Can pure capitalism ever work?

I’ve closed the “What’s going on in the world?” posts because it was really moving away from the topic it started with. Instead I’m starting this topic which will carry on from where we left off…the topic being “can pure capitalism ever work?”…here goes…

Laissez-faire capitalism (as outlined in my essay on Objectivism) separates government and economy but the government still has a role. It's prime purpose is to preserve the rights of human beings. The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property. The function of the government is to protect these rights and ONLY these rights. The only way to opress someone is to inititiate physical force on another (or indirectly through fraud) and it is the job of the government to control this.

The laissez-faire government has three main agencies: - Police (Protect the indiviudal from inside) - Military (Protect from foreign invasion) - Judicial System (Rational conclusions to problems)

Therefore there wouldn't be a problem with charging people for defence of the country or the individual since that would be controlled by the government. A laissez-faire capitalist society creates a society of free-thinking and free-acting individuals, and not a society of one muddy collective, ruled by a despot who has monopolised the title of the "voice of the people."

With the example of the streetlamps, what difference is it between paying a company to light your streetlights to paying your local council or government? And if you respond with "not everyone can pay for it" then why are you even advocating capitalism in the first place? Capitalism by it's very nature means there are rich people and there are poor people. Why not go that step further and have a pure capitalist society rather than the bastardised version we have at present?

first of all, tagged onto the end of that post was something to the effect of “i’ve only just thought this up in the last 5 minutes while reading another post”. i was only suggesting one way it could end up. i also haven’t read that essay (could you post a URL for it). lastly i wasn’t advocating capitalism, i think capitalism is running world wrongly and making captialism more pure wouldn’t be the solution.

i’ll do along post in abit, i got to go do a few things first.

once agian i was NOT advocating capitalism, it was a hypothetical (i think that’s the right spelling) situation that could be the result of Laissez-faire capitalism.

why not have a pure capitalist society? you said exactly why…

Capitalism is based upon the individual before the nation (eg, private enterprise, with very few exceptions, businesses are set up for personal gain). By saying capitalism needs rich and poor people just furthurs it. Capitalists like to think that capitalism IS democracy, that without capitalism democracry would crumble. This is wrong, socialism relies upon democracy (infact it is more democratic than captialism) and socialist states work well, eg France is arguably an excellent example of this.

If a pure capitalist state, in the form you decribed did come into existence, it would be rather reminiscent of the Victorian era. You may jump forward and say Britain was THE superpower then, sure but if you scratch the surface you see how wonderful it was then. The cotton mills were death camps, the foreign colonies served only to repress the (I hate to use the word) native population, I could list more reasons but they have already been said a thousand times before. A pure capitalist state will ultimatly result in segregated populations. The rich may be fine and inter mingle wonderfully, but if you are living in poverty (and capitalism does create poverty, not just 'relativly poor people', there will be poeple who fall by the way side and will understand what it is like to be a second class citizen) then you will resent the people above, turn out's for elections will slump (the majority of the population will not be 'rich' and therefore not recieve then same actknowledgement (i know it is misspelt) from politicians, and will over time lose interest in politics), and eventually race riots will break out. You only have to look at the run down urban sectors in America, or even less far afield, in the North (of England).

Captialism will not create equality, and a society where anyone can reach the top. Do you seriously think a teenager with the thickest Essex accent, who grew up in Southend, with the same exam results as a teenager from Eaton, will recieve them same chance of a place at Oxbridge. They don't, they won't and most likely never will. By heading towards a purer form of capitalism you will only enlargen the rich/poor divide and deepen the 'class divide'.

Captalism may seem like a road to Utopia for you, but it isn't for the large number of people who don't and won't have the same opportunities as you and I will enjoy.

Firstly you must forgive me but I was replying to Alex’s post where he was advocating a lesser capitalism over pure capitalism. I wasn’t saying you had at all…just a misunderstanding.

Secondly you are misunderstanding the concept of PURE capitalism. Yes, it centres around the individual but not at the cost of anyone else . Therefore the cotton mills, the oppressive foreigners would not conform to pure capitalism! The Victorian era was full of oppression of other people’s rights which capitalism is totally against.

Todays capitalism gives the rich people the opportunity to become richer and gives the poor people NO opportunity at all because it is at the expense of the poor people that the rich get richer. The government tries to combat this by creating welfare state, the NHS etc all of which have failed miserably and just increased taxes and national insurance.

Communism takes AWAY everyone’s oppurtunities and just spreads the benefits. There is no incentive to work hard since you’re only getting as good as the next man anyway. This leads to a depression in the economy and in the creativity of the society. We’ve seen communism fail except in a very few circumstances and even then it’s under masked dictatorships.

PURE capitalism gives EVERYONE the opportunity to gain property but without infringing on anyone elses property. That is the beauty of pure capitalism. It won’t get rid of relatively “poor” people because there will always be people who are more successful than others but the STANDARD of living will increase because there would be no opression (theoretically) and everyone would have equal opportunities.

What you are describing is the corrupt capitalism that we see today, not the pure capitalism of tomorrow!

sorry about that, just a missunderstanding.

I do agree with what you said, to a certain extent, yes communism doesn’t work in reality, dammit i wish it did (it seems so good on paper), but yes it does fail in reality, it is too open to abuse of power, and the drive (entrupenurship, i spelt it phonetically, is the name for it, i think) to better the economy also suffers, but i never said i wanted a communist state. you can be left wing without being communist, in the same way that you can be right wing without setting up death camps.

i still don’t see how pure capitalism will be done without the exploitation of workers, as the drive will always be there to ‘tighten belts’ and to constantly cut back on production costs (i’m talking in terms of companies), meaning wages will be cut and competition for resources will increase as the market becomes more like the model for perfect competition (i think that is what you are suggesting). all of this will result in extremely tough competition for resources, and for sales, which will result in the bankruptancy of most of the firms as trade wars deepen, and eventually the markets will swing back towards imperfect competition. once imperfect competition is reached (or nearly reached) it is almost impossible to return to perfect competition as oligopolies, monopoloies, cartels, etc. will exist in every market. this will result in a few large companies dominating the market and squeezing out the space which capitalism requires for new firms to open up.

once your company is in that situation the only way to increase profits is too reduce production costs (once you have reached the point where people literally cannot pay any more for your product) then you cut back on wages and the workers are exploited and you will end up with poverty.

granted it will take quite abit of time, maybe a few decades for this too happen but it will be inevitable once perfect capitalism is in place.

Woah! Hold your horses! On what are you basing this on? You seem to say that this is a logical inevitability which I do not think is true. Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why a doctor gets paid more then the minimum wage. It depends on how well and how much they produce. The reason why factory laborers receive more wages in America is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital.

It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field).

You talk about lowering wages as exploiting workers. That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage. Let any worker in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means.

Exploitation is NOT inevitable in pure capitalism and if it is, it is certainly not clear from your answer.

i could reel off about 3195705 pages of Marxist rhetoric about this… but i won’t.
maybe you didn’t understand last time because my desciption sucked, if you still don’t get it IM me on MSN.

when capitalism becomes totally pure, all the markets in that country will have to be very close to the model for perfect competition (eg, lots of competitors, no market secertes, etc). this means that trade wars are a continious thing, with competitors fighting eachother for the limited number of sales in that market. eventually one (or a small number) of companies will emerge in that market as the dominant force. eventually they will control that market (remember the government cannot step into break cartels or monopolies in Laissez-faire capitalism). then as capitalist companies are all ways striving to improve profits, they will charge higher prices or cut production costs. it has been shown time and time again, that when production costs are cut it is the workers who suffer as it is easier to cut their wages than anythingelse (can you remember a time when the management has taken a pay cut inline with, or instead of, the workers?). the wages will be cut back, furthur and furthur, and if that isn’t exploitation, what is? it may not even be the workers in that country as the prodcution facilities might de-camp to another country for cheaper sources of land/labour/etc. it doesn’t matter if it is workers being exploited in a foreign land or at home, it is still exploitation.

with a government withdrawn from the economy, benefits can NOT be paid, otherwise this a government influence on the economy. if you are long term unemployed, for whatever reason, your income will be slashed (if not taken away), and it would actually be possible if a similar situation to the Wall Street Crash arose for the ecnomy to reach a point where the economy cannot recover and it will collapse (i know a recession is just as probable in a socialist society as a capitalist one, but in a pure capitalist country it will be far worse), and with the governments hands tied by preventative legislation, business will collapse and unemployment will rise. even if the economy does recover the recession will have been much worse than if the governemnt had been allowed to intervien (wrong spelling i know) and start a plan similar to Hoover’s one in the early 30’s.

in answer to the overall question, yes, pure capitalism can work in a society, but so can pure communism. but neither are as effective as they look on paper.

There is no evidence for this. There are no precedents of a pure capitalist society and so your response is mere speculation which I think is unfounded. Communism, however has been observed to fail. You cannot group both theories together as "unworkable in practice" since there has never been a purely capitalist society (to my knowledge).

Your theory that monopolies will occur is not logical. Just like in todays society we have competetitors, in pure capitalism there will be EVEN MORE competition. If one company sets its prices too high, people will buy elsewhere. If one company drops its wages, people will get a job elsehwhere. That is the beauty of capitalism which we also see today. I don't accept that trade wars are a certainty and would want some evidence to support your claim or a more logical argument as to why monopolies would so readily occur. It is communism which creates the biggest monopoly (i.e. the government) and capitalism which creates the biggest amount of competition necessary for free-trade.

The capitalism debate is a huge issue which i really don’t have time to go into just now but i wish to question this term PURE CAPITALISM and this concecpt which Objectionism, Ben and his essay seem to advocated.

To separate Government from economy is impossible, as impossible as the idea of ‘pure capitalism’. Ben has said that the government should provide certain things e.g. police etc. Even if the Government is not involved in provding healthcare or education, it must still provide these things says Ben. Therefore the goverment must tax. If it does so, then it is not separated from the economy because the level of taxation has a direct and unavoidable effect on the economy. Crudely, the more we are taxed, the less we can afford therefore consumer spending and investment both fall. Therefore total demand is affected by the Government and therefore the Govt. cannot be entirely separate from the economy. Economically speaking, it’s impossible.

The problem with street lighting and defence was not made clear by myself. I apologise but they’re classic textbook examples of public goods that MUST be provided by governments or they won’t exist. Briefly, if a private company attempts to charge people for street-lighting, some people will pay whilst others will hope for a ‘free-ride.’ The reason is that one person’s ‘purchase’ of the good cannot prevent any other person (who may not have paid) from using it and therefore benefiting from it. One more person can use it and no one else’s use of it will be prevented. Private companies know this which is why they don’t provide roads, street-lamps, armies etc. This is an example of market failure because the free-market system fails to provide necessary products. Governments must intervene. In countries such as the UK, Germany, US etc. we have a system of free markets in which governments intervene to correct market failure (and with varying degrees) to provide welfare. Even if you want to argue that welfare shouldn’t be provided by a government, (as Ben’s argument would suggest) market failure MUST be corrected or the economy is worse off.

From both these arguments the government cannot be entirely separate from the economy and it must intervene at times (however few).

The debate over the need for welfare provision and regulation of a capitalist society, however, goes on.

[This message has been edited by alex (edited 14 December 2001).]

alex, that was going to be (almost) my post.

i’ll write a longer answer, tomorrow, or somehting

:: having returned from my crappy job in the ‘service industry’ i am feeling in prime exploited worker mood, i will probably re-read this and write a much better arguement on another day ::

capitalism requires the exploitation of workers. if we take america (the nearest economy to pure capitalism), then the taxes are very low (compared to European rates (don’t forget that in Britain we pay the lowest taxes in Europe). the american economy is seen as the leading light to the world (in nearly all respects), but if you scratch the surface you see a chronic lack of government services (no NHS, very little benefits etc), this lack of socalist values may have created wealth for a small percentage of the population (if i remember correctly it’s 80% of money is held by 20% of the people, the average wage for nearly 30% is considered below the $5000 poverty line). this imballance would NOT be rectified by concentrating capitalism, how would making the system more extreme cure problems it already has.

by dropping the socalist features out of work people are left behind, minimum wages drop, standards of living drop and numbers of homeless people living rough increase. you seem to think that by creating a system where vast coporations will have a free hand will create equality.

the vast coporations will dominate the economy, as it is currently being shown it is large multinational companies (Microsoft, Shell Oil, McDonalds, Nike, etc) that hold the power. by purifying capitalism you will only make it easier for them to operate in extreme ways. they will force minimum wages down, create huge profit margins, probably offer a poorer service than they currently do, as any competitor will easily be removed by slashing prices till the competitor loses it’s customers and eventually goes bust.

afterall do you really think Bill Gates et al. could refuse an extra $billion a year by lowering the wages of his employees if the opportunit arises. ofcourse he will take t he extra $billion, what you forget is that the directors of companies get there by increasing profits and by favour of old boy networks, not by treating the workers well and giving wages rises.

to avoid the large coporations getting a free hand the monopolies, oligopolies, cartels etc have to be broken, in doing this the government is interferring with the economy thus stopping the economny being pure captialism.

(Also if you look at histroy Laissiez-Faire capitalism, if i manage to dig up my work on it i’ll type it out. it revoles around the ‘Wealth creator theory’ that Laissiez-Faire captialism requires).

“capitalism requires the exploitation of workers.”

This is simply not true. Capitalism, as a theory, says that exploitation of workers is NOT PERMITTED. Therefore by definition, any deviation from that IS NOT CAPITALISM. It is illogical to say that capitalism requires exploitation because by its very definition it cannot.

Your monopoly theory is unfounded since you are only basing it on what happens today under our current “unpure capitalist” system.

From http://www.capitalism.org FAQ:

“If any business attempts to charge prices higher than the market will bear, he will lose all his business to his competition, since he cannot force his competition out of business. The businessman’s power is dollars–not guns.”

“If a business attempts to “corner the market” by charging prices that are too low (i.e., below his variable costs of production), he may drive competitors out of the market temporarily; but, as soon as he raises his prices, new competitors will enter the market.”

Monopolies are not intrinsically evil. They only become so when formed from “irrational political policies.”

Capitalism BY DEFINITION cannot exploit its workers because the minute it does, it ceases to be capitalism. Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing and as we have seen, lowering prices or raising prices will always result in the equilibrium being returned.

[This message has been edited by ben (edited 16 December 2001).]

as i said i had just got back from work and was therefore feeling very very very left wing, and spending lots of time listening to loud anti-capitalist music didn’t help. so on with the better arguement.

“Monopolies are not intrinsically evil. They only become so when formed from “irrational political policies.”” (posted by Ben)

“irrational political policies” i like that quote, but first an example. you have a car crash, you are still concious but need emergency treatment, the only A&E departments in the country are NHS, so you goto the hospital and recover etc. now if it was formed irrationally the hospitals would be built in inaccessable places, they would have no medical equipment and wouldn’t actually treat any one. when socialism (or other left wing systems of government) creates monopolies they do so entirely rationally. they do so because they think the government can operate the system to a better degree than the private sector. monopolies aren’t created because it seems like abit of a laugh after a few beers, they are done with serious intent that they will operate well. dismissing socalist monopolies as irrational politcal tools is very foolish, just remember that next time you goto an A&E department.

also monopolies will come into play in pure capitalism, i don’t think you understand how big the organisations that will end up in control will be. they will run the banks (therefore stopping you obtaining the funds to set up a business), they will run the suppliers of materials (eg, the toys to sell in your new toy shop, or the computer chips to put into computers in you computer factory), they will also own the advertising agencies (preventing you from spreading word of your new business), fianlly they will also probably own most of the comerical buildings (preventing you from even opening up shop). the government will be unable to step in and break these monopolies as the Senate (or whatever the ruling council is called) will be tied into legislation that prevents the government from entering into the market, and breaking these monopolies. the large coporations will also form cartels to make sure no new competitors enter the market. all the news agencies will be owned by the coporations so the story will never break and all chairmen will be given wonderful publicity, and lastly the MP’s (or who ever is on the rulling council) will all be from affluent back grounds and will want to keep the current system (as they will be the ones who have the resurces to run for power). the only way out is revolution.

as soon as the government starts the ball rolling towards pure capitalism that is the end result, the huge coporations will eventually win power. it will not be a quick process, it may take 100 years but it is what will happen in the end.

saying that lowering prices will draw away customers to new competitors is right in current contexts but not in the type of economy that will be the end result of pure capitalism. take OPEC for example, they drastically hiked prices after the Yom-Kippur war, and held the West to ransome. the prices have since slashed claiming Russian competition is driving them down when it is the fear that OPEC will be seen as a group that supports terrorism (most of Al-Qeda (or however it’s spelt) funding comes from OPEC members). the Russians have been removed from competition now they have agreed to limit production (and as a result cause an increase in prices). therefore how will removing legislation that prevents monopolies (as well as cartels) forming stop them forming. without a form of punishment what is to discourage coporations forming them as it WILL increase the profits of their companies if they form one.

sure it may be against the laws of capitalism for workers to be exploited, but it is against the laws of communism for the leader of that country to be a dictator but it happened in the USSR, whether or not it is against the laws of capitalism the end result is the same whether or not it is technically pu

I would like to reply to ben’s very first post, while also answering the other posts at the same time.

In reference to the government Ben stated: “It’s prime purpose is to preserve the rights of human beings.”

In response to this, I first want to clear up any confusion people may have. I am responding to ben, if anyone else reads this don’t assume that ben’s post is as simple as my quote, there is background behind it. I don’t wish to make the quote too big. Anyway, I wish to say that all systems attempt to have the same reasoning for the governments. But this to me is impossible. Explanation for people and government: All people’s rights are different, this means that the more people you have together in a group the more problems will arise since the chances of people bumping into other people with different views of their rights increases. Many will argue that there is a conceptual hierarchy that can be used the filter out the principle rights of ALL human beings. The problem lies not in the principle rights as much as it does in the specific, yet quite different situations in life that lawyers and judges till this day have a hard time labelling correctly (otherwise it would only be the guilty in jail - but we know better).
Such general terms like right to life, right to liberty, right to the pursuit of happiness confuse absolutely everything. Happiness is a relative term, for some psychotic murder equals happiness. Just as some teenagers find happiness in exerting power over others either physically or mentally in order to feel powerful. Just as people laugh or mock others for getting low marks on tests and motorists yell, honk, and swear at other motorists for everything under the sun. Anyone who thinks they can establish a government that can quelch this kind of treatment is very optimistic. But not very realistic, atleast not yet. I hope there will be a time in the world that it may be conceivable.
You must realize that one persons right to life is another’s unavoidable destruction of life. One persons right to liberty is another’s slavery. Ones right to happiness is anothers misery. If we could all live separately this may be possible but we don’t. I wish not to make this topic too complicated, but I will say that as long as human instincts like jealousy are around there will never be equality, especially since there are people who feel inadequate unless they are better than others and put others down.

What’s your take?

The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property. The function of the government is to protect these rights and ONLY these rights. The only way to opress someone is to inititiate physical force on another (or indirectly through fraud) and it is the job of the government to control this.

You are confusing a few different issues here. People’s rights are not the same as people’s needs. I would agree that people’s needs are different but I do not see how you conclude that people’s rights are different. The right to liberty should be for everyone not just certain individuals. Granted, some people may have different ideas on what human rights should be but if you start saying some people have different rights to others you are treading on a very dangerous path where “everyone is equal but some are more equal than others”. I think that perhaps what you wanted to say is that everyone has different desires and needs which I would agree with.

I’m afraid you are deliberately building up a straw-man here in order to knock it down. Yes, happiness may be relative and yes, for some, psychotic murder equals happiness, but the flaw in your logic comes from assuming that someone’s “right to happiness” overrides another person’s “right to liberty”. In the case of murder, someone’s liberty is being infringed and is therefore not allowed by human rights. Going back to the original topic, laissez-faire capitalism states that no force must be applied on people by others whether directly or indirectly. In theory then, people are able to have the right to happiness and the right to liberty under pure capitalism.

Your example of “mocking over low test results” seems slightly irrelevant. No-one is suggesting that we instill a government that stops people from mocking others. We are talking about direct infringement of liberty through physical force or through indirect acts such as fraud. Honking your horn at someone does not class as a criminal offence. If you think people should be locked up for teasing you, you need a thicker skin. I understand that what looks good in theory, is often not as good in practice. However, your points that people don’t have the same rights is false because in any sane society, everyone must have the same rights or else you end up with a similar situation to Nazi Germany. People have different needs which Capitalism theoretically caters for and the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness are both basic rights which Capitalism promotes.

You are correct in saying that human emotion plays a big part in how the economy and society is run in practice, but I don’t think you can say “no system of government can ever work because we are sinful bastards”
[/quote]

Ben,
you say the flaw in my logic comes from assuming that one’s right to happiness overrides another person’s right to liberty. I used an extreme example and made you lose the point, I will reiderate. But first I must digress…

Liberty (according to the dictionary)
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

Why liberty in a general context for a society does not exist:
With societal rules and laws it is impossible to be free from restriction and/or control. You are only as free as is dictated by the society in which you live. What is right in one country may be wrong in another.
To think that we have a right and a power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing is absurd - people being the way they are, once they see someone is different they usually segregate, demea, and make feel unwelcome that person until they are made to understand that they are less than the norm.
To be physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labour is to say “You don’t have to work, our government will pay you no matter what you do”. Everyone wants food, clothing, and sheltering along with the general norm for amenities. One cannot get this without going to school, one cannot get this without ‘working hard’ for money. There is suppose to be freedom but there is a lie in the background. People don’t like socialism because people were told straight in their face that they MUST do this and they MUST do that for the good of the country and it’s people…then the capitalist system entered and made the individual self-centered and money hungry. We now live in a system that claims to be free, but really - if you talk to people that lived in socialistic countries they will tell you that they have less freedom now than they did in socialism.
Ben, according to this laissez-faire (which I’ll have to get back to you on after doing some research of my own) I must say that there are always forces at work both directly and in-directly on all people at almost all times.
Why do you think pur capitalism hasn’t worked?
With my extreme examples of the murder and the mocking of a student are to exemplify the factors that be, no system has control over and will remain. These examples of which there are most in between the ones I gave are present in all aspects of life, whether it’s friendships, relationships, work, shopping, home, etc. All these examples together over time destroy a persons sense of liberty. If you define liberty being infringed upon only by physical force and fraud than you really haven’t thought it through thoroughly.

I wish you to give me a detailed example (well thought out) illustrating a pure capitalist theory of ethics in practice.

Your naive view that in our ‘sane’ society everyone has the same rights, is ignoring all the racism, prejudism, wealth class distinction, and all the other factors that enable one person to do what they want and get away with alot while others come to dead ends almost every time and get caught every other time. People DON’T have the same rights, they never have, and just because we don’t all have the same rights DOESN’T mean you get a NAZI GERMANY. You also have to realize that all systems have failed to create appropriate principles by which to go by and apply to any specific situation in such an accurate manner that everyone could live in peace and the bad and only the bad were sent to jail or punished and the good lived healthy, wealthy, and prosperous lives.

Ok let’s take this one by one

Ok, this is semantics. Under any form of government, apart from anarchism, there will always be some form of control. Herein lies the paradox of law and freedom. For people to be free, there must be laws. The reason you can walk the streets in relative safety is because there are laws which stop people just coming up and mugging you. Granted, mugging still occurs, but I can guarantee it’s a lot less than if there was no policing at all. So, let’s not have a semantics war about the word ‘liberty’ because unless you are an anarchist, there must be some form of control in order for human rights to exist. Surely you can accept that? Or perhaps you are an anarchist?

I agree with you that society exerts its own force on individuals in the form of prejudice, peer pressure and fashion. However, this is not political and we are discussing the merits of a political system, in this case laissez-faire capitalism. I wholeheartedly agree that many of us are “prisoners of society” in that we bend to the pressure that is exerted onto us. However, there is always the choice to say “no” to that pressure in the sense that we are legally free not to conform.

Once again there is a flaw in your logic. Your premises are “everyone wants food, food must be worked for” and the conclusion you make is “therefore everyone must work”. This isn’t a constraint imposed by government or society, this is a constraint imposed on you by your physical body! In order to stay alive you must eat. To get food you must have money. To have money you must work. However, you still have the choice not to live. What we are talking about here is political force not societal force or even natural force on a person. As you have outlined, there are factors both from society and nature which impose on our “freedom” but that is a different discussion. What I am suggesting here is that liberty, in the political sense of the word, is preserved under the system of capitalism (amongst other systems).

The individual has always been self-centred, that is why capitalism eventually one the economical war and is self-perpetuating itself around the world. Our nature is to be selfish and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is society that pressures us into believing that selfishness is wrong. Religion has a lot to blame for that one.

My definition of liberty is up for grabs. All I am saying is that under laissez-faire capitalism, individual freedom (liberty) means being free from any sort of imposing force. The only agency to have force is the government who exerts its lawful force via a police and judicial system. Note, this is not my view, this is merely repeating the pure capitalist viewpoint.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that everyone does have the same rights, because as you have highlighted, in issues such as racism and prejudice, some people are not being given the same rights. However, I am saying that everyone should have the same rights. You cannot have a society where some people are given different rights to others for whatever reason. People’s rights should only be taken away if they commit a crime. The judicial system then decides to what extent their rights are taken away.

So to summarise. Liberty or a person’s freedom in a political sense is being able to live freely without other people imposing their physical force on you directly or indirectly. It has nothing to do with social or natural constraints. You are welcome to discuss this in other topics but this is not what the current debate is about. Secondly, all humans must have the same rights if a society is going to work. What kind of society is one where some people have more rights that others?

And finally, it seems you are attacking my points but to no end. Can you suggest any other political system that will work? Or are you just resiging yourself to the idea that “no system will ever work” without giving any valid reasons as to why. No system will ever be perfect, but that doesn’t mean no system will ever work. To be honest, I think the system we have in the UK and in other countries is working very well. Do you have a political alternative to share?

Ben stated:

You must invariably believe than that people are evil at heart. Since there needs to be control in all systems than we are like dumb animals that aren’t smart enough to realize right from wrong. On the contrary, we are all (a big majority - ofcourse there are those who are psychopaths, or babies born with brain damage, etc.) good at heart. But bad things happen to good people as the saying goes, as with your example, a mugger doesn’t mug because he feels like being bad, but he does it because he needs money. Something in life led this person qualities to not come out, whether it was bad parents, mistreatment in school, or a single traumatic event, something stopped this person from doing what they really want to do.
Ofcourse I’m arguing semantics, if I don’t than what is the point of talking? How are people suppose to understand each other if they don’t clarify the meaning of their words, whether it be a dictionary definition or a personal theoretical basis for a word? YOU are commiting the scare-crow fallacy by supposing you know or understand what I mean while amending my words to suit your cause. You are also committing the argument from ingorance near the end of your post when you suggest that I am not backing my opinion with evidence and therefore you are correct. Moreover, in the first paragraph of your post you commit the Slippery Slope Fallacy by labelling me a anarchist if I don’t bind myself to the only alternative, which is yet another fallacy that states you are limiting the other person with only two options when there are many more, unfortunately I don’t remember what it’s called. I’m an optimist, don’t label me as anything unless you know for sure, GOT IT! I believe that if all our amenities could be met, people were brought to a higher understanding (more on this later), and a general concensus on purpose was met we would not need control in order to have a safe and peaceful world. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very well aware of the kind of world we live in, but I also know on a smaller basis what people are capable of once their eyes have been opened.
Having human rights is something that was created so that people could sue, complain, and make amends. Human rights really don’t exist. Ie. If a person was standing right beside you and you kept speaking, and they told you to shut up, and you said that you had a right to speak, and they hit you, and you said it again, and then they broke your jaw and you could not speak. You would call the police and have them arrested, but what about your rights? Were they protected? NO. Why do you think people get scared when people get really mean, nasty, vulgar, in your face attitude? But according to you they have nothing to fear since their rights are protected. They are only too well aware that anything can happen, rights play a role after the incident, and even then they don’t have much of an effect until the case get’s brought to trial. Even then, if the opposition has a better lawyer you can still lose.

I had a revelation about the things you are talking about, look: you are saying that people need to be controlled otherwise there would be anarchy. The government (police and so on) come into play and save us. But do you realize that the government is made up of people? That is a rhetorical question ofcourse, but it’s meant to get across the point that the system doesn’t work because there is no one to protect us from them. No matter how many institutions you create, which ever one has the highest power will be the one created the most evil. I leave this point with a statistic, before last year not a single CIA agent has ever been charged, tried, or found guilty of ANY offence. I hope your not as gullible as to believe that this is because they are good people and would never do anything wrong.

Ben stated:

According to the system in which I live, there is no flaw in my logic. I wasn’t talking about having to eat, ofcourse our body constrains us to eat. You insult me by stating it as though I didn’t know. Meanwhile, you don’t understand the point that in order to get food you must work. In order to work you must conform to that business’ rules and regulations. But in order to work you must have an address, ID, etc etc. In order to have these it means that you must live within the society. In order to live in the society you must conform to the laws and social customs of the society in which you live. What is left? An assimilated human being, that studies in the courses the government chooses, works in job(s) the society chooses, think according to the way he/she was taught which is the way the government wants you to think. Where is individuality? It’s in there, but on a very small scale. Ofcourse you have the choice not to live, as if that was really a choice. No one is born wanting to die, it’s our natural instinct to survive. This very concept is the way the government manipulates us into believing we are free. School isn’t mandatory, but without it don’t wonder why you can’t get the job you want. Is that really a choice? You don’t have to work, but then don’t wonder why you can’t eat the things you like. Is that a choice? You don’t have to come out into society, but then you will die. Is that a choice?
OFCOURSE we are talking about a political force, but this political force affects society and the nature of a person. Politics is all around us. In malls, in banks, on the street, in almost everything we do. Do you think a political system instructs rocks on how to be? They instruct people on how to live, you so naive in your statement that we are not talking about societal or human forces. If you want to talk politics, you better be ready to talk about everything.

Ben stated:

You speak as though you were God, you just somehow know that people have always been self-centered. You know you should really watch those generalities, their quite unbecoming of you and may lead people to believe nasty things about you. NO, much to your surprise not all people are self-centered, but it is clear you are, atleast you can admit it and be happy with it. Your view on people being selfish and it not being a bad thing, is an idea already proposed, I can’t remember it’s name, but it says that if all people were selfish and only went after what they wanted and didn’t feel sorry for others or help others, our economy would thrive. I know the name starts with an “E”, maybe you can help me out with it. It’s true that religion is responsible for much of the anti-selfish behaviour. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ben stated:

LOL, the very society in which you live!!! Try working in a law firm and study some cases, research law, and you will find out that even on paper (where everything is suppose to theoretically beautiful and equal) there is an imbalance between equality, sex, and class.

You stated:

LOL, you say I am attacking YOUR points, but previously you stated that these were not your views but the views of the laissez-faire capitalism. By the way, things may seem like many things, but you can’t know how they really are until you ask. You keep trying to guess and put words into my mouth as if you already had everything figured out and there is no way anyone can stump you with anything. You are a very close minded individual. Again, you state as fact that no system will ever be perfect, not so, depends on your view point of perfect. I dare you to define clearly and coherently what ‘perfect’ is. I am impressed, finally a direct question. Unfortunately, I am displeased with the way you handle yourself and do not feel as though I can share with you my personal view point on a society that would work, especially since you do not share YOUR own view points but that of authors, meanwhile you come across as though it was you who thought these things up and you critisize others. It appears quite noble that you are defending scholars and authors with your realization of their points (or do you really understand?) with all your might and critisize all opposing opinions. But where does that leave you? What do you hope to accomplish for yourself since you claim we are all selfish, you must have some sort of selfish vendeta for yourself. What do you hope to gain?

By the way, you say that none of this is your view point, you are only repeating the laissez-faire capitalism doctrine. So why not give your opinion on it, whether you agree or don’t agree, which would bind you to some wording. It appears as though you are a book worm that regergetates information he has learned but has no will of his own. Too many smart and scientific people fall into this trap.

What’s your take?

Woah there! Ok, let’s try and cool this down. My intention was certainly not to insult you in any way and I apologise if I have. My tone often comes across as authoritarian but I take it as read that my points are there to be criticised and not to be taken as the truth. I shall try to answer your points and explain my viewpoint as best I can.

I do not think people are evil at heart, however, I think we would both agree that crime is a reality in our present time. I personally believe (and these are my own thoughts, nothing ground-breaking just my own personal opinion) that there should be some sort of policing authority which is given power by the people, to control the political law we live by. Obviously, we may have different opinions on this, but I would be interested to see, if you did not agree with some form of government authority, what you did believe in. The only political system I know of which has no policing authority, is anarchism, which is why i mentioned it. I did not assume you were one so sorry if you thought I did. Is there a way that society can work without authority?

I think is a very Utopian outlook on things. I agree that it would be nice if you could talk to be people and explain to them that if we worked together, we could live without the need for authority. However, I think that a system of this nature would be exploited by those wanting to make a quick dollar. If there is no authority, there will always be some rogue who will exploit the system. This is why I think there is an equilibrium with capitalism. No authority results in someone exploiting the system and so the people who are being exploited say they want more control. Too much control (fascist dictatorship) results in the people saying they have no freedom and a revolution occurs. The ‘middle-way’ is in systems such as capitalism and perhaps socialism (althought i know very little about socialism). Freedom and control need to be fine-tuned to reach an equilibrium which will benefit the people without there being too little or too much control. I personally think capitalism does this.

I understand your point about the law not being as effective as it claims to be. Justice is often not served because of the long legal processes that people have to go through. However, having the human right is a different issue to how well it is enforced. Even if justice is not done in a murder case, I would rather still maintain the human right of “a right to life” than throw it out the window because “it never gets enforced anyway”. Perhaps there is a better system for monitoring human rights, but I think the concept of human rights should stay.

Once again I think an equilibrium is necessary to sustain this sort of system. It is true that the government holds a lot of power. However, in a democracy, the government is controlled by the people. If a government wants to stay in power, it must reflect the want of the people otherewise it will not be re-elected. If a government does not protect us and instead exploits us, we are able to vote them out. I’m sure there is a lot of corruption in the government and places like the CIA and that is wrong, but I would rather have a government protecting me than not.

As I have said before, I agree with you that society and nature exert their own pressures on the individual. People need to survive and so in many societies they are pressured into working. However, it is not the government which is forcing them to work. That is my point. Capitalism doesn’t force people to work any more than any other politicial system. People always have the choice to work or not. Unlike in communism say where people really are forced to work for the good of the society, capitalism and other systems, do not require people to work. Invariably, most people are happy to work in order to get money to live a happy life. There is always the choice to move to a different society which runs in the way that fits your ideals. Living on a self-sufficient farm is something that many people choose to do instead of working in an office for money and exchanging that money for food. So I’m saying, I agree with you about the pressures of society and I think that is worth discussing just how much we are controlled by society. However, the political system does not force anyone to work.

You say that politics affects society and the nature of a person but can you describe any realistic political system which can be put into a society of people who do no work. I do not see how the political system of capitalism, or any other system, forces people to work. No-one is obligated to get a job by the government and no-one is disadvantaged for it. The government even pays some people who don’t have jobs! Capitalism does not force people to work and I would be interested to see on what basis do you claim that a political system, not society or nature, forces people to work.

I assure you I am not God I don’t know people have always been self-centered. To clarify my point, from a gene-centered view, we are selfish. You want to survive and I want to survive. Whether that is a conscious decision or a natural instinct, it is a reality. We all wish to survive (and if we don’t we commit suicide). In this sense, we are selfish and it leads us to do things which help our survival. In the dark ages, this was done by making sure you had the most meat, the nicest cave and the biggest club. In present day that translates into having the most money, the nicest house and the most attractive wife (the examples aren’t important :S) You are right when you say that the idea of selfish ethics has already been proposed and I would not be so bold as to claim it as my own. Perhaps you are referring to egoism which fits the description? I am happy to admit that I am self-centred in the true sense of the word because in the long term, I shall look after myself. This does not mean I disregard others and that I don’t have a kind bone in my body. I personally do think it is possible for anyone to perform a totally selfless action. Many will disagree with me on this and I have no way of proving it but I think it is impossible. I also do not think that is a bad thing. A Jewish proverb says “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?; If I am not for other, what am I?; and if not now, when?” I think that says a lot about the way I feel.

Are you telling me that some people, politically, have less rights than others? Do not confuse what society dictates and what politics dictates. Are there rules and laws which give more rights to some people over others? I am not a law expert so I can’t say, perhaps you have some more information on it? My point is that whatever society may say about certain groups, i.e. prejudice, racism, segregation, exclusion; politically everyone is on an equal basis. There should be now laws that give anyone more rights than others. That is my point. All laws are for everyone, even The Queen!

I am still finding my way in this world and I think it would be naive of me to ally myself with any political system just yet. I think I have my sympathies with capitalism but even that is not certain. I can only say my opinions on individual points at certain times. I think that my main point through all this is that a political system cannot be blamed for what happens in society. The example of racism is a good one. If racist attacks are banned by the government and someone commits a racist attack we do not blame the government for it. This is why we need control of some sort and I think a government is the best of administering it. Of course, it is currently not perfect but I cannot see any other system working better than the one we have now.

As always, I am interested in alternative viewpoints and different ways of looking at things. Again I apologise I came across brash and insulting but it was not my intention.

I understand why you mentioned anarchism and your apology is accepted, but I just want you to know that just because you don’t know of any other system without policing, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Again, like I have said in many posts prior to this one, smart people like you fall in the trap of talking like God. I know you don’t mean to sound like that, but science and math are subject that create a sense of all knowing and no ‘if’s’, ‘ands’ about it. Just cautioning you to be careful.

I agree that without authority there would be not just a few but a majority of rogues who would abuse the system. But that is now, it doesn’t have to be like that in the future. I will post my view on this future at a later time. I respect your view on capitalism, and it’s “middle ground”. Although I must disagree and maybe we can discuss some of the foundational theories and policies behind capitalism to further discuss the full potential of capitalism, or the lack of.

Ben stated:
“Even if justice is not done in a murder case, I would rather still maintain the human right of “a right to life” than throw it out the window because “it never gets enforced anyway”.”

I agree Ben, but again, you make it sound like I said that I want to throw human rights out the window. But I dont. I believe in human rights, what I don’t believe in is our rights being used to make optimistic statements about the country we live, ie. Land of the free, when these rights are not being defended (other than the rich, even their rights aren’t always protected actually). I agree that the concept of human rights should stay, but these human rights themselves need a severe thrashing, amending, implementing, reviewing, and holding.

Ben stated:
“However, in a democracy, the government is controlled by the people.”

The people elect the party into power Ben, people do not control the government. This is the whole problem again with this make believe freedom and choice system. If you have 4 representatives to choose from and they are all bad, you can choose to not vote, but one of them will still get voted in. So you don’t have a choice as to which party is going to sit in government and represent you. You don’t have control as to what policies or laws they will instill. You also don’t know whether these representatives really care about the people or if it is just for the money, or power, or for some other reason.

Ben stated:
"If a government wants to stay in power, it must reflect the want of the people otherewise it will not be re-elected. "

Most governments don’t care if they are elected, since party platforms are created for one term. So what if they don’t reflect the want of the people and they are not re-elected, we are talking about four years of this party controlling our country, alot of damage can be done in those short four years.

Ben stated:
“If a government does not protect us and instead exploits us, we are able to vote them out.”

Vote them out? You mean not re-elect them right? Or do you mean impeachment? Well in Canada Brian Mulroney harmed the Canadian nation as well as exploit and unemploy a huge amount of the population. I am referring to NAFTA. Forget whether he meant well or not, but what happened was that he thought business would come into Canada from the states if the tariffs were taken off the products coming into Canada from America. Meanwhile, the whole reason American companies opened up branches in Canada, employed Canadian citizens, and increased the Canadian economy is because of those tariffs, it was cheaper for Americans to just open up branches, warehouses, and factories in Canada and saturate the population with their products that way. When he implemented NAFTA, the exact reverse happened of what was planned. American companies closed their doors, threw hundreds of thousands of employees out on the street, packed their backs, and headed for the border…to the US.
So again, what is the point of voting anyone out when you can’t stop them from destroying you life and your country?

Ben stated:
"I’m sure there is a lot of corruption in the government and places like the CIA and that is wrong, but I would rather have a government protecting me than not. "

How do you know that your government is protecting you? The government institutes laws and procedures that monitor and control you from the moment you take your first breath. Why? Well because they need you to work to make the government money so they can put through their will and might on the rest of the world. Is the government really protecting you, or is it protecting it’s income? I’ll let you decide.

Ben stated:
“Unlike in communism say where people really are forced to work for the good of the society, capitalism and other systems, do not require people to work.”

DO NOT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO WORK!!??!! Do you truly think if no one worked there would be a country to speak of? The only reason you can say you live in a country is because there are people working. The capitalist system REQUIRES, NECCESSITATES, and EXISTS only because of the people that will work for it. Everything in the capitalist system is about people working for the government. You still don’t get the propaganda, the paradox, the LIE. The government wants you to believe you are free, but like I said, talk to people that have lived in the socialist system and now live in North America (and are working class ofcourse) and ask them where they had more freedom.

Ben stated:
“There is always the choice to move to a different society which runs in the way that fits your ideals.”

Unfortunately, I have never heard of a society which runs in the way that fits my ideals.

Ben stated:
“I don’t know people have always been self-centered. To clarify my point, from a gene-centered view, we are selfish.”

You cannot say without a doubt that people are selfish. It is debatable. Moreover, the human genome has been mapped, but not explained fully. So we don’t know if there is a gene that has the ability to act unselfishly.

Ben stated:
“I am happy to admit that I am self-centred in the true sense of the word because in the long term, I shall look after myself. This does not mean I disregard others and that I don’t have a kind bone in my body. I personally do think it is possible for anyone to perform a totally selfless action.”

How can a person like you who has stated previously that people are completely selfish, and that everything can be translated into the person doing even what seem altruistic actions selfish, how can you say that you think it is possible for anyone to perform a totally selfless action?

About the judaism concept, you are quite right in putting that quote, it exemplifies much of judaism. I’m not sure if you read my previous post on religion, but Nietszche explains religions and why they hold the beliefs and theories that they do. Judaism came from a rich class, hence it proposes self and furthering ones own and ones family goals. I wish not to go into this in great detail as another post fully explains my understanding of Nietzsches ideas. This still doesn’t validate your premise of completely selfish human beings.

I thank you for your sincere and eloquent apology, it is most humbly accepted. Please, I say this only because many do and not because I think you will, but because there is a chance you may, take my kindness to be a weakness instead of a strength and an open mind. I want you to know I am a very honest person, and as you have asserted about always being open to alternative view point, I am as well.

What’s your take?