Why I love Capitalism

[Tgace]

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

Names?

 

[Makalakumu]

Why should they give them to you?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

Nobody cares what you think you give "to society" and nobody cares what you think you deserve in return. Trade, to be trade, must be voluntary and consensual. You are free to make an agreement with someone whereby you contribute something of value in order to receive your solar panels in trade. You are not entitled simply to have them gifted to you on the basis of what you think you've "earned."

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

Nobody cares what you think you give "to society" and nobody cares what you think you deserve in return. Trade, to be trade, must be voluntary and consensual. You are free to make an agreement with someone whereby you contribute something of value in order to receive your solar panels in trade. You are not entitled simply to have them gifted to you on the basis of what you think you've "earned."

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

Names?

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

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

I just randomly picked a few from a search that started with examples of egalitarian societies.

 

[Makalakumu]

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

I agree. Good post.

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

You wish to benefit from the earnings, the productive effort, of other human beings. You think you deserve this, but you do not. Unless you arrange to trade value for value, you deserve nothing.

A society built on envy, on egalitarian schemes, on the greed of those who do not produce for that which is produced by others, is unnatural. It is contrary to every fiber of a rational human being.

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

 

[Don Roley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Roley
And what gives anyone the right to determine just how valuable your contribution to society is?

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

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Don Roley]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

Such thinking -- or lack of thinking -- is not new. Back in the 18th century, Adam Smith wrote of politicians who devote "a most unnecessary attention" to things that would work themselves out better in a free market.

What is conventionally called "the free market" is in reality free people making their own mutual accommodations with other free people. It is one of the many tactical mistakes of conservatives to use an impersonal phrase to describe very personal choices and actions by people when they are not hamstrung by third parties.

When the issue is posed as "the free market" versus "compassion for the poor," which do you think is likely to win out?

Our bloated and ever-growing welfare state -- from which the poor get a very small share, by the way -- answers that question.

The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices -- paid by others.

Millions of people's lives are made worse in innumerable ways, in order that a relative handful of busybodies can feel important and superior. Artificially high land prices in those places where busybodies reign politically, based on land use restrictions, make housing costs a crushing burden on people of average incomes.

 

[Tgace]

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

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

...

Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.

Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent.

Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgement of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system.

It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one’s birth or station in life.

Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient.

Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice. This applies to both the business executive and the carpenter, the lawyer and the factory worker.

 

[Phil Elmore]

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