Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

I'll give it a shot.

If markets breakdown everywhere violence takes hold then markets, under the free market system, necessarily break down. Thanks for the nifty new argument.

So, even if I accept your logic here, all you have shown is that the competition is not violent toward the consumer of some good. What of the competition itself - between two competitors?

Competitors act in such a way as to injure one another's ability to make money. Violence. Competition is inherently violent; though, we might decide that some degree of violence is good - that's another issue.

I apologize for that comment. I was originally going to post just that to call on you to back up your statements, but I thought better and provided my own but forgot to delete that.

Its only an argument if you can establish the premise that violence breaks out wherever there is a market.

Can you define violence for me?

Is Consumer Reports a violent publication? When I purchased my last vehicle, the publication weighed heavily into my decision to not choose the first two vehicles I was seriously considering. When I upgraded my video card, I referred to c-net and chose against Nvidia in favor of ATI.

In both situations these publications convinced me to not buy a certain product and deprived the makers of these products of their ability to make money, as without them I likely would have chosen their products. Are they violent?

Not wherever there is a market, but wherever there is a capitalist market.

Not wherever there is a market, but wherever there is a capitalist market.

Definition of violence: there are a few. I took this one from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: ' exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse'.

What you two are debating is exactly what I categorized earlier:

A: Let's save 10 people from jumping off the bridge!
B: But then we can't save that one guy on the other end of the bridge.
A: Yes, but letting 10 guys jump is even worse.
B: Letting that one guy jump is really mean and has many negative consequences.
A: But the alternative is letting 10 people jump.
B: You are ignoring my arguments.

What's the alternative? A un-capitalistic market?

Well yes. Any action within a market affects prices, and any change in prices will have some detrimental effect on somebody.

You have removed the "exertion of physical force" for your definition, so that your definition is effectively any action that causes dissatisfaction.

I would posit that no economic system that deals with scarce resources (in other words any economic system that deals with reality) is violent, with market systems being the least violent as they specifically exclude physical violence, while command economies rest on the threat of violence.

Put this into a real world scenario not some silly unrealistic model of your choosing.

Yes. As far as I can tell every economic system will be violent.

But we cannot say that the free market system would be less violent: the free market system may abhor violence, but it cannot exclude violence - and what happens when someone is violent within the market system? Violence is used in response as punishment. It is one thing to ponder a perfect free market system, but another to entertain the notion that human beings will always act appropriately under that system. The free market system also requires the threat of violence.

Further, even though command economies rest on the threat of violence, we can imagine such a command economy (and hey, if I can grant you an ideal free market being implemented, you can grant me this much) that orders matters such that the average citizen does not have to spend his life violently competing against his neighbor at work, for health care and for educational opportunities.

Whether or not one is more violent than the other is impossible to determine.

Put this into a real world scenario not some silly unrealistic model of your choosing.

Which society would be more likely to engage in war:

A) The society that exists on an economic model where initiatory violence is legitimized in the interests of providing for a public good as determined by a limited few or mob majority?

or

B) The society that exists on an economic model where only retaliatory violence is acceptable (it should be noted that even retaliatory violence would be less likely because it is very costly)?

To call such an economy a "command" economy is a bit of an error. Generally a command economy requires some sort of dissent. If there is no dissent, and all live as they wish, then it is perfectly compatible with a market economy.

Sure, but the argument that because something hasn't been tried yet it ought to be given a chance isn't necessarily a strong one. I have not tried dipping my hand into a vat of sulphuric acid.

All utopian projects involve a certain degree of setting aside realism. Humans have different needs and desires and different conceptions of freedom.

These are things I equate with freedom and am willing to defend (when I can be bothered and if the risk of actual harm to my person is minimal).

All utopian projects bank on people setting aside their differences in regard to these freedoms - ignoring the apparent truth that there can be no true consensus on even the most obvious of them.

I am also convinced that mankind will cope - in some manner - with the problems of today, and tomorrow. However, what sort of world will result from ignoring the problems of today?

The conceptual leap that the leaders of the party in 1984 had taken was they admitted to one another that the reason they wanted power was because they liked power. The methods by which they abused their power are less important than the conceptual leap. 1984 is not a pro-prosperity fable - it is a lesson to be wary of power seekers of any hue. Also note that in 1984 the effort put in by the inner party to maintain the status quo was huge. By O'Brien's account he didn't enjoy luxuries - just power.

In regards to capitalism - is the endless barrage of messages a member of such a society receives to produce and consume "for the good of the economy" orchestrated, in part, to shore up an oligarchy? Surely so, it's just that the big winners are directors and magnates rather than a political elite.

I would also point out that 1984 is a fiction written to address the problems of yesterday rather than those of today, even less those of tomorrow. It's a great book, but I feel the ease with which it can wheeled out to address almost any political standpoint speaks less of it's practical political application and more to it's strength as a story.

Any political system can be tyrannous - the right wing has it's roots in defence of absolute monarchy after all...

Oh come off it! This is pure conspiracy theory - no more worthy of serious consideration than supposing that the US government orchestrated 9/11.

The fact that this 'clean' source of energy is also responsible for some of the world's worst industrial accidents when it goes wrong is surely a worthy subject of debate rather than "silly emotional reasons". I think nuclear energy is a better alternative to fossil fuels - until I consider living next to nuclear power plants.

The lesson Iraq has taught the world is that if one does want a degree of security from invasion by US it better make sure it has servicable WMDs. Hence North Korea's desire to demonstrate that it is capable of launching rockets I suppose.

Personally I think leading by example is the best policy, rather than preaching to others to do what you are unwilling to. I used to think that a stronger UN might be the best answer - but I know reject such thinking as utopian.

A British company with monetary support from government and local technical advice rises to a certain level and by internal sales eventually becomes a world product.It would not have succeeded without this input.

Even regulated markets will be violent.

The true capitalist world economy has never been truly experienced.IF an ethical true capitalist world economy could be described , i would appreciate any ones vision.
We see government interference on every level in ever country and the claim of capitalists ,socialism is the barrier to a free market..hoorocks.
In the real world, games of life a death are played out with diferent rules and with just little more information.In the real world one millionaires profits are judged more important than a communities survival.If that was to be one millionaire hanging from the bridge or a communities survival , ide push him off not even ask the others not to jump.

Heh, is retaliatory violence any less costly in society B than A?

Both are just as likely to go to war.

I never said anything about dissent. An economic model in which the government handles matters so that the average citizen does not have to spend his life competing against his neighbor at work, for health care and for educational opportunities, ect, is not a free market economy. Doing those things requires some serious government control over the economy, don't you think? Sounds like some variety of socialism.

That's protecting individualism, which is the basis of capitalism. Socialism is the opposing theory. That individual freedom in some instances is less important.
You agree with me then.

If you are a capitalist, we disagree on economics.

Capitalism makes use of competition.

You and xris disagree with the word, but you agree with the meaning.



Yes. That's what I support. The opposite is government restriction.

I hate to keep saying this but you are referring to communism.Do you really want me to speak from am extremist view point for debate sake or from a moderate socialist attitude? I can if you wish and you would notice the difference.

I dont see my socialism interfering in commerce only creating ethical terms of reference by laws.If that interfering then so be it.
I have not seen nor examined the purest of forms of capitalism, i ask again have you? can you describe this utopianvision.What international laws would you insist on?
I honestly think that its one item we could agree on, if your laws where truly ethical based on the truly free international market.You have as much chance of making the US sign up to that as communist china give the vote to its citizens.

Heh, is retaliatory violence any less costly in society B than A?

Both are just as likely to go to war. It's a matter of human error. Neither model appears to have any inherent mechanism by which it makes members any less greedy and selfish than the other model. Those are the seeds of war.

I never said anything about dissent. An economic model in which the government handles matters so that the average citizen does not have to spend his life competing against his neighbor at work, for health care and for educational opportunities, ect, is not a free market economy. Doing those things requires some serious government control over the economy, don't you think? Sounds like some variety of socialism.

You and xris disagree with the word, but you agree with the meaning.

Yes. That's what I support. The opposite is government restriction.

To those who decide to engage in it. Remember that controlled economies require a monopoly on violence by the government. Therefore it is up to those who control government to control the violence, but it is never the case that all those who pay for and live under government are in control of the government.

To those who decide to engage in it.... okay, so how is war more costly to one of those societies than the other? I guess I just don't get your argument here.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The collective machinery of the state that is necessary to govern economies is easily transferable to the machinery necessary to wage war.

As is the collective machinery of the corporation and private enterprise.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Such a system must rest on violence. That was my point a couple of posts ago. The government must force the people away from their own values to institute such a program.

You are making assumptions about the values of a hypothetical people living in a hypothetical land under a hypothetical government.

Any governing body necessarily rests on violence. Doesn't matter the make of the government. But that's the difference between good governance and bad governance: ruling rightly means having little or no use for violence, ruling wrongly means not having the state craft to find non-violent solutions.

To those who decide to engage in it.... okay, so how is war more costly to one of those societies than the other? I guess I just don't get your argument here.

As is the collective machinery of the corporation and private enterprise.

You are making assumptions about the values of a hypothetical people living in a hypothetical land under a hypothetical government.

Any governing body necessarily rests on violence. Doesn't matter the make of the government. But that's the difference between good governance and bad governance: ruling rightly means having little or no use for violence, ruling wrongly means not having the state craft to find non-violent solutions.