Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Capitalism!


Lightbearer

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Unskilled workers don't have that choice. At all. Ever. That's just the beginning.

 

Companies which pay their workers the least amount will usually succeed the most; companies which do not indulge in such practices would obviously be hindered to a great degree (as in possibly being forced out of business). Basically, your new company wouldn't get too far; other companies with any measure of profitability would do exactly what you left the first company for. Basically, you can't do what you propose because the market allows for ridiculously wrong practices to monopolize and become the norm.

 

You need to recognize the fact that the free-market only allows for exploitation. Wealth is siphoned to the rich and the poor (those who oftentimes work the hardest) are left out in the cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Asimov

    35

  • Mike D

    21

  • Casey

    18

  • chefranden

    14

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

This presupposes that there are more jobs than workers. How long has it been since that was the case? Good luck trying to negotiate a raise or better working conditions with your boss when there's 100 people lined up outside the door, waiting to take your job for whatever they can get. Much like communism, laissez-faire capitalism sounds really pretty on paper. The real world just doesn't work that way.

 

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.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

To say that crime comes from starvation and bad economic conditions is a logical fallacy. Deregulated economies usually perform better, which provides more jobs.

 

Care to cite any examples of deregulated economies that perform better?

 

The fact is, when someone is starving, they will steal rather than die. And "just get a job" assumes that there are jobs available and the person in question is capable of doing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
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.

 

Are you calling Israel a parasite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

You suggested that those who receive money for which they provided no work, and which was not freely given, are parasites. You said this in reference to welfare recipients and such, making it clear that you meant using tax money for such an endeavor, dollars given under duress and without the explicit condoning of it's possible uses. The same tax dollars, four billion to be exact, are given to Israel every year by a populace which has no say in the giving. By your own definition that makes Israel a parasite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unskilled workers don't have that choice. At all. Ever. That's just the beginning.

 

Whatever dude, if you want to think that there are actual "workers" who are unskilled then you can float around in your dream land.

 

Companies which pay their workers the least amount will usually succeed the most; companies which do not indulge in such practices would obviously be hindered to a great degree (as in possibly being forced out of business). Basically, your new company wouldn't get too far; other companies with any measure of profitability would do exactly what you left the first company for. Basically, you can't do what you propose because the market allows for ridiculously wrong practices to monopolize and become the norm.

 

No, companies which pay their workers the least amount will lose employees or be sued. It's called a high turnover rate. That means you have to train more and dedicate more time to molding people to your values and the way you operate. The lower turnover rate you have, the better you do.

 

You need to recognize the fact that the free-market only allows for exploitation. Wealth is siphoned to the rich and the poor (those who oftentimes work the hardest) are left out in the cold.

 

You need to recognize the fact that in a free-market exploitation isn't rational. Could you point to any actual situation where a free market has only produced exploitation?

 

You suggested that those who receive money for which they provided no work, and was not freely given, are parasites. You said this in reference to welfare recipients and such, making it clear that you meant using tax dollars for such an endeavor, dollars given under duress and without the explicit condoning of it's possible uses. The same tax dollars, four billion to be exact, are given to Israel every year by a populace who has no say in the giving. By your own definition, that makes Israel a parasite.

 

 

I think Israel is a parasite as much as I think that government welfare recipients are parasites....which is a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
I think Israel is a parasite as much as I think that government welfare recipients are parasites....which is a lot.

 

I know Assy, I just want Lightheaded to admit it. I already know he has the requisite opinion on the matter. Let's just see if his dissonant opinions get the better of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This presupposes that there are more jobs than workers. How long has it been since that was the case? Good luck trying to negotiate a raise or better working conditions with your boss when there's 100 people lined up outside the door, waiting to take your job for whatever they can get. Much like communism, laissez-faire capitalism sounds really pretty on paper. The real world just doesn't work that way.

 

Well, in a society where the populus is saturated with people there will be less demand for jobs. Each person has the right to the furtherance of his own life, but that doesn't mean he has the right have his life protected or provided for.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

Why? You think that other people should be forced to help others through taxation?

 

Care to cite any examples of deregulated economies that perform better?

 

It hasn't been done, AFAIK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
Why? You think that other people should be forced to help others through taxation?

 

As much as I understand the objection, I have to admit that I don't mind a portion of my tax dollars going to help the poor in some way. The only problem I have with that is that I think that corporations should bear most if not all of that tax burden. After all, they are all inexorably making their fortunes off of the poor. And I hate most charitable organisations, because their prime directive often times seems to be to pay theri board. Surely that is always done before the first triscuit is handed to a distended bellied african child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? You think that other people should be forced to help others through taxation?

 

As much as I understand the objection, I have to admit that I don't mind a portion of my tax dollars going to help the poor in some way.

 

Yea, but I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

Well, in reality I'd like to be able to choose where every last one of my tax dollars will go. I cannot. As long as I know that my bucks can be spent to kill Iraqi children, it only seems right that a few dollars might go to feeding a child. Taxes are a reality which are not likely to dematerialise. My position is a pragmatic assessment of the inevitability of taxation.

 

Why? You think that other people should be forced to help others through taxation?

 

As much as I understand the objection, I have to admit that I don't mind a portion of my tax dollars going to help the poor in some way.

 

Yea, but I do.

 

So, you think that the Katrina disaster should have been handled by private organisations? Or not. I'd like to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, companies which pay their workers the least amount will lose employees or be sued. It's called a high turnover rate. That means you have to train more and dedicate more time to molding people to your values and the way you operate. The lower turnover rate you have, the better you do.

 

 

Asimov:

 

No, they won't be sued in the world you and Lightbearer advocate because suits are brought in courts only because the *law*--enforced by the government--allows it. You and Lightbearer advocate a world in which there would be no possibility of suit because it would not be actionable to, for instance, underpay your workers or to pay your workers unfairly based upon arbitrary criteria (race and gender).

 

Btw. I can give you two examples of an unregulated economy that exploited people. The sharecropper system in the American South from the immediately post-Antelbellum period until the middle part of the 20th century. And the 'company towns' that sprung up in the late 19th century and existed into the middle part of the 20th century around, for instance, mining. Since you have asked the question you are obviously unaware of how the system worked so here's a quick lesson:

 

Farmer would not be able to afford his own land so he would work a portion of the land owned by another for rent. The farmer had buy his seed, to rent his tools, had to rent his land, had to rent the house he and his family lived in on the land--all from the owner of the land. The landlord would then 'buy' the crop from the farmer (and here's the clever bit) *minus* any expenses incurred such as the aforementioned supplies. The landlord set the sale price and the farmer was not allowed to sell on his own. Typically the landlord would also take 50% of the crop BEFORE sale as well.

 

Now, here was a situation where neither Federal or state authorities intervened much if at all and so was a purely capitalist arrangement. Someone has something (land) that needs working and someone has something (labor) to trade. Pure capitalism at its best. Right? The only problem is that because the landlord had the farmer over a barrel and the farmer had NO protections, the landlords could (and did) charge such exorbiant rates that the farmer would end the year in debt to the landlord, which, of course he could work off next year. At which point he'd end up in debt, so he could work it off next year. What's more, if the farmer simply abandoned the land while in debt he *was* subject to legal penalties--neat system huh?

 

Company towns worked in much the same way except on an industrial scale with companies taking the place of individual landowners but the system was almost entirely identical.

 

I have already (and it has been studiously ignored by both you and Lightbearer) articulated a situation from recent history where the logic of the market would dictate that discrimination based upon race is the only *rational* economic choice in a purely unregulated market. Now, some liberatarians have suggested that the problem in the Deep South was that it was *legal* segregation but that is just a dodge. The economics of the Deep South at the time were such that to desegregate would have spelled economic death to any business that did so in a manner in which the white community would not tolerate. I notice that you avoid the question of how that would work.

 

Asimov, you and Lightbearer have an idealized view of capitalism that has very little relationship to actual practice of capitalism. While you may believe that poverty only happens to those that deserve it, that is part and parcel of the idealization.

 

One more example, this is not of exploitation simply to demonstrate that markets are not the benign things you make them out to be. I work in the high technology sector. During the mid-nineties there were more jobs than there were qualified people to fill them. At the beginning of the 00's the situation reversed. Guess what happened? Wages dropped, benefits were scaled back, perks were eliminated. Why? The executives at the top were still doing as well as they always had. There were simply more people and so employers no longer had to compete for workers. If company A was hiring and you turned down their $40,000 a year because two years ago that same job was paying 65K they knew and you knew that you couldn't just bebop down the street to company B because they weren't hiring. If your skills were specialized (and most IT workers are specialists now, the days of the Universal Geek are gone) then you were over a barrel (I know this from my own experience, UNIX admins looked like a cost for a very long time. I'm working a job making about 20K a year less than my best year ever because it was what I could find in 2005. At one point I was working for a call center making, get this, 50K a year less than my best year ever and I wasn't alone. About a third of us were IT workers who were used to being paid in the mid-five figures and suddenly found ourselves working below Federal poverty standards.)

 

The point of all of that is simply that while it is easy to *say* "well, if you are underpaid find another job" that only works in a market in which there are lots of jobs and not enough people. There are regions where that is simply not the case (what has happened in Michigan, say, with the retraction of the American auto industry or the Deep South with the elimination of the American textile industry are two cases in point). In a purely capitalist system that you and Lightbearer advocate, not only would this kind of thing happen even more but displaced workers would have no way of retraining because in a purely capitalist system there would be no Federally guarenteed student loans, no Pell grants and what bank is going to loan 12 - 22K (the averge range for an ITT type school) or 25 - 50 K (for a four year degree) to someone who was making $10.50 an hour up until the company she worked for for 15 years moved off-shore without SOME form of Federal loan guarentee backing it up? No bank, that's the one because, again, it is not a rational economic decision. The bank gets nothing from that transaction if the loaner defaults because knowledge cannot be foreclosed upon. Now, they'll be happy to lend her money to buy a car because THAT can be repossessed and the bank can recoup its losses by reselling the car but it simply makes no sense for the bank to lend that worker money for an education. So now, the workers job has been eliminated, her entire class of jobs have been eliminated and she needs retraining but there's no financial means for her to get retraining because there's no economic incentive to do that.

 

I'll only briefly touch on what a purely capitalist system would do to public education. Since public education would be destroyed and there would be no voucher programs (again, government backed) and no child labor laws (government forbidden from interfering in the economy) poor parents would make the rational economic choice and have their children work. These children would not get an education. Middle-class parents would most likely put their kids in school and obviously owning-class parents would put their kids in school. You would then have a class of people (the poor) who were entirely uneducated because it doesn't matter how smart your kid is, if your kid can bring home a dollar a day working or go to school on the promise that 25 years from now they might do better, you are going to make the decision that puts food on the table *today* and let a quarter of a century from now take care of itself.

 

Cheers

lf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not avoiding you Ladyfractal. Like I said already, I am not jumping on the gun because I am researching the issues people are bringing up and how to best address them. :grin:

 

I don't want to give you some answer like "cause it just is!" or something along those lines. I respect your patience, and don't want to betray it.

 

 

 

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?

 

1> Right now my laissez-faire position comes from the classical British school (like Adam Smith) and the Austrian school (like von Mises).

 

2> A moral system is one which best protects and promotes morality, in the form of individual rights. Which lassiez-faire capitalism, provided with limited government for defense and serving justice based on those individual rights.

 

3> Other "economic systems" violate the rights of the people by stealing their property in order to redistribute it or use it for political gains. And I would say that this is what the current US mixed economy does, so yes in case you are wondering i'd deem our system immoral. But not 100% immoral because your rights are still protected to an extent. America is still a free nation.

 

 

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

 

Well... you do present a challenge don't you? I'd have to disagree with you though.

 

You see, it may be bad economically for the person to go out of business. But as yourself is it worse to lose money or to betray your moral values? The person could segregate at the fear of losing money, or even under the pressure of the local lynch mob. But that's not his only option. He could pack up and move out to a town where his services would be welcome, or he could stick it out and serve the people who are against the racist policies of the other stores. I mean, he already has a market if you look at it -- black people who get kicked out of the other stores. You see, the not only do you show the community you are not weak and stand by your moral premises but you also make a profit selling to the people who are the victims of the senseless racism in the community, this in itself should generate support for your restaurant, and maybe even more profit.

 

It's more economically rational to be able to sell to the most people. If the you could make say, $200 a day selling to black and white customers, as opposed to making $100 only selling to white customers, then it would make more sense to sell to the most customers you can. You could also find a way to reduce the price of your food, maybe by hiring the black workers who your competitor refuses to hire who may, sense work would of been harder to come by for them, work for cheaper. So with a bigger market share, reduced prices, media attention because of the local contraversy and steadfast moral resolve to show what rasicst assholes your competitors are you can put them all out of business and in the end make the most money while giving the best product to the people -- respect, hope and work to people who normally would be denied it.

 

I think businesses have the right to discriminate who they do business with. But that doesnt mean those discriminations are always morally right, and in a society that has respect for the individual -- as a laissez-faire capitalist society (might I add, free, and rational society) would, someone like that would not last long if people like the civil rights advocates and activists in the 50s, 60s and 70s worked to show the world of the ignorant business practices of that particular person and/or company. In fact, the movements of those times actually showed that to be the case. But I don't think a law is the answer, more like a premise checking revolution for the culture.

 

 

Asimov:

 

No, they won't be sued in the world you and Lightbearer advocate because suits are brought in courts only because the *law*--enforced by the government--allows it. You and Lightbearer advocate a world in which there would be no possibility of suit because it would not be actionable to, for instance, underpay your workers or to pay your workers unfairly based upon arbitrary criteria (race and gender).

 

Wait could you rephrase this please? Are you saying they can't sue because their employers would be harmed if they didn't base their hiring on race and gender? I think I get what your saying...

 

The world I (Asimov more then likely as well) advocate would have a system of law that protects the individual from force or fraud. Force both in the physical terms and in the non-physical forms like black-mail and theft; which you could count as fraud too I suppose. Fraud refering to people cheating you out of contracts and legal agreements you make with them.

 

Which is something I don't think Asimov or I mentioned yet. The law enforces contracts made by people -- your employment being one of them in that sense. If you sign an employment contract specifying certain conditions and your employer does not fall through you have ever right to bring the employer to court and hold him accountable. Without that adminstrative system in place people would be getting screwed left and right -- which makes for a bad society as well as a bad economy.

 

Btw. I can give you two examples of an unregulated economy that exploited people. The sharecropper system in the American South from the immediately post-Antelbellum period until the middle part of the 20th century. And the 'company towns' that sprung up in the late 19th century and existed into the middle part of the 20th century around, for instance, mining. Since you have asked the question you are obviously unaware of how the system worked so here's a quick lesson:

 

Both the sharecopper system and the company towns were clear violations of those peoples rights.

 

Don't make the Marxists mistake that all business=capitalist.

 

The sharecropping system is just a more modern version of feudalism which is not capitalist at all and the company towns indirectly intiated force on the people by violating their rights to take thier property and do as they please.

 

If I recall correctly the sharecropping was actually endorsed by the southern governments as a way to make up for the lost labor from the free slaves and the the fact that the slaves had no where else to go. It actually just lead them right back into slaverly, which was perfectly fine according to the local governments who were basically the slave-owners in the first place.

 

Like I said, they lack of contracts and proper enforcement lead to the people (former slaves) been screwed over.

 

That's my assesment of the situation at least, i'm sure Asimov has more to add. :grin: Did I answers you questions Ladyfractal? Do you have any more?

 

Edit: Nevermind, I haven't addressed the rest of your post yet. I'm sorry, i'll get on that one too. But right now it's getting late and I'd rather give you a fuller answer then a half-ass one and a good night wish because I am about to collaspe on my keyboard. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

Um, Lightbeer, is there a particular reason you chose to ignore this..

 

You suggested that those who receive money for which they provided no work, and which was not freely given, are parasites. You said this in reference to welfare recipients and such, making it clear that you meant using tax money for such an endeavor, dollars given under duress and without the explicit condoning of it's possible uses. The same tax dollars, four billion to be exact, are given to Israel every year by a populace which has no say in the giving. By your own definition that makes Israel a parasite.

 

Seems like a legitimate question to me. Doesn't your definition of welfare reciepients as parasites also extend to Israel? If it doesn't I'd sure like to hear why. I understand if this is the first time you've been challenged to harmonise your disparate opinions. It can be quite a blow to the ego. Take your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The four billion in aid is mainly from, what I gather, for military purposes which funding an ally in a time of war (even if it's as misdirected as the so called war on terror) is still a legitmate purpose.

 

That's from what I've seen, but I am not for sure where exactly all the four billion is going -- for militarty purposes is fine but if it's going to faith-based inititaves then i'd say it is wrong. Like I said, I haven't found any sources accouting for all of the money and the exact figures, and I am still looking into it.

 

However, not to steer your comments in another direction but humanitarion aid that we are sending to places like North Korea is in my opinion defiantly parasitic and wrong, because North Korea has already showed they have no respect for us or don't give a shit about us and have shown support for out enemies (Iran and Venezula).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
The four billion in aid is mainly from, what I gather, for military purposes which funding an ally in a time of war (even if it's as misdirected as the so called war on terror) is still a legitmate purpose.

 

Did Israel earn this money through work? Did we all agree to give it to them in the same way we all agree to give money to poor inner city children? Is israel a parasite or are you prepared to retract your previous condemnation? It's hard making your entire world view gel when you have such irrational beliefs.

 

That's from what I've seen, but I am not for sure where exactly all the four billion is going -- for militarty purposes is fine but if it's going to faith-based inititaves then i'd say it is wrong. Like I said, I haven't found any sources accouting for all of the money and the exact figures, and I am still looking into it.

 

Where is the four billion going? It's going to make sure Israel has all the gilded dreidles it needs until the messiah comes. I see your point. You don't want your money spent on faith based killing. Demographic killing and pure greed killing coupled with racially motivated killiing, where does that factor in? It factors in with the tasty pie flavored portion of the evening, with IV drugs and loose third world hookers. Anyway...

 

As long as we all agree that Israel couldnt survive without strenuously sucking from the teet of the american taxpayer, and that those taxpayers have no say in the matter, which makes Israel a parasite by Lightbeer's own admission...

 

However, not to steer your comments in another direction but humanitarion aid that we are sending to places like North Korea is in my opinion defiantly parasitic and wrong, because North Korea has already showed they have no respect for us or don't give a shit about us and have shown support for out enemies (Iran and Venezula).

 

What the fuck is that? It's like you just showed me pictures of your cat playing with a ball of yarn. Have you been paying attention? You need to answer at least one question before I'll saunter off into the ether with you and speculate about North Korea.

 

Are there any Jews in North Korea? I'm just wondering why you care about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have shown support for out enemies (Iran and Venezula).

 

And Venezuela is our enemy because why? Oh, that's right, because they refuse to buckle to us pressure and privatize their oil industry. Off with their heads! Chavez must be in league with Satan or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

Just as an experiment, let's take all the Rwandan refugees and, considering their suffering and the possibility that one of them might have a book written by god which tells them that Stains, London was given to all Rwandans by GOD ALMIGHTY we'll just experiment with how silly white "westerners" feel when confronted with the decisions of the UN in such a situation. What, you don't think there'd be a new Rwandan state in the middle of the UK? Why not? It makes perfect sense.

 

Look, god wrote a book and in it it says that Rwandans own the middle of London. What, you don't believe that? Have you seen how much Rwandans have suffered? How can you question a poor mother, stooped over, reaching for her charred baby, with her own face on fire and sizzling from the molten plastic of the doll which she was moments earlier using to make her daughter smiile? You must be what the neocons call "evil".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well... you do present a challenge don't you? I'd have to disagree with you though.

 

You see, it may be bad economically for the person to go out of business. But as yourself is it worse to lose money or to betray your moral values?

 

Ahh but here's the rub, lightbearer. You are saying that capitalism qua capitalism *automagically* leads to the most moral outcome. The motive in capitalism is to make a profit and therefore that is your consideration. Your moral values are all fine well and good but they mean nothing in an unrestrained capitalist system if you can't make a profit.

 

The person could segregate at the fear of losing money, or even under the pressure of the local lynch mob. But that's not his only option. He could pack up and move out to a town where his services would be welcome, or he could stick it out and serve the people who are against the racist policies of the other stores. I mean, he already has a market if you look at it -- black people who get kicked out of the other stores.

 

Again you miss something. Blacks in that scenario already lower disposable income and so cannot possibly make up for the lost revenue.

 

You see, the not only do you show the community you are not weak and stand by your moral premises but you also make a profit selling to the people who are the victims of the senseless racism in the community, this in itself should generate support for your restaurant, and maybe even more profit.

 

You obviously never spent a day in the Deep South, lightbearer. That is NOT how the system worked down there. It is also not how communities work *generally*.

 

It's more economically rational to be able to sell to the most people. If the you could make say, $200 a day selling to black and white customers, as opposed to making $100 only selling to white customers, then it would make more sense to sell to the most customers you can. You could also find a way to reduce the price of your food, maybe by hiring the black workers who your competitor refuses to hire who may, sense work would of been harder to come by for them, work for cheaper.

 

Again, lightbearer, you have an overly romantic view of how communities work.

 

I think businesses have the right to discriminate who they do business with. But that doesnt mean those discriminations are always morally right, and in a society that has respect for the individual -- as a laissez-faire capitalist society (might I add, free, and rational society) would, someone like that would not last long if people like the civil rights advocates and activists in the 50s, 60s and 70s worked to show the world of the ignorant business practices of that particular person and/or company. In fact, the movements of those times actually showed that to be the case. But I don't think a law is the answer, more like a premise checking revolution for the culture.

 

You realize that the civil rights movement was a movement, in large part, to change *laws*, right?

 

Asimov:

 

No, they won't be sued in the world you and Lightbearer advocate because suits are brought in courts only because the *law*--enforced by the government--allows it. You and Lightbearer advocate a world in which there would be no possibility of suit because it would not be actionable to, for instance, underpay your workers or to pay your workers unfairly based upon arbitrary criteria (race and gender).

Wait could you rephrase this please? Are you saying they can't sue because their employers would be harmed if they didn't base their hiring on race and gender? I think I get what your saying...

 

What I am saying is that you can only bring a suit if something done is actionable. Something is actionable in a legal sense only if there is a *law* and there can only be a *law* if there is government interference into the market. A true laissez-faire capitalist system has NO, not a little bit, not a smidgeon, but NO government interference in the market. Therefore there can be no labor law by definition. No labor law, no actionable practicies or policies on the part of an employer. Nothing actionable, no lawsuits. So if an employer can get people to work for $2.00 a day, that's fine. I brought up the sharecropper system because from the point of view of the landowner it *is* capitalist. He has a resource (land) that he wishes to make a profit from by using it to produce a commodity (crops) and he has workers who he has over a barrel which means that his losses are almost entirely minimal. This is an *ideal* capitalist arrangement, Lightbearer. Could sharecroppers sue? No, because nothing the landlord did was actionable. The general consensus was that if the sharecroppers didn't like those conditions, they could move--as soon as they had paid off their debt to the landlord. :wicked:

 

The world I (Asimov more then likely as well) advocate would have a system of law that protects the individual from force or fraud. Force both in the physical terms and in the non-physical forms like black-mail and theft; which you could count as fraud too I suppose. Fraud refering to people cheating you out of contracts and legal agreements you make with them.

 

Then you don't really want laissez-faire capitalism. What you want is tax *free* capitalism. Labor laws are designed *precisely* to protect workers from coercion but you don't like labor laws, labor laws are interference by government into business.

 

Which is something I don't think Asimov or I mentioned yet. The law enforces contracts made by people -- your employment being one of them in that sense. If you sign an employment contract specifying certain conditions and your employer does not fall through you have ever right to bring the employer to court and hold him accountable. Without that adminstrative system in place people would be getting screwed left and right -- which makes for a bad society as well as a bad economy.

 

Again, you don't want laissez-faire capitalism, you just don't want to have to pay taxes for 'parasites' like, oh, disabled veterans or retirees.

 

Btw. I can give you two examples of an unregulated economy that exploited people. The sharecropper system in the American South from the immediately post-Antelbellum period until the middle part of the 20th century. And the 'company towns' that sprung up in the late 19th century and existed into the middle part of the 20th century around, for instance, mining. Since you have asked the question you are obviously unaware of how the system worked so here's a quick lesson:

 

Both the sharecopper system and the company towns were clear violations of those peoples rights.

 

They were also stunningly profitable arrangements for the owners.

 

The sharecropping system is just a more modern version of feudalism which is not capitalist at all and the company towns indirectly intiated force on the people by violating their rights to take thier property and do as they please.

 

Those people entered into those arrangements of their own free will and to quote a favorite libertarian phrase "if they didn't like it they could always move elsewhere" (once they paid off the debt they owed to the company) . Don't do what we did as Christians, lightbearer and disavow everything in our pet system as "well, that wasn't REAL capitalism". Company towns were real, unrestrained capitalism as was the sharecropping system.

 

If I recall correctly the sharecropping was actually endorsed by the southern governments as a way to make up for the lost labor from the free slaves and the the fact that the slaves had no where else to go. It actually just lead them right back into slaverly, which was perfectly fine according to the local governments who were basically the slave-owners in the first place.

 

Endorsed? Yes, but interfered with? No. Again, the landowner could do what he wished and sell his goods at a fair market value which is what capitalism is all about.

 

Cheers

lf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in reality I'd like to be able to choose where every last one of my tax dollars will go. I cannot. As long as I know that my bucks can be spent to kill Iraqi children, it only seems right that a few dollars might go to feeding a child. Taxes are a reality which are not likely to dematerialise. My position is a pragmatic assessment of the inevitability of taxation.

 

Yes, but do you WANT your bucks to be spent to kill Iraqi children? Essentially, 50% of the people wanted Bush to go to war, so what about the people who didn't want their money spent on the war effort? The people who want war can pay for war. When I see a war coming and it's an aggressor who is directly targetting my country, THEN a portion of my money can go to the war effort.

 

So, you think that the Katrina disaster should have been handled by private organisations? Or not. I'd like to know.

 

Well it appears as if the government organisations really did not handle it very well because Bush is a retard. Private organisations, ones that are centered in New Orleans would have a vested interest in preventing as much damage as possible and keep people from dying, I would say that yes, it should have been handled privately.

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.

 

The problem with privitization is financial mobs and gangs, those who own the most can still screw everyone else. Those born into poor families would be absolutely fucked in a totally privatized society with no government, those who had the most money and could pay to defend their property. IMHO there still would be wars/bloodshed and all sorts of bullshit under a privatized system, since who would enforce and prevent currency fraud?

 

The problem with an objectivist society is what if you have a bunch of rich insane people who ruin their property? Everyone else gets fucked because they dont have any say because they don't own it?

 

There is simlply no way an objectivist society could ever exist, the top %1 of society would always collude to manage/kill of/deprive the rest of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightbearer,

 

I cannot help but think that you attitudes concerning this discussion are based not so much on your own experiences, oberservations, and understanding of the world and people, but rather an inherited form others point of view.

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Each person has the right to the furtherance of his own life, but that doesn't mean he has the right have his life protected or provided for.

 

 

Rights don't mean shit without econoic power, the only political power is economic power, anyone that tells you differently is selling something. Having a "right" without having resource independence is like believing in god and that you're going to get eternal life, it's comforting, but effectively useless.

 

I'm sorry but this is utter bullshit, most people deserve to be protected from prior owners, and especially inheritance. If unregulated business occured, the top 1% of the population would control most of the land, that means the other 80-95% would be their slaves. With modern technology and production methods most people cannot provide for their own needs, this is why governments have unemployment insurance, disability, social security, etc.

 

Next there are people that businesses simply won't hire for any number of reasons, political, unjust discrimination, personal, etc. I suppose we just apply the laws of the jungle to the people that business owners don't like simply because these people deserve a miserable life?

 

The fact is the ONLY FREEDOM is ECONOMIC FREEDOM anyone that tells you differently is selling something, pure capitalists are the worst and most ignorant people on the face of the planet, they simply do not do the thinking required. Most people do not own nowhere near enough or do not live in a place that they can be completely independent.

 

The scope of capitalist sthinking is way too small, IMHO the whole problem with capitalist economics is the fact that distribution of wealth becomes reinforced 'strong get stronger, weak get weaker', it's has severe run-away effects in both directions, next is inflation, the fact is in a real economy inflation shouldn't be able to effect one's purchasing power. Someones time the have worked is constantly being devalued that they can never get back, imagine working 8 hours and only getting back 7 in pay, thats what inflation is like, it's a sick abhorrent system, and with fiat money peoples wages can be manipulated through inflation by banks and the government.

 

Computers and science need to run many critical aspects of the economy people simply are too irresponsible to make the correct and necessary choices on a planet of finite resources. All wealth is generated by displacement, it doesn't come out of thin air, whenever you buy something you are displacing matter and energy that someone else could be using.

 

Next politics is useless, the only people with real political power are people with money and resouces unless you get violent. The average joe voter has pretty much no say in what goes on at the top. It's an oligarchy through and through, with the minority of rich industry and land owners using governments and media as their puppets to prevent economic revolution.

 

Lastly it's a sick society when there are people starving in other countries and movie stars and basketball players make millions and are under no obligation to share the worlds weath with others. It's sick sick sick, anyone who can sleep at night with millions in the bank knowing that is going on in the world is a sick human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with privitization is financial mobs and gangs, those who own the most can still screw everyone else. Those born into poor families would be absolutely fucked in a totally privatized society with no government, those who had the most money and could pay to defend their property. IMHO there still would be wars/bloodshed and all sorts of bullshit under a privatized system, since who would enforce and prevent currency fraud?

(emphasis mine)

 

My point exactly! And the reason they can, as you put it, "screw everyone else", is the inherently dishonest monetary system known as fiat currency. The banksters are allowed to create deposits out of nothing and lend what they create at interest. For every dollar deposited in a bank, nine dollars worth of credit is created and loaned out. Is that fraudulent enough for you? To make matters worse, the dollar or any other unit of fiat currency has no value whatsoever. It cannot be redeemed for gold or silver.

 

Say you deposit $10,000 in a bank. Now Joe Blow comes in after a loan. We'll say he wants to borrow $5,000 for a car or the like. The bank approves and gives Joe his $5,000. What they in fact do is grant Joe credit for that sum, which he now has to repay with real money at interest. If he defaults, the bank gains an asset, ie they obtain real property without risking one cent of their own money. In fact, given your deposit of $10,000, they can make loans totalling $90,000.

 

This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.
(Emphasis mine)

 

This of course obtains in every country in the world now.

 

Right now in Australia where I live, the banks are offering mortgages for a term of fifty years. OK, each payment is smaller than the average mortgage payment, but there are of course, lots more payments. There is also more time for the mortgagor to default, is there not?

 

That's Capitalism. Its twin brother, believe it or not, is Communism, or as it's more accurately known, Socialism. Why is Socialism the twin brother of Capitalism? Simple. Although Socialism is sold as a means of "re-distributing the wealth" it is in fact a system for consolidating and consfiscating the wealth. After that, the wealth can go to "Comrades of proven worth". Wonder who they might be? :scratch:

 

It is suspiciously very similar to what happens to you as an individual if you default on your payments to the fiat monetary system, isn't it? Ask you again, Lightbearer, and you, Asimov, how can Capitalism be "the most moral system" when the monetary system that drives it is so flawed?

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.