Why I love Capitalism

[Marginal]

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]

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.

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.

Yes, but that not relevant to this discussion.

Same principle.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack of such a system. It is what happens when people are free from the force of other people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of natural conditions something must be done to make those conditions better for mankind. That is exactly what people have been doing with the invention of the wheel, of machines, the production of energy and everything that followed. All of this is the product of mans mind, without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature. Capitalism itself forces nothing.

Capitalism doesn't aim at equal ends because they do not occur where people are free to choose their own paths. Those better off do have more opportunities (not more freedom), but that in no way gives one person (or group) the right to rob them of these opportunities and give them to another. Life can be very hard for an impoverished man in a desert compared to a rich man in a European landowners family. That does not give anyone the right to rob the European and give to desert dweller.

 

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.