Why I love Capitalism

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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]

Unfettered capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

Unfettered ANYTHING is a recipe for disaster.
anything.

Your Brother
John

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.