Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Your American dream, a dream of a perfect anarchic society.

A single word:perplexed: anarchy, its a definition that you appear to not want to define but make loose reference to it in romantic images of rural America. You wont even choose a definition we can rely on, speak up , give me one and not these vague references that you refuse to defend.

I hate to say it but the world is a finite place and the problem with capitalism and the modern liberal doctrine are that they do not operate in light of this very real limitation. While exploitation is a problem for capitalism, I really can't help but wonder what will be it's end game as countries eventually tend to either develop and demand more social and economic rights. Societal tension in a global world will require suppression, unless we can eliminate envy and self-interest (which we cannot as far as I can tell). Possibly we just have to admit that peace isn't a particularly happy situation for everyone?

You have Fukyama and Friedman writing about the war between ideologies being over, but the pacifism that affords the existence of this peace is a result of the inability of the marginalized and exploited to make the developed world hear them. With problems like, I don't know, over population and scarcity in a world where around three quarters of its current population are under the age of 30 and the vast majority illiterate and uneducated; are we really as on track to fulfilling the ideal world that capitalism and the liberal doctrine that created it believed in?

While those lucky enough to be born in developed countries have great opportunities when compared against those in the developing world; social inequality and mobility are declining in many places. Issues such as the terrorism place enormous burdens on society and on the states that govern them.

I'm not sure what will bring world peace (if such a thing is possible), but right now I find it hard to believe that Project Democracy and the freeing of the markets are going to erase the existence of hostility in the world.

But hey, things are what they are and at least we got a lot of people to consider the issues,

VF

:nonooo:

I agree that people need to be able to distinguish themselves in some form of meritocracy but at the same time I wonder how we can avoid exploitation. It's a tough question.

I personally have a pretty Nietzschean view of the privatization of society, in that I believe it is essentially a result of the Western world attempting to find a new pacifism following the rise of science and the subsequent decline of religion following the Enlightenment. I personally value my values and ethics, but at the same time I realize that their historical basis, and all other foundations grounded in the language of value based assumptions and observations is possibly (and I might go as far to say likely), are a paradox without an answer.

I feel like we're a society covering up nihilism with consumerism; but continually throughout history I feel like our general tendency to try and make sense of things will lead us to question it. This questions will either amplify our societal awareness of the problems with our current world views and values or, less optimistically we will be forced to. I think we need to find a way to appreciate life, and not just human life; but this is extremely divergent from the set of values that exists today and it makes solving such problems pretty tough.

In either case, like you said, we in the developed world can at least appreciate our own situations for the benefits we're afforded. We drew lucky on the creation lottery without a doubt.

VF

I hate to say it but the world is a finite place and the problem with capitalism and the modern liberal doctrine are that they do not operate in light of this very real limitation.

Just for you, honey.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/8079-resources-infinite.html

***

xris,
sorry for letting you wait. I'm still thinking. :Not-Impressed:

...

Okay xris, would you be in favor of this economic system?

The state protects property rights; meaning it provides a legal system, enforcement of contracts, national security and border security (but immigration is unrestricted, except for criminals and people with contagious diseases). Also government (to the extent that is possible) forces everyone to pay the full costs of their actions, for example a coal plant paying residents it deprives of clean air.

We would be protected from fraud and illegality, but government could not arbitrarily intervene into the economy as the political winds blow, or to protect the privileged rich.

Welfare.
The state provides every citizen with a moderate basic income via a negative income tax. Those who earn nothing receive enough to live (such as students, the unemployed, the retired), but not comfortably. Those who earn more get progressively less money from the state, and from a certain amount of income we get taxed (at a flat rate, so the more we earn the more we get taxed).
So it's a basic income for everyone, instead of individual welfare programs. But it should be so low that people don't rely on it but save for retirement, emergency, etc.

Taxation
This income taxation is not progressive in order to not distort economic activity, but it is only a low income tax rate. Most tax revenue is made through a consumption tax (or land value tax), which is heavily progressive (the wealthy pay most of the taxes) because rates are higher for luxuries, and necessities are taxed low or not at all. There are no other taxes.

Health care.
Tax revenue provides for a accident health aid system, paid collectively through taxes, but run by private business. Long-term health insurance is a private choice in a free market, each paying for what they want. For example those who want plastic surgery or alternative medicine covered by their insurance can purchase that. The state only make sure that insurance companies abide by their contracts, i.e. don't cancel them when people get sick.

The government would protect us from illegal business activity, yes I have already stated thats what we require. Monopolies are illegal in my opinion. I dont agree with protectionist policies, it never works.

Welfare, yes dont reward poverty just protect us from the extremes of unexpected hardships. Pensions should be compulsory via the taxation system, a portion of income tax should be set aside for pensions.

Tax , I have no idea the correct method you may be right. I'm open to persuasion.

Health insurance should be funded in the main by the government through taxation. I'm not sure about private involvement , I need to be convinced. If you require additional cosmetic insurance or private treatment then it would be in the private sector. I should remind you, our system is still three times cheaper for all our citizens. Its not perfect but it serves us very well. I dont trust insurance companies, at all, Ive just had experiences of their avoidance. Its bad enough needing them for other necessities, I dont want them arguing over the small print when my wife's sick with cancer.

I think we are getting a little closer Nero.

Agree. We somewhat disagree what 'illegal business activity' includes, but we don't have to agree on all the details. We are not economists. The point is that we can find a policy that unifies the wishes of a die hard socialist and a free market maniac.

Special interest has been playing us out against each others.



A negative income tax would do just that. It would be very simple (the current U.S. tax code is 16.000 pages long), and it wouldn't matter why we take a break from earning - whether we are students, unemployed or retired.

Hmmm... but why should the state (the guys with the guns) force pension saving? Shouldn't that be a matter for private individuals? Each cosing what he wants. Those who couldn't or didn't provide for their old age can rely on the negative income tax to provide a pension, but why should the rest of us be forced to save for pension by the state?



Well currently most of the taxes in both our countries are levied via income taxes (I think). Which is a relatively new development. The problem with that is two things: It punishes production, and thereby lowers the standard of living of society as a whole. Why should we be deterred from producing goods and services? That's what an economy is supposed to do, right? We want people to produce, they want to produce, why do we punish what we want more of? Instead we should be taxed when we use up some of the goods and services of society, when we consume.

The second problem with income taxes is that the wealthy get a pass. Great wealth is highly mobile, and just leaves where it is taxed. Thus we are forced to tax the wealthy at a much lower rate than the middle class. Wealth of the rich is like an eel, it's slippery, you can't get a hold of it with income taxes.
But money is useless if you don't buy anything for it, that's where you get the money of the rich. If consumption is taxed the rich don't get a pass because they spend the most on luxuries.

Land value taxes are another alternative, but I don't know whether they make sense in reality. It's a way to tax those who get wealth out of the earth, for example mine owners. I think in their effects on the economy they amount to the same as consumption taxes, in that they add to the price of goods. Some perceive it as more 'fair' if the owners of resources don't get rich from harvesting the earth by virtue of owning the land and the mines.



Health care is a complicated topic, and we don't have to go through that all now. My position is that the competitive market is better at providing goods and services than state enterprise. That applies to health care, and includes the lowest income earners.
State-run enterprise might appear better at doing things, but it's just not.



Yes we are. In the end, what we want is the same. We just explain the world in a different way. I had to realize that some of what you advocate is really what I want (welfare). But I think you have to realize that some of what I advocate is really what you want (free market health care). Are you open to the idea that greed can be the greatest altruism and that being discompassionate to the poor is the greatest form of charity?

The second problem with income taxes is that the wealthy get a pass. Great wealth is highly mobile, and just leaves where it is taxed. Thus we are forced to tax the wealthy at a much lower rate than the middle class. Wealth of the rich is like an eel, it's slippery, you can't get a hold of it with income taxes.
But money is useless if you don't buy anything for it, that's where you get the money of the rich. If consumption is taxed the rich don't get a pass because they spend the most on luxuries.

Are you open to the idea that greed can be the greatest altruism and that being discompassionate to the poor is the greatest form of charity?

In an ideal world we would all provide for our own needs in poverty, sickness or in old age. The reality is, certain of us are either incapable or unwilling. This creates moral and social responsibilities to the whole community, when the individual needs support. As a socialist I would or think we should demand that we all contribute towards those eventualities. I'm always scared of government interference in these abilities and Im equally scared of the private sector creating monopolies, where true competitive nature of these services is essential. I'm not a die hard lefty, I hope I'm a pragmatist and would be prepared to give all a chance of performing. This is why being a social democrat I can accept or deny certain preconceived ideologies. Im a capitalist by nature but a socialist by thought. We should not be afraid of believing we got it wrong and trying something different. Thanks xris PS I could never turn my back on those less fortunate than I, never. I could not be so efficacious and heartless.

Capitalism is based on self-interested economic decisions yes, but I think that the terms "greed" and "selfishness" denote something more extreme than this, something that is not desirable for any society. Perhaps you really mean self-interest, or do you in fact agree with Gordon Gekko that, "Greed is good"?

What is the difference between selfishness or greed and self-interest?

Consult your dictionary if you need clarification. Some level of self-interest is good and necessary for our individual survival, and beyond. Selfishness and greed both seem to involve a necessary disregard for others, while in pursuit of desires.

One can certainly be self-interested without being selfish or greedy.

No. I'm testing your thesis. You tell me what the difference is.

No, I was testing your thesis about how "greed and selfishness make the world a better place". I've offered a response as to how the two are different from "self-interest" that is commonly used in liberal economic theory. So you need to justify your claim about how greed and selfishness improve the world.

If you would consult your dictionary, you might discover that, by definition, greed and selfishness help one person while hurting another. So, if you're using some other definitions for these commonly-used words, you need to tell us what they are.