Why I love Capitalism

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the clarification. Good discussion. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

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]

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]

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

 

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?