Frighter, your opinion on the irrelevance of the kind of system in place and that no system should be in place, is both baffling and intriguing at the same time. As crazy as it sounds it is true that there has never been a time without a system in place since we were hunters/gatherers in villages hundreds of years ago. But I wish to know how you imagine things working without a government and especially without any laws. Why do you believe it is right? I agree that systems more often than not put illusions into our head of what really is and what was just thought up, maybe you are onto something. Maybe you feel anarchy is the right thing from a primordial instinct for freedom from control of any kind except that which mother nature herself put on us - otherwise known as physics.
From what I gather by the title of the thread and the way he chooses to respond to others’ arguments, Ben’s only error is that he appears to be supporting capitalism simply because it “works” (“expediency of the moment”); that is, it is more efficient at generating wealth than any other socioeconomic system. Pragmatism such as this is the death of reason and right. One should accept a system not because it works, but because it is proper.
Capitalism is proper because, in short, it is the only system that protects the rights of each individual to do as he pleases with himself and his property as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others to do the same without their voluntary agreement. That is, it is the only system that does not allow a man to forcibly seize wealth or other goods (thus depriving the rightful owner of his right to do as he pleases with them) simply because he does not wish to obtain them legitimately. It is the only system that allows individuals to voluntarily make agreements (provided they have no effect on any individual who is not party to the agreement) without any interference or paternalism.
i don’t know what your definition of proper is, but if it is to be applicable to capitalism it must include poverty, exploitation, welath gaps, no government intervention, child labour and no public services.
what you have effectively said is that capitalism is democracy, which it is not. (pure) capitalism is not the only form of society that requires democracy, socialism requires democracy. but under pure capitalism democracy would crumble as the rich become ultra-rich, the poor take a dive into poverty, big business will run the country and as has been shown in the US (and across the West) election turn outs will slump. as for capitalism protecting the individual, try explaining that to an 11 year old on 14 hour shifts in a sweat shop. capitalism requires the exploitation of workers, ever corporation will drive down labour costs because it is easy, and it doesn’t matter if the exploited worker is in the capitalist country or not it is still the capitalist system that is oppressing him.
Can capitalism truly ever work? Well it depends on your definition of ‘work’. Personally, I don’t think capitalism is working, nor do I believe it will ever work. I think the best system we have seen so far is socialism. I believe it worked, although, I’m sure some will say “well if it worked then why did the government fall?” and the answer is one of hundreds of variables, none of which ‘actually’ have to do with the system, but more of the corruption in the highest places of politics, and yes it’s possible to have a country run by a system that works while also having corrupt politicians.
I expect much feed back for the above should raise many contradictions.
the reason i belive that anarchy is “right” is because nothing else can be satisfactorly argued without resorting to “because i think it should be this way”. whichi m sure you will agree isnt the best argument for anything. if you ask me (here is where i get all paradoxical) i think capitalism is just dandy. and i do so because “i think it should be that way”. i dont expect it to work perfectly. no goverment is going to work perfectly. any way you do it people arnt gonna like it. and because of that i dont think that any way is the right way. am i so selfish that i believe that my capitcalist views should be pushed on everyone else? the only resort to this is to get rid of it all. but as others have mentioned everywhere else, even if that was to happen goverment woudl rise again ainyway… and even if it did if i think that people shoudl be able to do as they want who am i to argue against it.
when it comes down to it what i hate about it is that goverments of any kind are justified when it comes down to it becuase of the way a certain set of people belive to be right. and in this world we live in you CANNOT avoid it. there is NO PLACE on earth you can go if you want to be able to do what you want. you can change countrys, move around all you want, but whatever you do you cannot escape what other people belive to be right.
as per usual i think i have begun to ramble. i hate my view cause they just dont make any friggin sence and they just go around in circles… but ahh well thats life fer ya.
i still do not see how anyone can support capitalism. capitalism does not deliver equality, it does not deliver freedom, it does not work. it works for the few. the perfect example being the richest country in the world having a 5th or a 4th of the popualtion living below the poverty line of $2,500 a year. as for capitalism driving prices down, yes this will happen in the short term, but long term (roughly 100 years) the system will collapse as there will be about 3 companies that own everything. there will be no competition to a cartel like this as you will not be able to make any steps towards setting a business up, lets not forget that it is accepted that big business already runs the US and europe is heading that way with a shift towards the right.
even if this doesn’t happen, as has alread been shown western coporations will invariably seek the lowest labour costs, these are int he far east sweat shops. standards of living here will never improve, corporations already make sure of this through “providing” compulsory accomodation, and then contracting in everything from food to clothes to make sure about 99% of the wage costs are recovered.
as for anarchy, yes there are rules to anarchy. a society without rules inst a society, but an anarchistic society has rules, the main one being if you commit a crime with no victim it isn’t a crime. this means is far more intelligent than first meets the eye. shop lifting from mcdonalds wouldn’t be classed as a crime as the corporation wouldn’t not be a victim as it has not suffered, but shop lifting from a small corner shop is a crime as it has a victim as the corner shop will suffer. well as the idea of anarchy never appealed to me that isn’t my view but the paraphrased view of an anarchist friend.
Good point, Frighter! Or are you alluding to the complete mechanisation of production that HVD occasionally refers to.
Sorry. I don’t quite understand this point. It is competition (a consumer force) and regulation (a state force) that will ensure that prices continually fall, and firms do not monopolise their industries. Corporate accountability (especially after the recent revelations) will strengthen, not weaken.
How did you come to above conclusion, macca? iS it an alternative assumption concerning Growth as an economic aim?
ps- I don’t assume that the current system in Europe and USA is the ‘capitalism’ you refer to. Do we not have mixed economies, with varying degrees of state control over the economy? Is your view the following:
that high public/state provision is good for cohesion, equality and quality of life (Norway), yet the free-market is ultimately the most democratic means of distributing resources, yet the exploitation of any individual, either within or outside (MNCs) a countries’ borders is degrading and against the principle of perfection, and should hence be regulated out, whilst civil liberties should be protected at all costs, whilst education and true equality of opportunity (as an aim) should be provided to allow the ensuing freedom to be exploited without overlap according to the moral principle of perfection. ??? or along those lines.
I’ve only had time to scan some of the later messages but I wanted to address this point.
The definition of capitalism is a system that creates capital. Workers, whether they are exploited are not, are one part of that system.
How does one define exploitation? Generally, it is defined as a person who is used by another without proper compensation. They do the work, you get the money. Now someone may want to be exploited but that doesn’t deny that it is exploitation.
As a result, a non-exploitive system would be one where someone is paid for their work and they are paid for their work equal to the value of that work in a society. It’s important to remember that some work is more valuable than others, people would not get the same thing at all times.
An exploitive system is one where someone is compensated for the work of others.
This is the direct result of private property. If you own something, you can create capital without having to work. The only way that is possible is by exploiting other people for your own gain. Because new capital can only be created by work (think about it).
There is nothing wrong with private property outside of a system like capitalism, you can be a hermit if you want. But if you are an owner and engaged in the system of creating capital and not actually doing anything, you are exploiting others by definition.
I would now like to propose an alternative system. It may or may not be workable, but that is why i am posting, i would like you all to poke as many holes in it as you can.
Unemployment is not a problem, but the natural by-product of automation, therefore as automation increases, unemplyment increases. The unfortunate result of unemployment is lack of personal income.
When cybernetic techology has reached the point where all jobs currently performed by humans or animals may be performed by machines which are capable of working without supervision and are capable of self-repair, unemployment will be total.
This means that no-one will be earning a regular income from labour. Income may be raised from investments, bank interest etc.
At this point, assuming the machines work faster and more efficiently than humans, production would be hugely increased, and so would revenue generated from this income.
It would be possible, assuming a workable ratio between revenue and population, to scrap the current work/salary based economy, to another model, such as the Garunteed Annual Income or the National Dividend
The National Dividend model has the effect of nationalising all industry. The Nation then acts as a large corporation, with machines as employees, and citizens as shareholders
The shareholders would recieve an equal share of all profit generated by the National Corporation, after a certain amount is deducted for public works etc.
For those who take it personally when they are told they are wrong, or that one doesn’t agree with them, you should really have a look at HVD’s above quote - he is literally asking us to poke holes into his system. Ever wonder why?
HVD stated:
Unemployment existed before automation was around. Unemployment has been solved in atleast one country I know of, a socialistic country.
HVD stated:
I am very glad you made this point, it is almost exactly a part of my view for what the future holds for us. I believe this point is very important. I will elaborate in the future…
HVD stated:
I disagree, since capital would most likely seize to exist, due to the fact that no one would be making capital anymore, other than from investments, but that is an irrevelant point, since all people’s money would become invested and dependant on stocks that would never fluctuate since no one is working. A new form of tangible exchange would have to be implemented.
HVD stated:
I dont know much about the Guaranteed Annual Income or the National Dividend, but I do agree in principle, much the same idea as my disagreement with you on the previous quote.
HVD stated:
With robots and computers doing everything, I believe progression would stagnate, stocks would seize fluctuating, and all people would be dependant on their percentage of investment. Societal Classes would be formed within weeks depending on how much each person had invested. More importantly, this couldn’t change, since companies wouldn’t be able to sell anymore stocks, stagnation would definitely happen in my opinion.
HVD stated:
Okay, so then that means that we all get, IE. $100,000 a year, without any difference in yearly wage…what is the wage for? Why not just give everyone a plastic card and say that they can buy whatever neccessities they need, and then they have the sum of 100,000 points to buy extra things each year?
i did write a reply to this thread, but it seems i forgot to post it or something wehnt wrong, anyway, i had a reply but i’m abit too lazy to rewrite it.
Macca,
I too have lost some of my posts in the past. Then I made a habit of when finished writing my post, before I click ‘send’, I highlight and copy the whole post just in case I have been logged off, or my connection fails, etc. That way if it doesn’t go through for whatever reason, you can just paste it again, or open up notepad and paste and save the file to your desktop and post it later.
I am referring not to the narrow, economics-only definition of capitalism but the broader, socioeconomic definition of capitalism–that is, a system which applies the fundamental moral principles of economic capitalism to society as a whole.
“proper compensation” is whatever all parties involved are able to agree on. If I do volunteer work at the local summer camp and receive nothing for it, am I being exploited? Of course not, because I agreed to provide my labor without any compensation. Similarly, if I think I should be paid, say, $75 for a day’s work but instead my employer only pays me 2/3 of that ($50), am I being exploited? No, I’m not. I agree to work for $50–I may not be entirely happy with it, but I agreed to it because it’s better than the alternative. Similarly, naturally my employer would prefer not to have to pay me anything at all (and I don’t blame him). But if suddenly he stopped sending my paycheck, I would stop working for him. He may not be entirely happy with having to shell out $50 every week for me, but he agrees to do it because he has decided that doing so is more desirable than the alternative. We both voluntarily agreed that in exchange for doing the job I was hired to do, I would receive $50 every week. Neither party was “exploited” in any sense of the word.
Why should it be the value of the work to “society” that determines wages, rather than the value of the work to the one who actually pays the bills coupled with whatever those involved are able to agree on?
Again, it’s only exploitation if one or more of the parties involved do NOT agree to the terms. For example, I agree to perform work at my place of employment even though the profits from the sales of what I produce go to someone else. Why I agree to do it is irrelevant–the fact remains that I agree to do it of my own volition. I am not being “exploited”–I am deciding for myself. If, however, my employer were to, for example, drag me out of my bed at gunpoint in the middle of the night and threaten to shoot me if I refuse to work, then that is exploitation, because I am not agreeing to do it. However, that is not capitalism–that is criminal behavior (specifically, the threatening of an individual with coercive force to compel him to a certain course of action).
Everything else you posted either (a) can be answered by reading through what I just posted; or (b) is little more than collectivist tripe
Could you explain these ‘fundamental moral principles’ a bit more? I noticed you have quoted Galt. Galt wasn’t a capitalist. Actually, I’ve always thought that Galt’s Gultch (if that’s what it’s called, I forget) was a pretty good way to look at socialism. A society that works because people are doing the work they love.
I think there is an important principle that lies hidden within your words here Frighter. You are saying that the reason a system cannot work perfectly (let’s not focus too much on the word perfect - save it for another thread) is that it will never make all people happy.
But doesn’t our life revolve on general principles of moral conduct, accepted systems of measurement, etc? What I’m trying to say is, just because a government doesn’t make everyone happy, does that mean it is not working properly?
If a political system assumes that some will not like the system and somehow implements this into their construction of the system that will run the country, will not this system be in working order?
But there are still some systems that work better than others, they aren’t all just the ‘right way’ as you say they are Frighter, or are they?
Your principle is that anything that people can’t decide upon is right by default. Why don’t we amend it a little and say that reality is that the system that makes the richest and most powerful happy is the one that is right (or made to seem right), despite the disapproval of the majority of people. Now how about what it SHOULD be like? Well, I propose that the system in power should be one the implements a qualifier to some of the minor regulations that it proposes. This qualifier made it so that during the parties time in power, these regulations could be changed. Moreover, ALL regulations proposed by the party should be made viewable to all citizens of the country, heck why not make a booklet and mail it to every residence. If it is a democratic system, then there should be a constant vote on all regulations for the citizens of the country, and if the majority of the citizens vote against one regulation or another then it should be sent to the supreme court for final decision making and altered if the vote was a sensible one.
This is just off the top of my head, what do you think?
just for posting’s sake ill say no capitolism will not work. Now why is a whole nother post its self. But im sure it would have to deal with the negative qualities of mankind. Best thing to do is just save up buy your own island and rule it. or atleast thats what im gona do.
Hey BLuTGI!
That’s exactly what I plan to do. Only I have a little bit more of a sophisticated reason behind it, and a future purpose in mind. I’m not trying to say your view isn’t sophisticated, just that you didn’t provide enough details. My plan is to gather together a group of people until we are ready, and then all of us spread out into the four corners of the world (that’s a really old saying isn’t it?) and make change.
