 workers and 10 businesses in the country with space for 500 jobs. Those 500 jobs cannot possibly sustain 1000 workers, so the 1000 people fight for those jobs by accepting lower and lower wages. This part, I believe, is what bothers you.

But you have to consider the other part of that. Other businesses see that the wages in this country are very low. Due to open borders, these companies move to the country in question.

There are now 30 businesses in the country with space for 1500 jobs. There are now less workers than jobs (1000 to 1500), so this time it's business competing for workers. The businesses fight for those workers by accepting higher and higher wages. Eventually, the cost becomes too high and businesses stop moving to the country in question and may even outsource to countries with cheaper labourers. At this point, however, wages have increased substantially. In fact, the economy resembles the economy of a developed nation.

The most important thing to realize, is that as businesses move around the world in this process, they begin to deprive themselves of places to run to. Eventually, as the wealth of the world grow, there are too many businesses for the number of workers on a global scale, and the same process occurs globally, raising the global wage, all the while decreasing global costs.

Picture, if you will, a pitcher of water. With closed borders, that pitcher is divided into many parts so that filling one part with water will not affect another part.
Here's a diagram of how innovation is distributed with closed borders.

Innovation occurs in developed world, creating more business and the demand for workers, which pushes workers wages up.
___(Here)
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|
|__________|__________|__________|__________|

No expansion to other countries is allowed, so the effects don't spill over. What the basic diagram does not show is that the reduced mobility hinders efficiency and causes the water to fill up the pitcher more slowly.

Now consider a pitcher without divisions. (That one is much easier to draw.)

|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|
|___________________________________________|

The pitcher fills at the same rate across the board and it fills faster than it would were it segmented (the second assertion is not explained in the simplistic diagram).

So what happens when you pull the dividers out of a divided pitcher? The water rushes into the lower parts. At the beginning, the water in those parts is still lower than it was in the most full area, but it is going up, and it goes up at a quicker rate than it would if the pitcher were kept divided. That's what I mean when I talk about equalization.

There is an explanation as for why wages in the full part of the pitcher only decrease negligibly, but I'm assuming you don't particularly care because you wanted to take the money of the developed world for aid anyway. This way just does it more effectively.

<shrug> I don't think too highly of economic theory, so I can't agree or disagree with this, but I wanted to point out that closed borders have proven themselves to be good things, at least part of the time.
I ask this out of curiosity. Have you ever taken an Economics course? Two friends of mine, one socialist, one communist, learned some basic economic theory and it totally changed their way of viewing the world. Granted, that's just two people, but it might be worth looking into.

Zagat,

Can a person live a reasonably full life without human interaction? No. Can a person live at all without human interaction? No.

Those are two points that I am not particularly interested in arguing.

However, is the right to life existent without social negotiations and interactions? Yes.

Zagat,

Can a person live a reasonably full life without human interaction? No. Can a person live at all without human interaction? No.

Those are two points that I am not particularly interested in arguing.

However, is the right to life existent without social negotiations and interactions? Yes.
I dont see what you can mean by 'right to life' if you think it can exist independently of human interaction.
What is being granted here? The right to not die by any means that doesnt involve human interaction of some kind...? Not so far as I can tell.

Minus human interaction and what is the difference between the presence of this 'right to life' you refer to and its absence?

Minus human interaction the absence of a right to life is indistinguishable from its alledged presence.

In effect and in every sense that makes good sense, minus human interaction any 'right to life' is identical to 'not a right to life'. Since something cannot be both a right to life and not a right to life, either there is no such thing as a right to life or human interaction is a necessary condition for the existence of such a right.

I dont see what you can mean by 'right to life' if you think it can exist independently of human interaction.
What is being granted here? The right to not die by any means that doesnt involve human interaction of some kind...? Not so far as I can tell.

Minus human interaction and what is the difference between the presence of this 'right to life' you refer to and its absence?

Minus human interaction the absence of a right to life is indistinguishable from its alledged presence.

In effect and in every sense that makes good sense, minus human interaction any 'right to life' is identical to 'not a right to life'. Since something cannot be both a right to life and not a right to life, either there is no such thing as a right to life or human interaction is a necessary condition for the existence of such a right.

What?

Go back and read the definition of the "right to life" I gave earlier. You will see that having a right to life and not having a right to life are completely different, even without social interaction.

What?
It's all there in black and white. I suspect any problems coming to grips with the content of my comments arises from assumptions on your part.


Go back and read the definition of the "right to life" I gave earlier.
Give me a post number or cut and paste it from your earlier post or restate it.

You will see that having a right to life and not having a right to life are completely different, even without social interaction.
Having read all your posts in this thread, I see no such thing.

I see that you have made claims about these alledged natural rights, but I do not see that you have demonstrated that anything I would consider a 'right' or anything that constitutes a meaningful definition of the word 'right', exists independently of human interaction with the thing or person endowed with whatever 'right' is the referrent of 'right'.

It seems to me that I do 'get' what you are saying (even if I disagree), but that you appear to be indicating that you dont 'get' what I am driving at (correct me if this is an erroneous conclusion on my part). That being the case, doesnt it make more sense for you to re-read my comments. I suggest this having laborously gone back through all your posts in this thread (and so feeling as though I can state "I did my bit";) ).

I just dont see any origin for these supposed natural rights outside of human interaction. I see no point to them or need for them nor cause for them other than in the context of human interaction.

Without human interaction the state of 'having the right to life' and the state of 'not having the right to life' are identical states.

Give me a post number or cut and paste it from your earlier post or restate it.

"the right to life is the ability to conduct your own self-preservation, it is not the right to have life provided for you."

I don't know how you missed it, it was like 10 posts back.

Anyway, given this as the definition of the right to life, the presense of the right to life is demonstrably different than its absense, regardless of societal interaction.

It seems to me that I do 'get' what you are saying (even if I disagree), but that you appear to be indicating that you dont 'get' what I am driving at (correct me if this is an erroneous conclusion on my part). That being the case, doesnt it make more sense for you to re-read my comments. I suggest this having laborously gone back through all your posts in this thread (and so feeling as though I can state "I did my bit";) ).

It doesn't appear that you did understand what I was saying.

And you are quite right that I don't understand what you are saying.

With your first two posts you explain (as if it were needed) that one would not make it through infancy and would have trouble maintaining their health without human interaction.

With the third post you explained that you were not discussing a right to life.

With the fourth post you attacked a misinterpretation of what I called a right to life.

So tell me: what are you saying?

"the right to life is the ability to conduct your own self-preservation, it is not the right to have life provided for you."
This is an ambiguous statement.
You say the right to life is the ability to conduct your own self preservation...what entity, force, or what-have-you made it so? Did it/them/they/what-have-you plan this contingency into the cosmos (or what have you) with us (Homo sapiens sapiens) specifically in mind or just on the off-chance someone who had the predisposition to adopt such 'natural rights' (independent of any use for them) would happen along?

Ask yourself why would a right that is entirely superfluous in the absence of human interaction, exist independently of it? Seriously....?!

I don't know how you missed it, it was like 10 posts back.
I didnt miss it. I was looking for a definition. Still looking.

Anyway, given this as the definition of the right to life, the presense of the right to life is demonstrably different than its absense, regardless of societal interaction.
How so? I see no such thing. If it is not a non-sequitor conclusion, you'll be happy to describe the logical relationship between it and your premises.

It doesn't appear that you did understand what I was saying.
So far as I can ascertain I do understand what you are saying, I just find it incomplete, ambiguous, non-sequitor and/or apparently circular.

And you are quite right that I don't understand what you are saying.
I think this is the case and I reiterate that so far as I can honestly tell, I comprehend what you are intending to communicate. I just dont believe in it.

With your first two posts you explain (as if it were needed) that one would not make it through infancy and would have trouble maintaining their health without human interaction.
Yes, which is a very essentialist and simplified form of the argument that follows. (Preparing the ground so to speak.)

With the third post you explained that you were not discussing a right to life.
With the fourth post you attacked a misinterpretation of what I called a right to life.[/QUOTE]
I still dont know that there is such a thing as the thing you call the 'right to life'. Your descriptions of it are ambiguous and vague enough for me to suspect that you dont
So tell me: what are you saying?[/QUOTE]
This natural right' independent of human interaction you are asserting; you have offered no concrete discription of it, you have offered no origin for it. It is (as best I can ascertain from your posts) indescribable and without cause....

I'm saying I dont believe that there is some 'natural right' outside of rights arising from human interaction. If you think there is then describe it in concrete terms and explain what you know of its origins and how you/we/anyone ascertains (has previously ascertained) this...

Yes, it is such a horrible form of exploitation that people actually have to work for a living....:eek: The fact that people have to work for a living is not exploitation, the fact that people have to work for others for a living is. There is a difference between working for yourself and working for others. If there were no ownership of land, everyone would potentially have the option of farming their own land and supporting themselves.

Which is why I suggested allowing more business in because as you realized.Why not both allow more businesses and require that those businesses obey basic standards of human rights?

I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said it's the equalizer. Let's try it a mathematical route.
You have 1000 workers and 10 businesses in the country with space for 500 jobs. Those 500 jobs cannot possibly sustain 1000 workers, so the 1000 people fight for those jobs by accepting lower and lower wages. This part, I believe, is what bothers you.I meant to say I don't see why a lower marginal propensity to work would be a bad thing.
And yes, the race to the bottom is what bothers me.

Picture, if you will, a pitcher of water. With closed borders, that pitcher is divided into many parts so that filling one part with water will not affect another part.

----

Now consider a pitcher without divisions. (That one is much easier to draw.)

The pitcher will always have divisions, because capital is more mobile than labor. You don't really think people will be able to follow their jobs around when there is capital flight, do you?

I ask this out of curiosity. Have you ever taken an Economics course? Two friends of mine, one socialist, one communist, learned some basic economic theory and it totally changed their way of viewing the world. Granted, that's just two people, but it might be worth looking into.No, I haven't. I've taken a political science course, which only dealt with economics marginally. I've also read a book on basic economic theory, but it was quite obviously biased towards capitalism. This is fine, because economics is another way of detailing the conditions of a particular country or area, it's not as though it's a science or anything.

This is an ambiguous statement.
d it/them/they/what-have-you plan this You say the right to life is the ability to conduct your own self preservation...what entity, force, or what-have-you made it so? Dicontingency into the cosmos (or what have you) with us (Homo sapiens sapiens) specifically in mind or just on the off-chance someone who had the predisposition to adopt such 'natural rights' (independent of any use for them) would happen along?

There is no conscious creater of the right to life. It exists because we exist.

Ask yourself why would a right that is entirely superfluous in the absence of human interaction, exist independently of it? Seriously....?!

Why would it be superfluous, and why would that have any determination on its existence?

I didnt miss it. I was looking for a definition. Still looking.

I can keep posting it:

The right to life is the ability to act towards one's self-preservation.

How so? I see no such thing. If it is not a non-sequitor conclusion, you'll be happy to describe the logical relationship between it and your premises.

Were we to assume that the right to life did not exist outside of human interaction, then we must assume that no person can plan and work for their own survival without human interaction. That is, of course, not true.

Since someone can freely take on actions of their own self-preservation without any social negotiation, even in spite of social negotiation, we can assume it exists naturally in the person.

So far as I can ascertain I do understand what you are saying, I just find it incomplete, ambiguous, non-sequitor and/or apparently circular.

Perhaps you can explain why you see it that way?

You said that my argument was ambiguous because I didn't name the right's creator, which considering the concepts of natural rights seems to not be a valid complaint.

This natural right' independent of human interaction you are asserting; you have offered no concrete discription of it, you have offered no origin for it. It is (as best I can ascertain from your posts) indescribable and without cause....

I'm saying I dont believe that there is some 'natural right' outside of rights arising from human interaction. If you think there is then describe it in concrete terms and explain what you know of its origins and how you/we/anyone ascertains (has previously ascertained) this...

I have offered a concrete definition:

The ability to freely pursue one's own self-preservation.

The origin for is is the same as any natural right, our comprehension of it. We know that we must work, fight, submit, etc, to survive, and because we know this, we have the ability to do this.

Why not both allow more businesses and require that those businesses obey basic standards of human rights?
First, a high wage is not a basic standard of human rights. Secondly, if you accept that it is, you have to accept that if businesses are going to have to pay high wages anywhere, there's no point in them moving.

I meant to say I don't see why a lower marginal propensity to work would be a bad thing.
And yes, the race to the bottom is what bothers me.
The race to the bottom is not a realistic depiction of globalization. As long as the system continues to expand through greater efficiency and innovation, which with the exception of the Dark Ages it has never stopped doing for any significant length of time, the increase in business will outstrip the increase in population, especially with population figures levelling off in the next few decades. This means that wages are on a global trend upwards no matter what. The question is if we slow down that upward trend by hoarding all of the business and increases to ourselves or let it move around the globe freely so everyone can benefit.

The pitcher will always have divisions, because capital is more mobile than labor. You don't really think people will be able to follow their jobs around when there is capital flight, do you?
That's a trend that is disappearing with globalization. Despite some of the recent rhetoric in the United States on the far right about deporting illegal immigrants and limiting immigration, immigration has been on the rise since the early 1900's, which means that labour is beginning to match capital in mobility. Most global capitalists want to see borders open for immigration just as much as for business.

No, I haven't. I've taken a political science course, which only dealt with economics marginally. I've also read a book on basic economic theory, but it was quite obviously biased towards capitalism. This is fine, because economics is another way of detailing the conditions of a particular country or area, it's not as though it's a science or anything.
It does have a great deal of grounding mathematics, which makes in harder to discount than a lot of other arts courses. I took Introductory Sociology this year in university and Introductory Economics last year through my high school, and I've got to say that it's really worth looking into, especially some of the more complex things. Sociology, while interesting, I found to be a lot of speculation and theorizing, whereas Economics relied a lot more on math and logic.

The fact that people have to work for a living is not exploitation, the fact that people have to work for others for a living is. There is a difference between working for yourself and working for others. If there were no ownership of land, everyone would potentially have the option of farming their own land and supporting themselves.

So you're campaigning for a return to subsistence farming? Why would we want to? Different people are good at different things, and specialization and growth is impossible if everyone has to grow their own food. The computer you use? That couldn't exist in the world you're describing.

Yes, everyone could do everything they need to live for themselves only, with no exchanges of value and no economic interaction with anyone else. But that means that civilization can't develop. The entire point of jobs, of working for other people, is so that people can specialize and trade a certain good or service, like work, for their needs of living. If no one did that, no one would have the resources or opportunity to do things beyond farming and animal-raising.

People have capabilities to exercise and value to offer each other beyond subsistence. To exercise those capabilities and use that value to benefit themselves and others, they have to have the opportunity and resources to do it, something precluded by subsistence living. So instead, they exchange that specialized value with others for the life necessities like food and water they can't make while they're producing specialized value.

The people who can't specialize, who don't necessarily have the intelligence or special talent to have something high-level to offer, aren't any worse off. They either produce those life necessities, as agricultural labor, or they exercise that same basic labor capabilities to aid in the production of specialized value, again in exchange for those life necessities.

Overall, the shift from subsistence living to a specialized market economy is highly Pareto-efficient.

The fact that people have to work for a living is not exploitation, the fact that people have to work for others for a living is. There is a difference between working for yourself and working for others. If there were no ownership of land, everyone would potentially have the option of farming their own land and supporting themselves.

FMS made some good points, but I just want to add that the necessity of one person fulfilling the needs of others is where we can insure justice. When we get to a point where all people must work for all others in order to meet their own needs, then everyone can be their own end at the same time.

Where the problem may lay is when the trade off of means and ends are imbalanced.

FMS: My political compass scores are the exact same as yours. How odd.

Snip.
I think he's giving a voice for those who don't have a computer and can't represent themselves, why are you so surprised?

No, it isn't.

No majority, however large, is ever entitled to violate individual rights.

?? An individual's rights to factory farming?

I've been absent from this thread for a while, but quickly glancing over it appears you don't understand the difference between natural and postive rights.

At any rate, if you believe that rights are natural and inalienable and not granted by government/society, I'll put it to you this way; "Say's Who?"

You get the rights that society grants or that you can fight for.

There is no conscious creater of the right to life. It exists because we exist.
Right, like the pink gnomes?

Why would it be superfluous, and why would that have any determination on its existence?
Because the only thing it can offer a person any protection against is the actions of another person, but if there are no interactions between any persons then no person is at risk due to the actions of any other person, so no person has any need or use to the only protection that a right to life might offer them.
That it is superfluous demonstrates that we cannot demonstrate that it exists by demonstrating the existence of things that it is a necessary condition for.

I can keep posting it:

The right to life is the ability to act towards one's self-preservation.
And I've already told you I know of no such right that exists independently of human interaction. Many people actually dont have such a right, and no one needs it independently of human interaction.

Were we to assume that the right to life did not exist outside of human interaction, then we must assume that no person can plan and work for their own survival without human interaction. That is, of course, not true.
No we need not assume any such thing. None the less so far as I know no one does plan and work for their own survival without human interaction (a fact that we established several posts ago I thought).

Since someone can freely take on actions of their own self-preservation without any social negotiation, even in spite of social negotiation, we can assume it exists naturally in the person.
The capacity to act is not a right that is granted by existence. People in commas dont take too many actions for their own self-preservation. Who is denying them their right? Cats can take actions for their own self-preservation, but I dont know that they have any right to life. I know vets who regularly kill animals.

Perhaps you can explain why you see it that way?
I find it that way because you are claiming the existence of something that you cannot point to any cause for other than human existence yet which does not seem necessitated or caused by human existence in any way I can see. Because you wont point out how it works, who enforces it, because it clearly is not universal in application and because the supposed criteria for its existence (the ability to act for self preservation) is apparent in other species that you have not made similar rights claims to. Basically your discription is ambiguous, the causes/origins obscure, and the necessity of it independent of human interaction nill, humans have never existed without interacting, yet you claim its independence of human interaction - even though it's existence is contingent on the existence of humans (who have never not interacted with one another)....basically your argument for a 'natural right to life' independent of human interaction is a mess.

You said that my argument was ambiguous because I didn't name the right's creator, which considering the concepts of natural rights seems to not be a valid complaint.
What concepts? I dont believe in natural rights so you'll have to substantiate any aspect of your argument that is contingent on their existence or supposed traits. I believe the concept of natural rights doesnt exist outside the heads of some people, and I also beleive the notion got in their heads as a result of their interactions....with other humans.....

I have offered a concrete definition:

The ability to freely pursue one's own self-preservation.
Well plenty of people lack this right, plenty of non-human animals have this right....is the natural right you refer to of a quality that it is not applicable to all humans but is applicable to some non-humans...?:confused:

The origin for is is the same as any natural right
I dont believe any such thing exists aside from as concepts in the minds of some people, concepts that got there at least in part as a result of their interactions with other humans....which brings us back to the not being independent of other humans business....

our comprehension of it. We know that we must work, fight, submit, etc, to survive, and because we know this, we have the ability to do this.
Why do you think we 'must' do these things. It might be that it is less unpleasant to do them than not do them, but that does not necessitate that we do them.

First, a high wage is not a basic standard of human rights. Secondly, if you accept that it is, you have to accept that if businesses are going to have to pay high wages anywhere, there's no point in them moving.A high wage in our terms is not a basic standard of human rights, a living wage may be, and at the very least the minimum wage in those countries needs to be respected.

The race to the bottom is not a realistic depiction of globalization. Yes, it is.

As long as the system continues to expand through greater efficiency and innovation, which with the exception of the Dark Ages it has never stopped doing for any significant length of time, the increase in business will outstrip the increase in population, especially with population figures levelling off in the next few decades. This means that wages are on a global trend upwards no matter what. No, it only means that profits will be on a global trend upwards no matter what. Additionally the system requires unemployment, so it's rather silly to say that it will be constantly increasing.

The question is if we slow down that upward trend by hoarding all of the business and increases to ourselves or let it move around the globe freely so everyone can benefit.Globalization is the process of hoarding most of the increases to ourselves. Free market globalization is a myth, and always will be.

That's a trend that is disappearing with globalization. Despite some of the recent rhetoric in the United States on the far right about deporting illegal immigrants and limiting immigration, immigration has been on the rise since the early 1900's, which means that labour is beginning to match capital in mobility. Most global capitalists want to see borders open for immigration just as much as for business.But nonetheless, all of the immigrant who have lost their jobs will not immigrate to where their jobs have moved.

It does have a great deal of grounding mathematics, which makes in harder to discount than a lot of other arts courses. I took Introductory Sociology this year in university and Introductory Economics last year through my high school, and I've got to say that it's really worth looking into, especially some of the more complex things. Sociology, while interesting, I found to be a lot of speculation and theorizing, whereas Economics relied a lot more on math and logic.How interesting, I've found that economics has just as much to do with speculation and theorizing as any of those types of sciences.

So you're campaigning for a return to subsistence farming?No, I'm campaigning for the option of subsistence farming, which currently doesn't exist.

Why would we want to?So that if living in a society becomes less productive for an individual than subsistence farming, they can withdraw from that society.

Different people are good at different things, and specialization and growth is impossible if everyone has to grow their own food. The computer you use? That couldn't exist in the world you're describing.Yes, everyone could do everything they need to live for themselves only, with no exchanges of value and no economic interaction with anyone else. But that means that civilization can't develop. The entire point of jobs, of working for other people, is so that people can specialize and trade a certain good or service, like work, for their needs of living. If no one did that, no one would have the resources or opportunity to do things beyond farming and animal-raising.

People have capabilities to exercise and value to offer each other beyond subsistence. To exercise those capabilities and use that value to benefit themselves and others, they have to have the opportunity and resources to do it, something precluded by subsistence living. So instead, they exchange that specialized value with others for the life necessities like food and water they can't make while they're producing specialized value.

The people who can't specialize, who don't necessarily have the intelligence or special talent to have something high-level to offer, aren't any worse off. They either produce those life necessities, as agricultural labor, or they exercise that same basic labor capabilities to aid in the production of specialized value, again in exchange for those life necessities.

Overall, the shift from subsistence living to a specialized market economy is highly Pareto-efficient.In a world of pure subsistence farming, no, but the concept of specialization is not contingent upon the concept of ownership. A commune where property rights based upon use could have the qualities that you speak of.

FMS made some good points, but I just want to add that the necessity of one person fulfilling the needs of others is where we can insure justice. When we get to a point where all people must work for all others in order to meet their own needs, then everyone can be their own end at the same time.

Where the problem may lay is when the trade off of means and ends are imbalanced.Oh, I agree, but I have the concept of subsistence farming in there in case someone doesn't want to fulfill the needs of others, then they don't get to have others fulfill their needs, they need to do it themselves.

A high wage in our terms is not a basic standard of human rights, a living wage may be, and at the very least the minimum wage in those countries needs to be respected.
And as I already pointed out, the wages go up as the country is more exposed to business.

On a side note, Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1997.

No, it only means that profits will be on a global trend upwards no matter what. Additionally the system requires unemployment, so it's rather silly to say that it will be constantly increasing.
Actually, a more competitive system actuall causes profits per company to decrease. That's why monopolies enjoy the highest profits. What better way to reduce profits to the rich individuals than to open up the market to competition from everyone?

Globalization is the process of hoarding most of the increases to ourselves. Free market globalization is a myth, and always will be.
I swear I've heard people say the same thing about communism, and yet here you are.

But nonetheless, all of the immigrant who have lost their jobs will not immigrate to where their jobs have moved.
No, not all of them. Enough of them that the supply of labour in the original country will decrease and those that remain will be more likely to find a job anyway. The front page of the newspaper at my house today contained an article about people who work in Alberta but live in Cape Breton Island (The equivalent of working in Colorado and living in New York), and are able to do so profitably because of the current methods of global transport. It's actually quite realistic to expect a lot of global movement in this day and age.


How interesting, I've found that economics has just as much to do with speculation and theorizing as any of those types of sciences.
Difference of opinion, I guess.

And as I already pointed out, the wages go up as the country is more exposed to business.Which is fine, as long as the wages start from an accepted minimum point. They aren't.

On a side note, Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1997.And look at how bad things were there in the years leading up to it.

Actually, a more competitive system actuall causes profits per company to decrease. That's why monopolies enjoy the highest profits. What better way to reduce profits to the rich individuals than to open up the market to competition from everyone?Globalization isn't about opening the markets to competition, it's about markets opening up to be bought by foreign investors. This is why an increase in globalization is increasing the number of multinational corporations.

I swear I've heard people say the same thing about communism, and yet here you are.True, and admittedly, I didn't supply any information why free market capitalism will never happen in this thread.

No, not all of them. Enough of them that the supply of labour in the original country will decrease and those that remain will be more likely to find a job anyway. The front page of the newspaper at my house today contained an article about people who work in Alberta but live in Cape Breton Island (The equivalent of working in Colorado and living in New York), and are able to do so profitably because of the current methods of global transport. It's actually quite realistic to expect a lot of global movement in this day and age.And as more immigrants pour into the new country, this will depress wages for the people living there.

Difference of opinion, I guess.Suppose so. ;)

Which is fine, as long as the wages start from an accepted minimum point. They aren't.
In the end, they companies should follow the minimum wages established in those countries, I agree. It's not our place, however, to dictate what those minimum wages should be.

And look at how bad things were there in the years leading up to it.
Six years of solid economic growth and the lowest misery index in Europe? Britain has consistently fared better than its more left-leaning European counterparts in terms of keeping both unemployment and inflation low.

Globalization isn't about opening the markets to competition, it's about markets opening up to be bought by foreign investors. This is why an increase in globalization is increasing the number of multinational corporations.
And some of them get to where they are by breaking the rules, which is wrong, but that means we should enforce the current rules better, not make up new ones.

And as more immigrants pour into the new country, this will depress wages for the people living there.
Thus, the country with the booming economy shares has to share its wealth with everyone and those countries that are falling behind get a chance to catch up. Equalization.

Thus, the country with the booming economy shares has to share its wealth with everyone and those countries that are falling behind get a chance to catch up. Equalization.

:eek: Did I just read that right? Are you advocating that wealth should be shared? Must be a mirage... *blinks*

Jello/Ragbralbur; you guys need to get away from the cold fringes of the left and right spectrums and sit by the cozy warmth of the centre. ;)

Jello/Ragbralbur; you guys need to get away from the cold fringes of the left and right spectrums and sit by the cozy warmth of the centre. ;)
Actually, I am a centrist (or close to). I just enjoy arguing.

:eek: Did I just read that right? Are you advocating that wealth should be shared? Must be a mirage... *blinks*
I never stopped advocating that wealth be shared. I'm just advocating it in a way other than extensive government intervention.

Actually, I am a centrist (or close to). I just enjoy arguing.

LOL! Yeah, I'm just joking. I haven't seen you advocating the goosestep as the national dance or voting the way your pastor tells you to yet. But Jello's a dyed-in-the-wool utopian anarchist. Idealists.... *shakes head* :p

snip

If our right to life is the right to attempt to secure our own self-preservation, then no societal interaction and negotiation could possibly separate us from that or grant it to us.

If our right to life is the right to attempt to secure our own self-preservation, then no societal interaction and negotiation could possibly separate us from that or grant it to us.
FACT: People have no capacity to attempt to secure their own self preservation prior to the social interactions necessary for them to acquire such a capacity (and it is a capacity, I dont see that anything you've said indicates it is a 'right' anymore than biting my nails is....) - so in fact this 'right' is granted through social interaction.

FACT: People can loose their capacity to attempt to secure their own self-preservation (heard of slavery for instance) through social interactions.

So the consequent of your conditional is denied, we know therefore that if your premise is correct, that this 'right to life' cannot exist.

FACT: People have no capacity to attempt to secure their own self preservation prior to the social interactions necessary for them to acquire such a capacity (and it is a capacity, I dont see that anything you've said indicates it is a 'right' anymore than biting my nails is....) - so in fact this 'right' is granted through social interaction.

This is becoming pointless, you keep bringing up care through infancy like it matters.

FACT: People can loose their capacity to attempt to secure their own self-preservation (heard of slavery for instance) through social interactions.

No, people cannot be separated from their will to live by an outside source. Slavery does not hinder someone's effort at self-preservation.

This is becoming pointless, you keep bringing up care through infancy like it matters.
Of course it matters if you are making claims that X exists independently of human interaction and infancy cannot be survived without it.



No, people cannot be separated from their will to live by an outside source. Slavery does not hinder someone's effort at self-preservation.
The 'will to live' is not a 'right'. It is an attribute, a capacity, not a right. Slavery most certainly can hinder someone's effort at self-preservation. It may not prevent their desire to pursue self-preservation, but I dont see why I would find 'having a desire' to be the same as 'having a right'.

I think you'll find the reason things appear to not be going anywhere is because you are convinced that you are arguing a position of truth that is obvious and common sense, so much so it need not be thought about a great deal. Another words your belief in this 'right' stems from hegemony, not from any actual analysis of the belief and its relationship to reality.

Of course it matters if you are making claims that X exists independently of human interaction and infancy cannot be survived without it.

It does not matter because the right to life is developed and held independent of society and other people. Once it is attained, there is no way that another person or entity can take it away. Whether or not a person is in a hypothetical state of nature, we assume that he retains the right.

Certainly life is not developed and held independent of other people, but this is a condition of life, not life itself.

The 'will to live' is not a 'right'. It is an attribute, a capacity, not a right. Slavery most certainly can hinder someone's effort at self-preservation. It may not prevent their desire to pursue self-preservation, but I dont see why I would find 'having a desire' to be the same as 'having a right'.

You are correct that the will to live is not a right, it is the reason why we have and need the right. When you can show that people do not have a will to live, you can show why they don't need the right to life.

I think you'll find the reason things appear to not be going anywhere is because you are convinced that you are arguing a position of truth that is obvious and common sense, so much so it need not be thought about a great deal. Another words your belief in this 'right' stems from hegemony, not from any actual analysis of the belief and its relationship to reality.

I think it is because you are dense.

In the end, they companies should follow the minimum wages established in those countries, I agree. It's not our place, however, to dictate what those minimum wages should be.I didn't say that we should, but the fact remains that the companies are not following the minimum wage in those countries, and globalization is encouraging companies to not do so.

Six years of solid economic growth and the lowest misery index in Europe? Britain has consistently fared better than its more left-leaning European counterparts in terms of keeping both unemployment and inflation low.Well, I suppose it couldn't help growing after Thatcher's term ended.

And some of them get to where they are by breaking the rules, which is wrong, but that means we should enforce the current rules better, not make up new ones.How do you propose we enforce the current rules better when the rule enforcers in the pockets of the rule breakers?

Thus, the country with the booming economy shares has to share its wealth with everyone and those countries that are falling behind get a chance to catch up. Equalization.No, certain segments of the country with the booming economy have to share their wealth, those sectors being the sectors where the immigrants are taking the jobs. It isn't an across-the-board sharing of wealth in the way that increased foreign aid would be.

Jello/Ragbralbur; you guys need to get away from the cold fringes of the left and right spectrums and sit by the cozy warmth of the centre. Nah, centrists are just people who are afraid of taking a stand in case they're wrong. ;)

But Jello's a dyed-in-the-wool utopian anarchist. Idealists.... *shakes head* I don't know that I'd use the word utopian, utopian implies that there will be no problems, and I'm quite certain that even in the world I propose there will be. I advocate the system because it will have the fewest problems.

In addition, if we don't have ideals to strive for then how do we make a system better other than envisioning an ideal and trying to make the current system resemble it?

It does not matter because the right to life is developed and held independent of society and other people.
No it is not.

Once it is attained, there is no way that another person or entity can take it away.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it exists, it comes into existence through the interaction of people, remove that interaction it wont come into existence. Ergo your claims that it is not granted by or through social interaction is not true.

Whether or not a person is in a hypothetical state of nature, we assume that he retains the right.
I dont even know what you mean by a 'hypothetical state of nature'. So far as I can tell all people that live and that have ever lived are/were in a state of nature and so far as I can tell this will continue in perpetuity.

Certainly life is not developed and held independent of other people, but this is a condition of life, not life itself.
If this right is in any way contingent on life, then it is contingent on anything life is contingent on. So if a human life is contingent on social interation, then so is anything that exists by virtue of human life....

You are correct that the will to live is not a right, it is the reason why we have and need the right.
Do you mean the cause or the reason why some authority granted or invoked it? How is the will to live the reason? Or do you just mean that the will to live makes such a right desirable?

When you can show that people do not have a will to live, you can show why they don't need the right to life.
I dont need to show any such thing. The fact that I need to eat does not in and of itself cause food to exist.

I think it is because you are dense.
Aha, ad hominen, the resort of the desperate, out-argued and frustrated.

I didn't say that we should, but the fact remains that the companies are not following the minimum wage in those countries, and globalization is encouraging companies to not do so.
I don't recall the globalization ever advocating law-breaking, but more on that in a moment.

How do you propose we enforce the current rules better when the rule enforcers in the pockets of the rule breakers?
By making people like you and me the next rule enforcers and the next businesspeople around the world who will do things right.

No, certain segments of the country with the booming economy have to share their wealth, those sectors being the sectors where the immigrants are taking the jobs. It isn't an across-the-board sharing of wealth in the way that increased foreign aid would be.
You would have the non-booming segments sharing the wealth instead? The oil boom in Alberta right now is providing jobs to people all around Canada who are willing to take them. Not only does the oil itself provides jobs in refining and distributing, but Alberta's economy has taken off as a result, increasing demands for jobs of all kinds, not just in one particular field. It's a spin-off effect of economic growth.

I don't know that I'd use the word utopian, utopian implies that there will be no problems, and I'm quite certain that even in the world I propose there will be. I advocate the system because it will have the fewest problems.
Oddly enough, that's the same reason why I advocate mine.

In addition, if we don't have ideals to strive for then how do we make a system better other than envisioning an ideal and trying to make the current system resemble it?
Is your ideal equality?

I don't recall the globalization ever advocating law-breaking, but more on that in a moment.No, it's simply an inevitable consequence.

By making people like you and me the next rule enforcers and the next businesspeople around the world who will do things right.Are you absolutely certain you're uncorruptable, and if so, do you really think there are enough uncorruptable people out there to effectively enforce all of the rules?

You would have the non-booming segments sharing the wealth instead?The segments where wages are still high, yes.

The oil boom in Alberta right now is providing jobs to people all around Canada who are willing to take them. Not only does the oil itself provides jobs in refining and distributing, but Alberta's economy has taken off as a result, increasing demands for jobs of all kinds, not just in one particular field. It's a spin-off effect of economic growth.Exactly, Alberta's oil boom is raising wages, then as more immigrants come to Alberta, they will lower wages in the oil industry and whatever industries they end up getting jobs in.

Oddly enough, that's the same reason why I advocate mine.Go figure. :D

Is your ideal equality?Yes, equality in all manmade aspects, but not of natural aspects.

No, it's simply an inevitable consequence.
I would disagree that law-breaking is ever an inevitable consequence. Globalization encourages corruption about as much as free needles encourage heroine usage, guns encourage murder, alcoholic beverages encourage drunk driving or mini-skirts encourage rape. Last I checked, we are not in the business of banning temptations. We are in the business of banning crimes.

Are you absolutely certain you're uncorruptable, and if so, do you really think there are enough uncorruptable people out there to effectively enforce all of the rules?
I should hope there enough uncorruptable people out there to make a difference because if there aren't I'm pretty sure we're screwed no matter what kind of system we establish.

Exactly, Alberta's oil boom is raising wages, then as more immigrants come to Alberta, they will lower wages in the oil industry and whatever industries they end up getting jobs in.
Right, but the wages can't go below what they were in the place people came from, or they'd go back there. As long as the economy grows, wages go up, not down, and economies tend to grow.

I would disagree that law-breaking is ever an inevitable consequence. Globalization encourages corruption about as much as free needles encourage heroine usage, guns encourage murder, alcoholic beverages encourage drunk driving or mini-skirts encourage rape. Last I checked, we are not in the business of banning temptations. We are in the business of banning crimes.And part of decreasing crime is decreasing a person's ability to commit crimes.

I should hope there enough uncorruptable people out there to make a difference because if there aren't I'm pretty sure we're screwed no matter what kind of system we establish.Not if you eliminate or reduce the capacity of people to corrupt others.

Right, but the wages can't go below what they were in the place people came from, or they'd go back there. As long as the economy grows, wages go up, not down, and economies tend to grow.Exactly, the race to the bottom, dragging wages down to the lowest country's wages.

No it is not.

Life is originated by human interaction. The development and maintenance of conscious behavior towards self-preservation is completely internal. You refuse to make that distinction.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it exists, it comes into existence through the interaction of people, remove that interaction it wont come into existence. Ergo your claims that it is not granted by or through social interaction is not true.

Lets not continue to switch back and forth between human interaction and social interaction. The human interaction that brings about a person and nurtures that person into self-suffiency is a natural process, not a social process. Humans were engaging in that process long before government and society arose.

I dont even know what you mean by a 'hypothetical state of nature'. So far as I can tell all people that live and that have ever lived are/were in a state of nature and so far as I can tell this will continue in perpetuity.

A state of nature is a hypothetical situation for human existence prior or outside the existence of a legitimately governed society.

Do you mean the cause or the reason why some authority granted or invoked it? How is the will to live the reason? Or do you just mean that the will to live makes such a right desirable?

A natural right is a right that is free of any granting authority. It is an individual's sovereign right.

I dont need to show any such thing. The fact that I need to eat does not in and of itself cause food to exist.

But it does cause you to search for food.

Aha, ad hominen, the resort of the desperate, out-argued and frustrated.

That is ironic, as your accusing me of hegemonist thinking was the true ad hominem.

As for mine, it was just an insult.

Life is originated by human interaction. The development and maintenance of conscious behavior towards self-preservation is completely internal. You refuse to make that distinction.
I happen to not believe such a distinction is empiracally descriptive. The development and maintenance of conscious behaviour in human beings is flexible and the environment plays a very large role in determining the outcome. A very significant factor in this environmental mileu is human interactions.

Lets not continue to switch back and forth between human interaction and social interaction.
There is no switch. All interactions between humans are social interactions.

The human interaction that brings about a person and nurtures that person into self-suffiency is a natural process, not a social process.
It's both. I do not know of a single social interaction that is not natural.

Humans were engaging in that process long before government and society arose.
Government is not materially relevent. The ancestors of anatomically modern humans were 'social' before anatomically modern human beings existed. Society (as in human social groups) existed no less early than humans did.

A state of nature is a hypothetical situation for human existence prior or outside the existence of a legitimately governed society.
That makes no sense since existence in a legitimately governed society is not unnatural for human beings. Existing in a legimately governed society is for human beings existing in a state of nature.

A natural right is a right that is free of any granting authority. It is an individual's sovereign right.
I see no evidence that any right exists independently of some enforcement of it by some authority.

But it does cause you to search for food.
Or to produce it, buy it, etc. However the existence of the need itself is not sufficient to the causation of food existing.

That is ironic, as your accusing me of hegemonist thinking was the true ad hominem.
Nothing ad hominen about it. It is my subjective evaluation (based on observation) of the likely cause of the apparent firmness of your belief.

As for mine, it was just an insult.
Why do you feel a need to engage in such behaviour?