Jump to content

Capitalism!


Lightbearer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I made this thread in response to alot of the posts of people critizing capitalism. I spread myself so thin across the board that sometimes I forget who I said what to... so I end up writing the same things over and over again.

 

So I made this thread to put all those discussions in one place and to address everyones thoughts and criticisms of capitalism. Asimov agreed to help me in this, in case I am short on answers for you.

 

By capitalism I mean laizze-faire capitalism and with a government designed to protect your individual rights that does not intervene in the economy in anyway. Not anaracho-capitalism or our current mixed system.

 

So, since I'll let you bring up a question or an issue and we will start from there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I reckon I'll start with two questions:

 

Do you have any particular quaifications to serve as an authority on this particular '-ism', other than a certain enthusiasm for Ayn Rand?

 

And more to the point:

 

Whence come "property rights"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, there is more to capitalism then Ayn Rand. She did not invent it, just show that it is the most moral system. I do alot of research and studying on my own, and also that's part of the reason why I am in college.

 

But if you want authority to apply to me then does it apply to the rest of the people on this board who argue philophical views?

 

Second, I am still coming up with my answer on the question. I've been given it alot of thought as to come up with the best answer. :grin: How exactly would you define property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right then. Since Capitalism and the US Dollar seem to go together, can you give me the definition of a US Dollar, Lightbearer?

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since I'll let you bring up a question or an issue and we will start from there!

 

Several were brought up here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206250

 

Seems as good a place as any to start. Feel free to answer there or cut and paste over here.

 

Also, please explain to us how Ayn Rand showed capitalism to be the most moral system. I've read a bit of Rand, and found her work to be nothing more than an example of mediocre fiction. I'm stumped as to how anyone could think her ideas would translate to the real world. She is an author of *fiction*, after all. Her ideas sound good when they only apply to her characters, who react in exactly the way she wants them to, but real people are quite a bit more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since I'll let you bring up a question or an issue and we will start from there!

 

Several were brought up here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206250

 

Seems as good a place as any to start. Feel free to answer there or cut and paste over here.

 

Also, please explain to us how Ayn Rand showed capitalism to be the most moral system. I've read a bit of Rand, and found her work to be nothing more than an example of mediocre fiction. I'm stumped as to how anyone could think her ideas would translate to the real world. She is an author of *fiction*, after all. Her ideas sound good when they only apply to her characters, who react in exactly the way she wants them to, but real people are quite a bit more complicated.

 

Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since I'll let you bring up a question or an issue and we will start from there!

 

Several were brought up here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206250

 

Seems as good a place as any to start. Feel free to answer there or cut and paste over here.

 

Also, please explain to us how Ayn Rand showed capitalism to be the most moral system. I've read a bit of Rand, and found her work to be nothing more than an example of mediocre fiction. I'm stumped as to how anyone could think her ideas would translate to the real world. She is an author of *fiction*, after all. Her ideas sound good when they only apply to her characters, who react in exactly the way she wants them to, but real people are quite a bit more complicated.

Yes...I once claimed to be an objectivist myself. But, I gave up fundamentalism. :HaHa:

 

Really though, it did make perfect sense to me at the time. I just had to step outside the box...once again! There are areas that do relate to life but then it goes to extremes also.

 

Damn...there sure is a lot of little boxes in this world that one can step into and become trapped without even knowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, there is more to capitalism then Ayn Rand. She did not invent it, just show that it is the most moral system. I do alot of research and studying on my own, and also that's part of the reason why I am in college.

 

I read a fair amount of Ayn Rand years ago. It was interesting enough (the essays, that is- her fiction was horrible), and I don't neccesarily disagree with her on lots of points. But after digesting her philosophy for a while (and reading some about her personal life), I think "objectivism" is a LONG way from being "objective". Anyways... yeah- we're not just discussing Rand here, but I'd be interested to know why capitalism is the MOST MORAL system. Of course, this requires (among other things) that one define "moral" and figure out an objective (funny word, that) way to measure "most".

 

But if you want authority to apply to me then does it apply to the rest of the people on this board who argue philophical views?

 

If somebody else on this thread presumes to "educate" me... then I'll ask for their credentials. And yours are?

 

Second, I am still coming up with my answer on the question. I've been given it alot of thought as to come up with the best answer. :grin: How exactly would you define property?

 

I'm not sure why you need clarification, but the dictionary definitions should suffice:

 

1. a. Something owned; a possession.

 

b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.

 

c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

d. Possessions considered as a group.

2. The right of ownership; title.

 

I'd be interested in your opinion on where "property rights" come from in any and all cases above.

 

 

The fruits of ones own labour! Yea!!!

 

That ain't the definition of 'property' by a longshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lightbearer...

 

Opening a discussion such as this one requires a foundational statement to base the rest of argument on.

 

What is yours? I somehow missed your opening salvo, save for the shotgunning at the beginning of thread.

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're at it, would either you, Lightbearer, or you, Asimov, define the four monetary systems that exist in this world? Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is a monetary system by the way.

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right then. Since Capitalism and the US Dollar seem to go together, can you give me the definition of a US Dollar, Lightbearer?

Casey

 

I'm just gonna comment on a few posts here.

 

Casey, Lightbearer explicitly stated that he wasn't talking about the US version of capitalism.

 

 

That ain't the definition of 'property' by a longshot.

 

Why not? We come to own things through our own productivity, therefore, what I produce is mine.

 

Also, please explain to us how Ayn Rand showed capitalism to be the most moral system. I've read a bit of Rand, and found her work to be nothing more than an example of mediocre fiction. I'm stumped as to how anyone could think her ideas would translate to the real world. She is an author of *fiction*, after all. Her ideas sound good when they only apply to her characters, who react in exactly the way she wants them to, but real people are quite a bit more complicated.

 

Ayn Rand wrote more than just fiction. She is an author of both fiction and non-fiction.

 

That would be like disregarding what Isaac Asimov said because he wrote fiction....I say, so what?

 

lightbearer...

 

Opening a discussion such as this one requires a foundational statement to base the rest of argument on.

 

What is yours? I somehow missed your opening salvo, save for the shotgunning at the beginning of thread.

 

kFL

 

I agree with that...I think Lightbearer should explain and define his terms a bit better.

 

While we're at it, would either you, Lightbearer, or you, Asimov, define the four monetary systems that exist in this world? Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is a monetary system by the way.

Casey

 

Do you mean the dollar, euro..etc? Can you explain how that's relevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casey, Lightbearer explicitly stated that he wasn't talking about the US version of capitalism.

 

That is correct. However he (Lightbearer) went on to say that Ayn Rand proved Capitalism to be "the most moral system". Very well. If I take it "moral" means inter alia an "honest" system, and if I further take it that Capitalism is an economic system, then may I put it that any economic system is only as "honest" as is the monetary system that drives it?

 

That is why one must look at the money first. I am using the US Dollar as an example, no more, but in truth, what happened to it over the years has happened to every other monetary unit in the world.

 

Firstly, what is a US Dollar? There exists a legal definition, which is this:

 

The Dollar or Unit shall be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, that is, running in the market, to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver.
(As quoted by Edwin Vieira, emphasis mine).

 

A more scholarly account by Vieira is to be found here

 

What this meant was the Dollar was a stable monetary unit, provided it was not debased. Could you say the same of any Federal Reserve Note? However a Dollar, or any other monetary unit, is part of a monetary system. Historically there have been four such systems, two of which are honest, one of which may be honest, and the last which is inherently dishonest. These are:

 

Barter. OK, barter is not a monetary system as such, but it was where all the others started. "A" had something which "B" wanted, and vice versa, so they swapped the one thing for the other.

 

There were of course problems with this system, and it was replaced by "commodity money" that is to say usually (but not always) specie or coinage of gold or silver of a specified weight. The money didn't have to be coinage, it could be anything that was intrinsically valued by society.

 

Next we have "fiduciary money". To understand this, as the use of gold and silver coinage became more widespread, goldsmiths would store this money for a customer on payment of a fee. The customer would then be given a receipt for his gold or silver. These receipts eventually came to be accepted as money. This system was honest until the goldsmiths tumbled to a little trick.

 

Because only one in ten of their customers would ever show up and demand their money at any one time, they would print up to nine times as many more of these receipts than the amount of gold or silver they actually held. They could then spend this (counterfeit) money into the economy, or more importantly, lend it at interest.

 

Of course, every now and then, there would be a panic in the unstable monetary system they had produced. Basically, all their customers would turn up at once and demand their gold. There would then be what came to be known as a "bank run". That was the risk the goldsmiths ran and it was a very real risk because many of these crooks were taken out and hanged to the nearest tree or lamp post when their fraud was discovered.

 

To lessen this risk, the goldsmiths banded together, and eventually, they came to commit the same fraud on the Governments of all countries. That is, the largest of them would combine to form Central Banks. These Banks essentially loaned the Governments whatever amount of money the Governments wanted. They would however, only do this on three conditions:

 

Firstly that they, the Central Banks, would have the sole right of issuance (the right to print paper money or mint coins whether of precious or of base metal. Secondly that the Government would make this money "Legal Tender", and thirdly, that the Government would enact an Income Tax.

 

When Central Banks first began this fraud, fiduciary money still existed. That is, every bank note was backed by gold or silver, or both. This limited the scam somewhat, especially as the ordinary people were allowed by law to redeem their money for the equivalent in gold or silver coinage. That suited neither the Governments nor the banksters, as it checked their activities.

 

Eventually in the US, the gold the people held was consfiscated by FDR under the Emergency Banking Act. Older members of this site may well remember that happening. Essentially FDR declared the US bankrupt although he of course didn't care to use such language in front of the children, so to speak. He said instead that he had to pool the people's gold to fight the Depression. Privately he and the other members of Congress would admit, "That was what the 'experts' wanted". He didn't say who these experts were, but go on, guess who?

 

Thus the gold and silver standards were progressively destroyed, until today's system came about. Every currency in the world today is a "fiat" currency. It is backed only by the fact that the common people are obliged to pay taxes with it. A byproduct of this fiat system is inflation, which is essentially a hidden tax. Governments love inflation, because they don't have to levy taxes directly on the populace.

 

If a Government wants to go to war with another country for example, they don't have to raise taxes to pay the enormous costs of the war. Their central bank lends them the money, and the people pay for it. How long d'you think the Vietnam War would have lasted if LBJ had had to raise taxes to pay for it? Of course Nixon had to once again declare bankruptcy in 1971 when he repudiated the Bretton Woods Agreement (qv).

 

Considering this is true of every monetary system in the Capitalist world today, how can anyone say Capitalism is "The most moral system"? How can any system based on fraud be "moral"? It isn't even honest, let Ayn Rand or any other apologist say what they may.

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

As I see it, unbridled capitalism inevitably leads to monolithic forces like global corporations, to which real morality will never apply, because whatever collectively beneficial transgressions of morality are comitted by corporations can always be scapegoated in such a way that the corp will live on. I'm all for people being all they can be, but a part of me will always see that mindset and it's constituent exclusions as a relic from our animal nature. Is a person's worth truly determined by their productivity?

What about artists? Are we to assume that the most valuable art is that which the public has been persuaded is the most valuable? Is it really justice that a man who can put a ball through a hoop 25 times in a game is more valuable to society than a teacher, or a scientist?

 

I'm not a communist, but when I consider how many of the world's fortunes have been constructed on treachery and bloodshed, I have to wonder if there isn't a better way. And when I consider the vast majority of the world who, even if born in a developed nation, have no real chance at fortune, but only the bleak future of continued servitude to look forward to, I am perennially dismayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really justice that a man who can put a ball through a hoop 25 times in a game is more valuable to society than a teacher, or a scientist?

 

Was it really justice that a skilled gladiator or charioteer in Ancient Rome was more valuable than a sculptor say? I believe they called it the "bread and circus" policy. It diverted attention from more serious issues. It still exists in modern times, although perhaps the sports aren't so bloodthirsty. It is curious to reflect that while many an American (or Australian for that matter) male can tell you the results of football games and/or horse races going back decades, the same fellow hasn't a clue as to his country's history, its Government, or the real state of its finances. And that of course suits our lords and masters very well. Heaven forbid that they ever be held to account as they rightly should be!

 

I'm not a communist, but when I consider how many of the world's fortunes have been constructed on treachery and bloodshed, I have to wonder if there isn't a better way.

 

There is one possibility, although I doubt it will ever be implemented. Ironically this solution was suggested years ago by one of the banksters themselves. Damned if I know why he put it so eloquently; perhaps he had developed what christians would call a "conscience" late in life. By the way, this man had once been the Governor of The Bank of England, so one might presume he knew whereof he spoke:

 

Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.
(Emphases mine)

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? We come to own things through our own productivity, therefore, what I produce is mine.

 

Sure, your own productivity is ONE of many ways to acquire property (seems to be the only method at MY disposal)... but property can also be 'given' to you, acquired by social or government protections, or stolen... just to name a few.

 

So where do you reckon "property rights" come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand wrote more than just fiction. She is an author of both fiction and non-fiction.

 

That would be like disregarding what Isaac Asimov said because he wrote fiction....I say, so what?

 

Peachy. Then it should be easy for you to answer the question. Please tell us how she showed it to be the most moral system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand wrote more than just fiction. She is an author of both fiction and non-fiction.

 

That would be like disregarding what Isaac Asimov said because he wrote fiction....I say, so what?

 

Peachy. Then it should be easy for you to answer the question. Please tell us how she showed it to be the most moral system.

 

I would love to, but this isn't my thread, Lightbearer said he would like to answer the questions and I'll wait until he's had time to post his replies.

 

Sure, your own productivity is ONE of many ways to acquire property (seems to be the only method at MY disposal)... but property can also be 'given' to you, acquired by social or government protections, or stolen... just to name a few.

 

So where do you reckon "property rights" come from?

 

See my post above.

 

Yes, it can be given to you and involuntarily. I believe in an Objectivist society there is no social or governmental property that can be given away since everything is privatized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why not? We come to own things through our own productivity, therefore, what I produce is mine.

 

Are you saying that you are 1000 times more productive than a factory worker in Bangladesh or in Indonesia? Are you saying that Tiger Woods is more productive than all people producing Nike shoes so that Nike fairly pays him more than Nike pays all those 1000's of people that make its shoes? Is wacking a golf ball really more productive than makeing a shoe?

 

Do you understand that capitalism (of what ever kind) works by extracting as much of the value added by most workers as the local law will allow? That is no worker gets to own productivity. You are merely allowed to have some of it out of the generosity of your company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? We come to own things through our own productivity, therefore, what I produce is mine.

 

Sure, your own productivity is ONE of many ways to acquire property (seems to be the only method at MY disposal)... but property can also be 'given' to you, acquired by social or government protections, or stolen... just to name a few.

 

So where do you reckon "property rights" come from?

I find it so fascinating that the American Indians had no concept of land ownership. They belonged to the land, not the other way around. That is one reason why it was easy for the newly formed American government to take it away from them. Land ownership was absurd in their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone on this planet is in slavery whether they are cognizant of it or not. In fact it is the very same underdeveloped ability to perceive that prevents Man from recognizing this reality, but it’s a fundamentally simple equation. Individuals in this country ( and on this Planet ) have “jobs” which occupy most of their waking life to produce goods and services for the Institution of the Corporation for generally meager compensation, which they promptly give right back to the Institution of the Corporation for the same goods and services. At best you live in indentured servitude, but in reality you are still on the Plantation.

 

However, the Slave Owner has learned through millennia of trial and error the value having the slave not perceive himself as a slave. Hence this entire society and all of it’s components are geared to preventing the slave from awakening. Every new meaningless product or coffee flavor creates the illusion of “progress” and keeps the slave occupied. Every “news” broadcast is designed to focus your attention to anything other than the reality of the world and your position in it. The endless series of recreational products and events ensure that any chance of free thinking that hasn’t already been destroyed is lost in some feeble attempt at having “fun”. Read it all here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made this thread in response to alot of the posts of people critizing capitalism. I spread myself so thin across the board that sometimes I forget who I said what to... so I end up writing the same things over and over again.

 

So I made this thread to put all those discussions in one place and to address everyones thoughts and criticisms of capitalism. Asimov agreed to help me in this, in case I am short on answers for you.

 

By capitalism I mean laizze-faire capitalism and with a government designed to protect your individual rights that does not intervene in the economy in anyway. Not anaracho-capitalism or our current mixed system.

 

So, since I'll let you bring up a question or an issue and we will start from there!

 

 

Okay Light, let's start here:

 

1> Would you mind giving your operational definition of laissez-faire capitalism? Because that's a far cry from Adam Smith. Are you talking about neo-liberal capitalism (which is still not entirely laissez-faire)? Or are you a follower of the Chicago school, founded by Hayek?

 

2> Would you define a 'moral system', please? How is capitalism the most moral system?

 

3> What are the other major economic systems and why are they *less* moral?

 

 

I would then like you to engage in a thought experiment and explain to me how capitalism solves this problem.

 

Fifty years ago, segregation was the norm throughout the entire American South. The government intervened, dismantling segregation over a period of about two decades using, amongst other things, the Interstate Commerce Clause. Now, if I am taking your position at its most strict, you would disagree with this move by our government. If that is, in fact, the case how do you believe that market-forces alone would have resolved this issue? Now, if you've never spent time in the Deep South during that period (I was born there) you may not have recognized some of the economic restraints so let me run this past you.

 

You and a rival are in the restaurant business, it is 1964 and we are in, say, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. For reasons of conscience you desegregate your restaurant, your rival does not. Now, your food is of the same quality, your wait staff are of the same quality, in fact, we can hold all other things constant about your restaurants the only significant difference is that you will allow blacks and whites to sit in the same dining area, your rival does not. Because of community pressure, you start to see your business decline. Whites, who in that time and in that place, have more income stop going to your restaurant. Blacks, for reasons of economics and history initially patronize your restaurant but they do not have the kind of income to make up for the loss of the white business. You start to hemmorage money. What is the RATIONAL economic thing to do? Of course, it is to re-segregate your restaurant and hope to win customers back. Other businesses in the area see what happened to your business and never take the plunge, having learned their lesson by your unfortunate example. You resegregate, but the damage is done. Those who are virulently segregationist won't ever patronize you. They put pressure on their neighbors not to patronize you. You go out of business.

 

Now, you may argue that there are black owned businesses (there were) but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not segregation (which I would hope everyone participating here would agree was wrong) would have been dismantled by market forces. So what possible market forces would there be that would dismantle segregation had the government NOT stepped in and used its power to regulate interstate commerce (which was one of the primary tools at its disposal, coming up in the Loving v. Virginia decision and in the Civil Rights Act of 1965).

 

I'll be interested to hear your responses to my questions.

 

Cheers

lf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is Light?

 

 

Are you saying that you are 1000 times more productive than a factory worker in Bangladesh or in Indonesia? Are you saying that Tiger Woods is more productive than all people producing Nike shoes so that Nike fairly pays him more than Nike pays all those 1000's of people that make its shoes? Is wacking a golf ball really more productive than makeing a shoe?

 

Where did I say any of that?

 

Do you understand that capitalism (of what ever kind) works by extracting as much of the value added by most workers as the local law will allow? That is no worker gets to own productivity. You are merely allowed to have some of it out of the generosity of your company.

 

Yes, and if I disagree with the amount I get I can either start my own company, dispute it as unfair treatment, or go to a different company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry folks, I have been busy for the past few days, back-to-back doctors appointments with me ending up getting four teeth removed under a oral surgery this morning. I've been thinking about what everyone is saying, like I said before I want to provide the best response. It's something I owe you, seeing as the burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim.

 

 

lightbearer...

 

Opening a discussion such as this one requires a foundational statement to base the rest of argument on.

 

What is yours? I somehow missed your opening salvo, save for the shotgunning at the beginning of thread.

 

kFL

 

What would count as a foundational statement?

 

Laissez-faire capitalism had its original founding thoughts all the way back to Adam Smith and the idea of free trade and free-markets have been around long before that...

 

To address what you all have been saying, Capitalism as is not just an economic system. It's a political, economic, cultural and social system that promotes and runs on certain core principle values, such as reason and individual rights -- those rights are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of joy that comes from these things. True and pure capitalism is a system in which the government does not intervene in the economy and bars the use of coercive force from human relationships and acts as a monopoly for the use retaliatory force for against the one who violate or seek to violate those individual rights.

 

This is why capitalisms pure essence is moral.

 

Life is moral. A system that protects and enhances life is a system that is moral. Every individual who is born in this world is granted the gift of life. It is where we all start out as, children whose only purpose in the world is to keep on living. You have a right to your life, for it is yours and yours alone. The decision to keep this life and honor it is selfish, like breathing, eating, and taking information through your senses to form an understanding of the environment and how you relate to it in regards of how you use it to continue the choice you made to continue to live in this world.

 

Liberty is life. It is ones ability to live for oneself without the use of force by another to dominate or to control you. Not the will of the gods, not the will of people, not the will of state, not the will of the beasts of nature. But your will to live as you see fit best for your live and the knowledge that others around you are entitled to the same decision. Your live is not theirs and their lives are not yours. That’s liberty. How you choose to live in the world is related to how far you are willing to use the capacity of the thing that guarantees your rights in the first place – your mind. Your mind is the only thing you need. It is the tool that guides your body and sustains your life. The mind of human beings has the very capacity in it to observe the environment of the human being and how to best exploit it and utilize it to further the choice made to live. Your mind is your soul. It is the direct embodiment of your souls will, which is yours and yours alone. Before you’re your lungs breath air, before your fingers move food in your mouth come the signal from your mind to do these things. When you use your mind you affirm your decision to choose to live, and thus you reap the spoils of your decision by furthering your life. Liberty is the freedom to think for you and do that, which is best for yourself. It is not something the laws of your fellow men can take away because the laws of your fellow men are usually their whims made manifest on paper. Liberty is only sustainable if everyone chooses to respect life. If liberty guarantees the rational man the opportunity to use his mind to the best of its ability to further himself and his goals then this is where property comes in.

 

Property is the physical manifestation of the mind of the one who creates the property. Property would not exist had no someone come along with a thought and shaped the resources of the earth to bring his thought to reality. That’s where property comes from and that’s where it is and that’s why it is a right, not a privilege or an entitlement. Your mind is your property as your life is your property. Property is a direct product of the mind. You are not the property of your parents to the extent because you have independent thought, you choose to live once they brought you forth into this world, and you did not choice for them to bring you forth into this world. If your life is yours, your mind is yours; then the creation of your mind is yours. You are free to use it as you please, as long as this does not interfere with the others around you who have the same right to theirs as you do to yours. This falls back on the acknowledgement of liberty of all men and the rational respect of life of all men. Property is a value, it is created, and thus you created value and wealth. As you are guaranteed by your liberty to your mind and life you are guaranteed on what to do with the creation of your mind and your life. Man uses his creation to benefit himself or his loved ones as he sees fit.

 

The pursuit of happiness and joy stems from these three basic axioms of civilization. You use your property to further your life and to build you destiny and go as far as your will and your ability have the extent to carry you, which all falls on the extent of thought you are willing to exert. Using the world to bring you joy is as moral as choosing to live. Because being happy is the best way to live. Man celebrates himself, his creation and his world through himself, his creation and his world. You do what brings you happiness and what furthers your existence. Life is justification in itself. Choosing to live means choosing to respect life and the happiness it brings you. Using your mind to shape your world is a great way to achieve happiness because it shows your life made manifest through your property. But you can never fully achieve happiness if you are in the constant fear of losing it. You can never derive happiness from property if you refuse to respect it and create it. You cannot achieve happiness through liberty if you give it up for bondage. You cannot achieve happiness through your thoughts if you refuse to have any, and your actions if you refuse to take any. You cannot achieve happiness from life if you refuse to live it.

 

If Capitalism is a system or a state of civilization, which protects, upholds, defends, and values all the things I mention above then it is clearly the most moral system. Those things stem from life and Capitalism is the system where life is respected and given the opportunity to thrive and prosper without the use of force by someone who would wish to steal property the did not create, enslave people to bow to their whims or take their lives for no legitimate reason.

 

You see under a pure laissez-faire capitalism the state is barred and separated from the economy to protect people like it is barred and separated from the church. This guarantees the freedom of the people to create and trade their creations with one another free from the government stealing it from them or someone else stealing if from them. This system is driven by ideas, seeing as how the most rational ideas are usually the ones that get to survive in the market. So entrepreneurship and invention is what drives the economy to new heights and produces wealth, which is disturbed amongst the people in a market place where value is traded for value. You basically give away something of lesser value for something of greater value. The farmer gives up the food he produces for the tools the blacksmith produces because the farmer has all the food he needs, but has to have tools to make more and the blacksmith can make all the tools he needs but doesn’t have food. They both win. They both gain. They both benefit mutually from the transaction which both acted in their own rational self-interest, which goes back to the respect for the rights of their fellow man. The blacksmith could of made a weapon, killed the farmer and taken his food but what would be the rational point in that, if the farmer is not around to produce the food anymore? Then the blacksmith starves to death. They both lose and no one gains anything. The blacksmith could enslave the farmer but then again the farmer could refuse, fight back and kill the blacksmith. Living in this state of anarchy would make it impossible for anyone to create anything. The person with the most force would eventually win. That’s why the government holds the power of force and the people themselves control the government. If the farmer thinks the blacksmith has wronged him or vice versa they can go to the government in the form of a court and settle their dispute with a objective third party, and in Americas case – a jury of their peers. So this way justice can properly be served and the people can solve their disputes without resorting to killing each other. The government would also provide services like police and military to protect their people from wrongdoing and the use of force by outsiders in the militaries case. It would be voluntarily paid for by the people, so as to control the amount of money and power the government has based on its performance of its sole task to protect its citizenry. In short social terms—it is a government, and a system by the people for the people.

 

With the people liberated and free to think, create, build, and trade their goods and services then life can be most beneficial for the people involved. They may want to be lazy bums or they may want to be productive geniuses. How ever far your will and ability will take you. Under such a system wealth would be able to be created which benefits the creators of the wealth. As far as who gets the wealth in a mutually exclusive trading system? Supply and demand sets that. It sets the price and ultimate value for the product in question. You can charge all you want, doesn’t meant that that’s what you will get, and you can demand all you want, that doesn’t mean it’s available or even exists for that matter. But where there is a demand there are people who met it with a supply. This constant tug and pull drives markets and creates capital. Capital is then invested back into the markets for further creation of supply to met the demands, and to eventually benefit the ones who produced it all in the first place.

 

The economy can be seen in it’s similarities to ecosystem and life itself. Life comes from water, and the sun, which flow like a stream of supply to the demand that is life. The plant demands and uses the sunlight, water, and nutrients to survive, the animal demands and uses and consumes the plant to survive and then the predator demands and use the animal to survive which when the predatory dies it’s body is absorbed back into the earth for the plants to feed on, where as the water eventually finds its way to the lowest point or is taken up by the sun to be disturbed to the plants again. The cycle repeats itself as life adapts to the changes of the world and evolves to meet the new demands of the world. Nature is supply and demand. So in a metaphorical sense, Capitalism is nature, mans nature made manifest. As nature creates abundance of life, Capitalism creates abundance of wealth. As in nature life is dictated by the survival of the fittest, products are dictated by which ever is the fittest to the demands of the market. Life is survival of the fittest, and supply and demand.

 

And which system has been proven time and time again to be the fittest for man to survive and thrive? If you need proof of the superiority of capitalism take a look at the freer countries and freer markets compared to the enslaved countries and controlled markets. Which one performs better and protects life better? Which would you rather live under?

 

This is my opening statement, which I will base my arguments off of, so I haven’t address everyone’s posts yet, but I will, and I promise. But I need to get my basic thoughts out here first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since I'll let you bring up a question or an issue and we will start from there!

 

Several were brought up here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206250

 

Seems as good a place as any to start. Feel free to answer there or cut and paste over here.

 

Also, please explain to us how Ayn Rand showed capitalism to be the most moral system. I've read a bit of Rand, and found her work to be nothing more than an example of mediocre fiction. I'm stumped as to how anyone could think her ideas would translate to the real world. She is an author of *fiction*, after all. Her ideas sound good when they only apply to her characters, who react in exactly the way she wants them to, but real people are quite a bit more complicated.

 

Actually the issues brought up there were the ones that made me want to start this thread.

 

Uh, no. Deregulating the economy and giving businesses free rein would bring back the days of sweat shops, child labor, workers being forced to work inhumane hours without extra pay, workers being paid with "company store" dollars and owing more to the company than they could ever hope to earn. We've had unregulated business before, and it was a nightmare of corruption and abuse. I'm not interested in worker's rights being tossed back into the 19th century.

 

How do you know this exactly? Conditions are better now and sweat shops and poor working conditions would be irrational seeing as how in a unregulated economy you could just quite your job and go find something that pays and treats you better. The only way this could happen is if the employers forced people to work from them, but I already said that that is wrong and un-capitalistic in the first place, and it would actually require more effort to do this, when you could just pay them a good salary and provide them with a nice work environment which would encourage productivity and job satisifaction.

 

The workers themselves have to be smart enough to know who to work for and who to avoid. A businessman who treats his workers bad will not stay in business for very long. Especially in a system where the law protects the workers from force and fraud.

 

The fact that someone falls on hard times and needs some temporary help does not make them a parasite, nor does it mean they "refuse to take care of themselves". I can agree that there are problems with the welfare system, and there are some people who abuse it, but those people are very much in the minority. Personally, I'm not willing to take the trade-off of increased crime when people are left with the choice of theft or starvation because they lost their job in your deregulated economy and there's no help available to them.

 

I'm sure you'll be very popular with rich business owners who don't give a damn about anything but their own bottom line, but I vote for candidates who care about society as a whole, not just the bits that fit into their idealized view of how things should be.

 

For one thing, anyone who gets money they didn't earn or work for from people who did not voluntarily give it to them IS a parasite. If you want to help those people go ahead and donate your own money to them, don't make the IRS come and take mine away. That's what private charities are for, to help the people who actually need and deserve help. Welfare basicallys gives everyone a get out of work free card regardless of conditions.

 

To say that crime comes from starvation and bad economic conditions is a logical fallacy. Deregulated economies usually perform better, which provides more jobs. In a economy that is bogged down by the government job creation stagnates because there is more of risk of losing money by creating more jobs. Like I said, entrepeurnership drives the economy and it is more difficult to do in a tightly regulated economy. When the regulations make is hard for businesses to compete they will go out of business and that actually leads to less jobs.

 

And people still commit crimes in good economic conditions, and their starvation is not an excuse to steal someone elses production. It should be a motivator to actually get a job. Higher crime rates correspond with the laws and punishment of the respected area. When people get off easily for crimes it makes them more like to commit them again or encourage others to commit them because they know they can get off. The softer on crime you are, the more crime there is. That's why I said you need a good criminal justice system that protects people from force and fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.