# Why I love Capitalism



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

Capitalism has been run down a lot. It is easy to take a shallow view of it and blame it for the troubles of the world. But I see no other system that is as fair as it is. There are problems with everything- most of which goes back to human nature.

But what other system has _as it's fundemental core_ the idea that one man does not own another?

Yes, cultures that have called themselves capitalist have had slaves. That is a let down of the principal and capitalist countries are not the only one that have had slavery.

You can have a society that is capitalist without slavery. Indeed I would say that it is not a true capitalist society unless all men are free. But no other system other than capitalism preaches that no one should have control over another's wealth or the product of his mind and/or labor.

I am not against doing good for your fellow man. In fact I encourage it. I _am_ against forcing people to do "good" for their "fellow man." Capitalism does not prevent anyone from giving their wealth to another. It merely states that no person can come along and take it with some self- rightous excuse. You want to help people- great! We will not stop you. But if you want someone else to be forced to help others, then you do not respect their right to make decisions and are treating them like a slave.

Some people have taken the task that there are some great threats to us all that force us to limit the freedoms of capitalism. That scare tactic has been used by every tyranny since they started recording those types of things. The same people I see protesting (rightly) any move to limit our freedom of speech in the name of fighting terrorism will then turn around and say that we all must be forced to sacrifice what we have to save humanity. 

Part of the problem is that when people really do have a threat like that, some parts are sacrificed to save the group. Who does the choosing? I admire people who would sacrifice for others. But when a mob comes to my door saying that I have been choosen as the sacrifice.....

Again, others can sacrifice themselves for the greater good. They can't morally force others to sacrifice for them.

So, can anyone else point out any other system that treats people as anything other than as a slave to be sacrificed if needed with the excuse of it being "_for the greater good_"?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

I guess my biggest objection is the "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" part of capitalism.  There is more to life then that...and as soon as one accepts that, really accepts that, then conflict emerges.  Naturally.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I guess my biggest objection is the "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" part of capitalism.  There is more to life then that...and as soon as one accepts that, really accepts that, then conflict emerges.  Naturally.



There is no "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" part of capitalism. No man is allowed to infringe upon the rights of others. I can sell to you, you can buy from me but I can't take something from you by force or fraud.

And if you are saying that there is more than living for oneself, show me what else there is. That belief is rather akin to relgion. You are allowed to believe what you want and live in that manner. But you are not allowed to force others to act in a way your religious belief says is correct.

Again, in a captialist country you are allowed to devote your life to what you believe is the 'much more'. You can help people if you want. But you can't force others. Others systems that make you devote your life to the 'much more' do not allow people to disagree and live differently.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

The "problem" with capitolism is exactly the fact that you cant force other people to do what you want...many people with agendas (social, ecological, political) dont like that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "problem" with capitolism is exactly the fact that you cant force other people to do what you want...many people with agendas (social, ecological, political) dont like that.


But people are forced into certain decisions in this country all of the time.  We have laws and I'm sure you are familiar with some of those.  Unfettered capitalism is "dog eat dog", "winner take all".  You are collapsing concepts that do not dovetail.    

The nature of capitalism is "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".  You should hear the people at the Cato institute drone on about it.  When everything in life is reduced to a unit of commerace, how can it be any different?

Believe what you want, but I reject that idea.  I am more then a dollar sign...and I think that many out there share that belief.  Thus democracy and capitalism work at cross purposes.

btw - the agenda thing is tiring.  This little discussion is not even a blip in our countries political consciousness.  If a person had an "agenda" there are much better arenas to forward it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> There is no "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" part of capitalism. No man is allowed to infringe upon the rights of others. I can sell to you, you can buy from me but I can't take something from you by force or fraud.


What "rights" are supposedly part of capitalism? When everything is a unit of commerace, one is allowed to take anything they want provided they have enough energy (money) to obtain it.

Thus my usage of satanic law (do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law) to describe capitalism is apropriate. Capitalism is ultimately about gratifying the needs of the self, nothing more.

"A path to the dark side it is..."


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The nature of capitalism is "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".



Nope.

What you write about is mainly not capitalism. Adam Smith did not say that there was no use for goverment. Libertarism says that. Capitalists say that the goverment should not be involved in the redistribution of wealth and anything that the goverment need not do it _should not_ do.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What "rights" are supposedly part of capitalism? When everything is a unit of commerace, one is allowed to take anything they want provided they have enough energy (money) to obtain it.



The right to say yes or no is the basic right of capitalism. People CAN buy anything they want IF the other person is willing to sell it to them. No one can FORCE someone to sell to another.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

The will of the self is gratified in capitalism.  Only the self.  I, personally, have a problem with this, because I tend to be more selfless.  

Liberty is liberation.  It is _illumination_ of the self.  Libertarians have a political position that most closely adheres to the nature of capitalism.  

When everything is reduced to a unit of commerace, the will of the self is gratified when one has the energy to obtain their desires.  Someone may refuse to "sell" something for what ever reason...and that only drives up the price until someone capitulates to the needs of their self.

Thus we see the race to the lowest and most base human instincts that is inherit in capitalism.  Everything is for sale and anything one wants to do is possible provided they have enough energy.

btw - I realize I am making an argument _against_ freedom...yet, I am not alone.  Why do you think that so many religions concern themselves with restricting freedom?  The simple answer is that many view the gratification of the self above all else to be _evil_.

I tend to agree.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The will of the self is gratified in capitalism.  Only the self.  I, personally, have a problem with this, because I tend to be more selfless.
> 
> Liberty is liberation.  It is _illumination_ of the self.  Libertarians have a political position that most closely adheres to the nature of capitalism.
> 
> ...



I can't help you if you feel that humans are so base as to be for sale to do anything once a certain price is reached. If you feel you would kill your children for money, then I am sad for you as a human. Fortunatly, the center point of capitalism is that your right to swing ends at another persons nose and so your children are safe under the law of a capitalistic goverment. 

However, if you think that humans can be so corrupted, then you can't in good faith support any type of system that would put control of other people's wealth since the corruption would set in with those folks as well. In fact, we can see this in all the goverments that are now set up for the betrement of their people's like North Korea and Zimbabwe.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> btw - I realize I am making an argument _against_ freedom...yet, I am not alone.  Why do you think that so many religions concern themselves with restricting freedom?  The simple answer is that many view the gratification of the self above all else to be _evil_.
> 
> I tend to agree.



You are free to hold religious views under a capitalist system. You are not allowed to force those belief's on others. Your feeling that there is a greater  purpose is one that can't be proven and some find rather silly. No one can use force to stop you from acting in a way that causes them no direct harm in a capitalist society. But if religious views are forced on others because of the greatness of their "truth" then we are right back to the Taliban or other great disasters in history.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I can't help you if you feel that humans are so base as to be for sale to do anything once a certain price is reached. If you feel you would kill your children for money, then I am sad for you as a human.


I would not harm my children for any amount of anything. Someone else may. The gratification of their self leads to this act. THAT is capitalism. I'm glad I live in a place that bans this transaction...limits capitalism.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Fortunatly, the center point of capitalism is that your right to swing ends at another persons nose and so your children are safe under the law of a capitalistic goverment.


That is not capitalism at all. That is your belief in what is right and wrong. Capitalism is ammoral in the sense that nothing is right or wrong. Everything is a unit of commerace and you can obtain anything provided that you have the energy (money). Everything is for sale.  

Capitalism will be the underlying system that delivers a nuclear bomb to Al-Qaeda. Someone will eventually sell the bastards a nuke when the price gets high enough and both parties will gratify selfish needs. Everything is for sale, even nukes that would be put to nefarious use.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> However, if you think that humans can be so corrupted, then you can't in good faith support any type of system that would put control of other people's wealth since the corruption would set in with those folks as well. In fact, we can see this in all the goverments that are now set up for the betrement of their people's like North Korea and Zimbabwe.


True. Totalitarianism leads to many kinds of ugly things. So does capitalism. In fact, if one wishes to characterize the last century, I think that one could say that it was a struggle against the ugly things of totalitarianism. This century, I think, will be characterized by a struggle against the ugly things inherit in advanced capitalism.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> You are free to hold religious views under a capitalist system. You are not allowed to force those belief's on others. Your feeling that there is a greater purpose is one that can't be proven and some find rather silly. No one can use force to stop you from acting in a way that causes them no direct harm in a capitalist society. But if religious views are forced on others because of the greatness of their "truth" then we are right back to the Taliban or other great disasters in history.


I still think that you are collapsing concepts that do not dovetail. Capitalism and democracy can work at cross purposes. We are a nation of laws and these laws are based on what the majority view as right and wrong. These concepts limit the transactions of capitalism. They limit the will of the self and that is anti-capitalistic.

Here is another way of thinking about what I'm trying to say...if you believe that everything is for sale, then you love capitalism. If you think that some things can never be "sold" then you do not love capitalism.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Capitalism is ammoral in the sense that nothing is right or wrong. Everything is a unit of commerace and you can obtain anything provided that you have the energy (money). Everything is for sale.



Have you ever read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith?

If so, can you show me the section in it that backs up your definition as posted above?

It sounds to me like you are making up things to fit your view of capitalism rather than what most of us know it to be. Your whole argument rests on the idea that capitalism is all about money, instead of the idea that it is a system that says that the goverment should not be in the business of distributing wealth.

So if you can go off and get that page number where Adam Smith says that nothing is right or wrong and everything is for sale I would appreciate it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Have you ever read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith?
> 
> If so, can you show me the section in it that backs up your definition as posted above?
> 
> ...


Adam Smith isn't the only writer to break down capitalism.  The stuff I'm talking about is mainstream.  I'm taking a little from Smith, a little Marx and a little from Malthus, and a little from...

Capitalism is a system that reduces everything down to units of commerace and is fundemantally about gratifying the needs of the self.  

Redistribution of wealth occurs in capitalism, by the way.  The idea that the government should not redistribute wealth is really a very small piece in the puzzle...and very related to the gratification of selfish needs.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Have you ever read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith?


 The original theory and reality are not always the same.  Same with Marx and Communism


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The original theory and reality are not always the same. Same with Marx and Communism


Nicely Put!


----------



## Dale Seago (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The will of the self is gratified in capitalism.  Only the self.  I, personally, have a problem with this, because I tend to be more selfless.



Which of course gives you the moral right to control everyone else's economic behavior. For the greater good of all, of course.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 4, 2005)

I agree that something should be done...

If EVERYONE would send me all their money and assets, Im SURE I could find a fair way to redistribute it all.

He he he.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/Articles/Capitalism/capit-2.htm


> Freedom means the absence of physical force, including all forms of fraud. An individual is free when force is not being initiated against him, which means that there is only one source of unfreedom for any individual: other men. That is, a man's freedom can only be infringed upon when another person or group of persons initiates the use of physical force against him. The fact that an individual is unfit to run a mile in under four minutes or too poor to buy food is not a violation of his freedom. Why? Because in both of these cases no one is forcibly stopping the individual from attaining his ends. However, the fact that an individual cannot start his own electric company is a violation of his freedom. Why? Because in this case his actions are impeded by the use of force -- the government's legal monopoly on utility companies prevents him from starting his own electric company through the threat of force. Freedom is only a negative, it imposes no positive constraints on other people's actions. In a free (or capitalist) society all men may act as they choose as so long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others -- by violating their rights through force. Subsequently, it is only a government limited to protecting individual rights that fails to violate the freedom its citizens. Since capitalism upholds individual rights as absolutes, capitalism upholds freedom as absolute.
> 
> All non-capitalistic societies force some men to live at the expense of others. Whether you are forced to live, in part or in whole, for the sake of God (as in a theocracy), "the underprivileged" (as in the welfare state), or the latest sadist in power (as in a dictatorship) does not matter, it is only the fact that some individuals are violating the freedom of others, not the method by which they do it, that matters.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Adam Smith isn't the only writer to break down capitalism.  The stuff I'm talking about is mainstream.  I'm taking a little from Smith, a little Marx and a little from Malthus, and a little from...



In short, you made up your own definition of capitalism.

I see you mantion Marx, an enemy of capitalism in your source. But I doubt you can find any _mainstream_ proponent of capitalism that would say that it is all about money and that there is no right or wrong as you say. Nor can you back up your argument with a logical train of thought. 

Capitalism is about economic freedom for the individual. That does not mean that it is about seeking money as it's only purpose. TGace's quoted section is the better definition of what it is all about. It's purpose is not about the pursuit of money- but the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it has no negative impact on another.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> In short, you made up your own definition of capitalism.


No.  It is an informed opinion.  It is a distillation of the thoughts of many greater thinkers then myself.  Unfettered capitalism reduces everything to units of commerace and prime motivator of the system is self gratification.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I see you mantion Marx, an enemy of capitalism in your source. But I doubt you can find any _mainstream_ proponent of capitalism that would say that it is all about money and that there is no right or wrong as you say.


These criticisms of capitalism are hundreds of years old.  They have been argued over by people much smarter then myself.  They are mainstream.  When I say that capitalism reduces what one wants to a unit of commerace, that is capitalism by definition.  When I say that capitalism is driven by self-interest, again, that is by definition capitalism.  The freedom to choose for yourself IS self interest.  It IS self gratification.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Nor can you back up your argument with a logical train of thought.


That isn't fair.  There is plenty of logic in what I have posted so far.  Your disagreement doesn't make it illogical.  Again, all of the stuff I've posted is well thought out, mainstream, and very scholastic.  People have literally spent their lives studying this stuff and hammering out their arguments.  Here is a website that is full of critiques that echo the things that I've said.  

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critcfm.html



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Capitalism is about *economic freedom for the individual*.


In other words, self gratification through units of commerace.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> That does not mean that it is about seeking money as it's only purpose.


True, but I think you are confused about a few things that I'm saying.  Money is a proxy for energy in capitalistic systems.  You obtain units of commerace by expending energy.  One is not seeking money, one is seeking to fulfill their own self-interests.  That requires energy (money) and it is the reason wealth accumulates.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> TGace's quoted section is the better definition of what it is all about.


It says the same things that I'm saying, it just does it differently.  It is just another opinion. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> It's purpose is not about the pursuit of money- but the freedom to do whatever you want *as long as it has no negative impact on another*.


Capitalism makes no distinction between positive or negative impacts.  The system is ammoral.  In a purely capitalistic society where everything is traded and all needs of the self are gratified, anything goes.  

If you wish to forbid negative impacts, then you are fettering the system and imposing *your own* moral point of view upon it.  It is not pre-existing or self-evident in anyway.

Consequently, if you are forced to compete with someone who does not share your moral perspective and causing a negative impact gives them the upper hand in the competition, you and your moral point of view lose.

This is how basest in human behavior exhibits inself in advanced capitalistic societies.  It is literally, a race to the bottom.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

"The socialist speaks of possibilities while the capitalist speaks of realities; however, when each is judged by its real world performance capitalism proves to be more productive of goods, services, and personal liberation. Capitalism succeeds because it is an economic theory designed for sinners just as socialism fails because it is a theory designed for saints. Capitalism is able to convert individuals' private ambitions into the creation and distribution of wealth so that everyone has a solid material base. Capitalism demands freedom in order to function and thus liberates those who live under it; socialism ostensibly supports such liberation but, in fact, requires sharp restrictions of freedom in order to function."

-MICHAEL NOVAK


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

http://www.stonemarmot.com/rantrave/rantscap.html


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No.  It is an informed opinion.  It is a distillation of the thoughts of many greater thinkers then myself.  Unfettered capitalism reduces everything to units of commerace and prime motivator of the system is self gratification.



In other words, you made it up. Call it a distalation or whatever, you made it up.

Perhaps we can deal with something else you wrote.



> In other words, self gratification through units of commerace.



First of all, there is nothing in a capitalistic society that precludes you from devoting yourself to others. You have that freedom. You can join a commune in a capitalistic society or put the good of others above your own. You can't do the opposite in any other type of society. So 'self gratification' is not a part of capitalistic societies per se, but if someone wished to chase the almighty dollar- unless there is a direct, negative impact on others, who has the moral right to deny them that?

Lets look at this more closely through something else you said.



> If you wish to forbid negative impacts, then you are fettering the system and imposing your own moral point of view upon it. It is not pre-existing or self-evident in anyway



The only morals that are imposed are those that have an impact on you. And society comes together to enforce those rules for everyone in a moral society. Saying that you can't rob me is a moral judgement as you say. It is driven by self interest since I don't want to be robbed. What the robber does has a direct impact on me. And I want a society that will prevent that type of thing from happening.

But I do not want someone imposing their morals on me by telling me the type of lover I can have, or the items I can consume or anything else that does not impact an unwilling participent. If someone wants to make beer in a capitalist society, that is their right. But their factory can't polute others people's air.

This is the minimum goverment intrusion possible while still keeping society from slipping into anarchy. That is what capitalists strive for and why I support it.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

http://net.valenciacc.edu/forum/v01/v01.03.jchambless.htm



> For a family of four to be considered poor in America this year, they will have to earn just under $19,000 per year.  Nineteen thousand dollars is more than the per capita income of every poor person in every nation in the world.  In effect, America has the richest poor people in the world.​
> If the 35 million people in America who consider themselves African-Americans were a nation to themselves, the total GDP of that nation would make African-Americans the fourteenth richest nation in the world.​
> Moreover, women in the United States earn more money and have more CEO positions than in any nation in the world.​
> How did this happen?  If America was a socialistic nation with all of the burdens on entrepreneurship that this entails, poor people, minorities and women would have never had the opportunity to overcome socio-economic barriers.​
> ...


​


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

Hmmmm...apropos???


http://www.americandaily.com/article/5513
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/public_school_nightmare.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> In other words, you made it up. Call it a distalation or whatever, you made it up.


No. It's my understanding, informed by people who are much more learned then I am. There is absolutely no redefining of the term as you imply.  All of these ideas are mainstream ideas that are five to ten times older then I am.

Otherwise, I agree with much of what you are saying. (I'll address some disagreements later) 

I like capitalism, but I believe there needs to be limits. I think a balancing of the needs of the self and the needs of the whole produces a happier and more productive society.

Unfettered capitalism is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...apropos???
> 
> 
> http://www.americandaily.com/article/5513
> http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/public_school_nightmare.htm


So, what are you trying to say with these peices?  What is your point?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

That as someone who spent a good many years between Elementary, High School, College, Graduate School and teaching College level courses (as well as having a sister and best friend who are teachers). I have a handle on where some of these viewpoints originate (and stew).

BTW:
http://www.iamlost.com/features/smurfs/commies.shtml


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No. It's my understanding, informed by people who are much more learned then I am. There is absolutely no redefining of the term as you imply.  All of these ideas are mainstream ideas that are five to ten times older then I am.



Show quotes and cites then if that is true.

And among the people that are more learned than you that helped you come up with the definition of the central purpose of capitalism is Karl Marx. Using his definition of the purpose and ideals of capitalism is like using the KKK's defininition of the purpose and ideals of the NAACP.

Moreover, show me someone who extols capitalism that says that hiring someone to murder children is not immoral as you say it is. Or show the logical conclusion by which you reached that judgement.

The *mainstream* capitalists all say that there is a role for goverment and that there are morals to be upheld. The only thing that links all definitions of capitalism so far is that the goverment should not own the people and redistribute wealth.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The *mainstream* capitalists all say that there is a role for goverment and that there are morals to be upheld. The only thing that links all definitions of capitalism so far is that the goverment should not own the people and redistribute wealth.


Yes...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> That as someone who spent a good many years between Elementary, High School, College, Graduate School and teaching College level courses (as well as having a sister and best friend who are teachers). I have a handle on where some of these viewpoints originate (and stew).
> 
> BTW:
> http://www.iamlost.com/features/smurfs/commies.shtml


That may be so, but do you agree with the viewpoints presented in those articles?  (yes, I'm putting you on the spot)


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

That capitalism supports freedom or that the smurfs are part of a Communist conspiracy to brainwash children???


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> (yes, I'm putting you on the spot)



Well, if you want to talk about putting people on the spot over a funny article about Smurfs, why not let me put you on the spot for something more related to the discussion.

How can you call what you say capitalism is about "mainstream" when Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, does not promote it?

And I am still waiting on those cites and sources. Hopefully one will be Adam Smith.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> First of all, there is nothing in a capitalistic society that precludes you from devoting yourself to others. You have that freedom. You can join a commune in a capitalistic society or put the good of others above your own.


Market forces determine your choices in a capitalistic society.  You are NOT always free to do what you want.  If your choice is uneconomical or if you do not have the energy obtain your selfish desire, then it is not possible.  For example, I would like to put solar panels on my house in order to generate my own power but it is not possible because I do not (yet) have the money to do so.  Freedom?



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> You can't do the opposite in any other type of society.


Oh really?  And I'm sure you've considered all of the possible societal configurations...



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So 'self gratification' is not a part of capitalistic societies per se, but if someone wished to chase the almighty dollar- unless there is a direct, negative impact on others, who has the moral right to deny them that?


This does not follow.  Self gratification is still essential in a capitalistic society.  Otherwise, what would be the point of reducing everything down to units of commerace?



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> The only morals that are imposed are those that have an impact on you. And society comes together to enforce those rules for everyone in a moral society.


Here, you are collapsing concepts.  Capitalism does not equal democracy.  It is possible to have a capitalistic society that is not a democracy.  In fact, it is easier.  Morals limit the impact and effectiveness of competition and trade, they fetter capitalism.  This is a good thing by the way...



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> But I do not want someone imposing their morals on me by telling me the type of lover I can have, or the items I can consume or anything else that does not impact an unwilling participent. If someone wants to make beer in a capitalist society, that is their right. But their factory can't polute others people's air.


I'm right with you here.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> This is the minimum goverment intrusion possible while still keeping society from slipping into anarchy. That is what capitalists strive for and why I support it.


Actually, it looks you support a limited form of capitalism that resembles a social democracy...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to talk about putting people on the spot over a funny article about Smurfs, why not let me put you on the spot for something more related to the discussion.
> 
> How can you call what you say capitalism is about "mainstream" when Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, does not promote it?
> 
> And I am still waiting on those cites and sources. Hopefully one will be Adam Smith.


I was referring to the other articles...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2005)

The education articles?

Bits and pieces of them... Even back when I was in HS I recall that there was a signifigant chunk of "social education" and "teacher opinions" on politics, ecological issues (acid rain was going to end the world!) and everything else. Odd how they couldnt teach me how to pass my Trig. Regents Exam though......


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Market forces determine your choices in a capitalistic society.  You are NOT always free to do what you want.  If your choice is uneconomical or if you do not have the energy obtain your selfish desire, then it is not possible.  For example, I would like to put solar panels on my house in order to generate my own power but it is not possible because I do not (yet) have the money to do so.  Freedom?



I see the problem is that you do not understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom means that no one is coming in and preventing you from doing what you like. Hence things like freedom of religion. It does not mean that you can do as you like to other people. Hence forcing others to refrain from listening to music like the Taliban did.

So capitalism is a means of freedom. You can't have a free society unless the means of production are free. You can make what wealth you desire if you can. No one owes you it.




> Self gratification is still essential in a capitalistic society. Otherwise, what would be the point of reducing everything down to units of commerace?



You are slipping that assumption that _everything_ is seen as units of commerce? Again- go read some Adam Smith.



> Here, you are collapsing concepts. Capitalism does not equal democracy. It is possible to have a capitalistic society that is not a democracy. In fact, it is easier. Morals limit the impact and effectiveness of competition and trade, they fetter capitalism. This is a good thing by the way...



Again, how can you have a free society unless the economic aspect of it is not free? Mainstream proponents of capitalism do not deny that there is a role for capitalism. In fact, without a goverment to prevent others from taking through force, the idea of capitalism is doomed.

And yes, democracy does not equal capitalism. Thank goodness. You may note that some of the first limits on a pure democracy the Americans put through were the rights that are in the spirit that I laid out. No group, individual or goverment can stop you from doing things that has no impact on others. A pure democracy is mob rule and if you take away capitalism you have the majority coming in to take away by force from the minority.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Show quotes and cites then if that is true.


Five minutes and quick google search could have answered your questions, but since you asked...

1.  On Marx...
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

2.  The disease of capitalism...
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=22806&pid=1274

3.  Wikipedia "Capitalism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

4.  Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

5.  Assorted sources...
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Pick and choose...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Criticism+of+Capitalism 


			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And among the people that are more learned than you that helped you come up with the definition of the central purpose of capitalism is Karl Marx. Using his definition of the purpose and ideals of capitalism is like using the KKK's defininition of the purpose and ideals of the NAACP.


While Marx's solution has been proven wrong, his criticism still ring true.  Your characterization shows that you haven't read much that he's written.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Moreover, show me someone who extols capitalism that says that hiring someone to murder children is not immoral as you say it is. Or show the logical conclusion by which you reached that judgement.


Not going to happen.  People who extol capitalism, promote a limited form that is palatable to the public.  The ugly stuff that Marx (and others) predicted goes on behind the scenes.  Like Bolivia where all *water* was commodified!


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People who extol capitalism, promote a limited form that is palatable to the public.  The ugly stuff that Marx (and others) predicted goes on behind the scenes.



So, you are saying that people who advocate capitalism like myself, Adam Smith and the like are all lying and we have an ulterior motive?

I really don't know how to deal with someone that thinks that there is such a wide ranging conspiracy. I told you why I love capitalism and pointed you to the father of capitalism for a look at the mainstream and definition of capitalism. You respond by saying that we are all lying and only giving stuff that we know people will accept.

I asked you to give an example of a proponent for capitalism saying that the ultimate goal and purpose is as you say it is. Instead you post things by people that argue against capitalism and say that those that are for it are lying and not to be tursted.

Again, I really do not know how to deal with someone that thinks that you can't trust the word of anyone promoting capitalism.


----------



## stephen (Jun 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Market forces determine your choices in a capitalistic society.  You are NOT always free to do what you want.  If your choice is uneconomical or if you do not have the energy obtain your selfish desire, then it is not possible.  For example, I would like to put solar panels on my house in order to generate my own power but it is not possible because I do not (yet) have the money to do so.  Freedom?



And it is free when the government comes to my house with a gun demanding that I give you the money to put up solar panels? 



> This does not follow.  Self gratification is still essential in a capitalistic society.  Otherwise, what would be the point of reducing everything down to units of commerace?



Maybe so that I know how many goats it's FAIR to give you for the nice shoes you made for me.  



> Here, you are collapsing concepts.  Capitalism does not equal democracy.  It is possible to have a capitalistic society that is not a democracy.  In fact, it is easier.  Morals limit the impact and effectiveness of competition and trade, they fetter capitalism.  This is a good thing by the way...



Capitalism IS moral. Please see this message I wrote a bit back on a related topic: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=354889#post354889

/steve


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Jun 4, 2005)

Well, having been working all day, I dont have the energy to go into a long diatribe, but as it stands now, capitalism is not perfect, by the very fact that is a human system of economics, it will be riddled with problems. However, no other system has brought so much good to so many people. Freedoms, knowledge and abilities such as ours have never been known in human history. With the advent of future Star Trek type technologies, (created through Capitalism); perhaps a better economic system may be developed. Until that day, its the best we have and we are lucky to have it.



I find that those who dislike/hate capitalism still use it. 

Take care my friends!


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> However, no other system has brought so much good to so many people.



I think that the material benefits of capitalism are just a nice side effect. I feel leary of the argument that capitalism is moral because it is the best for the most people.

What if a system could be devised that would lift 99 percent of the population to near god- like status by enslaving one percent? Would that not be the most good to the most people?

I think that to be moral all members of society must be treated, if not equally fair, then _equally unfair._ Life is not fair- so no system can be everything to everybody. But I do not like the idea of a system where someone(s) has force over others built into the system.

No one person or group of people should have power over another and capitalism seems to be the best way to safeguard that as an economic system.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 5, 2005)

Im with you Don. The best part of capitalism is the fact that everybody is free to buy, sell or make whatever they want unless there is a good reason to place limits. Which there are, and we do. Pure Socialism depends either on forcing everybody to work together or on some pie-in-the-sky belief that people will all co-operate out of the goodness of their hearts. Which I think history has shown isnt ever going to be very likely. 

However, to some extent arent all modern capitalistic socities already a little socialistic too? So what are we arguing, that we arent socialistic enough?


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Pure Socialism depends either on forcing everybody to work together or on some pie-in-the-sky belief that people will all co-operate out of the goodness of their hearts. Which I think history has shown isnt ever going to be very likely.



I can respect people that desire to go out in the boonies and start their own commune and live according to that principle. I detest those that say that such ideals should be forced on everyone. A free, capitalistic society would allow people to do as they please in that situation. The reverse is not true.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Unfettered capitalism is a recipe for disaster.


Unfettered ANYTHING is a recipe for disaster.
anything.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2005)

As I said, I don't mind some capitalism.  I think that it can be a good thing.  However, there are problems that one must keep in mind.  One needs to be wary, that is all.

I guess it all comes down to what kind of world that one wants to live in.  I wouldn't want to live in the "dog eat dog" "lessie faire (sp)" type of world envisioned by the anarcho-capitalists.  And I wouldn't want to live in the type of world where there is no real freedom of choice and everything in your world is commanded from on high.  

I like to work for a living.  I like saving to accomplish my goals.  I like to help others.  I support a limited form of capitalism that balances our freedom of choice with the desire to mitigate some of the ugly things that capitalism causes.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I support a limited form of capitalism that balances our freedom of choice with the desire to mitigate some of the ugly things that capitalism causes.



Kind of a vauge last sentence there. I think that if you were to point out the problems you mention we would find out that they are really not laid at the door of capitalism, but rather on the idea of too much goverment or no goverment.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, you are saying that people who advocate capitalism like myself, Adam Smith and the like are all lying and we have an ulterior motive?
> 
> I really don't know how to deal with someone that thinks that there is such a wide ranging conspiracy. I told you why I love capitalism and pointed you to the father of capitalism for a look at the mainstream and definition of capitalism. You respond by saying that we are all lying and only giving stuff that we know people will accept.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, now I think you are reading into my posts things that are not there.

All I'm saying is that proponents will present a bright and shiny side of capitalism and I said "well, that isn't the whole story."  No lies.  No conspiracy.  Are you sure you really want to see the other side of the coin?  Just try and keep an open mind...

Here is a good description of some of the things that I believe...

*



Left Anarchism is term used mostly by opponents of mainstream anarchism to disintiguish between what they consider as "right" and "left" wings of anarchism. In their opinion, political philosophies that oppose capitalism, such as anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism constitute a "left" wing within anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism constitutes a "right" wing. The position of individualist anarchism in this scheme is a matter of dispute since these anarchists have favored some aspects of capitalism but opposed others.

"Left anarchists" consider capitalism, most notably wage labour and often private ownership of the means of production, as being a coercive or exploitative institution. They believe that this arrangement is inherently hierarchal, and can only be upheld by the existence of governmental authority that protects the interests of the capitalist class (those who own and control capital). Some characterize left anarchism as favoring a society that distributes resources solely through cooperation, rather that one that bases this in competition. Left anarchists tend to aim for an egalitarian society. They oppose social hierarchy and unequal distribitutions of wealth.

The factual accuracy and usefulness of such an approach is challenged by many mainstream anarchists, who consider anarchist ideas to be exclusively opposed to capitalist relations, and point out that all historical anarchist upheavals and movements have been distinctly anti-capitalist. They argue that the recent groups referring to themselves as "right anarchists" are so small and unaccepted within the movement, that making such a distinction can serve only to amplify a false sense of importance and activity that is almost non-existent outside of the internet and academic circles. Post-left anarchists, who also oppose capitalism, also use the term "left anarchism" to label mainstream anarchism. The very act of defining a "left" and "right" within the movement is thus considered by many mainstream anarchists as politically motivated. For that matter, many anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians reject the label of "right" for themselves, feeling that their viewpoint transcends the traditional left-right political spectrum.
		
Click to expand...

I think that forming a commune is a good idea, but no one should ever be forced into it.*


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is that proponents will present a bright and shiny side of capitalism and I said "well, that isn't the whole story."  No lies.  No conspiracy.  Are you sure you really want to see the other side of the coin?  Just try and keep an open mind...



Except that we were talking about the stated goals of capitalism and the reasons we wanted to see it prosper. You stated that its central goal and purpose was one thing, and I pointed to mainstream folks like Adam Smith to counter that the reasons they felt it moral, the purpose, etc was not what you said it was.

Remember I asked you to provide an example of a proponent of capitalism that said that killing your kids was ok? The way that Smith and the rest of us would set up capitalism with a goverment would not allow that to happen. But that is when you said that you could not trust our word.


Here is the exact exchange..

Me, "Moreover, show me someone who extols capitalism that says that hiring someone to murder children is not immoral as you say it is. Or show the logical conclusion by which you reached that judgement."

You- "Not going to happen. People who extol capitalism, promote a limited form that is palatable to the public. The ugly stuff that Marx (and others) predicted goes on behind the scenes."

If you are saying that Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, promotes "limited" capitalism or that he is not mainstream because he does not say that it is ok to kill kids, then I have to again point out that you are commiting a straw man argument by defining capitalism as you wish in the easiest way to tear it down.

Adam Smith and folks like myself do not promote anarchy as you hint at in your last post. We feel that there is a role for goverment- but not in redistributing wealth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2005)

You are missing the point.  By definition, a proponent doesn't talk about the cons.  They define the pros...break the word down *pro*-ponent.  

The farthest a mainstream proponent of capitalism will go with regard to limiting the behavior of individuals within the system is the principal of non-aggression.  This sums up neatly with the neo-pagan law, "_if it harms none, do what thou wilt_."

And that, as a left anarchist, is something that I can accept.  

Yet, the reality is often far different.  There is incentive, as I've already outlines, in capitalistic systems to go beyond that simple principle.  The examples of well documented and neatly presented in some of the sources I've already presented...in fact, you don't need liturature to find them.  Just look at your own life.

You won't find anyone saying that murder is a unit of commerace to be traded, but it happens.  

I think your difficulty with the ideas that I've presented stems from the fact that you have collapsed the idea of capitalism with the idea of the state.  Capitalism is just an ammoral system of trade.  Our government determines how it is implemented.  The government DEFINES the morality of capitalism.

btw - I wasn't describing Adam Smith as an left anarchist.  I was describing myself in order to provide a little more background so one can see where I'm coming from.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Market forces determine your choices in a capitalistic society.  You are NOT always free to do what you want.  If your choice is uneconomical or if you do not have the energy obtain your *selfish desire*, then it is not possible.  For example, I would like to put solar panels on my house in order to generate my own power but it is not possible because I do not (yet) have the money to do so.  Freedom?


I think you are aloting too much power/effect to "market forces".  They do determine certain things, but not THAT much.

Because you don't yet have the moneys to purchase those solar panels for your house isn't a limitation on your "Freedom". You are "free" to earn the money if you are able, if you aren't able to earn it.... you are free to study and train to enter a different or better job in order to earn it. 

Why is anything that we do for ourself "Selfish"?? Is it selfish that I work hard to get the means to put my children into the best schools I can find?? Dealing in generalities gets messy.

Enjoying reading the discussion.
Your Brother
John


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 5, 2005)

How in the heck did freedom and democracry become capitalism? I don't remember that in the constitution. Earning a living is related to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned inthe declaration of independance. Honesty and a level playing field are all I ask for in government.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 5, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I see the problem is that you do not understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom means that no one is coming in and preventing you from doing what you like. Hence things like freedom of religion. It does not mean that you can do as you like to other people. Hence forcing others to refrain from listening to music like the Taliban did.



Or forcing people to keep their money in accounts you're busily raiding like in the case of Enron.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Or forcing people to keep their money in accounts you're busily raiding like in the case of Enron.


That isn't capitalism.  It's radical corporatism.  I would prefer pure capitalism and all of its ugly things if I had to choose between the two.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I think you are aloting too much power/effect to "market forces". They do determine certain things, but not THAT much.


Market forces in a purely capitalistic society determine _everything_.  People choose with their dollars and some have said this process resembles democracy...I would say that it lacks social vision because of its focus on the needs of the self.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Because you don't yet have the moneys to purchase those solar panels for your house isn't a limitation on your "Freedom". You are "free" to earn the money if you are able, if you aren't able to earn it.... you are free to study and train to enter a different or better job in order to earn it.


Why wouldn't the people who make solar panels just give them to me?  I give plenty to society.  Why couldn't this be there contribution?  There are many untested alternatives to capitalism...



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Why is anything that we do for ourself "Selfish"?? Is it selfish that I work hard to get the means to put my children into the best schools I can find?? Dealing in generalities gets messy.


In a purely capitalistic society, it is an assumption that all people are selfish and greedy.  Adam Smith alludes to this.  Obviously, this is not the case, as you have pointed out.  People exhibit behavior that goes far beyond the needs of the self all of the time.  Thus we see the limits of capitalistic theory.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That isn't capitalism.  It's radical corporatism.  I would prefer pure capitalism and all of its ugly things if I had to choose between the two.



Too bad you can't get "purity" in this case without heavy government regulation.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You are missing the point.  By definition, a proponent doesn't talk about the cons.  They define the pros...break the word down *pro*-ponent.



But you are saying things about someone that they themselves do not say 
*and* you can't make your case logically based on the platform they lay  out. So far you have said that "mainstream" capitalism is only about greed and that there is no place for goverment, etc. But Adam Smith does not advocate what you say and I doubt if anyone can be more mainstream capitalist than the guy who invented the term.

Here is an example of how to do it. As you say, people will not come straight out and give the ugly side of something. But based on the statements by proponents of communism we can see that it is based on the idea that all men are slaves.

Again, they do not come out and use the term 'slaves'. But you have heard the term, "The needs of the many are more important than the needs of the one (or few)."

If we take a look at that, we see that since the one is less important than the many (or group) then it means that the individual is a slave to the greater good as determined by the majority. Every last person in a communist society is thus a slave to everyone else. The society can determine what their needs are and make the minority pay for it.

People are greedy by nature. Individuals may not be, but we have seen how many times people have voted in senators and such that bring home money to their districts. The greater good would say that they do without these goodies. But in reality, they use the power of their greater votes to take from others and give to themselves.

Now, the idea of capitalism is that no one can come along and take by force from another. Some people will follow that only as long as they believe that they are the ones most likely to be the one taken from. Some will then find excuses to take from others when the position is reveresed and betray the ideals of capitalism. The ideal still holds true even if some people only follow it when it suits them.

The idea that no one person is better than another and allowed to use force is a central theme of capitalism and one that you need if you are going to have a free society.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't the people who make solar panels just give them to me?  I give plenty to society.  Why couldn't this be there contribution?



Why should they give them to you? Why is your selfish desire for solar panels any concern of theirs? And what gives anyone the right to determine just how valuable your contribution to society is?

Of course, if the makers did see that you were doing something worthy of mention and gave you a panel or two as a sign of appreciation, they are free to do so. Capitalism merely states that they should not be _forced_ to give them to you because you or anyone other than them thinks you are worthy. That is their choice to deal with what they made.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

Why dont you sell your car, television and computer to buy those solar panels?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

_Capitalism_ is simply the *trade* of _value for value_.  It is nothing more and nothing less.  Those who advocate some form of socialism, collectivism, or other spins on the theme of redistribution of wealth for the achievement of various egalitarian goals, are driven by one thing and one thing only:  _the desire to have the benefit of that which they have not earned through their own efforts._

It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize or justify that redistribution;  it doesn't matter how badly you say you _need_ to benefit from the efforts, the production, and the labor of others;  it doesn't matter how loudly you proclaim that those working for an employer are "exploited" by that employer (for without that employer there _would be no jobs in the first place_); it doesn't matter what abuses take place in _any_ economic system (because criminal actions are not the standard by which we judge lnon-criminal behavior);  all claims to the efforts of others are _envy_ and nothing more.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But you are saying things about someone that they themselves do not say *and* you can't make your case logically based on the platform they lay out.


That certainly is a matter of opinion.  And I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying.  Capitalism is a system of trade that reduces items to various units of commerace.  Motivation of this system is derived from the fulfillment of the interests of the self.  I don't understand why you disagree with this...:idunno: 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So far you have said that "mainstream" capitalism is only about greed and that there is no place for goverment, etc. But Adam Smith does not advocate what you say and I doubt if anyone can be more mainstream capitalist than the guy who invented the term.


Capitalism has evolved from the works of Adam Smith.  Our economic workings have moved far beyond what Smith envisioned.  By the way, you contradict yourself with this part of the same post...



> People are greedy by nature. Individuals may not be, but we have seen how many times people have voted in senators and such that bring home money to their districts. The greater good would say that they do without these goodies. But in reality, they use the power of their greater votes to take from others and give to themselves.





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Here is an example of how to do it. As you say, people will not come straight out and give the ugly side of something. But based on the statements by proponents of communism we can see that it is based on the idea that all men are slaves.
> 
> Again, they do not come out and use the term 'slaves'. But you have heard the term, "The needs of the many are more important than the needs of the one (or few)."
> 
> If we take a look at that, we see that since the one is less important than the many (or group) then it means that the individual is a slave to the greater good as determined by the majority. Every last person in a communist society is thus a slave to everyone else. The society can determine what their needs are and make the minority pay for it.


Yep.  The state forces people into service of each other.  This is immoral and bound to fail due to inefficiancy.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> People are greedy by nature. Individuals may not be, but we have seen how many times people have voted in senators and such that bring home money to their districts. The greater good would say that they do without these goodies. But in reality, they use the power of their greater votes to take from others and give to themselves.


I disagree with the thought that people are greedy by nature.  I think that people are taught to be greedy in a capitalistic society because the basic assumption in a capitalistic society is that people are greedy.  There are numerous examples of cultures that have no knowledge capitalism and they seem to be naturally egalitarian.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Now, the idea of capitalism is that no one can come along and take by force from another. Some people will follow that only as long as they believe that they are the ones most likely to be the one taken from. Some will then find excuses to take from others when the position is reveresed and betray the ideals of capitalism. The ideal still holds true even if some people only follow it when it suits them.
> 
> The idea that no one person is better than another and allowed to use force is a central theme of capitalism and one that you need if you are going to have a free society.


Again, I think that you are collapsing concepts here.  You are melding capitalism with the concept of the state and concepts that founded our country.  All of these things are separate and they all operate independently of one another.  This understanding is key to understanding what I'm trying to say.  I'll be brief.

1.  Capitalism is an ammoral system of trade.
2.  The state may or may not implement capitalism.
3.  The state determines the morals that limits capitalism.
4.  Our Constitution lays out a basic "regulations" for our capitalistic society.
5.  Capitalism, if left unregulated, naturally becomes immoral because its basic assumption is that all people are greedy and only interested in fulfilling the needs of the self.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

"There are numerous examples of cultures that have no knowledge capitalism and they seem to be naturally egalitarian."

Names?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Why should they give them to you?


I certainly give plenty to society that others do not?  Many people benifit greatly from my contributions.  Why am I unworthy to benifit from the contributions of others?



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Why is your selfish desire for solar panels any concern of theirs?


What makes you think that my desire for solar panels is selfish.  If I install solar panels on my house, I am providing energy for my families benefit.  I give everything that I can to them.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And what gives anyone the right to determine just how valuable your contribution to society is?


Because of a fundamental assumption that I am a good person that that my work is worthwhile and benefits others.  This assumption is the opposite of capitalistic assumption.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

Nobody cares what you _think_ you give "to society" and nobody cares what you think you _deserve_ in return.  Trade, to be _trade_, must be _voluntary and consensual._  You are free to make an agreement with someone whereby you contribute something of value in order to receive your solar panels _in trade_.  You are _not_ entitled simply to have them gifted to you on the basis of what _you_ think you've "earned."



> Because of a fundamental assumption that I am a good person that that my work is worthwhile and benefits others.



You see, in a free market, *you* don't get to determine how worthwhile is your work or what benefits it confers on others.  It is those _others_ who make that determination by choosing to trade with you for it, or by choosing _not_ to trade with you for it.  Your attitude of entitlement is the very attitude of envy of which I spoke earlier;  you wish to benefit from the work of others without earning it because you _think_ you have "earned" something -- regardless of what the producers of those goods and services might think.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> _Capitalism_ is simply the *trade* of _value for value_. It is nothing more and nothing less. Those who advocate some form of socialism, collectivism, or other spins on the theme of redistribution of wealth for the achievement of various egalitarian goals, are driven by one thing and one thing only: _the desire to have the benefit of that which they have not earned through their own efforts._
> 
> It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize or justify that redistribution; it doesn't matter how badly you say you _need_ to benefit from the efforts, the production, and the labor of others; it doesn't matter how loudly you proclaim that those working for an employer are "exploited" by that employer (for without that employer there _would be no jobs in the first place_); it doesn't matter what abuses take place in _any_ economic system (because criminal actions are not the standard by which we judge lnon-criminal behavior); all claims to the efforts of others are _envy_ and nothing more.


If I choose to get together with my friends and we decide to share our efforts in order pursue our happiness, how is that anything like what you have described?  Nobody is being forced into anything.  Nobody is taking anything from anyone.  Everyone gives of themselves freely.  Yet, this is an example of a collective society...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Nobody cares what you _think_ you give "to society" and nobody cares what you think you _deserve_ in return. Trade, to be _trade_, must be _voluntary and consensual._ You are free to make an agreement with someone whereby you contribute something of value in order to receive your solar panels _in trade_. You are _not_ entitled simply to have them gifted to you on the basis of what _you_ think you've "earned."


It's not about what I've earned.  Its about what I've given.  Nobody cares because that is what we are taught.  It is not a natural state of humanity.  In a capitalistic society, I am not entitled to anything that I do not expend the energy to obtain for myself.  I am not describing a capitalistic society.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

You are free to participate in a collective if you wish.  Collectives can be sustained voluntarily only when everyone participating in them _does so of his own free will._  This is why communes exist on the small scale;  nobody disputes this.  When a _government_ forces its citizens to participate in a collective on a _national scale_, that mutual consent is replaced by immoral force.  This is why there has never been a truly _communist_ government;  all national collectives are _socialist_ by definition.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

> It's not about what I've earned. Its about what I've given. Nobody cares because that is what we are taught. It is not a natural state of humanity. In a capitalistic society, I am not entitled to anything that I do not expend the energy to obtain for myself. I am not describing a capitalistic society.



That's just it, my boy;  _trade_ is ALWAYS about what you've _earned_.  Nobody cares what you've "given" -- you did that of your own free will.  The natural state of humanity IS the exchange of value for value;  it is the attempt to divorce human beings from their efforts in an attempt to profit immorally from the efforts of others that is unnatural.

You wish to benefit from the earnings, the productive effort, of other human beings.  You think you deserve this, but you do not.  Unless you arrange to trade value for value, you _deserve_ *nothing*.  A society built on envy, on egalitarian schemes, on the greed of those who do not produce for that which is produced by others, is _unnatural_.  It is contrary to every fiber of a rational human being.

The urge to profit from the work of others is itself natural, however -- it is the _worst_ in all of us.  Our baser natures tell us that we _deserve_ what we've not earned, or that we've "given" and thus we should be repaid.  That is thinking like a wanton, grasping, greedy animal.  It is the collectivists who are greedy;  they dearly _want_ what others have made, have done, have built.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "There are numerous examples of cultures that have no knowledge capitalism and they seem to be naturally egalitarian."
> 
> Names?


Everyone wants me to do their google searches...:idunno: 

1.  http://www.publicanthropology.org/Archive/Ca1993.htm
2.  http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/dewaal/human_egal.html
3.  And this one is very interesting...
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtdag/bioethics/writings/ineqpoli.html

I just randomly picked a few from a search that started with _examples of egalitarian societies_.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> You are free to participate in a collective if you wish. Collectives can be sustained voluntarily only when everyone participating in them _does so of his own free will._ This is why communes exist on the small scale; nobody disputes this. When a _government_ forces its citizens to participate in a collective on a _national scale_, that mutual consent is replaced by immoral force. This is why there has never been a truly _communist_ government; all national collectives are _socialist_ by definition.


I agree.  Good post.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

Dead/Ancient civilizations, and hunter/gatherer societies? You are going to have to provide better examples of how egalitarian societies are "effective" (especially on modern national scale) than that before I buy it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> That's just it, my boy; _trade_ is ALWAYS about what you've _earned_. Nobody cares what you've "given" -- you did that of your own free will. The natural state of humanity IS the exchange of value for value; it is the attempt to divorce human beings from their efforts in an attempt to profit immorally from the efforts of others that is unnatural.


Our social learning comprises much of what you are saying.  It is not a natural state of humanity.  It is possible to form a society where people _depend_ on the work of others, but do not _expect_ anything.  That is just a different learning structure.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> You wish to benefit from the earnings, the productive effort, of other human beings. You think you deserve this, but you do not. Unless you arrange to trade value for value, you _deserve_ *nothing*.
> 
> A society built on envy, on egalitarian schemes, on the greed of those who do not produce for that which is produced by others, is _unnatural_. It is contrary to every fiber of a rational human being.


There is lots of evidence in evolutionary psychology that disputes this the latter.  

However, I agree, I deserve nothing.  If I am uninterested in the needs of my self, then I _want_ nothing.  I give to others because people depend on me and people can _choose_ to help me because I depend on them.  There is no envy in this arrangement and this is what an egalitarian society is based upon.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> The urge to profit from the work of others is itself natural, however -- it is the _worst_ in all of us. Our baser natures tell us that we _deserve_ what we've not earned, or that we've "given" and thus we should be repaid. That is thinking like a wanton, grasping, greedy animal. It is the collectivists who are greedy; they dearly _want_ what others have made, have done, have built.


Again, you operate with the basic assumption that all people are greedy.  This doesn't have to be true.  In fact, in other societies, it is _NOT_ true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dead/Ancient civilizations, and hunter/gatherer societies? You are going to have to provide better examples of how egalitarian societies are "effective" (especially on modern national scale) than that before I buy it.


My point is that they existed and that our fundemantal nature is not of self gratification.  As to the reason why we do not see examples of egalitarianism in modern day societies, I suggest the book, "Germs, Guns, and Steel," by Jared Diamond.  Western thought dominates most of the world for the reasons presented in the book.  This means that we are _stuck_ with capitalism.  Capitalism, however, is not a natural state of humanity.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I disagree with the thought that people are greedy by nature.  I think that people are taught to be greedy in a capitalistic society because the basic assumption in a capitalistic society is that people are greedy.



Then you need to take a look at the sum of human history and see just how often people have taken advantage of other people. Even before the term capitalism was invented.

The idea that people can grow into perfect human beings without greed and such if they were not raised in a capitalistic society is one I find silly and unproven.



> I certainly give plenty to society that others do not? Many people benifit greatly from my contributions. Why am I unworthy to benifit from the contributions of others?



Oh, are you saying that you feel you are somehow able to tell others what you think you are worth without giving them the right to make that decision. Do you not think that sounds pretty greedy and slef centered?



> What makes you think that my desire for solar panels is selfish. If I install solar panels on my house, I am providing energy for my families benefit. I give everything that I can to them.



And of course you think nothing of the producers of the panels and their families. Yes, it is selfish.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Don Roley
> And what gives anyone the right to determine just how valuable your contribution to society is?
> 
> Because of a fundamental assumption that I am a good person that that my work is worthwhile and benefits others. This assumption is the opposite of capitalistic assumption.



You, and not others make that assumption that your work is worthwhile. You do not give other people the right to take an opposite viewpoint. You may think you are doing good- but so has almost everyone else on the planet. You merely wrap your greed in a nice sounding package. Your greed is speaking if you think your acts somehow cause anyone else to OWE you anything.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

Collectivist philosophy is based on hypocritical assertions of moral superiority in which the very evils decried by collectivists are _personified_ by those collectivists.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

http://gnu.open-mirror.com/philosophy/self-interest.html


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> However, I agree, I deserve nothing.  If I am uninterested in the needs of my self, then I _want_ nothing.



As long as you want to take from one and give to another, then it is your will, your greed that dictates the action. Saying that you would do so for something like your children does not make the greed any less. You want to use other people's wealth how you wish. That is greed. History is rife with examples of people stabbing other people in the back for their children. Hell, look at a typical child beauty pagent. Usually it is a matter of living thorugh your children- something that is hard wired into us through our DNA.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, you operate with the basic assumption that all people are greedy.  This doesn't have to be true.  In fact, in other societies, it is _NOT_ true.



I cannot see an example of a modern society that is free of the crimes that are caused by greed. I believe you are living in a fantasy world to think otherwise.

And until I know that people are without greed, truely know and not merely a wish of mine, then capitalism seems the best safeguard. It is also the most moral in that people are not assumed to have to give to help others. Socialism seems to think people need to be forced to help others, but in a capitalist society you can give it you wish but no one forces you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Collectivist philosophy is based on hypocritical assertions of moral superiority in which the very evils decried by collectivists are _personified_ by those collectivists.


Please point out how the form of collectivism I've described is _evil_?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3360


> Such thinking -- or lack of thinking -- is not new. Back in the 18th century, Adam Smith wrote of politicians who devote "a most unnecessary attention" to things that would work themselves out better in a free market.
> 
> What is conventionally called "the free market" is in reality free people making their own mutual accommodations with other free people. It is one of the many tactical mistakes of conservatives to use an impersonal phrase to describe very personal choices and actions by people when they are not hamstrung by third parties.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html



> The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess anothers wealth but also the desire to see anothers wealth lowered to the level of ones own. Socialisms teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good." Fascism, said Mussolini, is " a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interestsrealizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies." Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.


...



> Despite the intellectuals psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.
> 
> Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

It is _evil_ for you to presume to tell people what they owe you based on what you think you have contributed.  That is greed and envy talking.  That is immoral -- and hence, evil.  You believe you have some sort of moral superiority, that you are "selfless," and that you deserve to benefit based on your selfless contributions.  This is false -- and morally repugnant.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

Well. I did "do my own google" and almost every educational resource on egalitarian societies states that they pretty much only work on small scale and predominantly on a system that uses social pressures to hold people down to their "equal" roles...not something I think will ever work on a modern scale (theres a reason society developed out of them) or would even want to attempt.



http://www.thekennedylegacy.com/c4a.html


> Helmut Schoeck, in his book, Envy, A Theory of Social Behaviour, goes on to explain that egalitarian societies fail to prevent envy because there can never truly be an "absolutely egalitarian society. . ." In fact, egalitarian societies increase the feelings of envy. Since its citizens expect to all be equal, they envy anyone who has any advantage or talent superior to their own. The tendency to give American children exaggerated feelings of importance and the right to never have to suffer injustice makes them more vulnerable to the emotions of envy and revenge. They easily resent anyone who surpasses them or ridicules them. In their exaggerated sense of having been wronged, because they feel so very important, they justify their acts of revenge.


http://www.capital.demon.co.uk/LA/sociological/myth.txt


> THE BONDS OF SOCIETY
> 
> These models have been criticised for their `evolutionary' nature.
> They assume that there will be an inevitable movement from a
> ...


----------



## Brother John (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> It is _evil_to presume to tell people what they owe you based on what you think you have contributed.  That is greed and envy talking.  That is immoral -- and hence, evil.  You believe you have some sort of moral superiority, that you are "selfless," and that you deserve to benefit based on your selfless contributions.  This is false -- and morally repugnant.



COULDN'T agree more Phil.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> It is _evil_ for you to presume to tell people what they owe you based on what you think you have contributed. That is greed and envy talking. That is immoral -- and hence, evil. You believe you have some sort of moral superiority, that you are "selfless," and that you deserve to benefit based on your selfless contributions. This is false -- and morally repugnant.


But I'm not telling people what I'm worth.  I'm not expecting anything.  I am totally at the mercy of others and I have have faith that they will help me.  Nothing more.  I contribute everything I can to society and everyone else contributes and we all _willingly_ take care of each other.  Sorry, but there is no envy or greed in this structure _and_ it is a form of collectivism.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

Sounds like something you are making up as you go along..is there any documentation/examples of this "structure" of society you are describing?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well. I did "do my own google" and almost every educational resource on egalitarian societies states that they pretty much only work on small scale and predominantly on a system that uses social pressures to hold people down to their "equal" roles...not something I think will ever work on a modern scale (theres a reason society developed out of them) or would even want to attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, you may want to check out the work of Jared Diamond.  Egalitarianism didn't fail because of a failure of the system.  It failed for other reasons...geographic determinism for one.  We are stuck with capitalism not because it is the best system, but because of other _environmental_ factors.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Sounds like something you are making up as you go along..is there any documentation/examples of this "structure" of society you are describing?


Yes, there is plenty of research on this.  Google away.  But do you even want to see it?  That is the real question.  This stuff challenges the basic principles that we've been taught since our births.  In school and in religion we are constantly being corrected because we are _bad_.  What if that isn't true?  What if our society teaches us to be bad and then punishes us for it?  I think people would feel pretty ticked off about that...


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

> But I'm not telling people what I'm worth. I'm not expecting anything.



There's no point in discussing anything with you if you're going to keep changing your story.  First you say you deserve to benefit from what you've "given" to society;  now you say you're not expecting anything.  I suspect you don't really know _what_ you believe, ultimately -- except for the fact that you _want_ what you haven't _earned_.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

And somehow you, the voice in the wilderness, has discovered this major flaw in western culture? I think Marx and a few others beat you to it....hasnt proven too successful IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

We are "naturally" egalitarian? I dont think so..Even Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence." Whats our "essence"?

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/wilkinson-050201.html



> *We are Coalitional *
> 
> The size of hunter-gather bands in the EEA ranged from 25 to about 150 people. The small size of those groups ensured that everyone would know everyone else; that social interactions would be conducted face-to-face; and that reputations for honesty, hard work, and reliability would be common knowledge. Even today, people's address books usually contain no more than 150 names. And military squadrons generally contain about as many people as Pleistocene hunting expeditions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brother John (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not expecting anything.
> 
> I contribute everything I can to society and everyone else contributes and we all _willingly_ take care of each other.



Sounds like you ARE expecting something here, you are expecting Everyone to agree with you and expecting us all therefore to "give willingly". You can't "Will" for another person. You can't tell me or others what we should "Willingly" do. That, I think, is an impossibility.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

Yes. I cant see how this Utopia can be established...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes. I cant see how this Utopia can be established...


Of course you can't.  You have been taught that it is impossible.  People are greedy selfish beasts.  They could never just agree to help each other out...could they?  

This little discussion will have no bearing on reality because capitalism is where we are at now.  However, it isn't the only system and it isn't even the best system.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

You're free to agree to help others out of your selfless moral superiority any time you like.  The problem is that you advocate _forcing others to do so regardless of their wishes_.  But, hey, at least you get to feel good about how great and selfless you are while you're volunteering others' labors for them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> There's no point in discussing anything with you if you're going to keep changing your story. First you say you deserve to benefit from what you've "given" to society; now you say you're not expecting anything. I suspect you don't really know _what_ you believe, ultimately -- except for the fact that you _want_ what you haven't _earned_.


Changing my story?  You are the one who is changing it.  This argument that you are having is all in your head.  It's the argument that you want to have, but are not getting.  I think that you are forgetting the parts where I completely agreed with you.  People can choose to live for each other and not for themselves.  And this _happens_ on small scales.  Why not larger?  Perhaps it is just a failure of imagination?  Perhaps it is a failure to challenge what we know and have been taught?  I don't know if it would work, because so much of this hypothetical.  It just seems more palatable then the self interest of capitalism.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> The problem is that you advocate _forcing others to do so regardless of their wishes_.


No I'm not, but you can keep on thinking that. Everybody chooses for themselves.  It doesn't get much clearer then that.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 6, 2005)

You contradict yourself every time someone refutes one of your posts.  Changing your story constantly to deny that you've said what you've said is certainly what one expects from utopian socialists.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't know if it would work, because so much of this hypothetical. It just seems more palatable then the self interest of capitalism.


Hence the pointlessness of this discussion...its about palatability rather than reality. Of course the countless centuries of human history show the "brotherhood of mankind" principle in sparkling clarity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> You contradict yourself every time someone refutes one of your posts. Changing your story constantly to deny that you've said what you've said is certainly what one expects from utopian socialists.


Well, I took a look at this thread, again, just to be sure.  Contraditions?  Refutations?  Sorry, but no.  You are fantasizing.  And projecting.  Oh well...its just the internet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hence the pointlessness of this discussion...its about palatability rather than reality. Of course the countless centuries of human history show the "brotherhood of mankind" principle in sparkling clarity.


I wouldn't say pointless.  I think its important to challenge your beliefs so that one holds little doubt about the _truth_.  Capitalism isn't going away anytime soon.  Love it, hate it, it doesn't matter.  Learn its rules so that you can be successful and attempt to be happy.  _And_, if you feel so inclined, work to change the system...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Changing my story? You are the one who is changing it. This argument that you are having is all in your head. It's the argument that you want to have, but are not getting. I think that you are forgetting the parts where I completely agreed with you. People can choose to live for each other and not for themselves. And this _happens_ on small scales. Why not larger? Perhaps it is just a failure of imagination? Perhaps it is a failure to challenge what we know and have been taught? I don't know if it would work, because so much of this hypothetical. It just seems more palatable then the self interest of capitalism.


The "self-interest" of captialism IS choosing to live for each other.  It is capitalism, and all that goes with it, that has BROUGHT prosperity to the western world.  If not for the selfish mindset that evolved in to capitalism, there would be nothing but a brutish, savage world, slave mentality world devoid of progress.  Selfishness is not a vice, if it is the kind of selfishness that leads us to do what is in our own best interest.  Selfishness drives us to excell, to produce and create.  God help us if we ever inherit a world filled with selfless, passive people.  We will be preparing for the decline and fall of our species.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Here are some interesting selections for further reading...

1.  Injustice, Inequity, and Evolutionary Psychology
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtdag/bioethics/writings/ineqpoli.html
2.  Complex Societies: The Evolutionary Dynamics of a Crude Superorganism 
http://www.geser.net/richerson.html
3.  Anarchism: Against Capitalism, Against Socialism 
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Anarchism-Capitalism-Socialism1dec03.htm

None of these arguments are new, nor are they mine.  Are humans naturally selfish?  Are they selfless?  I think that one can see that the answer is not at all clear.  The fundamental force that drives capitalism is self-interest and it is assumed that humans are naturally driven by self interest.

Whether you believe in this or not, just imagine that its not true.  Then, our society is responsible for making us greedy.  It is responsible for making us envious.  Suddenly, the response to capitalism becomes socialism.  Entitlements are nothing but the hideous demands of a materialistic society from people who lack the means of obtaining _happiness _(_happiness_ in a capitalistic society has a price tag and is measured in units of commerace). 

This assumption is a snake eating its own tail.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The "self-interest" of captialism IS choosing to live for each other. It is capitalism, and all that goes with it, that has BROUGHT prosperity to the western world. If not for the selfish mindset that evolved in to capitalism, there would be nothing but a brutish, savage world, slave mentality world devoid of progress. Selfishness is not a vice, if it is the kind of selfishness that leads us to do what is in our own best interest. Selfishness drives us to excell, to produce and create. God help us if we ever inherit a world filled with selfless, passive people. We will be preparing for the decline and fall of our species.


Who says selfless people are passive?  

This is interesting..."The "self-interest" of captialism IS choosing to live for each other..."

Capitalism is a system of trade that reduces things down to units of commerace.  It is driven by self-interest.  _You_ choose what _you_ want.  It is inheritly inward focused and has nothing to do with "each other".



> 1.  If not for the selfish mindset that evolved in to capitalism, there would be nothing but a brutish, savage world, slave mentality world devoid of progress.
> 
> 2.  Selfishness is not a vice, if it is the kind of selfishness that leads us to do what is in our own best interest.
> 
> 3.  Selfishness drives us to excell, to produce and create.


1.  That is an unproven assumption.
2.  There is plenty of selfishness in capitalism that does not lead to _our_ best interests.  Again, it is an inward focused system that has nothing to do anyones interest but one's own self interest.
3.  And the willingness to serve others with one's life does not drive one to excell?  Try telling that to a preist or a monk.  Or anyone else that dedicates their life to the service of others and expects nothing in return...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> But I'm not telling people what I'm worth.  I'm not expecting anything.



Here is how you are contridicting yourself as others have pointed out.

When you started talking about solar panels and asked why the company just can't give them to you, I asked you why they should. Here is your response.



> I certainly give plenty to society that others do not? Many people benifit greatly from my contributions. Why am I unworthy to benifit from the contributions of others?



It certainly sounds like you think you are expecting getting something in return for what you have given. It seems that you are being greedy in a sneaky way. So sneaky you are not aware of it. That is how people get around doing the things they do. They don't look at their weak points.

Did you not get the agreed reward when you 'gave plenty to society'? What? There was no agreement for you to get anything in return? Ah, so you did something that you _think_ benifits others and now you are going to determine what a just reward is.

If was not a gift given freely out of the kindness of your heart. It was a way of making someone owe you something. When you *give* something you do not expect something in return. To later talk about what you have _given_ in a tone that suggests you expect something in return is a pretty sneaky way of being greedy. You are probably not conscious of it. But you see how your greed is talking.

What you are doing is like when a room mate washes the dishes and then eats all the food in the fridge and feels justified about it. You may not think that a simple task like that is worth the money you paid for the food. But he feels justified in his own mind.

I just read a few stories in that book by Dale Carnagie of people that history remembers as being vile slugs like Al Copone. They all thought that they contributed greatly to society. Humans do not like to think that they are anything other than honorable and use increadible amounts of mental gymnastics to do that. So who is to determine what the contribution each member makes? The only just answer is that each member should be free to do with their wealth as they choose.

I do not know what you did that you think justifies getting the solar panals. It may be that we would not think it very valuable. And if you want to start talking about debts and balances, you probably owe a great deal already to society and your good deeds are just down payments on that debt. We can't measure and judge just how many goods deeds and debts we recieve and dispense and so trying to bind another to the idea that they owe something to society or to you is folly.

It is greed and envy talking when you talk about how people should give you solar panels because you gave something to society. It is greed and envy that drives a lot of socialism. In a capitalistic society you are free to do good for others- if fact you are encouraged. But you have no moral right to anything from them unless they agree to the transaction. You can't force a sale on them like good deeds in return for solar panels.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 6, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Did you not get the agreed reward when you 'gave plenty to society'? What? There was no agreement for you to get anything in return? Ah, so you did something that you _think_ benifits others and now you are going to determine what a just reward is.



I did a benefit seminar, and my name was dropped from three of the four major reviews in the magizines. Some people were concerner I would be upset, I was pleasantly suprised that the fourth had left my name in, even though the other instructor was covered much more. 

I did not another benefit seminar with a different instructor, and it was fun and interesting and people there interested in how and where their money was going. It was nice to see them smile when I and the other instructor explained. 

Did I expect either of these payouts? No, I was just doing what I thought was right. 

I also worked with another guy at my employment to develop a new safety algorithm for work, this was part of our job and also could get us a few dollars more is it became a patent. It did not, but it did make a defensive publication, and I got 75% of the money of a patent which was nice. But ther really nice thing is that anyone who reads can use it for safety on their vehicles as well, so, not only one could use it.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Did I expect either of these payouts? No, I was just doing what I thought was right.


 :cheers: 

If there was an agreement that you would get something that both you and the other side had laid out in advance, then getting something would be natural and just.

But doing something nice for someone else does not lay a burden of debt on them. At the same time, it is nice when people do something nice in return. But it has to be their choice and the gift freely given.

I do some volunteer work here in Japan involving language training and helping international understanding. I demand nothing in return _at any time._ Still, it is damn nice when people recognize me and do things out of the goodness of their hearts as a show of thanks and not because of an enforced sense of obligation.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

So upnorth how is your concept supposed to work? Is it believed that everybody (or at least the majority of people) will spontaneously begin "paying it forward"? Or is there an "enforcement" aspect to this structure? How is this society supposed to initiate? Is there a tax plan that goes with it? What do you do with people who dont want to participate?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I do some volunteer work here in Japan involving language training and helping international understanding. I demand nothing in return _at any time._ Still, it is damn nice when people recognize me and do things out of the goodness of their hearts as a show of thanks and not because of an enforced sense of obligation.


This was my intent with the solar panels point. I was trying to explain how a society can "pay it forward" and run on a concept of selflessness. 

I guess it is possible to read _greed_ and _envy_ into that example, but that isn't the prime motivation behind what I was talking about.  The situation is kind of like a bible passage that talks about love, but some people say it really is talking about slavery.  The cultural environment shaped that interpretation just as it shapes our interpretations now.

The bottom line is that I believe that we've been taught to be greedy and envious from the cradle.  That is what drives capitalism.  If I sound greedy is might mean that even I can't escape all of that social learning...or it could just be a reflection of what is in your own heart.

There is more to what was talking about then this point and I think I clarified the message in other places.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So upnorth how is your concept supposed to work? Is it believed that everybody (or at least the majority of people) will spontaneously begin "paying it forward"? Or is there an "enforcement" aspect to this structure? How is this society supposed to initiate? Is there a tax plan that goes with it? What do you do with people who dont want to participate?


Nice word choice..._paying if forward_.  I like it.  I've never thought of it like that.  Good questions.  I've got to dig out a few books...

As far as loving capitalism goes, I don't think "love" is wise.  It is the predominant system, but it isn't the only system and it may not even be the best system.  Doubt opens your mind to better options _if they exist_.

The bottom line is that I'm wary of it, but I've learned how to use it.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

The "pay it forward" concept is a problem though. Its a pyramid scheme at its root...they never work. So the solar panel guy "gives" you a product. What is he going to get that covers the manufacturing, labor and materials it requires to make that product? Does he "eat the cost" because of the two people who did him favors? And what guarantee is there that the chain of goodwill doesn't end at you?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who says selfless people are passive?
> 
> This is interesting..."The "self-interest" of captialism IS choosing to live for each other..."
> 
> Capitalism is a system of trade that reduces things down to units of commerace. It is driven by self-interest. _You_ choose what _you_ want. It is inheritly inward focused and has nothing to do with "each other".


Except that which is created, ultimately benefits the whole.  Individual selfishness ultimately creates prosperity.  Conversly, and paradoxically, pure selflessness, as such can exist, ultimately creates just the opposite situation.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. That is an unproven assumption.


History bears it out.  The nations who's citizens engage in activity that serves their own interest, end up rising to great heights.  At the stage at which nations become bogged down in what Nietzsche called "Slave morality", however, they begin to decline and fall.  Greed is good, it drives one to excell.  In fact, it might be argued that selflessness in the sense of completely altruistic doesn't really exist, it's merely a fear response.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. There is plenty of selfishness in capitalism that does not lead to _our_ best interests. Again, it is an inward focused system that has nothing to do anyones interest but one's own self interest.


Ironic isn't, though, that the nations with the MOST "selfish" business men, ultimately become the most prosperous.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. And the willingness to serve others with one's life does not drive one to excell? Try telling that to a preist or a monk. Or anyone else that dedicates their life to the service of others and expects nothing in return...


And what good does one priest or monk do?  I'll wager that one driven, selfish, truly egotisitical entrepenuer does far more good, ultimately, than 100 monks will in their entire life.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *upnorthkyosa*
> _3. And the willingness to serve others with one's life does not drive one to excell? Try telling that to a preist or a monk. Or anyone else that dedicates their life to the service of others and expects nothing in return... _





Hmmm...dont most monks and monestaries depend on donations, tithes, begging and/or wealthy benefactors to support themselves? So there is an "expectation" of sorts...and where does that money come from?


----------



## Brother John (Jun 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Of course you can't.  You have been taught that it is impossible.  People are greedy selfish beasts.  They could never just agree to help each other out...could they?


So your supposed system of 'one hand washes the other' is to save us from ourselves? To force us to be as "unselfish" with our own goods and services as you think we should be....

...it's for our own good and all.

*((Please note: though this discussion can get seemingly heated, I hold you in high regard.... at least you THINK about life and the way things work. Many just go on and on w/out doing so. For that alone, you are above average.
and I am enjoying this discussion.)*)

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 7, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> :cheers:
> 
> If there was an agreement that you would get something that both you and the other side had laid out in advance, then getting something would be natural and just.
> 
> ...




Actually the agreement was for Lunch. We got Lunch and Dinner from the Host(s). Once again more than I expected and well appreciated. But there was not agreement with any magazine for any story(ies)


----------



## Brother John (Jun 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So the solar panel guy "gives" you a product. What is he going to get that covers the manufacturing, labor and materials it requires to make that product?



The manufacturing and labor will be done out of the kindness of the workers hearts....and they WILL all Willingly do so out of the goodness of their hearts.
The materials?? Donated to the solar panel guy...cuz he's contributed SOO much to society already and is a heck of a dude.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2005)

All good points. There are problems either way. The point is doubt...not love of capitalism. Doubt opens doors. 

Regardless, we are _stuck_ with capitalism. I bring up again, Jared Diamond's book _Germs, Guns, and Steel_ regarding the spread of civilizations. Egalitarian systems were arising in places around the world and they fell to the swords of capitalistic systems not because of some inherit superiority of the western system, but because of environmental factors. 

Here are some more writers that detail some of the points that I've brought up far better then I did...

Chris Wilson, Nadia C. (Warning...title of this essay contains a profanity), Max Stirner, Bob Black, John Zerzan

All very interesting. Nadia C. has some interesting ideas, is funny and is right the **** on. All have different ideas regarding alternative social structures.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> The manufacturing and labor will be done out of the kindness of the workers hearts....and they WILL all Willingly do so out of the goodness of their hearts.
> The materials?? Donated to the solar panel guy...cuz he's contributed SOO much to society already and is a heck of a dude.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Well, sort of.  

On small scales, communes work and people share all resources out of selflessness.  I can envision a society where people naturally come together in communities like these and a very small federal government that concerns itself with defense encompases it all.  

Unfortunately, the concept of the super-state, runs this type of society into the ground.  It's easier to control the donkey with the carrot so you teach the donkey to go after the carrot.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that I believe that we've been taught to be greedy and envious from the cradle.  That is what drives capitalism.  If I sound greedy is might mean that even I can't escape all of that social learning...or it could just be a reflection of what is in your own heart.



Actually, I consider greed and envy to be the prime motivating factors behind _communism._ 

In a free, capitalistic society anyone with wealth is free to give it to those with less. So they have no need to put in place a society where they are required to give.

But anyone with kids can tell you that they tend to grab for other kids toys as soon as they can wrap their fingers around them and it takes learning to supress that urge and respect other people's toys. 

Humans want things, and they want to get it as easy as possible. Unless you train kids in respect for other people's property- the respect you need in capitalism- you end up with greedy folks trying to get as much as they can with no consideration for others.

And it is these people that look at those that have more than them, lick their lips and start talking about how the rich should help those that have less.

Greed and envy- two vices that all humans have from birth to a certain extent, and the prime reason socialism will always have supporters.


----------



## Ray (Jun 7, 2005)

I believe that capitalism is the best economic system on the planet.  We have scarce resources that need to be "rationed."  How do we do it?  Those who have the most money can have the scarest or most expensive (or the most) of these resources.  

We strive to be as successful as we can, so that we can enjoy those commodities too...  That, we do, in our own self interest.  We strive for that which we value.

Note, though, that Henry Ford paid his workers more than the competition.  Why?  Because it was in his self-interest to make it possible for them to buy his automobiles.

Is it in my self-interest to let my neighbor starve? No.  Is it in my self interest, were I a captain of industry, to pollute the towns where my workers lived? No.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 7, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Is it in my self-interest to let my neighbor starve? No.  Is it in my self interest, were I a captain of industry, to pollute the towns where my workers lived? No.



It is if it makes you more money, and you don't have to live next to them.


----------



## Ray (Jun 7, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It is if it makes you more money, and you don't have to live next to them.


Not really.  If I were a captian of industry, I would need a source of healthy, reliable workers.  To jeopordize their health, lives and the lives of their families would be counter to my best interest in the long run.

If I were just in it for the short term, then yes, I suppose I could make my money quick and forget the people.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Not really. If I were a captian of industry, I would need a source of healthy, reliable workers. To jeopordize their health, lives and the lives of their families would be counter to my best interest in the long run.
> 
> If I were just in it for the short term, then yes, I suppose I could make my money quick and forget the people.


What would be interesting, and more than a little insightful, would be to find stats and studies indicating whether any major industries actually invest in consumer safety products and policies...or at least take measures to avoid causing public harm. This might, you know, inject some reality into this otherwise abstract and theoretical discussion of the morality of economic systems. 

Right off the bat, my inclination is to think that the existence of Consumer Safety Advocates and industry regulations indicate that there's some need to impose cost internalization on companies...might this imply that consumer protection isn't really as profitable for companies as you might think?


----------



## Marginal (Jun 8, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Not really.  If I were a captian of industry, I would need a source of healthy, reliable workers.  To jeopordize their health, lives and the lives of their families would be counter to my best interest in the long run.
> 
> If I were just in it for the short term, then yes, I suppose I could make my money quick and forget the people.



Doesn't really explain why business friendly Bush is constantly rolling back EPA regs etc.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All good points. There are problems either way. The point is doubt...not love of capitalism. Doubt opens doors.
> 
> Regardless, we are _stuck_ with capitalism. I bring up again, Jared Diamond's book _Germs, Guns, and Steel_ regarding the spread of civilizations. Egalitarian systems were arising in places around the world and they fell to the swords of capitalistic systems not because of some inherit superiority of the western system, but because of environmental factors.
> 
> ...


I've always found it interesting to what links Marxists, Neo-Marxists and Anarchists will go to explain the failures of some egalitarian system. Even to the point of creating entire mythos' where it was pure accident that Capitalism, a far inferior system, has failed against a multitude of far superior "Egalitarian" systems. I have to admire the Marxist and Neo-Marxist persistence, if nothing else. If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again. 

Every time I have this discussion, however, someone invariably brings up Germs, Guns and Steel, an arguably well written book that has become the corner stone of the lefts argument as to how western culture does not possess any real superior characteristics to any other culture. I've read the book several times and, while it's a compelling read, it fails to prove it's ultimate conclusion, and that is that pure circumstance has allowed Western Culture to rise to the top of food chain. 

There are far more compelling arguments that it is as much our philosophical heritage as pure happenstance that is responsible for Western Cultures world topping position. The argument actually ends up being a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've always found it interesting to what links Marxists, Neo-Marxists and Anarchists will go to explain the failures of some egalitarian system. Even to the point of creating entire mythos' where it was pure accident that Capitalism, a far inferior system, has failed against a multitude of far superior "Egalitarian" systems. I have to admire the Marxist and Neo-Marxist persistence, if nothing else. If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again.


 


Much of the stuff presented above is hypothetical and untestable. It isn't going to happen. We are stuck with capitalism to the bitter end...and I think that the fundamental assumption of capitalism will be its downfall. The concept that we are driven by our self interest to succeed does not take into account many of the behaviors that we actually see in our lives. I know that I am not wholley driven by my own self interest.






			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Every time I have this discussion, however, someone invariably brings up Germs, Guns and Steel, an arguably well written book that has become the corner stone of the lefts argument as to how western culture does not possess any real superior characteristics to any other culture. I've read the book several times and, while it's a compelling read, it fails to prove it's ultimate conclusion, and that is that pure circumstance has allowed Western Culture to rise to the top of food chain.


 


Diamond's book is good, there is no doubt. It won the Pulitzer Prize and the research in it is extremely extensive. Yet, it is not anything new. The underlying principle is _geographic determinism_. This is a dominant theory among anthropologists. This theory shows that the concept cultural dominance because of superior ideas is fallacious. Is this the product of a bunch of left-wing professors' bias or is this the product of years of thoughtful research? Good question.



Regardless, geographic determinism is a major bummer for those on the right and left who feel that western culture is the best thing since sliced bread. I would be very interested in starting a discussion on this topic. Diamond and others present a very compelling argument and I'm curious about the reasons why you think it fails to show its central premise.






			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There are far more compelling arguments that it is as much our philosophical heritage as pure happenstance that is responsible for Western Cultures world topping position. The argument actually ends up being a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument.


 


Before too much gets put on this thread, lets move this discussion to another thread. I know it is relevant to this topic, but I think more people might jump in on a new topic.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Doesn't really explain why business friendly Bush is constantly rolling back EPA regs etc.



Do a google search of Arsenic and Bush and if you look deeply enough, you may find the answer. It is a good example of the silly politics that go on and how some people can parrot things to death without really knowing the substance of the issue.

Bill Clinton raised the standards of acceptable levels of arsenic-  but did not do it so that it would come into force on his watch. He only did it on the last day of his term. The new Bush administration put the new standards on hold, and then repealed them.

So you can say (and many have) that Bush increased the level of this potentially dangerous substance from what he inherited. But the previous administration did not feel it was a big enough problem to put into action until the last day. Not even when he was a lame duck president did the previous president raise the standard. But due to his actions on his last day, he manuevered it so that Bush can nowbe said to roll back EPA regulations.

But of course, this is a subject for another thread.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Bill Clinton raised the standards of acceptable levels of arsenic-  but did not do it so that it would come into force on his watch. He only did it on the last day of his term. The new Bush administration put the new standards on hold, and then repealed them.
> 
> So you _can_ say (and many have) that Bush increased the level of this potentially dangerous substance from what he inherited.
> 
> due to his actions on his last day, he manuevered it so that Bush can nowbe said to roll back EPA regulations.



The Clinton administration sabotaged the wheel-works so that it would look like the next, Republican, administration were "Bad-guys". The last minute action on arsenic had to be rolled back to be feasable, then when Bush did what needed to be done....EASY to make him look like a badguy and support the image that the left has engineered for the Republicans.

Dirty pool.
But like you said, NOT the subject of this thread.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This was my intent with the solar panels point. I was trying to explain how a society can "pay it forward" and run on a concept of selflessness.



The problem with this, and I have given it some thought before responding, is that it just can't work.

The thing that makes capitalism the most moral system in existence is that it respects everyone's right to say no. You can coerce, urge and what have you. But you can't _force_ someone to buy or sell or do something unless on some level they want to.

That means that each person determines if what another person is paying is worth it and are free to refuse. 

But to 'pay it forward' to society as a whole, you have to get the entire society to agree- or force it. In an extended family/ tribe barely above starvation this may not be difficult. But in a society that expands how are you going to get agreement from all?

Outside of capitalism in a commune like this there is no respect for diversity or disent. Small tribes will and do cast out the unproductive members to die if they do not produce what is expected of them. The people too old, or sick are abandoned. The people can't go against the will of the tribe and must conform.

Lets just take a look at the idea of a baker of cakes. Some people will pay a certain price for a cake, other will not. Who gets to determine the contributation to society that the baker made? A small group of philosopher kings? Or the same majority of people that make Budweiser beer the #1 beer and made millions for the Back Street Boys? (Shudder.)

Oh, and let us not forget that different cakes have differnet levels of taste. Are we to reward all bakers equally and thus give the best baker the same as the rank begginer? And who determines just rewards if they are treated differnetly? Oh, and if you do not want money, how are we going to determine who gets the better product? Maybe the best go to the "great leader?"

Ah yes, and what about the fact that cakes are really not good for you. Maybe the powers that be determine that bakers should make bread and not cakes for our own good. It would be best for the group if everyone were as healthy as possible. You can see the movement right now to limit the choices we have and can take because we may choose wrong. We try not to just inform adults that smoking is bad, but to tax it so high that people can't afford to buy much because adults can't be trusted to make the right choces for themselves. Taxes on junk food are also being discussed for the same reason and these are not the only examples.

But in capitalism, a person is free to make choices for themselves and not be told what to do, 'for their own good' by others. Unless there is an impact on others (like the cost of socialized health care) the person is free to do what they want.

And yeah, I want to live in a society where I can make my own choices and live with the consequences. I want to eat red meat and white suger, drink 3 or 4 beers a night and not get up before dawn for exercise if I so please. I want to smoke cigars, bungie jump off of bridges and other things that may kill me. I want to do with my body as I please and tell self rightous people to go stuff themselves because I am not going to go without my cake for the good of the group.

If you think that makes me a bad citizen, I respect your right to have an opinion and will tell you to get out of my face.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So you can say (and many have) that Bush increased the level of this potentially dangerous substance from what he inherited. But the previous administration did not feel it was a big enough problem to put into action until the last day. Not even when he was a lame duck president did the previous president raise the standard. But due to his actions on his last day, he manuevered it so that Bush can nowbe said to roll back EPA regulations.
> 
> But of course, this is a subject for another thread.



That's not the only environmental issue Bush has tackled. It seems that historically "business friendly" means relaxing as many restrictions on labor, the environment etc as possible. 

I find it interesting that the most morally superior ecenomic system (if that's not simply an oxymoron) needs offshoring (which grants them both cheap, expendible labor and lax environmental standards), needs countless laws to check the rise of anti competitive monopolies, cheating ther employees and poisioning their communities and so on. Isn't the suggestion that an ecenomic system is somehow more than just that, totally laughable?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2005)

Perhaps it shold be "Capitalism is the system that best supports a moral society"....


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> That's not the only environmental issue Bush has tackled. It seems that historically "business friendly" means relaxing as many restrictions on labor, the environment etc as possible.



Well I have already given a concrete example instead of vauge generalities. But in general, the role of a just state is to insure that on member of society violates the rights of another. Capitalists need goverment to serve as a protection against people who would take their goods by force. In the same way, we need goverment to protect us from factiories that pollute the air we all breath.

The problem comes in the fact that many enviromental regulations do not see man as part of nature, but second to it. People can hardly dredge flood channels or remove dry grass from fire prone areas due to the amount of regulation out there now. So I happen to think that a lot of the roll backs are pretty damn good. The same pretty much goes for labor relations. It has reached a point where alchoholics are considered disabled and protected from being fired under regulations on the books.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the most morally superior ecenomic system (if that's not simply an oxymoron) needs offshoring (which grants them both cheap, expendible labor and lax environmental standards), needs countless laws to check the rise of anti competitive monopolies, cheating ther employees and poisioning their communities and so on. Isn't the suggestion that an ecenomic system is somehow more than just that, totally laughable?



If you think that laws against abuses of a system are a sign of the systems failure, then how do you explain all the laws against stealing, murder, rape, etc on the books in every culture in history?


----------



## Marginal (Jun 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well I have already given a concrete example instead of vauge generalities. But in general, the role of a just state is to insure that on member of society violates the rights of another. Capitalists need goverment to serve as a protection against people who would take their goods by force.



Perhaps I missed those examples, since it's a long thread. What I recall reading though was that altruists are capitalists, and communists are those who would take goods by force. 



> If you think that laws against abuses of a system are a sign of the systems failure, then how do you explain all the laws against stealing, murder, rape, etc on the books in every culture in history?



I think it's a sign that the system is basically amoral. Any ecenomic approach you elect to follow, or find yourself under will have people who use it to further society, and there are plenty of others who use it to further no ends other than that of themselves. I have not seen evidence presented that contradicts this.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Perhaps I missed those examples, since it's a long thread. What I recall reading though was that altruists are capitalists, and communists are those who would take goods by force.



The example was arsenic. And yes, if you want to help your fellow man you are free to do so under capitalism. And you are free to choose not to help another. Communism is about force and taking the choice away from you.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> I think it's a sign that the system is basically amoral. Any ecenomic approach you elect to follow, or find yourself under will have people who use it to further society, and there are plenty of others who use it to further no ends other than that of themselves. I have not seen evidence presented that contradicts this.



I do not see anything immoral about furthering yourself. Doing so at the expense of others is immoral. Thus capitalism as laid out by Adam Smith has a role for the goverment to prevent robbery, fraud, etc.

But to say that working for others= good while working for yourself= evil is just not a valid argument.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 8, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But to say that working for others= good while working for yourself= evil is just not a valid argument.



Either way, that's not my argument. I'm saying it's an ecenomic system, not a religion, not a set of morals, not innately moral or immoral on its own.

(Cool. Even the folks dinging me aren't bothering to actually read what I post. It's so sad it's funny.)


----------



## stephen (Jun 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Either way, that's not my argument. I'm saying it's an ecenomic system, not a religion, not a set of morals, not innately moral or immoral on its own.



I don't agree. Economic and political systems are founded on axioms (or facts, depending on how you see it) about human nature, the "Good", "Truth", and all that capital letter stuff. Therefore supporting one system implies a "Truth". 

Supporting a system where freedom is denied and theft is sanctioned is anti-"The Good" and therefore anti-Life. Moral is defined as acting in accordance with "The Good" and "Truth". 



> (Cool. Even the folks dinging me aren't bothering to actually read what I post. It's so sad it's funny.)



Welcome to the internet.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 9, 2005)

stephen said:
			
		

> I don't agree. Economic and political systems are founded on axioms (or facts, depending on how you see it) about human nature, the "Good", "Truth", and all that capital letter stuff. Therefore supporting one system implies a "Truth".
> 
> Supporting a system where freedom is denied and theft is sanctioned is anti-"The Good" and therefore anti-Life. Moral is defined as acting in accordance with "The Good" and "Truth".


No, it's silly emotional posturing. 



> Welcome to the internet.


Is that really an excuse for stupidity?


----------



## stephen (Jun 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> No, it's silly emotional posturing.



What is? I don't see any emotion in my argument, please point it out.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 9, 2005)

> Supporting a system where freedom is denied and theft is sanctioned is anti-"The Good" and therefore anti-Life. Moral is defined as acting in accordance with "The Good" and "Truth".


Surely you can recognize the bald rhetoric there. 

There is no effort make to rationally support the position. You just claim that other ecenomic systems are evil. (Capital letter kinda things.) Only thieves and apparently, abortionists (alarmist language... "anti-life") would want to support anything less than the one true Truth System. 

Social darwinism doesn't impress me as a morally sound outlook. Darwinian theory advocates a blind algorhythmic process. Apply that to society, and you just end up with social systems that developed in accordance with the needs of the particular niche. 

Since it all comes down to resource distribution one way or the other, can you logically/rationally claim that a country that has for example, taken up the practice of socialized medicine is more anti life or more evil than the US? (At least give me something better than shrieking "Theives! Theives! Evil thieves! Trying to take what's mine!!!!")


----------



## stephen (Jun 10, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Surely you can recognize the bald rhetoric there.
> There is no effort make to rationally support the position. You just claim that other ecenomic systems are evil. (Capital letter kinda things.)



I stated that the notion of "The Good" MUST be founded on axioms. It's pointless to argue about axioms- unless you have a definative model of the universe. However, I did state mine. I beleive that Life is the highest good. That is an axiom. If you don't agree with my axiom then your result will be different and equally valid as long as you are internally consistant. 

(Although it could also be argued that holding Truth constant accross the universe is also an axiom, but if we don't accept that this/all conversation becomes difficult!)

Capitalism as the most moral system follows from my second axiom: Freedom is life affirming. I think this is where most of this debate springs from. 





> Only thieves and apparently, abortionists (alarmist language... "anti-life") would want to support anything less than the one true Truth System.



First, anti-life/pro-life in this conversation has nothing to do with abortion. We're discussing lower level building blocks. Higher-level specifics are useless in this conversation. (Besides, I'm pro-choice).

And yes, according to my axioms, they are theives.  



> Social darwinism doesn't impress me as a morally sound outlook. Darwinian theory advocates a blind algorhythmic process. Apply that to society, and you just end up with social systems that developed in accordance with the needs of the particular niche.



Yes, and that niche is life. If some social system is instituted which deforms the natual enviroment of life -then life will evolve to fit it. So, for example, if I create a niche where theivery is instutialized and becomes a way to gain sustanance, then people will evolve to expolit it. I offer the horrible culture of  the "bad section of town" as an example. The culture has evolved to fit the niche. Unfortunatly, the niche is un-naturally caused by humans. 



> Since it all comes down to resource distribution one way or the other, can you logically/rationally claim that a country that has for example, taken up the practice of socialized medicine is more anti life or more evil than the US? (At least give me something better than shrieking "Theives! Theives! Evil thieves! Trying to take what's mine!!!!")



Yes, it follows from my axioms. A country who takes from people, by force, without their consent will shape the society in an unnatural way which will lead to evil. In a society where resources are taken from some and given to others, by force, people will evolve to exploit the source of sustinance. The problem is that it's like charging up your credit card to pay the bills. Yeah, the bills are paid but it's a horrible idea, eventually it'll catch up. 

Also this conversation isn't, or shouldn't be, about the US. The US is not a pure capitalist country therefore it can't be used as a refutation of the whole of capitalism. Whatever Bush does to the spotted owl has no bearing on the morality of capitalism.

I think the number one problem with discussion (internet or otherwise) is that most people fail to understand that it's pointless to argue about people's opinions and views without understanding the axioms that underly them. I say 2 T 2 = 4. You say 2 T 2 = 0. Great, we can sit here for eternity. Why don't we talk about what 'T' means to us. If we understand that I think it means '+' and you "-". Then we're done. The next step is an appeal to the unknowable 'Truth', but at least we've gotten somewhere.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 10, 2005)

stephen said:
			
		

> Also this conversation isn't, or shouldn't be, about the US. The US is not a pure capitalist country therefore it can't be used as a refutation of the whole of capitalism. Whatever Bush does to the spotted owl has no bearing on the morality of capitalism.



It, like the arsenic was simply an example. Goodness and light shouldn't also be busily ruining the world for everyone else but that one person. Freedoms taken that impinge or undermine other's freedom are not justifiable as good. 

Paying 15% in taxes doesn't really undermine one's freedom on any releant level, so...



> The next step is an appeal to the unknowable 'Truth', but at least we've gotten somewhere.



The fact that you're heading there renders the discussion pointless.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Paying 15% in taxes doesn't really undermine one's freedom on any releant level, so....



Now what makes you think that any of the people praising capitalism in this thread resent goverment or the means to pay for it?

As capitalists, we don't want people taking our money by force. So to stop robbers from taking our wealth, we need police. And since we don't want to live with the polluted air of a factory down the block, we need something like the EPA. And how are we to settle disputes other than the civil court system or the violent methods we can see giving rise to multi- generationla blood fueds in the past?

All these things and more are the role of goverment and I for one do not mind paying for things that only the goverment can do to prevent anarchy and massive deaths.

What I _do not _ want is some busy body telling me that I have made too much money and that the wealth I created should go to someone they think more worthy. I do not want anyone telling me what to do if it has no relation to them. I really, really do not want someone telling me I must do what they think is moral for someone else.

In short, I want to be left alone as much as possible. And I am willing to respect that same right for you. I want a society where people can't force others to do things. I want people to keep their hands off of my stuff and their nose out of my business. In short...

*Leave me alone!!* Translate that into Latin and you get.....?

I resent people telling me what I must do for the greater good. Who are they to tell me what it is? They don't respect my right to make that decision for myself? If what I do does not harm them, then who the hell are they to tell me what I must do?

Some people seem to think that capitalism is ammoral because it merely has a lot of rules about what you can't do to other people. You can't cheat them, you can't rob them, etc. They think that the lack of things that you need to do insures that you can't say it is moral.

Well, is a law saying you can't rape someone anything less than a moral law? Are the guarentees in the American constitution preventing people from shutting up newspapers or shutting down religions ammoral?

The thing that makes capitalism the most moral system to date is the fact that it does not force anyone to do anything. You can cajole, urge and tempt, but you can't make someone do anything unless they agree.

And part of that guarentee against force is forcing people to do good.

"The Good" is a tricky thing. Like religion, everyone knows what It (capital letters of course) is, but you are hard pressed to find two people who agree completely on the matter. And like religion, the really creative ways people have found to do nasty things to each other have been done in It's name.

Take a look at history and you see that when you make someone do the right thing, you end up with blood and lots of it. Religions all think they are doing the right thing. As long as they let everyone make their decision as to what religious ideas they follow, everyone is happy. But in the West you can't force others to follow your rules for religion and no one can force their rules on you.

Groups like the Taliban find the American idea of freedom of religion an immoral rule. By the logic of some, it is an ammoral rule. In my view, the freedom of religion is a very moral rule.

What is the good and why should I be forced to do it? It would be good if I gave up getting a special chocolate cake from my local bakery and instead sent the money to starving folks in Africa. But who the hell gave someone the right to say I must give up that cake? 

There must be repect for each individual in society. They must be given the respect to do what they think is right and make that choice for themself. They can devote their life to God, or not. They can do what they think will help others, or not. And they must be free from those that would force them to worship or do what others think is right for the greater good.

And it is this respect for the individual that I think makes capitalism the most moral system we have created so far.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 10, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Now what makes you think that any of the people praising capitalism in this thread resent goverment or the means to pay for it?



Let's see... The government is depriving you of freedom. (IMMORAL!) They are taking money from you without your permission (IMMORAL!) and they are using that money which was forcibly taken from you to build things and establish social programs that probably only indirectly benefit you at best. (IMMORAL!) 



> Some people seem to think that capitalism is ammoral because it merely has a lot of rules about what you can't do to other people. You can't cheat them, you can't rob them, etc. They think that the lack of things that you need to do insures that you can't say it is moral.



That's like trying to claim a gun is a moral insturment. 



> Well, is a law saying you can't rape someone anything less than a moral law?



Yes, but that not relevant to this discussion. 



> Are the guarentees in the American constitution preventing people from shutting up newspapers or shutting down religions ammoral?



Only if the US Constution somehow  embodies capitalism. 



> Take a look at history and you see that when you make someone do the right thing, you end up with blood and lots of it.



Like all those labor riots. 
"Pay me what I'm worth."
"No. You're evil for trying to force me to stop making you work in unsafe conditions for pennies a day."


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Let's see... The government is depriving you of freedom. (IMMORAL!) They are taking money from you without your permission (IMMORAL!) and they are using that money which was forcibly taken from you to build things and establish social programs that probably only indirectly benefit you at best. (IMMORAL!)



Do you believe that it is not really facism if the right people are in charge?

Taking from a person is wrong. Saying that it is for a good cause is besides the point. There must be a respect for the individual in a society. Part of that respect is to allow them to do the good they think is best, or not. 





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> That's like trying to claim a gun is a moral insturment.



No, a gun can be a means to insure that moral laws are followed and rights are not violated. You can't have a rule without a means to enforce them.





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, but that not relevant to this discussion.



Same principle. 





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Only if the US Constution somehow  embodies capitalism.



The US Contitution is based on the idea of freedom. The underlyhing principles are that you have no control over me and I have no control over you. Capitalism is the outgrowth of that philosophy. In the Opening statements is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are you to decide that makinng money is not a form of pursuing happiness? If one is not free to do with their wealth as they please, how do you define liberty?





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Like all those labor riots.
> "Pay me what I'm worth."
> "No. You're evil for trying to force me to stop making you work in unsafe conditions for pennies a day."



Straw man. If someone wants to work at a place and the employer is willing they may. If either party is not cool with the idea then the person need not work there. You don't want to work under the conditions and for the pay, then don't work there. The idea that the owner has a responsibility to provide you a job is wrong.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 11, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Straw man. If someone wants to work at a place and the employer is willing they may. If either party is not cool with the idea then the person need not work there. You don't want to work under the conditions and for the pay, then don't work there. The idea that the owner has a responsibility to provide you a job is wrong.



Argh. It's not a straw man. It's why we have minimum wage laws etc.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Argh. It's not a straw man. It's why we have minimum wage laws etc.



And why should we have them? You seem to treat a job as a right and not something that someone provides you for their own benefit. If someone does not want to work for a certain wage, in capitalism you can't force them to be your slave. On the other hand, it is not moral to force certain people to pay more than they are willing to pay or hire people they don't want.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 11, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And why should we have them? You seem to treat a job as a right and not something that someone provides you for their own benefit.



Perhaps it's a difference in perspective, but as I see it, the guy doing the job is also offering a good in trade. (His time/skills etc) I don't see why he has no right in capitolism to demand equitable compensation for the goods he's selling in this case. Why is it supposed to be a strictly a top down system?

If an employer's underpaying etc, there's the issue of supply and demand. If people are unwilling to work for the wage he offers, then perhaps he needs to readjust his perceived value of what he's looking to buy. (Nobody's forcing him in that case but market pressures) Due to various limitations like geography, education etc, some folks might get trapped and forced to work under terms that are unfair to them. I don't see the business owner as having to pay out a fair wage, but it would certainly seem the moral thing to do. 

One further qualification to my broader argument: You can have moral elements within an amoral system. I'm mainly trying to say that as a bald theory on its own, there is no morality (or immorality) attached to capitolism in my view. That's up to the people who elect to practice under the system.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2005)

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/sect2.htm


> SOCIALISM
> 
> Sharing the same collective view of mankind as communism socialism is a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people (whose 'good' is decided by the legislator). The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority, we will see later that this is fallacious. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, according to the judgement of the legislator. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, but broadly accepted in Europe - albeit in a much diluted fashion. Socialism is a system of expropriation of private property (regardless of how this was earned) in order to distribute it to various groups considered (by the legislator) to warrant it, usually the unemployed, ill, young and old and significantly, those with political pull. Since all property must be created before being distributed modern socialists allow some free market enterprise to exist in order to 'feed' from its production. This seems to admit that the free market is the best way to produce wealth. The current British government (Labour) purports to be quasi-socialist but is in practice conservative (non-radical) with additional taxation and state intervention. I believe that genuine socialism has not fared that well in Britain due to a sense of individual sovereignty shared by many Britons, expressed in such sayings as "an Englishman's' home is his castle". http://www.wsws.org/ is an informative site regarding modern socialism. See also communism





> CAPITALISM
> 
> *Contrary to popular belief capitalism is not a 'system' as such. It is the consequence of individual liberty and corresponding property rights (the right to own that which you create, or are born owning). *Capitalism is readily blamed for various inequalities despite having never been practised in fact, with the closest examples being 19th century USA and to a lesser extent 19th century Britain. A fuller description of capitalism is given in this site
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's a difference in perspective, but as I see it, the guy doing the job is also offering a good in trade. (His time/skills etc) I don't see why he has no right in capitolism to demand equitable compensation for the goods he's selling in this case. Why is it supposed to be a strictly a top down system?
> 
> If an employer's underpaying etc, there's the issue of supply and demand. If people are unwilling to work for the wage he offers, then perhaps he needs to readjust his perceived value of what he's looking to buy. (Nobody's forcing him in that case but market pressures) Due to various limitations like geography, education etc, some folks might get trapped and forced to work under terms that are unfair to them.



Where are things a top down only system? You want to work for a company, you take their wage or reject it and look elsewhere. If the company can't attract good people with the wages they are offering, they probably will have to raise what they offer. So how is this a top down only system?

Of course, now days people demand jobs. They consider it their right. You say that maybe because of things like geography and education a person may get _trapped_ and _forced_ to work under a system unfair to them. Oh really? How is that anyone else's concern? Why should anyone else, like the employer, be forced to help someone else? If a company can't produce goods that are good enough or cheap enough to satisfy you, you would not hesitate to buy something else despite the problems the company is having. Why should a company be forced to help someone?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 28, 2005)

I ran across this quote in the book _The Gnomes of Tokyo_ by Jim Powell and immediatly thought of this thread. I knew I had to share.



> "The main problem created by the growth of goverment spending is the transformation of the United States froma free society in which private property rights are respected to a state where productive people have only a residual claim on what's left of their income and savings after all levels of goverment are finished redistributing it to the politically deserving.
> "As Scholars increasingly document, when goverments make redistribution of income more important  than the production of income, people reallocate their energies from economic to politcal action. The enormous growth in special-interest lobbies, which many members of congress lament, parallels the growth in the proclivity of goverment to take from some to give to others."
> Paul Craig Roberts- Economist at Georgetown University



What he says, we can all see. The more power the politicians have to take from one person and give to another, the more attractive it is to get a few politicians in your pocket and get a bigger piece of the pie. 

You look at the problems with farm subsidies, social security and a whole host of other problems, you see that the hacks in congress won't do the right thing because it would be political suicide. Any politician that takes the high ground and tries to do just what is right will be bloodied by those that rake in contributions, sell their votes for pork projects and make sure that those that vote for them and support them get everything they can.

I am not against goverment. Capitalism needs goverment to keep the peace. It _does not_ need for goverment to determine that someone needs money more than someone else. When it has the power to determine that, the powerfull all make sure that the politicians do what they want.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I ran across this quote in the book _The Gnomes of Tokyo_ by Jim Powell and immediatly thought of this thread. I knew I had to share.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Don, your starting to sound like a populist...sort of like the dems of old.  Although, I would have to argue your point about social security.  Gramdma and grandpa have never had much political power and a collective sacrifice to help them surely must be a good thing.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

_Gramdma and grandpa have never had much political power_

Elderly people tend to vote more than younger people and thus ellderly people actually wield a *tremendous* amount of political power, which is why some topics such as social security are very hard to touch, politically


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _Gramdma and grandpa have never had much political power_
> 
> Elderly people tend to vote more than younger people and thus ellderly people actually wield a *tremendous* amount of political power, which is why some topics such as social security are very hard to touch, politically


 
Votes are one thing, but a point that Don makes poignantly clear is that political power = money.  What use is a vote if "both" candidates are bought and paid for?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

_
 Votes are one thing, but a point that Don makes poignantly clear is that political power = money. What use is a vote if "both" candidates are bought and paid for?_

You got it backwards.  Political power is not money in the sense of buying the politicans.  Poltical power derives from money in the sense that the politicans buy *you*.  The politicians promise you a) more social security b) tax cuts c) federal money for works projects in your home town d) whatever...so you vote for them.  It's the politican who is promising you the most money if he/she is elected that gains the politican political power.

Now, the other side that you hit on is when organizations(rich people, coprorations, unions) can give money to politicans in trade for political favors and those organizations can turn and get the people they [claim to] represent to vote for said politican. 

In the end, politicans get elected by promising money to the voters and get elected with money by promsing favors to the donors.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _Votes are one thing, but a point that Don makes poignantly clear is that political power = money. What use is a vote if "both" candidates are bought and paid for?_
> 
> You got it backwards. Political power is not money in the sense of buying the politicans. Poltical power derives from money in the sense that the politicans buy *you*. The politicians promise you a) more social security b) tax cuts c) federal money for works projects in your home town d) whatever...so you vote for them. It's the politican who is promising you the most money if he/she is elected that gains the politican political power.
> 
> ...


 
Promises to voters usually end up being pretty empty while promises to donors get filled readily.  The bottom line is that big money moves the whole system.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2005)

_Promises to voters usually end up being pretty empty_

Doesn't mean they don't work 

Pay attention next time you have elections for US Congress and Senate.  Incumbants *always* make a point of what federal jobs/federal projects..in essence, federal money, that they brought to the state.

The two that I laugh at most are a) Republican incumbants bragging on how much federal money they brought in b) Democrat candidates fighting against military base closures.  No real connectionto anything, both situations just amuse me bcause, yes, principles aside it's all about money


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 28, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Promises to voters usually end up being pretty empty while promises to donors get filled readily.



Going back to social security, how is it that we can't do a damn thing to fix it? Most of us are paying into it while not expecting to see a dime when we retire. I suspect my children will have to pay into it, and that their chances of getting anything back are the same of me being president.

Where is the big bucks in that? I can see tons of senior citizens lined up to toss out any politician that tries to fix the mess. Social security is called the third rail of politics. Touch it and you die. 

Again, where are the big, evil capitalists benifiting from this train wreck coming down the way?

Blaming the wealthy is a simple solution, but you can see how the political wind blows.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Going back to social security, how is it that we can't do a damn thing to fix it? Most of us are paying into it while not expecting to see a dime when we retire. I suspect my children will have to pay into it, and that their chances of getting anything back are the same of me being president.
> 
> Where is the big bucks in that? I can see tons of senior citizens lined up to toss out any politician that tries to fix the mess. Social security is called the third rail of politics. Touch it and you die.
> 
> ...


 
You can't have it both ways, Don.  

Money controls the message.  Money controls the messenger.  Those with more money are able to express more power.  Thus wealth = power.  Social security is the third rail of politics because it rakes in the gold...which by the way is already spent.  Lock box my ***.

Who benefits?  They aren't capitalists.  They are radical corporatists.  Look at the defense sector.  Look at the energy sector.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who benefits?  They aren't capitalists.  They are radical corporatists.  Look at the defense sector.  Look at the energy sector.



Look at social security. You can't have it both ways. Where are the radical corporatists?

And I think the point is made that the more the politicians have control over money the more they are likely to use that power to benefit themselves. So whether you are talking about populists (tons of senior citizens, etc) or corporists (IBM, etc), giving the power to the goverment is prelude for them abusing that power. Hence, taking the ability to take from one and give to another away from the goverment is key.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 29, 2005)

_Money controls the message. Money controls the messenger. Those with more money are able to express more power. Thus wealth = powe_

You are missing the third piece of th e triangle by which it all holds together, the voter...or  the hearer of  the message if you will.  Doesn't matter how much money for favors changes hands if nobody actually votes for the politican.  Which is why the money, or at least the promise of money, flowing out from the politican to the voters also drives the engine.

That's why social security is the third rail.  That's a *big* pile of money promised to a *lot* of people that vote; you mess with that promise at your own risk of political suicide.

The politican makes promies to the voter, mostly promises that come down to 'more money'.  *but*, for the voter to hear that politican, his message needs to get out, so the politican gets money from someone with money...who expects favors in return.  But the money *in* the favors is pretty small compared to the money in the promises.  Think of the money donated to Bush..and think of he money Bush promised to voters in tax cuts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> You are missing the third piece of th e triangle by which it all holds together, the voter...or the hearer of the message if you will. Doesn't matter how much money for favors changes hands if nobody actually votes for the politican. Which is why the money, or at least the promise of money, flowing out from the politican to the voters also drives the engine.


 
A vote is only as good as the information the informs it.  The message that our politicians send out is information.  There can be no doubt that big money controls that message.



> That's why social security is the third rail. That's a *big* pile of money promised to a *lot* of people that vote; you mess with that promise at your own risk of political suicide.


 
Hopefully, I can address you and Don at the same with this next point.  This is a big pot of money and it is promised to a lot of people...true.  My question is where is that money?  Our government is in debt.  We believe the money is there, but its not, its already been spent.  

The big question is on what...Don, that is where you'll find the radical corporatist.  

I don't like saying this, because I like the idea of social security, but in a way, SS has become a way for powerful people to scam everyone out of what they've earned.  



> The politican makes promies to the voter, mostly promises that come down to 'more money'. *but*, for the voter to hear that politican, his message needs to get out, so the politican gets money from someone with money...who expects favors in return. But the money *in* the favors is pretty small compared to the money in the promises. Think of the money donated to Bush..and think of he money Bush promised to voters in tax cuts


 
There is a big difference between what our politicians say and what they actually do.  Take a look at what we actually spend money on...its pretty rediculous.  I pay taxes to help make my country a better place and a good portion of that money ends up in giveaways to large corporations.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Take a look at what we actually spend money on...its pretty rediculous. I pay taxes to help make my country a better place and a good portion of that money ends up in giveaways to large corporations.


 
Hey, Hey Now ....

Just because Exxon Mobil recorded a Profit of more than 3 BILLION Dollars a month over the last quarter (while we were paying more than ever for carbon), doesn't mean they don't deserve a great big fat tax break for 'exploring' for more carbons.

I mean, hell, every business has risks ... and its the governments job to reduce those risks ... to protect those risks from the bird flu, or terrorism.

Just imagine, if I walked up to the roullette wheel in vegas what it would be like if I had to *put my own money* on the line.... I mean, come on ... you'ld have to be crazy to do that. It's so much easier whent the government gives me the money to play with. Sure 36-to-1 odds suck, but it's not like its my money.




OK guys .... I've been a bit cranky with some stuff over the past few days. I'll try to be less sarcastic. from here out.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hopefully, I can address you and Don at the same with this next point.  This is a big pot of money and it is promised to a lot of people...true.  My question is where is that money?  Our government is in debt.  We believe the money is there, but its not, its already been spent.
> 
> The big question is on what...Don, that is where you'll find the radical corporatist.



Show me the Money!!! Or the radical corporatist. Until then, I leave conspiracy theories and rabid hate for something like corporations to the the novels.

The fact of the matter is that we can't fix the problem because so many people are pressuring the politicians to do what is best for them rather than what is fair or in the best interest of all.

It does not matter if we are talking about a corporation or the teacher's union. When you give politicians the power to reassighn wealth (for the best interest of all), forces will seek to gain favor from those politicians to give them money _NOT_ for the greater good, but for their good.

You want to talk about farm subsidies for large farmers, tax breaks for Exxon, teachers or social security recipients, they are all trying to get more of that pie.

You look at all the programs set up to help those that are needy and within a decade the amount of needy benifiting from that program is a minority. As much as you hate and vilify corporations, *everybody* does it and will support the politicians that promise them bigger pieces of the pie paid by other people.

The only solution is to limit the goverment to those functions that are needed to keep society going- and keep a close eye on them there.

But if we were to ever try to set up a system where someone other than the person who makes the wealth decides what to do with it, you need only look to all the abuses of every goverment and multiply it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Show me the Money!!! Or the radical corporatist. Until then, I leave conspiracy theories and rabid hate for something like corporations to the the novels.


 
Don, you contradict yourself with the rest of your post.  You know where the money is going.  Subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, buyouts, etc...

I find the cognitive dissonence ironic, though.  On one hand you label this stuff conspiracy theory and throw it away and with the other you bring up the very stuff I was talking about.

What I would like to see is a breakdown of government pork spending.  How much of it goes to people interests like education or wellfare and how much goes to the corporatists?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Don, you contradict yourself with the rest of your post.  You know where the money is going.  Subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, buyouts, etc...
> 
> I find the cognitive dissonence ironic, though.  On one hand you label this stuff conspiracy theory and throw it away and with the other you bring up the very stuff I was talking about.
> 
> What I would like to see is a breakdown of government pork spending.  How much of it goes to people interests like education or wellfare and how much goes to the corporatists?



I acknowledge that money is spent on things like pork barrel projets. I reject your narrow view that only corporations can be the power brokers here. I mentioned teacher's unions. Why should they be allowed to influence politicians for more money and not other citizens like corporate heads? We should all be equal under the law. But someone will get the ear of the politician and use that money for their own good.

It does not matter if it is a corporation wanting some more cash, or teachers wanting more cash. They all will say to others and themselves that they are doing it for the greater good, but teachers are just as greedy as the next person. And with that type of power in the hands of politicians, you either give the shaft to others or get it yourself.

Social security can't be fixed not because of corporations, but because so many old people get money from the goverment and will fight for that cash to the last breath.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Money controls the message.  Money controls the messenger.  Those with more money are able to express more power.  Thus wealth = power.



The above has been bothering me. I find the sentiment scary.

You seem to have the idea that people should not be able to use money to spread a message. If so, then who should be in charge of getting a message out and determining what it should be?

You seem to have a low view of people's intelligence and ability to choose correctly in elections. If they can be swayed so easily by money, then they are not really responsible and should be taken care of to limit their damage.

And I think there are a lot of people who would agree that there are a whole lot of stupid people out there. I have seen some of the popular entertainment programs and feel a little ill to think that these are enjoyed by the greatest amount of people.

But who determines who is to take care of who? Who gets to make the choice that others are not able to make choices? The majority? A small group of philosopher kings?

I think we have to respect other people's choices for themselves. They have a right to be right and a right to choose wrong. Their choices can't have an impact on us, but otherwise let them be as free as possible.

Hence why I like a capitalistic system where their abilities to impact me are lessoned. They can be idiots if they want. But they have no ability to elect politicians that will come and take away my money to fund their silly ideas or force me to do things I find wrong.

Of course, we need goverment to do certain things. From the police to the Center for Disease Control there are things that keep us safe and can't be done by the private sector. But we need to let everyone be free, even if we think that they can be swayed by the messages paid for by the rich. Because we would like to have that freedom. And if we give the power of one group to make choices for others, then maybe we will be the one to dance to another's tune.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I reject your narrow view that only corporations can be the power brokers here.


 
I don't believe that at all.  Otherwise, why would I even attempt to get involved in grass roots politics.  There is a difference, I'll tackle it below...



> I mentioned teacher's unions. Why should they be allowed to influence politicians for more money and not other citizens like corporate heads?


 
The teachers union is a group of millions of individuals who have organized for a goal...to make education the best that it can be in this country.  No single teacher or even a group of teachers makes even close the amount of money that the size of the board of directors of the average corporation.  

For discussion purposes, lets say that we can quantify political power into units.  If you were to divide the political power units equally among all of the teachers in the unions the corresponding amount would be small indeed.  However, if you were to divide the political power of lets say Conagra among the small group of people who run that corporation one would find that the number of political power units would exponentially differ.  



> We should all be equal under the law. But someone will get the ear of the politician and use that money for their own good.


 
We are equal under the law, however, as the above demonstrates, we do not have equal amounts of political power.  Those individuals who have most political power units are going to abuse the government the most.  These are the corporatists.



> It does not matter if it is a corporation wanting some more cash, or teachers wanting more cash.


 
It does matter.  You have to look at the size of the group and the proportional gain of each member in it.  



> Social security can't be fixed not because of corporations, but because so many old people get money from the goverment and will fight for that cash to the last breath.


 
Our government is worse then flat broke.  Its in the hole.  Where is that money?  The old people can fight all they want, but it ain't going to make that money suddenly appear.  Where is the money?

The answer is that the corporatists have scammed us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The above has been bothering me. I find the sentiment scary.


 
It should bother you.  

You can be the smartest guy in the world, but if you don't have good information to make good decisions then all of that brainpower means diddlysquat.  

One of the problems that I see is that one really has to dig in order to find the information that is really important...and most people are too lazy to do this and they just rely on the echo chambers on both sides.  

Individual choice depends on a free flow of information.  Control that information and you control the choice.

This should bother you.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The teachers union is a group of millions of individuals who have organized for a goal...to make education the best that it can be in this country.  No single teacher or even a group of teachers makes even close the amount of money that the size of the board of directors of the average corporation.



A- I do not believe the above is accurate.

B- Why should a large group of people be allowed to use politicians for their best interest at the expense of the greater good and not a small group of people? Both cases are wrong.

It does not matter if you put every corporate head to death. Every place they have done that they still have the people in charge and tasked with destributing wealth use for other purposes. Take a look at how Mugabe has taken land from rich farmers and given it to political cronies. Or the inner circle of North Korea. Maybe we can look at the way politicians in China have cosied up to certain rich folks and abused the laws there- and they are not even elected!

Power corrupts and absolute power..... you know the rest. But the ability to destribute wealth is a great power. It stands to reason that those that have it will be corrupted. Every case in history proves this. The only cure is to limit goverment as much as possible.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Individual choice depends on a free flow of information.  Control that information and you control the choice.



I do not see much control of information in America by the corporations. They can put a lot out. But they can't stop those that want other sources from seeking it out for themselves.

If you think people are too lazy to seek out that information, the answer is not to step in and start making decisions for them, but to limit their ability to impact you. Smaller goverment is the first step.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I do not see much control of information in America by the corporations. They can put a lot out. But they can't stop those that want other sources from seeking it out for themselves.
> 
> If you think people are too lazy to seek out that information, the answer is not to step in and start making decisions for them, but to limit their ability to impact you. Smaller goverment is the first step.


 
You don't have to be draconian in order to control information.  All you have to do saturate the playing field.  The assumption is that most people are not going to look beyond the echo chambers...that assumption is unfortunately correct.  

I don't know what one could do to fix this problem.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> A- I do not believe the above is accurate.


 
Why?



> B- Why should a large group of people be allowed to use politicians for their best interest at the expense of the greater good and not a small group of people? Both cases are wrong.


 
Large groups of people influencing politicians is what democracy is all about.  Small groups of people doing the same thing with more ability to do so is not very democratic...wouldn't you say so?



> It does not matter if you put every corporate head to death. Every place they have done that they still have the people in charge and tasked with destributing wealth use for other purposes. Take a look at how Mugabe has taken land from rich farmers and given it to political cronies. Or the inner circle of North Korea. Maybe we can look at the way politicians in China have cosied up to certain rich folks and abused the laws there- and they are not even elected!


 
I understand your point, however, I'm not convinced that redistribution of wealth is the problem.  You are correllating redistribution with corruption, but this does not mean that redistribution caused corruption.



> Power corrupts and absolute power..... you know the rest. But the ability to destribute wealth is a great power. It stands to reason that those that have it will be corrupted. Every case in history proves this. The only cure is to limit goverment as much as possible.


 
As much as I fantasize about a greater society, you might have hit the nail on the head.  I hope your wrong.  The key word is _hope_.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Large groups of people influencing politicians is what democracy is all about.  Small groups of people doing the same thing with more ability to do so is not very democratic...wouldn't you say so?



You miss the point. If a corporation controls a politician, then that politician will work for the corporation. If the AFL/CIO (try saying this group does not have a lot of power in politics!) controls a politician, then that politician will work for the AFL/CIO. But that politician is supposed to be there for _Americans!_ The AFL/CIO would give the rest of society the shaft to benifit itself. You give the politicians the power to shaft others and take their wealth, and someone will seek to control that power for themselves at the expense of others.

Let me give you an example. If the big car makers like GM, Ford, etc had the politicians in their pocket, they would pass laws making Japanese cars harder to get. If the teamsters had them in their pocket, they too would pass laws making it harder to get Japanese cars. Are they doing that for America, or for themselves? And shouldn't they be sitting around talking about how to make cars that Americans actually want to buy?

Your choice to buy a better Japanese car would be hampered by the self interest of the unions and/or the corporations. Who is to say the jobs that may be saved at the factories are worth you giving up the choice of cars?

By themselves, the unions or the corporations can't _make_ you buy their stuff. But the goverment can. The goverment is supposed to make decisions to help all Americans. But they will throw you and your ability to choose a better car from Japan for the benifits they can get from either of the groups I mentioned.

And it does not matter which group. Using that power to impact others is immoral.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You miss the point. If a corporation controls a politician, then that politician will work for the corporation. If the AFL/CIO (try saying this group does not have a lot of power in politics!) controls a politician, then that politician will work for the AFL/CIO. But that politician is supposed to be there for _Americans!_


 
My point is that a politician that supports the interests of a union is there for more Americans then one that supports the interests of a corporation.  

However, you have a valid point below...



> The AFL/CIO would give the rest of society the shaft to benifit itself. You give the politicians the power to shaft others and take their wealth, and someone will seek to control that power for themselves at the expense of others.
> 
> Let me give you an example. If the big car makers like GM, Ford, etc had the politicians in their pocket, they would pass laws making Japanese cars harder to get. If the teamsters had them in their pocket, they too would pass laws making it harder to get Japanese cars. Are they doing that for America, or for themselves? And shouldn't they be sitting around talking about how to make cars that Americans actually want to buy?
> 
> ...


 
The posability of abuse exists.  However, the people in the union are only trying to preserve their livelihoods, raise their families and be happy.  Why is being able to buy a japanese car without obstruction worth more then that?



> And it does not matter which group. Using that power to impact others is immoral.


 
Have you considered that there might some things that are more wrong then others?  This may be one of those situations.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 29, 2005)

_This is a big pot of money and it is promised to a lot of people...true. My question is where is that money? Our government is in debt. We believe the money is there, but its not, its already been spent._

Well, no doubt.  It's the promise of the money that gives politcal advantage, not neccessarily the delivery of that money.  The money may not be there, or delivery of the money may lead to higher debt, or....


but it;s the money that is promised that matters


----------



## Kane (Oct 29, 2005)

Whoa this thread is still alive and well. I guess I should add some input now.

I do believe both pure capitilism and pure socialism are not the way to go. Instead, a capitilistic system that with regulation would be the best. By high regulation so that all people attain equal oppurtunity.


In The Jungle, Upton Sinclair writesabout the dangers of capitalism, although there are many flaws in his reasoning. He claims that the total package socialism is the solution to the problems if capitalism but he is clearly going too extreme here. Sinclair says that the people should have no right to private ownership of business because they cannot be trusted to not discriminate against workers. He often mentions unfair and corrupt business owners but he clearly is one-sided and does not show any good examples of business owners who treat their employees with respect. Just because a few private owners treat their employees unfairly it does not mean all business owners do so. Furthermore he claims that socialism is the solutions for all of mankind&#8217;s problems but he obviously does not know about the result of many countries that adopted a socialist philosophy called communism. Communism was created by Karl Marx and he said himself, &#8220;The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.&#8221; (Marx, Communist Manifesto, 2) But such policies such as abolishment of private property as well as private ownership do not work. If we look at the former Soviet  Union as an example, it fell as a result of the fallacies of communist ideology.   

Pol Pot tried to make communism work for Cambodia, and for a while it did work. But it was not to last as political corruption and scares of government overthrow of ambitious humans wanting to increase their economic status lead to one of the worst recorded genocides in history of mankind. Over 2 million men, women, and children lost their lives in Cambodia. Pol Pot who most likely knew of the horrible crimes under his regime made this statement before he died, "When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that." (Pol Pot, Last Interview) Pol Pot knew that it was over for communism because it cannot work. Little did he know though that the nation did not have to belong to the West in order for it to not to be communist. Communism or pure socialism does not work because the philosophy goes against human nature. To be frank, human beings are greedy.  If you start with the premise, the Supply and Demand curve is simple logic.  People are also ambitious animals by nature and there is nothing wrong with wanting to bring yourself from your current economic status into whatever you want to be, as long at it does not infringe on other people&#8217;s rights.


Of course moderate socialism is not as bad as pure socialism or communism, but in general it is not as good as a system as regulated capitilism IMHO. The quality is far lower for all things when controlled by the government. And the taxes, I don't even want to go into how much taxes are in Sweden!


When it comes to economic issues, the government should regulate the free market to ensure equal opportunity in economic advancement. This means elimination of job discrimination and unfair treatment of workers by government laws making such acts illegal. The quality of products such as food must be checked on a normal basis as well by the government. Sinclair shows the importance of this as he describes the filth come factories produce when under pressure for money, &#8220;For it was the custom, as they found, whenever meat was so spoiled that it could not be used for anything else, either to can it or else to chop it up into sausage.&#8221; (Sinclair, The Jungle, 133) Without proper fundamental standards for products companies can sell defective products that can harm people. At the same time the government has no right to heavily tax the people because the people deserve to use the earning they make. The government should not control the means of production as it is more effective left up to the people. Competition creates an overall more effective product or system. Everything in life has an infinite amount of improvement needed to be done; even the fundamental needs of life can be infinitely improved, as Adam Smith describes, &#8220;Such is the delicacy of man alone, that no object is produced to his liking. He finds that in everything there is need for improvement.... The whole industry of human life is employed not in procuring the supply of our three humble necessities, food, clothes and lodging, but in procuring the conveniences of it according to the nicety and delicacy of our tastes.&#8221; (Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 49) But what of the poor who cannot afford these fundamental necessities? As discussed before the government has no right to take the earnings of the people, even to help the poor. Instead the government should make sure that there private charity programs are available for all of the poor and make the poor aware of this. At the same time the government should make sure minimum wage as it a livable standard (an amount that can pay for enough food, clothing, and shelter). As we can see if this is all the government does there is a harmony between protection and liberty.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> My point is that a politician that supports the interests of a union is there for more Americans then one that supports the interests of a corporation.



Both cases are equally wrong. You have the tyranny of the majority vs the tyranny of the minority. Using politcal power to take from one to give to yourself is wrong, even if you have numbers on your side. You are arguing that it is not wrong if one side is stronger and merely going by numbers instead of of monetary pull.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The posability of abuse exists.  However, the people in the union are only trying to preserve their livelihoods, raise their families and be happy.  Why is being able to buy a japanese car without obstruction worth more then that?



They are free to be happy, etc AS LONG AS THAT HAPPINESS DOES NOT COME AT MY EXPENSE!!! I am trying to raise my family, etc as well and maybe having a Japanese car would help. It is the principle of the thing. They have no right to tell me what I can and can't do. And every time someone talks about the greater good, you need to grab your wallets.

And if you bothered to check, what you said about the unions is equally vaild to the corporations. You give unions a free ride when we talk about abusing politcal power, but not corporations. You seem to have an irrational hatred of them. ALL Americans should be treated the same, rich or poor, large groups or small. But you are treating the smaller groups as if they were evil as a matter of course.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Have you considered that there might some things that are more wrong then others?  This may be one of those situations.



Wrong is wrong. It is not right because a larger number of people support it. Blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Is/ was it moral for the majority whites to have owned them as slaves? Would the programs against Jews been worse if only a minority of people hated them? Large groups of people, democracies, _do_ terrible things from time to time. 

This is why some of the first ammendements to the constitution were guarentees that the goverment of the people could not do things to individuals no matter how popular those sentiments were. 90 percent of the population could want to ban Islam now and the constitution forbids it. Those rules are not there for the majority, but to protect the minority from the majority. 

But here you are saying that if a group is large enough, it should be able to shaft others. The majority poor should be able to shaft the corporations. And you justify it in your mind with an irrational hatred of the rich and the feeling that they deserve to be punished. It is so much easier to take from victims once you demonize them.

Looking back on history, that is the way all communist systems start out. But they all end up with a small group of people corrupted by their power.

It does not matter if the group is large, small, rich or poor. No one should have the power to control others. Period. The whole idea that it is not facism if the right people are in charge boggles my mind.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2005)

"redistribution of wealth"...I love that term. In other words the gvt. takes, and takes, and takes, regardless of the will of the "takee". And those it takes from the most get the least of the "redistribution". On the street it's usually called robbery.

Hmmm...establish justice and insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

It seems that "general welfare" has been stretched to mean "specific welfare of certain groups" as of late.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Both cases are equally wrong. You have the tyranny of the majority vs the tyranny of the minority. Using politcal power to take from one to give to yourself is wrong, even if you have numbers on your side. You are arguing that it is not wrong if one side is stronger and merely going by numbers instead of of monetary pull.


 
That isn't what I was saying at all.  I was trying to show how when a politician supports a union, they are supporting the interests of more americans then if they support a corporation.



> They are free to be happy, etc AS LONG AS THAT HAPPINESS DOES NOT COME AT MY EXPENSE!!! I am trying to raise my family, etc as well and maybe having a Japanese car would help. It is the principle of the thing. They have no right to tell me what I can and can't do. And every time someone talks about the greater good, you need to grab your wallets.


 
Having a good job, good education, and access to good health care is far more important then buying a Japanese car.  If choice comes at the expense of those three things, is it worth it?



> And if you bothered to check, what you said about the unions is equally vaild to the corporations. You give unions a free ride when we talk about abusing politcal power, but not corporations. You seem to have an irrational hatred of them. ALL Americans should be treated the same, rich or poor, large groups or small. But you are treating the smaller groups as if they were evil as a matter of course.


 
I don't hate corporations.  That term is so general.  And to label them all as bad would be a gross stereotype.  However, if one actually looks at pork barrel spending, subsidies, giveaways and bailouts, this stuff does not favor unions, it favors corporations...hands down.  The simple fact of the matter is "they" are guilty of far more abuse then unions.



> Wrong is wrong. It is not right because a larger number of people support it. Blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Is/ was it moral for the majority whites to have owned them as slaves? Would the programs against Jews been worse if only a minority of people hated them? Large groups of people, democracies, _do_ terrible things from time to time.


 
Tell me, Don, how is making sure every American citizen has access to a good job, good education, good health care, and safety wrong? 



> This is why some of the first ammendements to the constitution were guarentees that the goverment of the people could not do things to individuals no matter how popular those sentiments were. 90 percent of the population could want to ban Islam now and the constitution forbids it. Those rules are not there for the majority, but to protect the minority from the majority.


 
I see your point and I think we need to be mindful of this, however, there just may be some things out there that could be good for everyone.  I think that Americans have the moral aptitude to judge that. 



> But here you are saying that if a group is large enough, it should be able to shaft others. The majority poor should be able to shaft the corporations. And you justify it in your mind with an irrational hatred of the rich and the feeling that they deserve to be punished. It is so much easier to take from victims once you demonize them.


 
I think you are getting caught up in your own hyperbole here.  



> Looking back on history, that is the way all communist systems start out. But they all end up with a small group of people corrupted by their power.


 
I don't think that I've ever said that we should become communist.  Perhaps the characterization of my points in this light is nothing but a strawman.



> It does not matter if the group is large, small, rich or poor. No one should have the power to control others. Period. The whole idea that it is not facism if the right people are in charge boggles my mind.


 
This is a pretty extreme statement.  It seems to me that you are advocating an anarcho-capitalistic system.  

And

How is making sure that people have access to well paying jobs, good education, good health care, and safety fascism?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

Double post, sorry.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Tell me, Don, how is making sure every American citizen has access to a good job, good education, good health care, and safety wrong?



It is wrong because it comes at the expense of others.

We could be perfect if only we give up a little bit of rights, eh? Some people would have to make *small* sacrifices for the good of many, eh?

And if the majority think that the few should be the ones to give up to benifit them, hey- that's democracy, right? Everyone should have nice cars, long vacations, etc, eh? We just have to take the money from those greedy, nasty people over there. And since we outnumber them, its alright!

Turing off the sarcasm, your arguments fall flat. Your right to swing ends before it hits my face. It does not matter how much of a need you say you have to swing, the second it impacts me it is not your right anymore.

So when you say you have a right to a good job, etc- that can't come at my expense. You are quite free to help others if you think they need it. You can't tell me what to do unless I impact you.

And history proves that when groups are given the power to determine what they need, they get greedy every time. One side will always push for more. Take away the other sides legal right to refuse or use their wealth as they want and soon people will try to take everything.

And your comment that "there just may be some things out there that could be good for everyone. I think that Americans have the moral aptitude to judge that." Flies in the face of reality. Take a look at history. People will and always have put their interests above the group. You get 51 percent of the population a chance at some goodies and they will force the remaining 49 percent to pay for it. The term 'pork barrel spending' is a common term and reflects the reality that people (not corporations) will vote for the politician that benifits them the most at the expense of the greater American good.

And on one hand you seem to be saying that the people are controlled by the information the get from the corporations because they are too stupid and/or lazy to get think and get information for themselves. But on the other, you say that we should trust them with total power because they have the aptitude to make the right choices. I can't see how you can hold thoe two thoughts in your head at the same time. I do not trust people to boss me around for fear they will abuse that power for their self interest.

And hey, I think that looking out for yourself is a good thing too. I just don't want to give anyone with the power of goverment to use it to impact me. Capitalism is the only system that prevents the few or the many from looking on the rest as a cash cow. I do not trust people to do the right thing. I know people who were sent to internment camps during WWII and I know the people that elected the politicians that sent them there.

Our biggest defense against tyranny is not a 'we should do this' type of thinking, but rather a 'no one should be able to do this to someone else' type of ideal. Capitalism falls in the later case. It does not say what we should do, merely that we should not be allowed to take from one no matter the justification of 'need'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2005)

For a primer on Don's POV check Anarcho-Capitalism for those who are still interested.  Don is right on that paradigm.  You make some valid points, however, I still _hope_ that a greater, more egalitarian society is possible.  

Here's to pipe dreams...(MT doesn't have an emoticon for bong hits)


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For a primer on Don's POV check Anarcho-Capitalism for those who are still interested.



No. I do not advocate anarchy. If you take away political power, you leave a void and something will step in to take over.

I merely say that there is a role for goverment in taking care of the type of things that the public sector can't and are needed to prevent society and the individuals of that society from coming to harm. So everything from the police to protect ourselves from violent criminals, the courts to serve as a  way of resolving conflicts, the Center for Deisease Control to keep us from the obvious, the Enviromental Protection Agency to keep the corporations from poisoning our air and water, etc are needed and should exist. But anything the goverment *need* not do to prevent things from harming members of society should be forbidden.

And then we watch those agencies like a hawk. Politicians... I don't trust them a bit....


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2005)

Don - check the link I posted above.  I think you might think the description of this political philosophy interesting.  Anarcho Capitalism is not anarchy as the name would imply...


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 30, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Don - check the link I posted above.  I think you might think the description of this political philosophy interesting.  Anarcho Capitalism is not anarchy as the name would imply...



I just checked it and it is a bit off from what I feel. I think that if you look up Objectavist philosophy toward goverment, I would be more in line with that.

This is the definition the link you gave has.



> Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the state as an unjustified monopolist and aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private, competing businesses.



That second line is what troubles me. I talked about the CDC and such. While close, it does not seem to agree 100 percent with how I feel.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2005)

Thanks for the clarification.  Good discussion.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 31, 2005)

I've been watching this discussion for a few years now, so I thought I'd weigh in now...

My position, essentially, is that a precarious balance must be maintained between the dangerous extremes of pure capitalism and pure socialism. If you wander too far in either direction, you end up with an intrinsically self-destructive social system. 

The boils down, essentially, to balancing the rights of the Citizen with the rights of the State. Much of the talk on this discussion thus far has emphasized individual rights while ignoring the rights and priorities of the greater community the individual finds himself or herself in. This is unfortunate, in my opinion.

What needs to be understood is any wealth or property you currently possess was not acquired solely of your own accord. Without the proper economic and educational opportunities, an individual can only go so far in terms of accumulating wealth and prestige. And, as can clearly be demonstrated by simple observation of the daily news, we do _not_ live in a society where opportunity is equally distributed among all members of our citizenry. Some have it better than others, having advantages and opportunities that others will _never_ have access to.

As such, a balance between responsibility and opportunity needs to be emphasized. Its all well and good to adulate the freedoms and rights of the individual, but this completely throws equality to the wayside. We see this with the various examples of 'cut-throat capitalism' in the marketplace, in which the rich get richer and poor get poorer. Likewise, a rigid over-emphasis on equality and egalitarianism will result in a stifling of individual freedom and choice. An economy simply cannot flourish without self-motivation among its citizens to better themselves and their families.

Anyone that is advocating anything short of a balance between these two extremes is just opening society up to all sorts of abuses and power struggles. This we simply cannot abide by.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 31, 2005)

I was going to post something similar, but heretic beat me to it.  I will comment on this though...the world has seen the dark side of egalitarianism...communism.  In my opinion, we have not seen the dark (est) side of capitalism (yet) because of that balance.  

An anarcho capitalistic state has yet to come into existance as far as I know...and I think its absence is telling.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 31, 2005)

Government enforced egalitarianism seems like a recipe for disaster no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The boils down, essentially, to balancing the rights of the Citizen with the rights of the State. Much of the talk on this discussion thus far has emphasized individual rights while ignoring the rights and priorities of the greater community the individual finds himself or herself in.



The state has no rights. The state is a collection of individuals. A free society is one that prevents some part of it doing harm to another part. A society that demands one part do something else for another is a slave society- whatever you may call it.

A free society demands that the state treat each member equally. Rich, poor, male, female, black or white. A non-free society demands that a section serve another group. A free society does not ensure equal oppurtunity outside of legal matters. The rich are treated in court like the poor is the ideal we strive for. But to demand that everyone have equal oppurtunity requires some to serve others as well as fly in the face of reality. I am not as smart as Stephen Hawkings. I am not a good looking as Harrison Ford. I do not have the same oppurtunities in those areas that they have. Period. Life is unfair. It is not society's role to make sure I get as many girls as Brad Pitt or be treated with the same respect as Hawkings.

By stressing the individual and allowing them freedom to do what they want as long as their actions to not have an averse affect on others, you can have a stable, fair society. But if you give *any* power of the group over the minority, you will find that power can and will be abused.

As much as you can stress that people may not be where they are because of their own efforts, who is to say what they owe anyone? Should they not make that choice from their own concious? Are you going to give the power to the potential recievers and let them determine what others owe them? Would you let others have that power over you willingly?

You see, you are probably thinking about those richer than you. But the same thing could be used against you. If you do not want people to have the right to say what you owe them because of something you had no part in, then you have to give that same respect to others.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2005)

Don - I'm curious as to your opinion on the question of why a society such as you have described has never existed?  Or perhaps I'm mistaken and such a society has existed.  If so, could you give us some historical examples?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Don - I'm curious as to your opinion on the question of why a society such as you have described has never existed?



Greed and envy.

Greed and envy will always be a part of human nature and that is why the spector of collectavism will always lurk on the edges of our thinking.

If you want to help the poor, you are free to do so in a free society, a capitalistic society. No one can force you to not give to the poor and try to pay back any debts you feel to society.

Perhaps we should look at the word "greed" and ask what it means to us. Would you say that working an extra job to put your kids through a better college than they might normally is greedy? How about doing the same for a long, exotic vacation? Both these examples are of things people really do not need to survive. But I would not call them greedy.

When we talk about greed, we normally are talking about people who want more than they have _without putting in the effort that they are normally required to._ They cut corners and rules to get more than they normally would. They take the easy way at the expense of others.

Agreed?

And envy is pretty straight forward. You see people with something you do not and you want it. You want to take it away from them. You don't give much thought about them in your desire to gain what they have achieved.

And I think we can agree that there has never been a time or place where this is not an aspect of human society. Maybe in small family groups barely above starving where every member of the clan has to work to insure that their DNA survives to the next generation. But that is due to need, and we do not face that type of situation anymore.

So these aspects of greed and envy manifest themselves when people look at the rich, lust after what they have and think about ways to take it away from them. Simple envy and greed. If the people look at the rich, decide to work to be as rich as them, then there is no problem. But greed and envy is a strong drive in humans. And so we have calls to share the wealth.

Of course, humans don't want to think of themselves as monsters. You look at the biographies of some of the most inhuman slime that have ever existed and most of them went to bed with a clear conscious, believing that they were doing good. The human mind is very skilled in diverting blame away from yourself and making yourself think you are noble instead of a bad person.

If these people that sent millions to their deaths can arrange their minds to believe that they are doing what is right, how easy is it for someone to promote a system that they know will benifit them at the expense of others to think that they are doing it for the good of humanity?

Take a look at the world. There is a lot of places where people could send their money and make lives better there. And in America there is nothing stopping them from doing so. And if people cut back on their life style, lived in smaller houses, ate simpler foods, etc, they could then take more of their pay check and send it to help others.

But how many people in America talking about those that have a lot helping those with less do you see doing this type of thing? The ones you run across 999,999 times out of a million are interested in those that _have more than them_ helping those that have less.

Oh, and they sound noble. But it is greed and envy that make them do what they do. Those forces are what cause them to try to appease their conscious by demonizing those they intend to take away from. You have heard a lot of things about how everyone should be treated as an individual and not a member of a group from some people and then hear the same folks talk about 'the rich' as a group, talking about the sins of a few?

We humans are not more evolved or wise than those that owned slaves. We merely have more knowledge availible to us. At heart, we still have some very sad aspects to us. And those aspects prevent us from building a society where no one can be used as a slave by another.

The only thing we can do is convince people that instead of being the whip holder, they may be on the other end. Then they may think about setting up a society where no one is thought to own another.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Government enforced egalitarianism seems like a recipe for disaster no matter how you slice it.


 
Neither upnorthkyosa nor myself were calling for "government enforced egalitarianism", if that is what you're implying here.

Rather, and I can only speak for myself here, what I am arguing for is a moderate balance between Freedom and Order. Or, if you prefer, between individualism and collectivism. I feel that leaning too far in _either_ direction will inevitably create self-destructive elements within society (typically individuals and groups that are willing to manipulate the system to benefit themselves, whether they be corporate CEOs or communist leaders).

Simply put, since Freedom and Equality exist in precisely inverse relationships, we cannot accept anything short of Balance.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The state has no rights. The state is a collection of individuals. A free society is one that prevents some part of it doing harm to another part. A society that demands one part do something else for another is a slave society- whatever you may call it.
> 
> A free society demands that the state treat each member equally. Rich, poor, male, female, black or white. A non-free society demands that a section serve another group. A free society does not ensure equal oppurtunity outside of legal matters. The rich are treated in court like the poor is the ideal we strive for. But to demand that everyone have equal oppurtunity requires some to serve others as well as fly in the face of reality. I am not as smart as Stephen Hawkings. I am not a good looking as Harrison Ford. I do not have the same oppurtunities in those areas that they have. Period. Life is unfair. It is not society's role to make sure I get as many girls as Brad Pitt or be treated with the same respect as Hawkings.
> 
> By stressing the individual and allowing them freedom to do what they want as long as their actions to not have an averse affect on others, you can have a stable, fair society. But if you give *any* power of the group over the minority, you will find that power can and will be abused.


 
Don,

The State does indeed have its own rights. The State has to right to draft able-bodied citizens when invaded by a foreign power. The State has the right to declare a State of Emergency during certain periods of turmoil and distress (most notablty natural disasters). The State has the right to tax its citizenry for the maintenance of certain intsitutions such as a police department, fire department, military, postal service, libraries, and so on.

So, again, denying the rights of the State while overemphasizing the rights of the Citizen results in a lop-sided, imbalanced social system in which powerful individuals will do all that they can to stack the deck (so to speak) in their favor. And, that is precisely what we see done by the Enrons and Halliburtons of the world.

Likewise, denying the rights of the Citizen whle overemphasizing the rights of the State results in nothing short of a welfare state or communist bloc. This is intrinsically self-corroding (as we saw with the Soviet Union), because the citizenry will have very little reason to work harder to advance themselves and their family if everything they do or own is the property of the State. Such an economy will inevitably fall.

I should point out that if we completely ignore Order in lieu of Free approaches, then you have a hell of a time condemning such things as racial or sexual discrimination in non-government workplaces. Which is precisely the point: in overtly Free systems, those who have amassed power and wealth will ensure that they maintain power and wealth and others will have difficulty in doing so. They maintain monopolies, get their hands into the pockets of the local and/or federal authorities, prevent new markets from emerging, and so on. This is why there is an imbalance in opportunity (outside of issues as being as attractive as Brad Pitt) among society, and this is why such imbalances must be addressed.

And this, again, is why I emphasize Balance.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> We humans are not more evolved or wise than those that owned slaves. We merely have more knowledge availible to us. At heart, we still have some very sad aspects to us. And those aspects prevent us from building a society where no one can be used as a slave by another.


 
That depends on what standard of 'evolution' and 'wisdom' you are going by, really.

I think philosophers like Jean Gebser, Jurgen Habermas, Ken Wilber, and even the theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would disagree with you here, although modern (or is that postmodern?) man is hardly a perfect being.

This is also where developmental psychology can perhaps tell us a thing or two.

Laterz.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 1, 2005)

What happens in a capitalist society when the businesses can set up shop in the country, farm the labor out to other countries because it is cheaper and then send it's profits to those same other countries? How does this affect the society that the business is set up in. Isn't this nothing more than the distributing the wealth of that country, in essence reducing the host country quality of life? 

What happens when a company is allowed to do things that are detrimental to society for the sake of money?  Doesn't a parasite do this as well?

I personally think capitalism should be somewhat bridled. For instance a company should not be allowed to setup shop in a host country and hire it's staff outside of that host country. Likewise it should not be allowed to send it's profits outside of that country (you make it here, you invest it here). Additionally, it should not be allowed to engage in business that is detrimental to the host country and/or it's citizens. It should support or foster a healthy/safe economic base.  Additionally, trade with other countries should be fair and equitable value.  (import/export restrictions that are 1:1)

I think this is called protectionist laws? Many countries have these in some degree or other. Unfortunately, in the United States, we are pretty much wide open for exploit.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> What happens in a capitalist society when the businesses can set up shop in the country, farm the labor out to other countries because it is cheaper and then send it's profits to those same other countries? How does this affect the society that the business is set up in. Isn't this nothing more than the distributing the wealth of that country, in essence reducing the host country quality of life?
> 
> What happens when a company is allowed to do things that are detrimental to society for the sake of money? Doesn't a parasite do this as well?
> 
> ...


 
Nicely put, David. :asian: 

That was basically what I was trying to say in my previous posts, albeit in a more abstract and philosophical manner.

Laterz.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> What happens when a company is allowed to do things that are detrimental to society for the sake of money?



What happens when you buy from another buyer instead of my store? Does that not cause problems for me? 

When you say things like detrimental to society, you are not talking about poluting water or anything like that. You are talking about people doing the same things you do when you choose a better option in your interest.

Think about it. The big complaint when you buy foriegn goods or a company takes its business overseas is not, "they are coming in and harming me" but rather, "they are not doing enough for me." And again, why should anyone be forced to buy from someone when there are better options out there? Don't you do that?

Maybe taking business overseas does not help the major unions in America. Neither is you keeping your money or buying foriegn goods. But it is your money to do with as you please and it is their business to use as they please. If you or the business never existed, the unions, etc would not benifit from you in the first place.

Again, if there is a direct impact on another, such as violent assault, slander or polution, then the state steps in to prevent it. But complaining that people are not buying your stuff and should be _forced_ to do so is anything but fair.

You have the freedom to buy, or not buy with the product of your labors. Some people may complain that by buying foreign goods you are not helping Americans, but that means that Americans should become  more competitive. (Putting aside the case of unfair trade laws- which America has as well.) You do not want people telling you that you can never go to Japan because your tourist dollars need to be spent in America- to be fair you have to give people the same consideration and let the be free with their property as well.

Not buying from a store, or spending it in America is not the same as stealing from that store. There is nothing parasitical in giving someone what they want at a price they agree on.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, again, denying the rights of the State while overemphasizing the rights of the Citizen results in a lop-sided, imbalanced social system in which powerful individuals will do all that they can to stack the deck (so to speak) in their favor.



And that is why we try to put in rules that prevent people from coming in and taking by force, etc from others. If a big company gets bigger, then that is ok. If the buyer and the seller are both happy with the idea of the sale, then that is their business. Both sides have to agree.



> I should point out that if we completely ignore Order in lieu of Free approaches, then you have a hell of a time condemning such things as racial or sexual discrimination in non-government workplaces. Which is precisely the point: in overtly Free systems, those who have amassed power and wealth will ensure that they maintain power and wealth and others will have difficulty in doing so. They maintain monopolies, get their hands into the pockets of the local and/or federal authorities, prevent new markets from emerging, and so on. This is why there is an imbalance in opportunity (outside of issues as being as attractive as Brad Pitt) among society, and this is why such imbalances must be addressed.



Why should the goverment by able to tell people who you can associate with? 

If you run a business, should not you be able to say who you want to hire? Why should anyone be able to tell you who you should hire, or buy from? And that is what you are doing when you talk about enforcing racial or sexual hiring practices. I would raise bloody hell if I found out my tax dollars are going to some group that discriminates. But if it was a provate business, I am free to stop giving that business money.

And as along as the goverment does not step in to enforce a business monoploy, there is always the time when that business can't keep it. It is the goverment that forces these types of unfair conditions. You may note the quote I restarted this thread with. The more you try to give goverments the power to regulate it's citizens to make everything fair, the more those forces that want the type of monopolistic power will put the politicians in their pocket.

Take a look at history. If you are so worried about unfair advantages and monopolies, can you show me a succesfull monopoly that was not backed by some sort of goverment regulation? Every time someone has tried to monopolize a market without the goverment, someone comes along with a better service to knock it down.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 2, 2005)

Don,

I agree with what you are saying to a point. However, it isn't as simple as you explain. It is far more complex than that. We aren't talking little mom and pop storefronts that are competing with one another. What we are talking about are large corporations that not only exploit the environment where they exist but the people that live there as well. Unbridled capitalism is destructive to national wellbeing, just as smoking and drugs destroy a body. The benefits are really short-term (in the grander scheme of things).

I see nothing wrong with the companies being competitive, but not when it destroys a culture and or a nation for the benefit of others. Ultimately, uncontrolled capitalism is self-destructive, once set in motion it destroys nations, because ultimately, it is nothing more than greed and the lust for money without regard for anything else.

As you can probably guess, I am not a globalist either. I don't agree with the ideology. I prefer national sovereignty (sp?) and national identity.

At the same time, I do not believe in giving the government too much control.  That is just as dangerous if not more so.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 2, 2005)

If people dont want to BUY there would be no big monopolies to SELL. Companies dont "destroy cultures". The people in those cultures decide to change it on their own.....


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 3, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Unbridled capitalism is destructive to national wellbeing, just as smoking and drugs destroy a body.



Not quite. If some people do what they will _to others against their will_ then that is evil and not capitalism. The freedom to pursue capitalism, profit, can't be done by harming others. I offer you X for Y and if you don't agree, nothing can go forward. If we both agree, then no one else has the right to come in and tell us what we can and can't do. We could be talking about commerce, sex or anything else and that standard holds true.

So there must be rules and limits in place to prevent other people from doing things like polluting, robbery, slander, fraud, etc. These are rules that prevent one person/group from doing something to another against their will.

But when you talk about something destroying a culture, I think TGace sums it up pretty well. The individual members of that society/group/community each make their own decisions about how it will evolve. 

Think about it. Who gets to determine what a society will be like? You may want to eat sushi, but if the powers that be determine that American Culture should be stronger, then should the Japanese restraunts be closed down? I say let each person make their own choice as to where they will shop and eat and let the culture evolve instead of someone making a decision on how things will be. Again, who chooses in that case?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But when you talk about something destroying a culture, I think TGace sums it up pretty well. The individual members of that society/group/community each make their own decisions about how it will evolve.


 
I would say that is true to a certain extent.  However, there is a difference in power between individuals in a society and a difference in the amount of zeitgiest one can generate.  A CEO has MUCH more power to affect society when compared to an average millworker...


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A CEO has MUCH more power to affect society when compared to an average millworker...



And as long as he does not use force then that's ok. If someone is more popular, or speaks better, or any one of a million reasons, they are going to affect those around them more than others. A union leader could forge millions of people into a politcal block and have far more power than a CEO.

The AFL/CIO has a lot of power given to them by the workers. You don't have problems with that I assume. I do not either as a rule. But what I say about the CEOs goes for the unions as well as the AARP or just a lot of individuals thinking along the same line. No person or group has the right to force another to do anything- including monetary matters.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 3, 2005)

Don the principles of capitalism are great! Unfortunately, many powerful and influential people have less than altruistic motivations and they cause the problems. Capitalism on it's own is cool, but unfortunately, even that can be exploited by bad people.

As an FYI, I am not a fan of unions and I do not belong to any.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And as long as he does not use force then that's ok. If someone is more popular, or speaks better, or any one of a million reasons, they are going to affect those around them more than others. A union leader could forge millions of people into a politcal block and have far more power than a CEO.
> 
> The AFL/CIO has a lot of power given to them by the workers. You don't have problems with that I assume. I do not either as a rule. But what I say about the CEOs goes for the unions as well as the AARP or just a lot of individuals thinking along the same line. No person or group has the right to force another to do anything- including monetary matters.


 
A union is a democratic organization.  A corporation is not.  I'm not justifying abuse, however, I'm giving a little rationale as to why I would trust a union over a corporation.  Speaking plainly, unions represent more people's interests.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 3, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Don the principles of capitalism are great! Unfortunately, many powerful and influential people have less than altruistic motivations and they cause the problems. Capitalism on it's own is cool, but unfortunately, even that can be exploited by bad people.



Which is why you need a goverment to prevent a factory from polluting the area. But in terms of a sale between two sides- no problem.



> A union is a democratic organization. A corporation is not. I'm not justifying abuse, however, I'm giving a little rationale as to why I would trust a union over a corporation. Speaking plainly, unions represent more people's interests.



And goverments have represented people's interests when they enslaved the blacks, took land away from the indians, etc. There are plenty of cases where the majority was quite happy to give the shaft to the minority. One person, or few. There is no difference. Both should have a right to do what they want as long as they don't use force against others. Saying that you have numbers on your side and that makes it correct is a justification for gang rape.

Remember, we have to look out for the interests of _everybody._ Your last line seems to justify the expoloitation of the minority, whomever they may be.


----------

