Capitalism!

[Asimov]

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

 

Ummm....create a new monetary system?

 

This is one of my problems with objectivism politically, I do not know enough regarding capitalism as Objectivists speak of it in order to properly argue.

 

I can go on about epistemology and ethics, but capitalism? Bleh. Good answers guys, you've given me a lot to think and talk about.

 

Quick question....what do you consider to be the best economic system, Casey?

[Casey]

 

In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

 

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

 

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

 

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. (This is known, or used to be known, as "rowing the economy")

 

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

 

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

 

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy. (It may be of interest to note that Jefferson once observed, "If I could secure but one Amendment to the Constitution, it would be an Admendment that would forbid Congress to borrow money.")

 

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

WHY GOLD?

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

 

As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.

 

Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.

 

Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself.

 

The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.

 

The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.

 

Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?

 

There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.

 

There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose.

 

Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

 

A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

 

In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:

"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." (And what was I saying about Socialism just now?)

 

He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order. (You must understand one simple thing. Inflation acts in much the same way as the "house percentage" charged by casinos and other gaming houses, whereby they never pay off their winners at the right odds. They justify this practice by saying that this hidden "service charge" is their profit for supplying you with entertainment, however dubious that entertainment may be. Thus it is that casinos and banks are the only businesses allowed by law to defraud their customers.)

 

Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.

 

Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.

 

In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

 

Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.

 

How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

 

We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.

 

Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.

 

What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

 

(Emphases and addenda mine) The article and others on the same subject may be found here

 

Quick question....what do you consider to be the best economic system, Casey?

 

Sound money + a truly free market.

Casey

[Casey]

As to "the love of big government and war" aforesaid, I will reproduce the Preamble to the Bank Of England Act 1694 (5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20):

 

An Act for granting to their Majesties several Rates and Duties upon Tunnage of Ships and Vessels, and upon Beer, Ale, and other Liquors, for securing certain Recompences and Advantages in the said Act mentioned, to such Persons as shall voluntarily advance the Sum of Fifteen hundred thousand Pounds towards carrying on the War against France.

(Emphasis mine)

 

Britain and France had been at war for quite some time. The justice or otherwise of the cause is of no importance. The fact was that the British Government did not care to raise further monies to prosecute the war by direct taxation. However, there were moneylenders and others in England who had grown wealthy by speculation and usury, and it was to these the Government turned.

 

The agreement was that the newly-minted Bank Of England would be allowed to take its working capital, (the 1,500,000 Pounds mentioned) and lend it into the economy via fractional reserve banking. Simple multiplication shows that the Bank would thus put 13,500,000 Pounds into the economy and thereafter, collect the interest on that sum annually.

 

Less than a half-century later, Ben Franklin travelled to England and this is what he saw:

 

Before the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the war that

followed, the colonized part of what is today the United States of

America was a Crown possession of England. It was called New England,

and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the original states of the

great Republic.

 

In 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace reigned on every

border. It was difficult, even impossible, to find a happier and more

prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort prevailed in

every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards,

and education was widely spread."

 

When Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the

Colonies, he saw a completely different situation; the working

population of the home country was gnawed by hunger and plagued by

inescapable poverty. "The streets are covered with beggars and tramps,"

he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its

wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes. His

friends replied that England was prey to a terrible condition; it had

too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with

taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this

great mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually

believed what economist Thomas Malthus later wrote, that wars and

epidemic disease were necessary to rid the country from "manpower

surpluses."

 

People in London asked Franklin how the American Colonies managed to

collect enough money to support their poorhouses, and how they could

overcome this plague of unemployment and pauperism.

 

Thanks to debt-free money issued by the colonial governments

 

Franklin replied; "We have no poorhouses in the Colonies, and if we had

some, there would be no one to put in them, since in the Colonies there

is not a single unemployed person, not a beggar nor a tramp."

 

His friends could not believe their ears, or understand how this could

be. They knew when the English poorhouses and jails became too

cluttered, England shipped the wretched inmates like cattle, to be

dumped on the quays of the Colonies if they survived the filth and

privations of the sea voyage. (In those days English debtors went to

jail if they could not pay their debts, and few escaped, since in jail

they could not earn money.)

 

Franklin's acquaintences, in view of all this, asked him how he could

explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies.

 

Franklin told them: "Why, that is simple! In the Colonies, we issue our

own paper money. It's called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it to pay the

government's approved expenses and charities. We make sure it's issued

in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers

to the consumers. In other words, we make sure there is always adequate

money in circulation for the needs of the economy.

 

"In this manner, by creating ourselves our own paper money, we control

its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay, to anyone. You

see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into

circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their

promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a

tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers

here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt

principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you

have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full

employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money

in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden

of unpayable debt and usury."

(Emphases mine)

 

Do you now see why many of your Founding Fathers did not want a Central Bank?

Casey

[Guest Carl the Capitalist]

Theres a much simpler reason that a centralized banking system wouldn't work: depressions. The great depression was caused by the measures taken to prevent it. The more measures installed, the worse things got.

 

I saw someone post earlier in this topic about slavery, saying that everyone on this planet, whether they realize it or not, is a slave. I think it's time to discuss slavery as it pertains to this, and see what system truly breeds slavery.

 

Communism, Socialism, Facism, or any other type of statism you can find, all advocate one thing: sacrifice. They advocate the sacrifice of one man for another. The forced sacrifice, to be exact. Capitalism allows every man to rise as far as his abiliy will allow him. Statism allows every man to rise as far as society will allow him. Statism destroys the producer at the expense of the consumer. Any man that produces more than he needs is forced to give it away to those who don't produce enough.

 

Does that sound right to you? It's slavery. You're forcibly taking the product of one man's labor away from him and giving it to someone who does not deserve it. How is that moral? When you earn something, you have every right to it. That is true morality, and that is what capitalism is. The fact is, under statism, there's eventually going to be no producers left to sacrifice. What will you all do then to survive?

 

Statists say they have a right to food because they need it to survive, so they choke to death the man who produces the food. They say they need clothing, so they choke to death the tailor. Capitalists realize they need these things, so they go out and work. They trade the product of their labor for the product of someone elses in a trade that both sides agree on.

 

Now tell me, what seems moral to you, Capitalism or Statism?

[NotBlinded]

Now tell me, what seems moral to you, Capitalism or Statism?

Idealistically or realistically?

 

Capitalism allows every man to rise as far as his abiliy will allow him.

 

Capitalists realize they need these things, so they go out and work.

What if the ability and the realization are not congruent?

[Guest drphilosopher]

Hi All,

 

I apologize for jumping into the middle of this discussion so I hope I'm not recovering old ground. I hope I can shed some light on some of these topics.

 

Also, please explain to us how Ayn Rand showed capitalism to be the most moral system.

 

Rand showed that a rational life is the only proper end in itself for a human being, that humans must live in freedom in order to be able to pursue the betterment of their own lives, and that capitalism is the system of a free people.

 

Capitalism is the only system consistent with freedom and freedom is the only condition consistent with reason. Therefore, if one values reason, one will value freedom and if one values freedom, one will support capitalism.

 

There, I've stated the same thing three different ways. Anyway, that is the explanation.

 

Darrell

[Guest drphilosopher]

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.

 

Government --- state and local governments --- were the main contributers to segregation. Before emancipation, governments enforced slavery. Without government intervention, there would have been no slavery. During segregation, schools and other public institutions were segregated.

 

Government also encouraged segregation by abdicating its responsibility to protect individual rights --- by allowing the white population to engage in strong arm tactics up to and including murder (in the form of lynchings) and race riots (perpetrated by whites). If blacks tried to retaliate, the same government was all over them.

 

The government of the U.S. decided to attack the problem by forcing businesses to open their doors to whites. That wasn't all bad in the sense that it gave white business owners cover. Those that wanted to serve blacks now had an excuse --- they were forced to do it. But the government could have taken a very different tack --- one that did not violate the rights of business owners. It could have taken over prosecution of crimes against blacks. If the KKK and its supporters had been rounded up and thrown in jail and had their land and businesses confiscated, white racism would have been a lot less popular.

 

Darrell

[greygirl]

Rand showed that a rational life is the only proper end in itself for a human being, that humans must live in freedom in order to be able to pursue the betterment of their own lives, and that capitalism is the system of a free people.

 

Capitalism is the only system consistent with freedom and freedom is the only condition consistent with reason. Therefore, if one values reason, one will value freedom and if one values freedom, one will support capitalism.

 

There, I've stated the same thing three different ways. Anyway, that is the explanation.

 

Rand espoused that particular opinion, but it doesn't prove anything. Certainly not that capitalism is the most moral system. Your proof completely ignores the fact that humans are social animals. None of us lives in a bubble, and we are all affected by what happens to those around us. Humans live in tribes, whether we admit it or not. It benefits society as a whole to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to get an education, everyone has basic health care, and no one can exploit anyone else. If you're interested in reason, then reason should tell you that society benefits when all children can get an education, whether their parents are willing/able to pay for it or not. Reason should tell you that a successful society is a society that takes care of all of its members. Reason should tell you that it's not okay for a person to end up homeless or dead because they got sick, lost their job, had no health insurance, and there was no system in place to help them except the voluntary kindness of individuals, many of whom would call anyone who needs help a "parasite".

 

The problem with objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism is that they completely ignore human nature. In this hypothetical, totally free economy, where is the incentive for companies to clean up their oil spills? Where is the incentive for companies to properly dispose of their hazardous waste? To use scrubbers on their smokestacks? To not wipe out endangered species for the sake of cutting down a few more acres of forest? Good PR isn't nearly enough. Most people just don't care enough to pay attention to where their products are coming from. They care about filling the tank of their SUV as cheaply as possible, and they won't boycott a company over an oil spill. If they would, Exxon would have been out of business years ago. So what is it?

 

I can't help noticing that we've got two new people who registered in the last two days, apparently just to participate in this thread. Coincidence, or did Lightbearer bring in some ringers?

[Guest drphilosopher]

Rand showed that a rational life is the only proper end in itself for a human being, that humans must live in freedom in order to be able to pursue the betterment of their own lives, and that capitalism is the system of a free people..

 

Rand espoused that particular opinion, but it doesn't prove anything. Certainly not that capitalism is the most moral system. Your proof completely ignores the fact that humans are social animals. None of us lives in a bubble, and we are all affected by what happens to those around us. Humans live in tribes, whether we admit it or not.

 

Ah, yes. We are all primitive.

 

It benefits society as a whole to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to get an education, everyone has basic health care, and no one can exploit anyone else.

 

It also benefits businesses.

 

If you're interested in reason, then reason should tell you that society benefits when all children can get an education, whether their parents are willing/able to pay for it or not. Reason should tell you that a successful society is a society that takes care of all of its members. Reason should tell you that it's not okay for a person to end up homeless or dead because they got sick, lost their job, had no health insurance, and there was no system in place to help them except the voluntary kindness of individuals, many of whom would call anyone who needs help a "parasite".

 

In a system with less taxation it would be easier for people to save for a rainy day, or buy insurance. But, regardless of the practicalities, one person's misfortune does not him a claim on another person's life.

 

The problem with objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism is that they completely ignore human nature.

 

Actually, the strength of Objectivism is that it is consistent with human nature. It takes into account the fact that people can think and make choices, that they must be free to actually make choices and that humans are finite and vulnerable.

 

In this hypothetical, totally free economy, where is the incentive for companies to clean up their oil spills? Where is the incentive for companies to properly dispose of their hazardous waste? To use scrubbers on their smokestacks? To not wipe out endangered species for the sake of cutting down a few more acres of forest? Good PR isn't nearly enough. Most people just don't care enough to pay attention to where their products are coming from. They care about filling the tank of their SUV as cheaply as possible, and they won't boycott a company over an oil spill. If they would, Exxon would have been out of business years ago. So what is it?

 

A capitalist system exists under a just government that exists to protect individual rights. If someone is fouling your water or poisoning your air, they are violating your rights and it is the proper function of government to stop them.

 

As far as forests are concerned, if land were privately owned, loggers would have to get landowners' permission before clearcutting and not all land owners would agree. National parks could be put in the hands of organizations that are chartered to protect and preserve the natural beauty in perpetuity.

 

If you look at the countries with the best and worst environmental records, you will see that the quality of their records are generally inversely proportional to the power of their governments. Communist countries are generally the worst.

 

I can't help noticing that we've got two new people who registered in the last two days, apparently just to participate in this thread. Coincidence, or did Lightbearer bring in some ringers?

 

I hope that we are welcome here. Lightbearer mentioned that you were having this discussion but did not ask for help. I think he is doing a good job and has explained some difficult issues very well. A couple of us just felt like joining the discussion. I hope that is ok.

 

Darrell

[RankStranger]

Greygirl posted a link a while back to a thread where lots of questions about capitalism were brought up. I haven't seen direct answers to most of this, so here's a reminder:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206250

 

 

In a very general sense, I'm a believer in capitalism... but I have doubts. Some of my doubts involve property rights. LB and Av- ya'll have both effectively stated (Asimov directly and Lightbearer indirectly) that a person 'owns' property simply because they produce or earn it. While this is true in some sense and in some cases... I think it's a gross oversimplification of the matter, and completely overlooks the NATURE of property ownership. Here's my take on the matter- completely conjured up by this greasy hick and backed up with little or no authority of any sort.

 

Property rights are damn near ENTIRELY based on a social agreement. That social agreement is enforced by the government. Now, you MAY earn or produce property according to this social agreement... and therefore it becomes yours. You may also be given property, inheret property, gain property though arbitrary government protections such as copyright laws...

 

For example: My inlaws own a few hundred acres of land. They didn't produce that land, nor did they EARN the money to buy it. Their ancestors were 'given' that land via a homestead or three in the late nineteenth century. We all know that the Cheyenne essentially 'owned' that land before a bigger and stronger society decided that they'd reallocate that land to their liking (and enforce that allocation with their gov't). The ONLY reason that my inlaws own that land (and not the Cheyenne) is 'cause our gov't says so.

 

Here's another example: Bill Gates probably has more net worth that some countries. He didn't earn or produce much of that money. Had Microsoft not been given government protections (copyright laws) above and beyond a free market, Gates MIGHT have made money and he might not have. He earned his fortune by working very well under rules established by our gov't.- not by pure capitalism, nor solely by production.

 

There are plenty of semi-celebrities out there who inhereted lots of money. They didn't produce it- it was willingly given to them by someone else. The only reason they 'own' their fortune is because our society chooses to enforce their property rights via gov't.

 

All these examples are to show that 'ownership' is nothing more than an enforced social agreement. Now, I'll agree that in many cases, I consider capitalism to be fair and efficient. However... IF property rights are mere social agreements, AND there are certain instances in which capitalism proves unjust or inefficient, THEN why should we as a society not choose to intervene as 'we' see fit?

 

I happen to like capitalism in most cases- I vote libertarian (when I vote)... but I seriously doubt that any single '-ism' holds all the answers to life's problems.

[Guest Carl the Capitalist]

Property rights are damn near ENTIRELY based on a social agreement. That social agreement is enforced by the government. Now, you MAY earn or produce property according to this social agreement... and therefore it becomes yours. You may also be given property, inheret property, gain property though arbitrary government protections such as copyright laws...

 

Let's get something straight. Rights do not come from a government. A government comes from rights. The laws of a government are there to protect man from society. Society can not control what I produce, nor can a government. The word "may" in your post is not used properly. You're either going to produce or die.

 

Your definition of property in your post is the current definition, based on our current governing body. This topic isn't about America, it's about pure capitalism. The land your inlaws own now was taken by force by violating the rights of others, and technically belongs to those who originally owned it.

 

All these examples are to show that 'ownership' is nothing more than an enforced social agreement. Now, I'll agree that in many cases, I consider capitalism to be fair and efficient. However... IF property rights are mere social agreements, AND there are certain instances in which capitalism proves unjust or inefficient, THEN why should we as a society not choose to intervene as 'we' see fit?

 

There's a very good reason. Whether 1 man violates the rights of another or 1 Million men violate the rights of another does not matter. It's still immoral. It's still a violation of rights. Logic ends where a gun begins.

 

And just do us all a favor and don't bring Libertarians into this discussion. They're the last thing this needs.

[Lightbearer]

First off, Casey you do realize we are advocating the same thing right? The Federal reserve is a violation of capistilastic principles. I didn't read all of your posts last night but I read one and I was thinking about the answer to your questions about monetary policy and then I figured it out. It's the gold-standard. But then I read your posts and realized you already knew that I suppose. But that's what capitalism needs is a gold-standard to keep a good, balanced value of exchange.

 

You see the current economy, like I said before and I will stress, is not capitalism. It has elements of capitalism, but it's not pure capitalism which was coined by the french economists in thr 1800s to be called "lassiez faire capitalism."

 

The current system is a mixed economy. Now what do you think of when you here the word "mixed"? Given the application of the word to the economy it reminds of one thing. Dr. Frankenstein and his monster made up of mixed parts of the deceased and brought to life with his whacked out machinery harnessing the power of the earth. We created a monster... or rather the government did. It's hard to tell whos the real monster, the creator or the creation, but the fact remains -- it's a monster created out of disrespect and randomly pulling levers and calling it "experimenting"

 

Now with that being said let me lay down the definition of capitalism and it's principle requirements and characterisitics. Capitalim is philosphoically grounded in the principle of life, this world and humans right to life and to choose to further, preserve and enjoy life on and within this world. Capitalism is political grounded in the principle of liberty, where the governments role is only to protect and perserve the liberty of it's citizens to live and thrive by barring the threat and effects of force from the human relationships which it protects. Capitalism is grounded economically in private property and the rights of the people who own it to be able to do with it whatever is in their material self-interest.

 

Capitalism is division of labor, which can only exist in a system of total freedom. It requires total freedom, the protection from the initiation of force, to thrive and prosper. It requires rationality and reason as foundations of thought. In capitalism, the means of production are owned privately, and individuals rights are the foundation of government, which serves and protects the individual. So capitalism is the pursuit of material self-interest under these set conditions of freedom. It also incorporates saving and capital accumaltion, exchange and money, financial self-interest and profit motive, the freedoms of economic competition and economic inequality, the price system, and the harmony of the pursuit of material self-interest of the individuals who take part in the whole system.

 

 

 

Rand espoused that particular opinion, but it doesn't prove anything.

 

I can espouse an opinion that elephants fart out rainbows but that doesn't proof anything either, what proofs in opinion to be right or wrong is how it stands up against reality. All of Rands views came directly from obserable reality and she stressed this alot in her writtens. The woman came from Soviet Russia and saw first hand the things she fought so vigorously against.

 

Certainly not that capitalism is the most moral system. Your proof completely ignores the fact that humans are social animals. None of us lives in a bubble, and we are all affected by what happens to those around us. Humans live in tribes, whether we admit it or not.

 

Humans are rational animals too, capable of using reason to solve the problems of the world around them. Humans are also selfish, they do things for there own self-interest. That's human nature, which is personified in capitalism, like I said above, individuals acting within a free society pursuing there own rational material self-interests. People do this all the time, everyday since they leave the womb and to the day they enter the grave. Nothing is more akin to the basic human nature. All humans are different, they have different hopes, dreams, desires, interests, voices, thoughts, expressions, skills, talents, abilities, motives, inspirations, loves, hates, joys, sorrows, pet peeves, philosophical convictions, religions convictions, moral standards, lives you name it; it is what makes us individual and that's what makes us human.

 

Some humans are good and some are evil. Some strive for creation, some lust for destruction. Some spend their lives true and tapping into the best within them to make their lives great. Others strive to destroy everything around them until eventually all that's left to destroy is themselves.

 

Humans don't live in tribes, because tribes don't exist. What is a tribe exactly? Just a group of individuals. No matter how many people you clump together they are still individuals. Collectives don't exist, because you can always narrow it down to the individuals within the collective. A choir all saying in perfect tone is still nothing but individuals voices. A factory with different people doing different jobs working on different parts is still nothing but individuals. A team of football players is still a team of individuals with exceptional skill at football. There is no I in team, there are Is in individual however. Three of them -- me, myself, and I.

 

This is what is meant by the harmony of individuals pursuing their rational self-interests.

 

It benefits society as a whole to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to get an education, everyone has basic health care, and no one can exploit anyone else.

 

First, what is society? Nothing more then the individuals who are within it. Second, in benefits the individual to have an education. It benefits the school who, exposed to market forces, would have to have students in order to survive and for it's owners and teachers to have jobs, earn a living and do what they love to do -- teach. It's within their self-interest to provide the best quality education for the best price to have the most customers. Without the heavy tax burden of paying for every other kids education, the parents can afford to focus primarily on their own. Greygirl, I can't recall if it was you or someone else who said that not everyone would send their children to school if they can send them to work instead. This is a very good point, but my basic answer is that it is more of a better investment to send your children to school then to have them work, they could even work at the school themselves for money -- my grandfather did this to help his parents pay for his education. Put yourself in the position of a parent who, under a lassiez farie system, would be able to make more and save more money. Even if you are "poor" by the standards of society it still would be better for you to send your kids to school, it's a better future for them and in the long run it could turn out to be a worthwhile investment because with a better education you child could get alot better work so to speak then their parents, and maybe take care of them one day. Plus, with a fair monetary system the parents could take out a loan for their kids to go to school without the fear of being in debt for the rest of their lives, and as Casey pointed out, not thrown in jail if they couldn't pay. So yes, your right it's good for society to have educated people, especially educated in economics so they don't make the same mistakes we made with our economy. But it does not benefit anyone to take the money from them to pay for kids that aren't theres or if they don't want too or if they can't afford it to begin with. It doesn't benefit anyone too have a public education system that resembles a prison in it's operation. It doesn't benefit anyone to waste time and money on kids who'd rather sleep through class so they can go out and steal shit from the mall after school. It doesn't benefit anyone to undermind the value of an education in order to make sure everyone has one.

 

You said make sure everyone has an oppurtunity -- but that doesn't mean they will take it or not. And privatized systems would, like I pointed out, put the oppurtunity out there for everyone too make that choice. You need proof that public education is a problem? Look at our own system. Privatizing the entire system is not something you can do over night and it would take a hell of a reform, with alot of time and patience to achieve. But in the end that would be better for everyone involved.

 

That's my basic thinking on education, more later, but does that address it enough for you?

 

Now to basic health care. Yeah it is within everyones self-interest to make sure they are healthy, but then again people can do this by themselves because it is a need so basic that the market demand for it will never fail. But the health care system will only choke itself to death with the price controls and free medicine progarms. Western medicine is keeping millions of people in the world alive. It's a miracle and marvel of capitalism how much life is preserved and protected through modern medicine. But that could soon change, without the profit motive and competition the industry will dry up and the innovated ideas that drive it and that save the lives of millions will cease to be. The government keeps dipping their hands more and more into the medical world and its showing the warying signs already. Have you ever had a doctor in private practice opposed to one employed by the state public health programs? I've been in and out of hospitals my whole life, the cheap state-backed doctors of the public health system screwed me up so bad when I found the private practice ones they had to undo the damage and start from there. It's paid off for me, and their services are far more valuble to me.

 

As far as providing "basic" health care for everyone. First off, what is "basic"? Is medicine for a fever the same as a heart transplant? There is no telling what basic is compared to what basic isn't because individuals have different ailments which require different treatments which cost different prices. If you pay for someone else to have tylenol for their headaches why not pay for loritab for their pain? Anestihia (sp?), stomach pumps, x-ray machines, and all of this is very expensive and vital for peoples surival in most cases. Who is going to pay for this? Of course you can have all the staff work for free but that won't help them any because now they can't have money to buy food. Of course you can make the rich people pay for the poor people but what happens when the rich people run out of money to take and are as poor as the poor people? Then everyone is screwed over and no one is going to get any medical or health care.

 

It's sad that grandma can't afford her medicine. But it's even sadder when she has to pay taxes to afford others medicine when she can't even afford her own still. It's sad when the prices for her medicine are sky rocketing because the markets are effectivly being killed to supply everyone with the same medicine that grandma can't afford to everyone at prices they can't even afford either. Whats worse is that the montery policy prevented grandma from being able to actively safe for her retirement and now lives off social security from the government which can barely keep up it's promise to grandma to take care of her in her old age. Her children and grandchildren if she has any, can't afford to take care of her, and beside the government is supposed to do that. She might get put up in a retirement home, but that's under the same effect of the retarded economic policy that henders her ability to take care of herself in the first place.

 

Lastly we come to your comment about not being able to exploit anyone? Would you mind delving into this a little more? I want first, you defintion of exploiting, and second how this is actually accomplished. This goes for everyone who is saying this or said it as well.

 

If you're interested in reason, then reason should tell you that society benefits when all children can get an education, whether their parents are willing/able to pay for it or not. Reason should tell you that a successful society is a society that takes care of all of its members. Reason should tell you that it's not okay for a person to end up homeless or dead because they got sick, lost their job, had no health insurance, and there was no system in place to help them except the voluntary kindness of individuals, many of whom would call anyone who needs help a "parasite".

 

Reason is the ability to gain knowledge through your sensor perception. It goes beyond this in some ascpects because with the knowledge you gained by observing the world around you can formulate into, thoughts and ideas which in turn effect the way you interact with the world around you that you used reason to gain knowledge and come to a conclusion on the what, where, how, when, and why of your environment. Reason would tell you that education is useless when it abandons reason and when it forces people to obtain it at the cost of bring society down. Reason would tell you that a successful society is a free society where everyone can take of themselves just fine and is based on a proreason philsophy because reason is what makes freedom possible to begin with. Reason should tell you that it's not okay to force people to keep their jobs, buy health insurance and take away their money to pay help people when all this does is further hurt them in return and that the voluntary kindness of individuals is the only real, genuine, and honest way of charity for those who do need a little help, and that a parasite is only the people who force you to help them at the expense of yourself.

 

The problem with objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism is that they completely ignore human nature. In this hypothetical, totally free economy, where is the incentive for companies to clean up their oil spills? Where is the incentive for companies to properly dispose of their hazardous waste? To use scrubbers on their smokestacks? To not wipe out endangered species for the sake of cutting down a few more acres of forest? Good PR isn't nearly enough. Most people just don't care enough to pay attention to where their products are coming from. They care about filling the tank of their SUV as cheaply as possible, and they won't boycott a company over an oil spill. If they would, Exxon would have been out of business years ago. So what is it?

 

I pointed out how lassiez-faire capitalism are completly aware of and cater too human nature. Objectivism is a different arguement but the same agruments I use could be applied for Objectivism.

 

Where is the incentive for companies to clean up oil spills? As drphilospher pointed out, if it violated someones property rights it would have to be cleaned up, the government could legally force it too in that regard. However there is another incentive. Spilled oil is lost profit and wasted capitalism. Unlike spilt milk it still retains value so it's only withing the rational financial self-interests of said company to reclaim the oil and make up for the lose, and make sure no one sues them. This is why they do it today, regards of the environmental laws. Spilt oil is bad for the performance of the firm which in turn affects its shareholders who might just bail out, and spilt oil is bad for their image overall so the option most companies take is to clean it up and large an aggresive PR campaign detailing their love for the enviroment and apologize for the mess. Regardless if that has any merit the fact remains that their is plenty of incetive to clean up spilt oil. This could apply to the rest of your examples too.

 

About the endagered species, I really doubt for one thing that so many of them are being endangered because of the acts of cutting down the trees in one area. For one thing, what's more important, those animals or you? Animals will be fine, they adapt and move on. It's not like I relish in the death of animals no one who values life would. But when it comes down to it man is superior to the animals. Earth is mankinds garden where man uses his mind to best find ways to live, thrive and prosper on the earth.

 

About the SUV people, they don't protest over spilled oil leading to a higher price but they sure as hell don't protest or boycott because of regard for animals, plant life, and a corrupted overgrown beauracy leads to an extremely high price. They keep on paying because most people are ignorant of the processes that it takes to put the oil in their car. It's more economic ignorance or retardation if you want to go that far, and in a way you don't have to be aware of the rest of the economy in a division of labor economy, but it sure helps to understand. If people understood what is keeping the price so high they wouldn't turn around and support it by electing in too office.

 

I can't help noticing that we've got two new people who registered in the last two days, apparently just to participate in this thread. Coincidence, or did Lightbearer bring in some ringers?

 

 

I did bring this up somewhere else on the internet to have a discussion about it. But if people want to participate then thats just great too. The more the merrier.

[Ladyfractal]

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.

 

 

Government --- state and local governments --- were the main contributers to segregation. Before emancipation, governments enforced slavery. Without government intervention, there would have been no slavery. During segregation, schools and other public institutions were segregated.

 

I would disagree, sir. The *people* were the main enforcers of segregation. While there were Jim Crow *laws*, those laws were simply making legal the de facto rules of conduct in the American South in the post-antebellum period. Yes, schools and other public institutions were segregated, what you don't appear to realize was that *everything else* was also segregated. My parents would tell us about theatres being segregated in the small towns they grew up in. In my father's town, there was a black only day. In my mother's town there were theatres that only served whites and the other theatres would only allow blacks to sit in the worst seats in the house out of sight of whites. There was never any laws passed on this, this was simply how things were done.

 

Government also encouraged segregation by abdicating its responsibility to protect individual rights --- by allowing the white population to engage in strong arm tactics up to and including murder (in the form of lynchings) and race riots (perpetrated by whites). If blacks tried to retaliate, the same government was all over them.

 

Wait, I thought that the whole point of this discussion was that government is best which governs least which means that, it would appear, that the consistent position from an Objectivist standpoint would be that the government should have maintained neutrality.

 

The government of the U.S. decided to attack the problem by forcing businesses to open their doors to whites. That wasn't all bad in the sense that it gave white business owners cover. Those that wanted to serve blacks now had an excuse --- they were forced to do it. But the government could have taken a very different tack --- one that did not violate the rights of business owners. It could have taken over prosecution of crimes against blacks. If the KKK and its supporters had been rounded up and thrown in jail and had their land and businesses confiscated, white racism would have been a lot less popular.

 

Yes that is true but it is also inconsistent. If I understand the point of Objectivism is that there should essentially be NO government and government should never get involved in any disputes involving commerce or property. Therefore by your own philosophy the government would have been entirely powerless to take away the property of Klansmen.

 

Now, it seems to me--given some things said on this thread, that the real problem that Objectivists have with government is taxation particularly as it goes to help the poor. (No one, that I have seen on this thread arguing an Ayn Randian point of view seems to have a problem with, for instance, US AID which helps corporations get overseas markets) If that is the case then why not just say "Look, I have no problem with government per se, I just have a problem with government taxing me so that there are police, fire departments, public health, public schools, Social Security and Veterans benefits"? You would still face opposition (rightly so) but at least it would be clear.

 

For instance, someone was saying a few days ago that if employers don't pay well enough then workers could sue. No, they can't because only government can make laws and if government is redesigned to allow for businesses to do as it pleases then by definition there can be no labor law. Unless the owner does something that is *otherwise* criminal--for instance shooting his employees or assaulting them with a baseball bat--anything else he does in the course of running their business is beyond the purview of the government. If he chooses to take advantage of the fact that there are very few jobs in the region and pay wages that are inadequate for the cost of living, that's his choice. If he chooses to not offer health benefits, that's also his choice. If he chooses to hire children that is ALSO his choice. If he chooses to externalize costs by, for instance, dumping wastes that is ALSO his choice.

 

I have one other comment that I would like the Objectivists to answer. If you believe that it is odious that your tax dollars go to helping, for instance, disabled veterans (and that IS a form of welfare) why on Earth would you voluntarily donate money to a charity that would go to help these very SAME people? For that matter, since many charities are church run why would you donate money to an organization that, presumably you want nothing to do with, that helps people you consider a drain on society? I mean at this point, you paying your taxes appears to be an elegant solution to the problem. You pay them, the poor are helped, you don't have to think about them anymore and they are sustained at a level that keeps them from coming to YOUR house to drag you out of it. No further effort is required on your part. If you donate to a charity you are going to (presumably) research the charity and then cut a cheque--which is effort you otherwise would not have to go to, to help people who you think are a drain on the society. So, again, why would you do this?

 

Cheers

lf

[Ladyfractal]

 

About the endagered species, I really doubt for one thing that so many of them are being endangered because of the acts of cutting down the trees in one area. For one thing, what's more important, those animals or you? Animals will be fine, they adapt and move on. It's not like I relish in the death of animals no one who values life would. But when it comes down to it man is superior to the animals. Earth is mankinds garden where man uses his mind to best find ways to live, thrive and prosper on the earth.

 

Light:

 

You may doubt this but the vast majority of the biological community--of which I count myself although I'm not a 'woodsy, furry-type'--would disagree. It is clear that we are in the beginnigs of a *major* extinction event. It is likely that we will be the cause of an extinction event at *least* as severe as the K-T event that wiped out the dinosaurs and that was actually not the worst of them, just the most famous amongst laypeople. That one wiped out about 70% of land animals and about 50% of marine life, taking down whole phyla. (By the way, just as an aside, the worst of them was the Permian extinction which took down about 95% of all land-life and about 70% of all marine life and was as close as life has come to being snuffed out.)

 

The animals will not 'be fine, adapt and move on', Lightbearer. They won't have that kind of time, that's why they go extinct. Evolution works on time scales of thousands of years, not hundreds and we're talking about the serious damage being done in the next 100 to 150 years. Now, will we wipe out life? No. But we are going to seriously cull the mammalian class, the avian class, do serious damage to the amphibian class. At present we are looking at losing the *entire* wild frog family, will lose large swaths of the butterflies, large swaths of the wild birds, most of the remaining large-bodied, non-domesticated terrestial mammals, most if not all of the marine mammals, most, if not all, of the great apes (chimps, gorillas, bonobos), most of the new world primates, probably most of the old world, non-great ape primates as well. That's a decidedly non-trivial amount of biodiversity that we are going to wipe out.

 

The Earth is not mankind's garden, Lightbearer. We are a recent development on this planet, very recent. Life has been here for *at least* 3.5 billion years. We have been here, as anatomically modern humans, for *at most* 100,000 years (and a more realistic number is around fifty to seventy-five thousand). If the history of life on Earth were to be collapsed into 24 hours, our class doesn't show up until late evening, hominids don't show up until about 2320 at night, humans don't show up until about 2359 and all of written human history, everything we can know happened because someone bothered to write it down, is compressed into the last second of the day--all of it.

 

Now, you may shrug your shoulders and say "well, who cares if there aren't frogs, or chimps, or dolphins" and in the short-term you are probably correct to not care. In the long-term, however, it does not bode well for us. The history of mass extinctions shows that when they occur, typically nothing living on the land that is larger than about the size of a housecat emerges on the other side and rebounds. It need not be said that we have more bodyweight than a housecat and so if we take down most of the wild mammals we will probably go as well. Our technologies will almost certainly mean that we will be the *last* to go, but I would not give our species a better than one in five chance of being around 10,000 years from now. The tragedy is that we will have done this to ourselves and it is the attitude that 'this is all here for us' that will have done it to us.

 

Cheers

lf

ps. I can see the epithet written by some cephalapod archaeologist a few million years from now as they poke through the ruins of Los Angeles: "Here lies homo sapiens sapiens...a species of African ape with a short tenure on the planet. Killed by fossil fuels, unrestrained capitalism and monotheism."

[Guest drphilosopher]

Wait, I thought that the whole point of this discussion was that government is best which governs least which means that, it would appear, that the consistent position from an Objectivist standpoint would be that the government should have maintained neutrality.

 

Einstein once famously said, you should make a problem as simple as possible, but not simpler. The same principle applies here. The government that governs least still has to govern. That means protecting individual rights, irrespective of sex, race or other irrelevant characteristics.

 

If I understand the point of Objectivism is that there should essentially be NO government and government should never get involved in any disputes involving commerce or property. Therefore by your own philosophy the government would have been entirely powerless to take away the property of Klansmen.

 

This is not a correct interpretation of Objectivism. Objectivism is not anarchism. Indeed, one of the principle functions of government is to protect private property rights and mediate disputes related to commerce (the trade of property).

 

Now, it seems to me--given some things said on this thread, that the real problem that Objectivists have with government is taxation particularly as it goes to help the poor. (No one, that I have seen on this thread arguing an Ayn Randian point of view seems to have a problem with, for instance, US AID which helps corporations get overseas markets)

 

The government should not redistribute any property or money to anyone, whether rich or poor, individual or corporation (except as the result of a dispute resolution).

 

For instance, someone was saying a few days ago that if employers don't pay well enough then workers could sue. No, they can't ...

 

Agreed. Sorry Asimov, I think you're out to lunch on this one.

 

If he chooses to hire children that is ALSO his choice.

 

Special care must be taken where children are involved because children, especially young children, are not capable of making rational decisions for themselves.

 

If he chooses to externalize costs by, for instance, dumping wastes that is ALSO his choice.

 

That is not true. Polution is a complex subject, but let's just say that willy nilly dumping is not allowed. Poisoning others' air or water violates their rights because it is involuntarily harming them.

 

I have one other comment that I would like the Objectivists to answer. If you believe that it is odious that your tax dollars go to helping, for instance, disabled veterans ...

 

I don't believe that. National defense is a legitimate function of government and part of the cost of that function is the cost of supporting disabled veterans. In fact, I don't think we do enough to support them. Afterall, they are defending our freedom. If we were to scrap social security and about a thousand other government programs, we could do a much better job of supporting our troops and our veterans and still have plenty of money left over to return to the tax payers.

 

(and that IS a form of welfare) why on Earth would you voluntarily donate money to a charity that would go to help these very SAME people? For that matter, since many charities are church run why would you donate money to an organization that, presumably you want nothing to do with, that helps people you consider a drain on society?

 

I have mixed feelings about charities. There is nothing wrong with a person who is well off donating a little money to help others. He may feel sorry for them. That's fine. But the programs should be structured to help people who deserve help. If an otherwise hard working person has simply suffered some misfortune, than I am much more willing to help that person than if I think that person is chronically in a bad situation or in a bad situation because of his own actions.

 

I grew up in Iowa and in the winter it was not uncommon to come across a situation in which someone was trying to push his or her car out of the snow. So, the natural thing to do was to help. You don't feel like it is a waste of effort when you help someone like that because you know that that person's condition is just temporary and that person just needs a little help to get back to leading a productive life.

 

On the other hand, I've met plenty of street beggars or panhandlers. At first, I was sympathetic. Then I learned that they are always out there bumming money off of people to buy alcohol. Giving money to those people isn't helping them and they are never going to be valuable members of society until and unless they give up their addiction and get back to the straight and narrow.

 

I mean at this point, you paying your taxes appears to be an elegant solution to the problem. You pay them, the poor are helped, you don't have to think about them anymore and they are sustained at a level that keeps them from coming to YOUR house to drag you out of it. No further effort is required on your part.

 

I would rather expend the effort than accept the principle that it is ok to take money from the people that earn it and give it to those that don't.

 

Darrell

[Casey]

First off, Casey you do realize we are advocating the same thing right? The Federal reserve is a violation of capistilastic principles. I didn't read all of your posts last night but I read one and I was thinking about the answer to your questions about monetary policy and then I figured it out. It's the gold-standard. But then I read your posts and realized you already knew that I suppose. But that's what capitalism needs is a gold-standard to keep a good, balanced value of exchange.

 

You need more than a gold standard or bi-metallic standard. Fractional reserve banking must be abolished, because that fraud is what caused the Fed (and every other central bank in the world) to exist in the first place. Every country in the world had a gold standard at one time, but it was destroyed by the bankster's relentless credit creation and monetarization of debt. Basically, they ended up with all the gold.

 

The current system is a mixed economy. Now what do you think of when you here the word "mixed"? Given the application of the word to the economy it reminds of one thing. Dr. Frankenstein and his monster made up of mixed parts of the deceased and brought to life with his whacked out machinery harnessing the power of the earth. We created a monster... or rather the government did. It's hard to tell whos the real monster, the creator or the creation, but the fact remains -- it's a monster created out of disrespect and randomly pulling levers and calling it "experimenting"

 

I don't think you have a "mixed economy". I believe you have a Socialist system that happens to have been wearing kid gloves, and you have had that system since 1933. That system, as has been shown, has bankrupted the US twice - in 1933-4 when FDR revoked the domestic gold standard. Not only did he set the dollar on the road towards becoming a fully fiat currency, he also, as is known, consfiscated all gold privately held in the US. At the same time, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, all of them statists like their bankster masters, did the same thing in their own countries. In every case this was done to put these countries' economies on a war footing, although the methods they used were far harsher than those obtaining in the US.

 

Nixon went towards finishing the job in 1971 when he "temporarily suspended" US gold payments to foreign creditors, thus repudiating the Bretton Woods agreement. Now the US dollar was, and is, a totally fiat system, and the end of this will be as Voltaire said many years ago, that paper money always reaches its intrinsic value, that is zero. When that happens to the US dollar, it will be the job of some unfortunate President or other to once again declare bankruptcy, although he of course will not say as much to his electorate. I should think that now you are seeing the gloves start to come off; when that happens you will see the brass knuckles that have been there all the time.

 

Now with that being said let me lay down the definition of capitalism and it's principle requirements and characterisitics. Capitalim is philosphoically grounded in the principle of life, this world and humans right to life and to choose to further, preserve and enjoy life on and within this world. Capitalism is political grounded in the principle of liberty, where the governments role is only to protect and perserve the liberty of it's citizens to live and thrive by barring the threat and effects of force from the human relationships which it protects. Capitalism is grounded economically in private property and the rights of the people who own it to be able to do with it whatever is in their material self-interest.

 

Capitalism is division of labor, which can only exist in a system of total freedom. It requires total freedom, the protection from the initiation of force, to thrive and prosper. It requires rationality and reason as foundations of thought. In capitalism, the means of production are owned privately, and individuals rights are the foundation of government, which serves and protects the individual. So capitalism is the pursuit of material self-interest under these set conditions of freedom. It also incorporates saving and capital accumaltion, exchange and money, financial self-interest and profit motive, the freedoms of economic competition and economic inequality, the price system, and the harmony of the pursuit of material self-interest of the individuals who take part in the whole system.

 

That is the theory, yes, but until the monetary system is reformed, not just in the US but world-wide so that banksterism becomes a thing of the past, all else is but pipe smoke up the chimney.

Casey

[Guest AynRand]

In spite of my username, I am merely an Ayn Rand fan and not an expert. I am glad to see others here who have read and understand her work.

 

Casey....have you ever taken a look at the Federal Reserve's financial statements? Do you think that the US government will be bankrupt in and of itself or will it throw the debt off to the companies that own the Federal Reserve?

[Guest waxwings]

Hi folks, I thought I'd weigh in on this chat.

 

There seem to be some pretty mercenary views regarding capitalism, which is probably why some socialists react negatively to it. Ayn Rand's intolerant views towards altruism probably went a long way to contribute to capitalism's bad image.

 

My question is this: we have, for time immemorial, had governments that operated on some combination of state pooled resources (socialism) and free market resources (capitalism). Why then, do people seem to discuss the ideas of collective resources and private resources as if they were mutually exclusive? I should think by now that we could agree that some resources, especially important ones which everyone in the population needs access to, regardless of income, can be collective, while other less essential ones can be private.

 

We've seen very successful models of socialized services in other countries (and here in the Sates). We've also seen very successful, rich, vibrant private markets. We've seen failures of collective services, and we've seen failures of private markets (notably when a monopoly or collusion occurs). Is it necessary to take a position which excludes either of these approaches to resource allocation? If so, why haven't we done it?

[Casey]

Casey....have you ever taken a look at the Federal Reserve's financial statements? Do you think that the US government will be bankrupt in and of itself or will it throw the debt off to the companies that own the Federal Reserve?

 

Now that the last flimsy restraints (aka The Bretton Woods Agreement) on Government overspending and inflation are long gone, here is one scenario that could happen some time:

 

Thus, the Federal Reserve and other central banking systems act as giant government creators and enforcers of a banking cartel; the Fed bails out banks in trouble, and it centralizes and coordinates the banking system so that all the banks, whether the Chase Manhattan, or the Rothbard or Rockwell banks, can inflate together. Under free banking, one bank expanding beyond its fellows was in danger of imminent bankruptcy. Now, under the Fed, all banks can expand together and proportionately.

 

"Deposit Insurance"

 

But even with the backing of the Fed, fractional reserve banking proved shaky, and so the New Deal, in 1933, added the lie of "bank deposit insurance," using the benign word "insurance" to mask an arrant hoax. When the savings and loan system went down the tubes in the late 1980s, the "deposit insurance" of the federal FSLIC [Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation] was unmasked as sheer fraud. The "insurance" was simply the smoke-and-mirrors term for the unbacked name of the federal government. The poor taxpayers finally bailed out the S&Ls, but now we are left with the formerly sainted FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation], for commercial banks, which is now increasingly seen to be shaky, since the FDIC itself has less than one percent of the huge number of deposits it "insures."

 

The very idea of "deposit insurance" is a swindle; how does one insure an institution (fractional reserve banking) that is inherently insolvent, and which will fall apart whenever the public finally understands the swindle? Suppose that, tomorrow, the American public suddenly became aware of the banking swindle, and went to the banks tomorrow morning, and, in unison, demanded cash. What would happen? The banks would be instantly insolvent, since they could only muster 10 percent of the cash they owe their befuddled customers. Neither would the enormous tax increase needed to bail everyone out be at all palatable. No: the only thing the Fed could do, and this would be in their power, would be to print enough money to pay off all the bank depositors. Unfortunately, in the present state of the banking system, the result would be an immediate plunge into the horrors of hyperinflation.

 

Let us suppose that total insured bank deposits are $1,600 billion. Technically, in the case of a run on the banks, the Fed could exercise emergency powers and print $1,600 billion in cash to give to the FDIC to pay off the bank depositors. The problem is that, emboldened at this massive bailout, the depositors would promptly redeposit the new $1,600 billion into the banks, increasing the total bank reserves by $1,600 billion, thus permitting an immediate expansion of the money supply by the banks by tenfold, increasing the total stock of bank money by $16 trillion. Runaway inflation and total destruction of the currency would quickly follow.

(Emphases mine)

 

Taken from here

There is, or there was, a German drinking song whose refrain goes, "And who is going to pay for it all? Who has plenty of money? Whose pockets are lined with gold?" (Not quite true but I think you know what I mean)

 

So who do you think will pay for it all?

Casey

[webmdave]

I can't help noticing that we've got two new people who registered in the last two days, apparently just to participate in this thread. Coincidence, or did Lightbearer bring in some ringers?

 

 

I did bring this up somewhere else on the internet to have a discussion about it. But if people want to participate then thats just great too. The more the merrier.

 

 

In case anyone is interested: http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=401

[chefranden]

One Picture is Worth a 1000 Words, eh what?

 

[Asimov]

Except that isn't what Lightbearer promotes. Looks more like a strawman representation, chef.

[Lightbearer]

One Picture is Worth a 1000 Words, eh what?

 

 

 

A picture is not an arguement but, hey, while we are posting pictures lets post some.

 

 

Starved to death because of Stalin.

 

 

Skulls of victims of the communist guerilla Khmer Rouge.

 

 

Of course we can't forget about the works of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

 

Pictures are worth thousands of words are they not?

 

 

Anyways, the reason I never got back to this thread was because I was, and still am, reading alot to bulster my defense and arguement for laizze-faire capitalism. I promised to respond and I still hold myself to that promise and to my own word.

 

Like Asimov said, that's not what I advocate and i've stated that several times, chefranden. Look at the pictures above. Is this what you advocate, yes or no?

[Asimov]

The problem is that chef ONLY understands US capitalism, considering the picture.

 

I don't think it's accurate to state that because Chef doesn't support capitalism, he supports communism or nazism, though, if that is what you are implying.

[heschel]

Post Removed by daFatman, total violation of TOS, Rules, Guidelines of Ex-Christian dot net. Post has earned poster a two week vacation from use of ExC's services. Strikes one and two.

 

 

kFL