Is Capitalism Moral?

By by whose standard?

Free market capitalism is a natural system; i.e. a reflection of reality and the natural interaction of individuals if left to their own devices, prohibited from nothing so long as they harm no one else and there relations with others are mutually voluntary. Therefore, if capitalism is immoral, I would say that life is immoral. And I don't find life to be immoral, so neither do I find capitalism immoral. In my system of valuation, freedom trumps everything else. Freedom is the condition sine qua non and only thing that makes life worth living, in my opinion. That will rankle some peoples feather, which amazes me, because some some people want to create and/or live in a divine ant hill. I's not my intention to criticize such people, after all, they're in good company, like Plato. But then again, Plato's folly is why we need Nietzsche.

When did natural become synonymous with moral? Just because capitalism may be an example of what people will "naturally" do does not make it right. What would people "naturally" do in this socio-economic system if there was no law enforcement? Why not apply the same standards of fairness and equality to our economic system?

I am not in anyway proposing that we regulate everything and take away people's freedom of non-coercive behavior (socialism or authoritarianism). I am advocating that we discard our monetary based economy for a resource based economic system.

Hello hueman,
My first response in while, but you have hit one of my hot spots. Considering we have never tried anything else on a global scale, such as you suggest and I advocate highly, we assume there is no other way to create a global compensation system based on the fair and equitable use of the resources we have. Doing what we should do and what we can afford to do is what is responsible for the shape we currently find ourselves. As I have issued many times, to have an economic system based on rarity in a growing world is absolute stupidity. Capital is great if you have it. If you don't, you become human waste. Just look at all the time, money, and resources, (including human resources) it takes just to keep our heads above water to effort to find some kind of equilibrium. It can't be done. We have the technology to change to a system that is not based on rarity such as a simple point system based on what an individuals natural contributions may be, whether it be labor or brain surgery. What ever it is, it must be limitless and controlled and global and un-amassable. Not an easy task when you consider those who have the most capital, make all the rules. Once you have more money than God, it's difficult to step down from that throne.
Sorry, I haven't read all the responses. It's good to be back.
William

No system administered by humans could ever be deemed 'moral' (or 'immoral' for that matter). Like any other system or tool, it's benefit (or damage) is contingent on the people who are the system.

hue-man wrote:

I don't think that you understand what I mean when I say that the system is immoral or inherently corrupt. For example, if I were to say that the law system was inherently corrupt and immoral, that would not merely be based on the agents within the system, but on the unfair and unjust premises of the system itself.

Capitalism cannot survive without an economic class system that keeps certain people at a lower level than others.

I am advocating that we discard our monetary based economy for a resource based economic system.

Why is money bad?

Because it is in limited supply and there is not enough to go around. Because of it's limitations, we can only do what we can "afford" to do, rather than what we should do.

Because it is in limited supply and there is not enough to go around. Because of it's limitations, we can only do what we can "afford" to do, rather than what we should do.

William

Yes, that is pretty much the definition of money. What is the alternative? A post-scarcity world?
We can't have that. Until we can, money is the best way to distribute what we have.
As a sidenote, always having what we want would drive us insane.

Thank you for your response. It will have to be a global effort requiring honest communication, trust and cooperation. I have some ideas, but I don't have all the answers. Though I can assure you, collectively "we" do. To edit a little of what you said if you don't mind, perhaps the more operative term would be mis-distribute what we have and that is dependent on what we can afford. Now this is a shot in the dark, but we have the technology to create an ID card that can be activated by the DNA of the individual that will allow him to have access to the necessities he needs to enjoy life. That ID card will be charge with points dependent on his individual contributions which will come "effortlessly" as he utilizes his knowledge, talents and gifts, regardless of what they may be for the benefit of all. In the very failing economic system we have and have always had, this cannot be done simply because the status quo that is dependent on this sick economic system and is too selfish to even consider such a change. To reiterate a philosophical truth, this Earth is not for sale. To be owned by none but to be shared by all. The biggest problem is those who have profited the most pull all the strings and make all the rules to insure the status quo continues to exists. Greed personified. Life is an entitlement to all, not a privilege only to those who can afford it. Working together collectively with trust, respect and cooperation we will be able to solve all the problems that have plagued our existence. Again, I will ask what would you be willing to sacrifice to be assured peace and harmony on the planet Earth. If anyone has to even think about that, they have a serious problem.

we have the technology to create an ID card that can be activated by the DNA of the individual that will allow him to have access to the necessities he needs to enjoy life. That ID card will be charge with points dependent on his individual contributions which will come "effortlessly" as he utilizes his knowledge, talents and gifts, regardless of what they may be for the benefit of all.

Because [money] is in limited supply and there is not enough to go around. Because of it's limitations, we can only do what we can "afford" to do, rather than what we should do.

---------- Post added at 03:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 AM ----------



The mark of the beast? :devilish:

The Mark of the Beast

Could you elaborate a little please.

I do understand you and have read (and just re-read) your arguments. I don't necessarily disagree with you in spirit. I do know; however, that the goodness or 'evil' wrought from most systems are due to how they are implemented (i.e., the people who are the agents/architects of such implementation). But I am open to sway here so allow me to belch forth a couple of points for your consideration:

• The first you spoke of was, essentially, heredity. On the whole - and from a generalized sense this point is conceded: It is, on the surface, an economic 'inequity' for a person just born into (or out of) its favor. But this is by no means a moral absolute - consider this scenario:
  

[INDENT][INDENT]Suppose I am smart, frugal and provide a needed service to the market. From this, and over years of effort, I build up quite a nest egg for my children. After much stashing - and from a father's love - I bequeath my millions to them. They are now to be spat upon as objects of hatred for the 'freebie' they've been given? In other words, not all inheritances are free tickets from the evil and avarice of the human heart.
[/INDENT]Would you take this from them? Should the government? If one answers 'no' to either, then we can't very well impugn the gift of heredity. If one answers 'yes' to either then we've not a system where parents are allowed to give to their young upon death. I'm not sure this is OK in anyone's book.
[/INDENT]

• You spoke of inequity stemming from employment and/or discrimination. This, too, is happening on a person-to-person (as well as institutional) level. If this happens at all in any economic system than capitalism, then it's no longer specific to Capitalism and therefore must be attributed - again - to people as well, not systems alone,
  

This statement you made...[INDENT] Is an excellent point and one whose intent I'll readily cheer. But human behavior is so complicated that you'll find many exceptions and mitigating circumstances. In otherwords, Does it "keep" everyone down? For a great many people you're absolutely correct: Yes it does! But name but one person whose pulled themselves out from humble beginnings and again, it can't be said to be capitalism's (else the system would prohibit such a move). Bringing us, again, back to the behavior of individuals rather than economic structure.
[/INDENT]I don't begrudge your battlecry; I have *severe* issues with the particular flavor the United States has in place (namely in its effects on the human psyche; self worth, roles and inculcated expectations, etc*). But I'm not sure we could come up with any argument that says the system is steadfastly-prohibitive and immovably-immoral.

Again, I'm not holding onto this view for dear life. I've just yet to hear how *any* economic system is inherently 'bad' or inherently 'good'. My own take is that any implentation we see is tinted with how that country runs its trade and currency systems. Someone here (perhaps even in this thread, I don't remember) said that what we have now in the U.S. is a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic trade and monetary systems (with probably a few other -ologies mixed in). Taint this with public opinion, laws (both their substance and enforcement), the political climate, perceptions of crisis and dominant political parties and you get a mish-mash of ideologies that can't legitimately be called truly capitalism or truly anything else. The human element prohibits it....

Particular systems - I don't think - are either our Saviors or Demons. We pick and choose (or our governments do) what is implementation from each system that seems to make sense. Some are more ethically dubious from <this> aspect while others are problematic from <that> aspect. Capitalism does encourage avarice, corruption, usery and commodification but these are by no means unique to capitalism - and I guess that's my whole point.

In any case. I hope this makes sense - thanks for engaging.


-------------------
* I wonder if I could come up with a solid argument against capitalism's ethicacy based on this? Hmmm

If you've been paying attention to the recent economic crisis, then you should be well aware of the counterarguments.

1) resources are even more limited -- that's why we NEED money in order to exchange something of value that we ourselves can create and regulate. The classic case study is oil. Oil is a resource that is in limited supply and perennial demand. So the major oil exporters have colluded to regulate the amount of available oil in the world -- in other words, it (and other commodities) is used equivalently to money

2) an economy doesn't thrive or die based on money. It lives or dies based on credit. If you had to wait to build your $1 million factory until you had saved up $1 million, you'd never get it built. So we have a system in which you can borrow $1 million with the expectation that you'll pay it back over time (with interest, so that people have incentive to make loans).

The amount of credit FAR exceeds the amount of money -- that leads to growth, but it also creates a dire need for regulation.

It needs regulation because it eventually results in economic recession, correct?

We have other energy sources that are clean, more efficient, and better for our national security, but why don't we use these alternatives on a mass scale? Because it's not affordable, that's why.

When did natural become synonymous with moral? Just because capitalism may be an example of what people will "naturally" do does not make it right. What would people "naturally" do in this socio-economic system if there was no law enforcement? Why not apply the same standards of fairness and equality to our economic system?

I am not in anyway proposing that we regulate everything and take away people's freedom of non-coercive behavior (socialism or authoritarianism). I am advocating that we discard our monetary based economy for a resource based economic system.

No, not recession -- it eventually results in monopolies and bad labor standards.

Iceland, which is a far more socialistic system than the United States, has been utterly devastated by this recession. Venezuela has as well (for different reasons). One of the MAIN problems with socialism is that social safety nets live and die with the strength of the national economy -- so if there is a global recession, suddenly tax revenues go down and that universal health insurance is no longer fundable.

That's only because the government has incentivized the oil industry and failed to do the same for alternative fuels technology. Car companies are a lot more short-sighted than policymakers -- they aim for profitability, not resource management.

I am not saying that natural is synonymous with moral. I am saying that in my system of valuation (my ethics if you like, but I don't like that term) I hold freedom to be the supreme value, which trumps the others and which should be the goal above all others for a societal system of any kind, wehter we're talking about economics, politics, etc. Ergo, I find capitalism to be moral because it alone allows for freedom, or in any case it allows for the most freedom. It is interesting, the position of capitalism or libertarianism in general in the spectrum leading from freedom to slavery. Anything more regulated than laizze faire capitalism and limited constitional republicanism allows for less freedom; anything less regulated leads to anarchy and a breakdown of society, which sounds like it would allow even more freedom, but in truth that would be the case only until some thug or warlord established his rule, which would be less liberal than libertarianism. In other words, in the opinion of this dirty capitalist pig, laizze faire capitalism, as a part of libertarianism in general, allows the maximum freedom possible for humanity. And again, freedom is my cheif value. I won't demand that ti be yours, though I reccomend it.