Why I love Capitalism

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Don Roley]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

No, it's silly emotional posturing.

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

 

[Marginal]

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]

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]

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]

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.