A consequence of capitalism?

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy, A Consequence Of Capitalism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

@Jackofalltrades phil,

The "hard" way would be as a result of the breakdown of the financial markets and the underlying distribution systems that drive them. Severe interruptions would cause panic among the populace and cause "irrational" means to be employed to secure the resources of survival. It could become dog eat dog.
Here is a link to literacy statistics for the USA http://www.readfaster.com/education_stats.asp
I have no reason to suppose the rest of the world fares much better.

The carrot and stick principle is one that is first taught then accepted. It has its uses for donkeys, but humans are not donkeys, even though the imitation is convincing.
Self control? No, we cannot expect that from corporations or politics. But we can expect to exercise it within ourselves. Unfortunately I don't think most will, which is why I'm afraid many will not survive.
In my view free will is what permits potential to exist. I do not believe anything has changed from the "might is right" era, except that the sword has been replaced by the dollar as the weapon of choice.
You're right; those that did not jump on the bandwagon of affluence are those being most harmed. They're also the ones closest to the "ground" and may actually be in a better position to survive the "fall."
Remember the saying "The meek will inherit the Earth."
I too want to walk the extra mile and discuss solutions.
All I've been able to conjure up have been thoughts of what caused all this in the first place. The answer always came back as us, and, while I could blame symptoms on others, I realized the potential to cure the disease lay only within me.
Unfortunately I also realized that I could not "cure" others, that they must do it themselves through their own realization that no one else could do it for them.
A bit tough huh?
The seriousness of the capitalistic methods of survival being discussed here are indeed of paramount importance to our common future. However, I feel it is equally important that the feelings that prompt such thoughts do not overwhelm the senses to the point of suppressing the ability to "enjoy" our other emotions of love, humor and understanding.
My point here is that overly focusing on any aspect of life can quickly become an addiction that demands constant feeding. Whether via stimuli of drugs, sex, food, intellectualism or whatever, overindulgence can diminish ones ability for clarity of thought, and can inhibit perception of the greater truth that begat the foray in the first place.
For example to focus more on what someone else is doing "wrong" than what oneself is doing "right" is to create a whirlpool of dilemma that is difficult to escape from.

I don't wish to be long winded about this, but just because one comes to realize a greater view of the "ways of the world," and the negativity of the implementation of such ways, does not mean that ones realization can "save" anyone else from themselves.
I think it was Gandhi who said, "If you wish change then change yourself" or words to that effect, the point is that change must occur in you for change to occur in the "external" world. The results of any such changes will be experienced first by you and then by others, through a ripple effect on the collective consciousness. Whether others amplify that ripple effect by adopting similar changes in attitude is not as important as the testing of the viability of the change in oneself.
If it doesn't work for you then how can it work for anyone else?

The use of wealth to accomplish change is a viable, though dangerous, option. To begin with, how is one supposed to produce and maintain sufficient wealth to have economic influence over a system that allows such production of wealth?
And, if one figures a way to do it, what happens after you are gone? Will the next administrator be as benevolent?
What use is wealth to a man who already has all his needs freely met?
Besides, who is richer, the man with the freedom to provide for all his needs, or the man who must buy all he needs?

In overly focusing upon how the administration of the present economic system should fix the negative aspects of itself, we run the risk of imbuing conscious responsibility for our existence to a third party "God" that we can petition when things don't go right, and ignore when they do.
It may be obvious that we are one, but if almost 7 billion "ones" are looking for third party fixes then the real power of one is ignored; oneself.
The irony is that third party control of our shared existence promotes competition for resources instead of cooperative use of them. I find that faintly amusing because only our own attitudes are responsible for this, and only our own attitudes can change it.

1 Reply

@bsfree,

RDRDRD1;137584 wrote:

Capitalism, as we've developed it today, is outmoded. The 18th century growth concepts still work for the emerging economies and the Third World but have lost a lot of their utility in the industrialized West.

We're only just beginning to grasp the transformation that was ushered in during the Reagan years. As Chris Hedges argues in his recent book "Empire of Illusion, The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" America's decline became inevitable when, three decades ago, it morphed from being a culture of production into a culture of consumption. When Reagan entered the White House America was the world's largest creditor nation. When he left America had become the world's largest debtor nation. However, so dominant was the American economy that foreign creditors have gladly financed America's excess ever since.

Former Republican insider, Kevin Phillips, compared the decline of the American empire to the previous experiences of the Spanish, the Dutch and finally the British empires. Americans tend to be uncomfortable with the notion of empire but their nation's political, economic and military hegemony constitute just that except in name only.

Phillips, in his book "American Theocracy" notes that all of the earlier empires fell into decline when they abandoned manufacturing in favour of finance. He examines the rise of the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) economy in the United States that accompanied the export of America's manufacturing base. What Phillips shows is that America, like the British, Dutch and Spanish by turns before it, has fallen into the trap of using its wealth to grow the economies of its successors, in this case China and India. He also demonstrates why FIRE economies, no matter how massive, are very brittle and tend to break when economic downturns occur. Manufacturing economies are, by comparison, much more robust and resilient.

An article appeared recently, I believe in either Harper's or The New Yorker magazine, about an awakening in America to the critical need to restore its manufacturing base. The article suggested that attempts to reverse the trend have failed. That's almost inevitable when globalization frees the movement of capital by dismantling of duties and tariffs. You can't have both. Capitalism won't allow that.

American intellectual Lewis Lapham, who comes from a very patrician Republican family, believes the rot set in during the Nixon years when, as he describes it, wealth came to be equated with virtue.

In shifting from production to consumption, capitalism can become truly degenerate. One need only look at the emergence of America's 'bubble economy' and the accompanying rise of what's called 'casino capitalism' to get that point. Capitalism, like socialism, comes in a variety of forms, some far less benign than others.

Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who served in the administrations of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, pointed out that America is intolerant of socialism with but one exception - socialism for the rich. He would not have been surprised whatsoever at the Wall Street bailouts nor the casino capitalism that triggered them.

Surely subsidies are indicative of socialism and what sector has been so subsidized as America's military-industrial complex? The history of contract overruns is staggering.

So, while we see the United States as the bastion of capitalism, it is astonishingly socialist but inordinately toward the most advantaged. Scandinavian socialism targets the ordinary citizen. American socialism targets what George w. Bush referred to as his "...base, the 'haves' and the 'have-mores'."

Hi Rd....... a heartful thanks to you.

You have put it so accurately, that puts everything (the arguments and facts) into a nutshell. I can't think of adding anything more to the erudite, precise and concise manner in which you have put it.

I will only pick up an issue that you raised about manufacturing based economy. See, according to me, economists or premium columnists just use some common sense in the warp of great sounding words or concepts to project an idea or theory which they think is something new. It like the theory of old wine in new bottle.

I may be wrong, and correct me if i am wrong. The so called experts think that manufacturing will help America out of the crises it faced in recent years. But frankly i dont see that. Just because China has somehow become 'the factory of the world' - perhaps a journalistic expression, and may be partly; and by virtue of which China has acheived the highest grwoth rate in terms of GDP; cannot be taken as the prime example of a manufacturing based economy.

The question is manufacture what? Capital flows where profits arise. The relationship is too deep. It is like the relationship between a mountain stream and the deep ocean. Manufacturing involves the vital Ms - Money, Materials, Man, & Market. Today, if a chinese peasant sends his only son to a manufacturing unit nearby to survive, he does not ask what the salary would be. He is assured of a basic welfare needs are provided by the Government for health and food. The skilled artisan or technicians works for a pittance. Similarly, In India, unskilled labour is dead cheap.

To go for a manufacturing based economy, not only technical skill levels needs to be raised, it needs to be paid cheap wages too, which I think the American worker willnot accept. And why should they?

The problem is when Capital wanted Free trade, it was given, when Capital wanted Globalisation, it was given, Capital asked for Non tariff regimes it was given. No doubt it helped other smaller economies also but while the greater purpose of pursuing such policies was to enhance the bottomline. And not to do any social work for other countries.

To come to the point, we should realise today that Capital is craving for bottomline going up in multiples. The competitive spirit in a free man, doubled by greed - projected as a virtue, is the driving force of worlds financial system.

I will tell you, as much of the Philantropists money goes into Africa, the African nation will become the next manufacturing hub in the later part of 21st century or of the next. Capital will flow from the First world to the Fourth world, a moniker for the nations in Africa's underbelly. Are we finding fault with anyone. No.

It is in the nature of man.

bsfree;137668 wrote:

The "hard" way would be as a result of the breakdown of the financial markets and the underlying distribution systems that drive them. Severe interruptions would cause panic among the populace and cause "irrational" means to be employed to secure the resources of survival. It could become dog eat dog.

Yes, you understand it better. And thats the reason why 'pragmatic' approaches should be planned.

[QUOTE=bsfree;137668]The carrot and stick principle is one that is first taught then accepted. It has its uses for donkeys, but humans are not donkeys, even though the imitation is convincing.
Self control? No, we cannot expect that from corporations or politics. But we can expect to exercise it within ourselves. Unfortunately I don't think most will, which is why I'm afraid many will not survive.
In my view free will is what permits potential to exist. I do not believe anything has changed from the "might is right" era, except that the sword has been replaced by the dollar as the weapon of choice. [/QUOTE]

I think you are right on the issue of self-control, but sir, please consider, as was my reaction and response to RDRD, it should not be seen as a battle of us anganist them, corporates and consumer s, politicians and citizens, first v/s third, rich and poor.

We have to look within ourselves to understand why others behave the way they do, or behave the way we dont do. The directors and CEOs of companies are as much human as you and me are. Only diffrenece is the scale at which they play with numbers is way much higehre than we possibly can imagine. The momentum they have acheived falsely or rightly, inadvertently or deliberately, no single individual is at fault. The system has somewhere gone wrong. Thats what i am cribbing about. To acheive the level of ethics needed to have a self regulated economic regime would be like asking or dreaming of a perfect world or utopia. These heights have never been acheived. If that where evolution is taking us, than its great.

Your hope should be priceless. But i am afraid, as of now, only governmental authority has the power to make necessary changes which may include adjusting or nullifying some constitutional, cultural, financial, and basic rights of individuals. The notion of freedom needs a relook. If you agree, we are at a starting block.

[QUOTE=bsfree;137668]You're right; those that did not jump on the bandwagon of affluence are those being most harmed. They're also the ones closest to the "ground" and may actually be in a better position to survive the "fall."
Remember the saying "The meek will inherit the Earth."
I too want to walk the extra mile and discuss solutions.
All I've been able to conjure up have been thoughts of what caused all this in the first place. The answer always came back as us, and, while I could blame symptoms on others, I realized the potential to cure the disease lay only within me.
Unfortunately I also realized that I could not "cure" others, that they must do it themselves through their own realization that no one else could do it for them.
A bit tough huh?
The seriousness of the capitalistic methods of survival being discussed here are indeed of paramount importance to our common future. However, I feel it is equally important that the feelings that prompt such thoughts do not overwhelm the senses to the point of suppressing the ability to "enjoy" our other emotions of love, humor and understanding.
My point here is that overly focusing on any aspect of life can quickly become an addiction that demands constant feeding. Whether via stimuli of drugs, sex, food, intellectualism or whatever, overindulgence can diminish ones ability for clarity of thought, and can inhibit perception of the greater truth that begat the foray in the first place.
For example to focus more on what someone else is doing "wrong" than what oneself is doing "right" is to create a whirlpool of dilemma that is difficult to escape from.

I don't wish to be long winded about this, but just because one comes to realize a greater view of the "ways of the world," and the negativity of the implementation of such ways, does not mean that ones realization can "save" anyone else from themselves.
I think it was Gandhi who said, "If you wish change then change yourself" or words to that effect, the point is that change must occur in you for change to occur in the "external" world. The results of any such changes will be experienced first by you and then by others, through a ripple effect on the collective consciousness. Whether others amplify that ripple effect by adopting similar changes in attitude is not as important as the testing of the viability of the change in oneself.
If it doesn't work for you then how can it work for anyone else?

The use of wealth to accomplish change is a viable, though dangerous, option. To begin with, how is one supposed to produce and maintain sufficient wealth to have economic influence over a system that allows such production of wealth?
And, if one figures a way to do it, what happens after you are gone? Will the next administrator be as benevolent?
What use is wealth to a man who already has all his needs freely met?
Besides, who is richer, the man with the freedom to provide for all his needs, or the man who must buy all he needs?

In overly focusing upon how the administration of the present economic system should fix the negative aspects of itself, we run the risk of imbuing conscious responsibility for our existence to a third party "God" that we can petition when things don't go right, and ignore when they do.
It may be obvious that we are one, but if almost 7 billion "ones" are looking for third party fixes then the real power of one is ignored; oneself.
The irony is that third party control of our shared existence promotes competition for resources instead of cooperative use of them. I find that faintly amusing because only our own attitudes are responsible for this, and only our own attitudes can change it.
[/QUOTE]

]I think you have hit the nail. You have already diagonised the problem. The ultimate responsibilty lies with the good citizen. Your philosophy is shared by me too. And having invoked the Mahatma, there can be no further discussion on whom the ultimate responsibilty lies, for he is the ultimate philosopher who proved what the maxim 'practise what you preach' means.

But philosophy is not a strong point of politicians, with the exception being Gandhi himself. Politics and economics go hand in hand. Economic problems cannot be solved by economists, you need politicians to tread the difficult grounds. Politicians, those who are suceesful, more often than not choose the pragmatic way out. We are or should look for the middle path. As Buddha alluded, that extremes are fascinating but unsustainable.

Hope to hear more of your thoughts.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Hello Jack. Manufacturing chases low wage labour, the dark face of globalization we see today, which is one reason China has done so well of late. In a strong democracy, however, manufacturing is not a low-wage sector. To the contrary, democracies tend to introduce all manner of legislation to give worker/voters a leg up. This comes in the form of safety laws, labour laws, environmental laws and so on. Each of these elements raises the cost of labour in the manufacturing sector but it also enables workers to organize into unions to pursue collective bargaining.

Many in America see the power of organized labour as hugely negative. Yet it was the presence of union labour in the manufacturing sector that nourished America's once robust middle class from the 1940's through to the 1980's when outsourcing swept the land.

All of this smacks of socialism to many Americans today and they have been powerfully indoctrinated to recoil in fear at the very mention of the "S" word. Even as the gap between rich and poor races wider, even as social mobility is choked off, even as the middle class stagnates and declines, many Americans cannot grasp what lies behind that and, worse, what lies ahead if that continues unchecked.

Capitalism has achieved a religious stature to some, mainly those brought up to believe in its fantasies. For example, I, like several generations of North Americans, was raised to believe that democracy and capitalism were inseparable. Democracy was "our" political system, capitalism was "our" economic system. This was contrasted to the awful Soviet Bloc system that was anti-democratic and anti-capitalist, where there was neither freedom nor prosperity for the 'enslaved' (we loved that word) peoples of Russia and eastern Europe.

Few have remarked on it but the outsourcing tsunami of the 80's revealed something that put the myth to our cherished beliefs. We sat by and watched as our engines of capitalism got into bed with a totalitarian state and found that just dandy. The example of China has shown that capitalism positively flourishes in a totalitarian state. It enjoys the blessings of certainty, control and freedom not found in Western society with its labour laws and environmental regulations and oh so unpredictable and sometimes unruly democracy.

I believe that capitalism, as we've known it, is an endangered species. The globalization aspect of it is simply unsustainable. The quid pro quo is failing, particularly in the West which is the marketplace for outsourced manufacturing. Western nations are now discovering that they gave too much away when they voluntarily scrapped tariff and trade protections. It was a surrender of a precious element of their sovereignty and the benefits all went one way - overseas.

The mantra of capitalism is growth, a viable concept right up to the end of the 20th century. Growth, however, has lost much of its utility in the developed world and is beset by serious problems in the emerging economies such as your own.

Take your own India. The World Bank news service carried a few reports last week about India's looming freshwater crisis. The Green Revolution of the 70's brought India food security but few knew it was a ticking time bomb. Arable land was engineered to a state of hyper-productivity through the use of fertilizers, pesticides and enormous volumes of water. Now it's being found that the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides is exhausting the soil. In many places today, twice as much fertilizer is needed to maintain the same productivity.

Worse still is the water issue. There was never adequate surface moisture - rainfall mainly - and so the Green Revolution brought a voracious demand for groundwater, aquifers. The pitfall of aquifers is that while your ability to extract water is limited only by the capacity of your pumps, the ability of the aquifer to refill or "recharge" is rarely more than a small fraction of the rate we draw from it. If you draw 10X water from an aquifer but surface water trickles back in at just 1X, you're racing headlong toward a wall. From what I've read, many of India's main reservoirs are now down to 20% of their natural capacity. Any way you look at it, that's running on "empty."

There is much Indian farmers can do by way of conservation and water management but how will India meet the massive freshwater needs of modern industry? The logical answer is to price water according to market demands. That's a difficult challenge in a strong, homogeneous and relatively prosperous society. With widespread poverty that situation could quickly turn volatile.

Another, potentially fatal shortcoming of capitalism is its historic environmental blindness. One example is its history of pollution. It's great sport these days to compare 'carbon footprints' to see which nations are the dirtiest emitters, both overall and on a per capita basis. What is often overlooked is that precious resource into which the carbon is being emitted, the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a resource. There is no life without it (leave sea vents out of this). But to whom does the atmosphere belong? We all know it belongs to no one and, hence, belongs to each of us. There is a growing demand, a bottom up clamor, to have the atmosphere treated as a "commons" to which each person has an equal entitlement. And, therefore, I am entitled to be compensated for the cost/value of the emissions pumped into my share of the atmosphere.

Science, however, has taken that argument one step further. Two independent research studies have shown that the atmosphere has a rather clearly defined CO2 carrying capacity beyond which we risk runaway warming. We've already passed the halfway point. The question becomes how to apportion the rights to the remainder?

The Third World argues the remainder should be treated as a commons and allocated to each nation on a per capita basis. Angela Merkel's advisory panel, the WBGU, supports this calling it a "budget approach." It sounds fair enough, doesn't it? It sounds fair but then you realize that for the top per capita emitters such as the United States and my own Canada, it would require that we pretty much decarbonize our economies and our societies within twenty years. That would be a genuinely Herculean challenge and yet we don't have the philosophy or national ethos necessary to even attempt it. Like some Americans and their guns, we will not yield our excessive, carbon-dependent lifestyle until it's pried from our cold, dead fingers. Speaking of which, there are some who warn that is coming.

The British Ministry of Defence, the American Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have all conducted studies into global warming and the security dimensions of the problem. They're very real and could create the seismic jolt that fractures globalization. Few of us realize just how fragile globalization, the turbocharger of 21st century capitalism, truly is. In some respects it resembles a living organism dependent on the orderly functioning of a number of vital systems just as we depend on our respiratory, circulatory and nervous systems to survive.

For example, take "peak oil", the point at which the supply of oil plummets as resources are exhausted. That is tantamount to clogging the arteries of globalization that depends, ultimately, on the ability to move massive amounts of raw materials, components and products great distances at very low cost.

I suspect the main challenges of the 21st century will come from the need for climate adaptation and equitable resource allocation. This will necessitate a major rejigging of capitalism as we've known it. Capitalism will still have a dominant role but much more will be demanded of it. I believe 21st century capitalism will be more interdependent on societies and will, for its own benefit, return to its regional, rather than global, orientation. We may even witness real meaning breathed into the words "corporate citizen."

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

I would also like to thank RDRD for his wonderfully concise "thesis." Why aren't people like him in positions of power to oversee and regulate the effects of capital movement?
"Surely subsidies are indicative of socialism and what sector has been so subsidized as America's military-industrial complex? The history of contract overruns is staggering." This one quote alone speaks volumes. The amount of GDP spent by the US, and the rest of the "developed nations," to simply enforce and maintain the framework that permits economic interaction must be staggering. It is no wonder that China is used to subsidize production costs, without that cheap labor base I doubt any of us could afford all the "toys" we crave.

Jack, you said: "The directors and CEOs of companies are as much human as you and me are. Only difference is the scale at which they play with numbers is way much higher than we possibly can imagine. The momentum they have achieved falsely or rightly, inadvertently or deliberately, no single individual is at fault."
This observation may be more telling than we at first realize. It is precisely in the numbers that are being "played" with that such power of influence can be exerted and that same power of influence is bound to exert influence over the individuals themselves, driving them to seek and implement unsustainable goals (as Buddha warned).
The "answer" could be as simple as scaling back the numbers employed in the economic equations to a realistic level, and while this is relatively easy for an "ordinary" individual to do, it is obviously not a viable option for the corporate, political and military entities that are running the show.
Unfortunately the number of humans that have been produced by the economic "philosophies" employed has been in proportion to the consumption "values" of such philosophies. In the natural kingdom of life populations are self-governing via the economic "assets" at their disposal. I'm sure that if tigers used dollars to govern their economic positions they would end up consuming everything in their environment, including themselves.
I think humanity may weigh as much as 5 billion in excess of the true scale of balance that can be economically sustained by Earth. If we were truly evolved enough to realize this, then the gentle way to resolve the problem would be to allow 30 years of attrition to take care of it. This is not going to happen.
I so wish there were pragmatic ways for our leaders to realize a "better" future for our Earth and all her inhabitants, and, while my hopes are raised by persons such as yourself who are seeking these ways, the "realistic" side of my nature tells me much suffering will occur in the birth of our evolvement, it may even be still born.
These thoughts are far from "fun" for me. My sharing of them is, like the others here, in the hopes of stumbling across viable options for a sustainable future for all. But my soul keeps telling me in the final analysis the viable options will only be for some of us. The enquires proffered here tell me I am speaking to the attitudes of some of those best equipped to "survive."

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 01:43 PM ----------

The grasp RDRD has on "real" events is amazing. I cannot add, only draw from them.
One line struck a chord that mirrors a feeling of mine.
"In some respects it resembles a living organism dependent on the orderly functioning of a number of vital systems just as we depend on our respiratory, circulatory and nervous systems to survive."
The "it" being our capitalistic manner. It is behaving exactly like a malignant cancer on the Earth. I have no time to write further, but wanted to inject this here and thank him for what others may read, and the effect it may have on them.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Hi bsfree and Rdrd

I think we are fundamentally agreeing to the following:
1) Capitalism in its present form is unsustainable.
2) Human greed does show its ugly face over and over again.
3) Individuals as well as governments, including this economic phenomenon and entities called corporates cannot be relied totally for a fair and just environment for sustainable and maitainable economic systems.
4) Human experiments in conjuring good economic systems is failing the test of time.

If this be so, than my query would be, are there any fresh ideas, in public or private domain that claims to have a better system which in ultimate analysis does not harm the economic status of an individual, th efamily, the nation etc and also does no harm to the physical environment or the atmosphere which RDRd highlights is an important resource.

Now, the difficult hyposthesis is does capitalism today follow the principle endowed in social darwinism or does social democracy solve the problem of self indulgence and consumerism which is the primary driving force of capitalism.

Or, does the economic system as presently practised is a fallout of political philosophies such as unfrettered freedom and liberty.

Rdrd pointed out that democracy adds costs, and capitalism follows cheap labour. Is that the faultline? Are there contradictions in the two allegedly compactible philosophies.

Democracy allows a citizen to purchase any thing he or she wants, totalitarian regimes decides whats good for its subjects. Can the individual who has tasted freedom be relied based on his morals to refrain from enjoying the fruits of his labour or the rights of his citizenship like his human right to consume anything he so wishes.

How will a new system bring about the 'change', and 'self-regulation' as proscribed by bsfree. ?????

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jack wrote: "If this be so, than my query would be, are there any fresh ideas, in public or private domain that claims to have a better system which in ultimate analysis does not harm the economic status of an individual, the family, the nation etc and also does no harm to the physical environment or the atmosphere which RDRd highlights is an important resource."

RDRD said: "I believe 21st century capitalism will be more interdependent on societies and will, for its own benefit, return to its regional, rather than global, orientation. We may even witness real meaning breathed into the words "corporate citizen."

I think RD is correct; we came from a local level and should return if we are to move away from conglomerate influence. It may actually happen too, and could also be a "peaceful" transition if our leaders were gracious enough to allow and encourage it.
But then I'm biased to that way of thinking anyhow. I believe humans should move back to the land-----period. That they should start fending for themselves in small communities, away from the feeding frenzy encouraged by city life.
I don't see it as a step backwards at all, just the opposite. Business is an exchange of talents, so we will always conduct business together. We need not "lose" anything that technology has enabled us to do; we'll just change the focus from profit on the product to its actual usefulness in our lives. Upgrades will be worked on for 5 years instead of 5 months, and integration of competing technologies will increase their usefulness through building to a common platform of reliable, well made products.
This alone could dramatically decrease our footprint and increase the quality of life for all. But I wonder who really wants to put forth the effort and attempt to do this through our present political systems? I wonder if the populace will adopt these kinds of changes of attitude towards capitalism?
I honestly think a simple change of attitude towards life could "save" us from ourselves. All that's left to do is persuade the other 7 billion souls to think likewise!

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Through all this questioning I wonder...

Can we really agree? Once you wittle it down to what the economy should do, or education, or any philosophy, it comes down to subjective reasons. Those inescapable biases and preconceptions, some of which are instilled by today's society, and any large society, be it commies or hippies, right?

With any large group, especially entire societies, would whatever we thought was proper (IE: Sustainable) have to be force fed to children just like any other society / religion / worldview ultimately is?

Maybe that's a discussion for another thread - but I know we all have in common here, saving our subjective dreams and desires, sustainability. Is it in human nature to be sustainable, or does capitalism just exploit the negative aspects of human nature, selfishness? Is the innate desire for cooperation, a facet of a new society we also agree on, strong enough to overcome selfish desires?

Trying to turn around the Western world and it's exploited East is like trying to get an addict off of a drug, isn't it? And we can imagine how hard it is to quit a drug - especially without any external motivation, or punishment. But, without control over the addictions people have today (mass media, consumerism), how are we to convince anyone who hasn't, for some reason, asked themselves similar questions already and searched philosophy forums in Google, that the path they're headed on is suicide when they have billions who would disagree?

Would (do?) we sound like zealots, or religious fanatics basing our beliefs in our own subjective interpretations of reality and logic if we were to say what we post on these forums to a layman?

Basically, we would like to communicate to others the things we come to agree on, correct? But we would still like people to think for themselves and come to terms naturally, but I believe a catalyst is necessary. Is "living by example" the best way to communicate the difference between our value systems? Like monks Wink

1 Reply

@bmcreider,

bsfree;138050 wrote:

I wonder if the populace will adopt these kinds of changes of attitude towards capitalism?
I honestly think a simple change of attitude towards life could "save" us from ourselves. All that's left to do is persuade the other 7 billion souls to think likewise!

ha ha......... thats easy, isn't it?

Yes educating 7 billions bipeds is indeed a difficult task......... But what about educating the educated. I mean all of them. The systems are already in place. Like in the primary grades or schools all education curricullum now includes a study of envirnoment science. If the sincerity is shown, than the next generation will be more sensitive towards the cause.

I feel education is doing a fine job towards a confluence in human thought and necessary action. Si there is good hope there.

bmcreider;138103 wrote:

With any large group, especially entire societies, would whatever we thought was proper (IE: Sustainable) have to be force fed to children just like any other society / religion / worldview ultimately is?

Maybe that's a discussion for another thread - but I know we all have in common here, saving our subjective dreams and desires, sustainability. Is it in human nature to be sustainable, or does capitalism just exploit the negative aspects of human nature, selfishness? Is the innate desire for cooperation, a facet of a new society we also agree on, strong enough to overcome selfish desires?

Very good questions. Selfishness is ofcourse human nature, so was incest, cannibalism, tribal warfare, control of resources, colonialism, empire building. Therefore, our conscience also developed due to the immeasurable harm conflicts afflicted human societies. Ethics was born out of a thought process which analysed the reasons of conflict in human societies. It was horrible - the history of man. The massacres, the barbariansims, - we are not made to know, how bad human minds and actions are. We do not know 95 percent of human history. We lap up only what is shown to us, or which we can't know for sure. The animal society is a much more peaceful society than the so called civilised societies.

Can we overcome selfish desires? frankly, a difficult question to answer. I do not want to go nto psychology now, but suffice to say that humans broke away from the animal world precisley and largely due to this trait of extraordinary selfishness. The intellect is a byproduct.

bmcreider;138103 wrote:

Trying to turn around the Western world and it's exploited East is like trying to get an addict off of a drug, isn't it? And we can imagine how hard it is to quit a drug - especially without any external motivation, or punishment. But, without control over the addictions people have today (mass media, consumerism), how are we to convince anyone who hasn't, for some reason, asked themselves similar questions already and searched philosophy forums in Google, that the path they're headed on is suicide when they have billions who would disagree?

Would (do?) we sound like zealots, or religious fanatics basing our beliefs in our own subjective interpretations of reality and logic if we were to say what we post on these forums to a layman?

Addiction is a good analogy to represent the attitude of present day capitalists and consumers. (Note, both goes together). The addiction to money is worse than drug addiction, i think. Money is a silent killer. But Money is in fact an abstract entity the value of which is dependnet now on subjective interpretations of buyer and seller. Like in th ethird world a doctor who has more or an equal qualifications earns much less than a doctor in the first world. A sweeper may earn more in salary terms in a multi-billion dollar compnay in US than a doctor in Namibia.

So money, is just the fall guy, the difference lies in human mind. The society and the economic engine that it runs determines the wealth an individual may possibly have or create. So what does the Namibian doctor do? He migrates. Ethics comes out as secondary to Economics. No fault of the guy alone. It is in the nature of Man.

According to me, it all depends on the level of satisfaction a man has with himself. Democratic principles suggest that he cannot be stopped in pursuing his goals. And we need to keep those principles intact. Therefore, the only way out is to help that doctor find satisfaction in what he is doing. A simple task, but very difficult one. Religions, customs and traditions were created for this one task, but the naked body with a free mind needs constant upgrades, and hammering. It all boils down to the mind. But I will come to that later.

bmcreider;138103 wrote:

Basically, we would like to communicate to others the things we come to agree on, correct? But we would still like people to think for themselves and come to terms naturally, but I believe a catalyst is necessary. Is "living by example" the best way to communicate the difference between our value systems? Like monks ?

Living by example is perhaps the best way of communication. You are right.

RDRDRD1;137932 wrote:

I suspect the main challenges of the 21st century will come from the need for climate adaptation and equitable resource allocation. This will necessitate a major rejigging of capitalism as we've known it. Capitalism will still have a dominant role but much more will be demanded of it. I believe 21st century capitalism will be more interdependent on societies and will, for its own benefit, return to its regional, rather than global, orientation. We may even witness real meaning breathed into the words "corporate citizen."

This last para is very useful. Rejigging....... or reinventing, or readapting the systems is what we are talking about. What does i mean by 'corporate citizen', i am not sure of what it means. I have heard about so called 'civil society'........ anything similar in these concepts?

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;138141 wrote:

Therefore, the only way out is to help that doctor find satisfaction in what he is doing. A simple task, but very difficult one. Religions, customs and traditions were created for this one task, but the naked body with a free mind needs constant upgrades, and hammering. It all boils down to the mind. But I will come to that later.

I am eager to hear more whenever you feel like sharing in a new reply / thread.

0 Replies

@xris,

true , capitalisim without fore-thought will have its problems

yet it is the only political philiosophy which encourages individualism

and that is the most important aspect of capitalism , in the end

2 Replies

@north,

north;138155 wrote:

true , capitalisim without fore-thought will have its problems
yet it is the only political philiosophy which encourages individualism
and that is the most important aspect of capitalism , in the end

Thanks for bringing that important point of view, and perhaps along with freedom and liberty, individualism is a principle which needs equal perhaps a greater scrutiny as all the three works in tandem in the western philosophical frameworks.
For a start, may we know from you why individualism is so important to you?

0 Replies

@north,

north;138155 wrote:

true , capitalisim without fore-thought will have its problems

yet it is the only political philiosophy which encourages individualism

and that is the most important aspect of capitalism , in the end

I disagree that capitalism is the only political theory that encourages individualism for two reasons. First, capitalism is an economic theory, not a political theory. Second, after taking in account the first point, democratic socialist societies also promote individualism. Socialism does not equal communism. There is a major difference between what is fair and what is equal.

With this in mind, France is both democratic and socialist, and they have no issues reconciling this with capitalism and individualism considering that they are all compatible. What they do not have is a system that promotes hyper individualism like the messed up political/economic system of the United States.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Firstly I think it is important to understand that Capitalism found its philosophical base in the rennisance and enlightenment. Capitalism was and still is a system based on reason.
In a truely Laissez-Faire Capitalistic society, that is a free economy established under a government designed solely to protect its citizens from physical force and fraud, the individual is soverign. By this I mean that he is responsible for his life and ONLY his life. His success and failures rest on his shoulders. The government is not there to bail him out nor are they there to tax his success, the products of his success and lack of there fore of his failures are his to bear. He can rely on charity if need be, but ultimately if he wants to be a billionaire, he damn well better get up and start working for it.
Capitalism is what made this country, its comforts and innovations possible. It was when the influence of philosophers such as Kant began to hit American society that things shifted from a nearly free economy to a mixed economy, that is, an economy of freedoms and controls.
Freedom cannot exist chained. Individuals cannot be forced to produce, not for very long and not at all well.
As the trend continues capitalism is slowy being replaced by socialism. I read earlier that socialisim isn't bad but I can refer you to several instances in history where socialism destroys a country or in some cases nearly destroyed the world. To give a few, The Nationalized Socalists of Germany in the 30s and 40s (aka the Nazis). The totolitarian socialism of the mideast and asia. The communisim of Russia which was a catastrophic failure. (Communisim and Socialism share too much in common for me to considerthem fundamentally different. "A rose by anyother name")
People now see the results of the american economy and immediatly assume that capitalism has failed due to greed. This is an incredibly false statement. Capitalism was never given a chance. It was almost immediately born with restrictions. The inevitable collapse of the american economy is not due to Capitalism, it is due to its controls.
Someone also posted earlier that Capitalism results in laziness? This is laughably false. No where else in the world, still today, can you find a more industrious and productive people. What HAS survived the mix of controls is the work ethic americans have perhaps in some ways become famous for. While even this is on a decline it can still be seen in the work force today.
Capitalism fosters productive achievement. Just look at all the "self-made" american men from the past, whos names still survive, the things they built when it was still okay to build them. Now search the rest of the world. "Old money" any place else wasn't necessarilly earned. Hell, most european nobility (of nearly any rank) still lives on wealth they never actually made themselves, they only learned how to invest it well.
The consequence of capitalism is an EARNED living. The possibilities are endless. The only role of capitalism is freedom and the protection of its citizens and their rights. You have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, uncoerced by force or fraud.. None of these are guarantees, the only guarantee is that you will be allowed to try unlimitedly. However the controls are so deep, the socialism so ingrained now that people believe the constution was a guarantee of rights without earning them. This is the worst tragedy in american history, when its founding principals took a back seat to some of the worst ideas in history.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

CJDOUGLAS;138360 wrote:

Firstly I think it is important to understand that Capitalism found its philosophical base in the rennisance and enlightenment. Capitalism was and still is a system based on reason.
In a truely Laissez-Faire Capitalistic society, that is a free economy established under a government designed solely to protect its citizens from physical force and fraud, the individual is soverign. By this I mean that he is responsible for his life and ONLY his life. His success and failures rest on his shoulders. The government is not there to bail him out nor are they there to tax his success, the products of his success and lack of there fore of his failures are his to bear. He can rely on charity if need be, but ultimately if he wants to be a billionaire, he damn well better get up and start working for it.
Capitalism is what made this country, its comforts and innovations possible. It was when the influence of philosophers such as Kant began to hit American society that things shifted from a nearly free economy to a mixed economy, that is, an economy of freedoms and controls.
Freedom cannot exist chained. Individuals cannot be forced to produce, not for very long and not at all well.
As the trend continues capitalism is slowy being replaced by socialism. I read earlier that socialisim isn't bad but I can refer you to several instances in history where socialism destroys a country or in some cases nearly destroyed the world. To give a few, The Nationalized Socalists of Germany in the 30s and 40s (aka the Nazis). The totolitarian socialism of the mideast and asia. The communisim of Russia which was a catastrophic failure. (Communisim and Socialism share too much in common for me to considerthem fundamentally different. "A rose by anyother name")
People now see the results of the american economy and immediatly assume that capitalism has failed due to greed. This is an incredibly false statement. Capitalism was never given a chance. It was almost immediately born with restrictions. The inevitable collapse of the american economy is not due to Capitalism, it is due to its controls.
Someone also posted earlier that Capitalism results in laziness? This is laughably false. No where else in the world, still today, can you find a more industrious and productive people. What HAS survived the mix of controls is the work ethic americans have perhaps in some ways become famous for. While even this is on a decline it can still be seen in the work force today.

Well, i thank you for putting up your perspective quite candidly. Your theory sounds very good to hear. It appears to go down well, just like eating those creamy pastries that melt as soon as it is put in the mouth. But I am afraid there is more appeal to comon sense, than towards theories put forth by men.

Firstly, on an academic point, let me agree with this aspect of capitalism which results in 'Earned Living'. And you are right. The agricultural economy was largely based under this principle. Except for beggars, everyone else continued use their labour or their intellect to earn for themselves or fend for their family.

You say capitalism was never given a chance. Excuse me. You contradict yourselves by saying that initially America had a 'nearly free economy'. And later, you say until Kantian philosophy influenced somehow and controls came in.

Be what that may be for, but the great recession of the 1930s, and the Oil crisis of 1979, made America aware that a free market economy is not as rosy as it sounds. Tomorrow, imagine if the OPEC nations stops giving oil to America, imagine how steep the prizes will go up, and you will be panting heavily to catch your breath, and the laissez faire economy will go bust.

Those who sit on the comforts of chair and yet not worry about the evening dinner will at the most choose not to go down to the usual bar, but may celebrate with house stock, because the stock prize of their Oil company in which they have invested will go up.

But what happens on the street. The poor or the average guy in town will have to bear the brunt of your comfort. The crowd at large will break into the gas station rob or steal, for they too need to go to work for their everyday living, unlike the stock investor.

It is the job of the government to keep peace. It is very easy for critics, of which America has become a haven, (one book release per day on American economy, some of which are written in a mere weeks time, - and publishing houses doling out any crap is by itself a big capitalist industry today, as it seems readers are happy to buy any story with a good title or punchlines) to say that Oil prizes should not be controlled. When Oil prizes shot up to $140 per barrell in 2008, the American economy went onto dialysis.

In an energy dependent economy, whenever oil prizes goes vertically up, no government in the world can let prizes go loose. One may be living in a dream world, or he or she may have vested interest to keep on arguing on that count. At least, democracies, where governmnets are dependent on peoples vote, it is impossible. This is politics of the streets and not theory of a classroom. So lets shed this myth once and for all.

For this happennings, it is not a necessity to be influenced by Kant who i think was not an economist philosopher.

CJDOUGLAS;138360 wrote:

Capitalism fosters productive achievement. Just look at all the "self-made" american men from the past, whos names still survive, the things they built when it was still okay to build them. Now search the rest of the world. "Old money" any place else wasn't necessarilly earned. Hell, most european nobility (of nearly any rank) still lives on wealth they never actually made themselves, they only learned how to invest it well.
The consequence of capitalism is an EARNED living. .............

............ However the controls are so deep, the socialism so ingrained now that people believe the constution was a guarantee of rights without earning them. This is the worst tragedy in american history, when its founding principals took a back seat to some of the worst ideas in history.

Yes, it is true when you say, capitalism gives to productive acheivement. Thats one great thing about capitalism. I have no doubts about it. And therefore, to put it straight again, the concern shown here is not to completely do away with capitalism. At least i am not for it.

To put the record straight, I am trying find a solution to the problems of capitalism. People have an habit of taking up issues where there are no points of contention at all. But i am aware, thats how debates usually take off. But i would not like to lose focus on my main contentions (see previous post within last two days).

Capitalism and Communism in the industrial era thrived on production. When the population stabilised in the west, the use of manufacturing based economy slowly turned into service based economy. And where does service based economy thrive. It thrives on consumerism. Marketing, Advertising and Sales promotion became the primary objective of US economic drivers. The unsatiable drive of American consumers had or has a negative fallout. It created economic engines or concepts primarily responsible because of a capitalist mindset. Two examples 1) Outsourcing the manufactur of goods 2) Credit, mortage, loan industry on which banks relied upon as a profit making venture. Profit was the motive. Sole motive.

The argument here is against the idea, not the individuals. You can blame the particular banks or specific policies in explaining what went wrong, but the fact remains that it is the laisses faire economic thinking or ideas or ideology that made people to take decisions which ultimately proved detrimental to the present day American economy. Please understand.

So Capitalism is not just about production and costs, it also about consumerism. It would be an old world argument to continuosly talk about the effective production system, about innovations, about freedom of choice etc and continue to be blind to the fact that the end -product has life after it is sold. For some it became invisible after it is sold over the counter.

In fact the real story begins after the goods are sold over the counter. Economists are and were blind to the facts of what happenend after the sales book is logged for the day. They got their data, made statistics and went to bed, snoring to glory. But life is not so easy, life of a product is not a one way traffic. It is pertinent to analyse what happened to products after they were got as a raw material, processed, and sold as a finished product. Examples are galore. Pesticides, CFC gases, cannisters, now electronic goods, decaying computers and programs, the byproducts like flyash, etc had not only affected the ecology, but now has affected the economy too. The burden of wastes needs to be taken care off. And how do the so called free market economy like America or Europe get rid of the problem. They dump all their wastes into the third world economy. The ultimate damage or consequnece is on the environment and the poor.

People who have been driven by Calvinistic Determinism will not be much bothered where their **** is dumped. Excuse my wordings. But thats the fact. Facts are enlightening. It would only depend on how you want to interpret data.

Laziness is an interpretation of a newspaper or the surveyors. It is a metaphor of one of the many fallouts of a system of lifestyle pursued, as you said as an aim to pursue happiness.

It is my way of looking at it. Laziness is a symptom, a fault of crass consumerism driven by capitalistic principles. If there is no casual links than i am primarily at fault at jumping into wrong conclusions. To establish those links i need your contributions, and i would be grateful to hear more from you.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

I will gladly offer you a much more explicit contribution in the following day or two. It is late now and There is alot to cover. Thank you for your comment and your patience and I look forward to offering you my insight into the ideals behind Laissez-Faire Capitalism soon.

1 Reply

@CJDOUGLAS,

First it is important to understand that the Idea of Laissez-Faire Capitalisim is only 5 or 6 decades old and one should understand the full meaning and context of the phrase.
Laissez-Faire is a part of the french phrase "Laissez nous Faire!" Which means "Let us alone!" As the story goes a french beauracrat was touring the country, trying to jumpstart industry. He was asking what the government could do to help. This had been done previously and had lead to the decline in production. He visited a factory and upon asking, one of the workers said, "Laissez nous faire!"
The term was coined by Ayn Rand in expressing the political branch of her philosophy. A hands off aproach to capitalism where the government is limited only to defending a persons inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty, property and the persuit of happiness. No guarantees, only the right to attempt. Success is up to you.
Under the role of protector, the only branches of the government would be the police, the army and the courts. The police to protect citizens from eachother in the event that the use of physical force or fraud is enacted. The army to protect citizens from foreign threats and the courts to settle disputes objectively.
Under Laissez-faire capitalism these branches would be paid for in a number of different ways, one might be a voluntary tax, meaning that people would voluntarily pay for the services of these branches monthly for their use. Obviously large corporations and those who have alot to lose would be more than happy to pay for the service, or alternately supply their own protection. The cost of these services and the ammout of people paying for them would determine weather or not it would be possible for those who cannot afford the cost to recieve the benefit free of charge.
Another way is by charging a fee to recognize contractual agreements between business and citizens. The fee would cover all court costs, etc. and this would guarantee a hearing should someone default on the contract. You wouldn't be required by law to pay for the contract, but then there is no guarantee the government will hear your case.
How ever it runs people with a much greater understanding of government costs and economy would have to define the objective laws behind this to ensure that it was voluntary and not forced.
This is the essence of Laissez-Faire, a society absent of force.
In Laissez-Fiare there is a separation of the following, Church and State, Economy and State, Education and State, Science and State. The government would not be alowed, in any case, to interfere with any part of an individuals life unless that individual is infringing on another persons rights.
I noted that you breifly touched on ecological distress and that capitalism was to blame. However, It is important to understand that it is nonobjective laws already in place that have determined where we can dump garbage and what we can dump. These laws also determine what we can recycle and what we cannot.
While I do agree that things like over fishing, pollution etc. are harmful not only to the environment but also to human well being, it is our current system that has allowed these things to go unchecked.
Take for instance the oil crisis of the late 70s that you mentioned earlier. Several years after the crisis they had developed an electric car. Pressure groups from oil companies immediately saw the threat and rallied around law makers. The car never made production.
Even today it is difficult for car makers to produce nonpetrolium run cars. In a laissez-faire capitalistic society, an oil crisis would have prompted car makers to solve the problem.
"Oil is in limited supply, we do not control the oil supply so we need to find an alternative way to gain motive power without oil." The answer was the electric car. It would have and still can turn our dependancy on oil around. But it requires an uncoerced industry free from restriction.
Pressure groups could not exist in a free society. They would have no one to pressure into making these laws that prevent or hinder production. Interests would turn from securing investments by coersion to enhancing investments by innovation.
Yes an electric car would mean a drop in the use and there for the need for oil. Those with investments in oil would lose money as the dependancy dropped. But that is simply a consequence of progress and a smart investor would know when to cut his losses.
Another example of pressure groups can be given by discussing the birth of the rail road. At the time the government decided that the entire country should be connected by rail. A great idea, but that the time impractical.
The government offered subsidies to people in order to build these rail roads. It was tax money, not an individuals money. The stories of what occured are typical of what happens when government intervenes with the natural order of industrial expansion.
Some people took the subsidies and disappeared. Others built rail roads into places that had no need for rail at all. Others built rail and then, as was the case in California at the time, used law makers to create laws keeping other companies from competing in the industry.
Behold the birth of a monopoly. Monopolies are only made possible by government intervention. A perfect example of this in todays society would be energy companies. All are government run or government subsidized. It is nearly impossible to start a competeing energy company in any state without government backing. Anyone who has tried has failed miserably.
In a laissez-faire economy there would be no government intervention. If you didn't like the way a company ran it self, you could get in on the action. If you can out produce him, if you can create a better product more efficiently and sell it for less you will likely either make him change his tune or he will fail. Monopolies cannot exist in Laissez-Faire solely because the individual has a choice not to patronize the company. They can get their energy anywhere, provided someone else is making it. If no one is making the product they are more then welcome to start doing it themselves.
When nonobjective laws come into place that hinder production and competition, when laws are passed that set guidelines for production and hinder innovation you have stagnant industries that eventually fall apart. You get laziness and apathy. "Why do it a better way when the government inspector is only going to say its not up to code."
You call it old world to discuss innovation, but innovation is progress and innovation is what will solve the problem of waste management.
A fine example of government intervention destroying production lies in the Anti-Trust Laws. A Hazy undefined law that can be interpreted by anyone to mean anything and through history has. I encourage you to look deeper into Anti-Trust and decide for yourself.
To touch breifly on Kant. Prior to his philosophy the world was caught up in the age of reason. Science was sweeping the globe. The wolrd was progressive and alive. It was due to the ideas fostered in the Rennisance and Enlightenment that lead to the birth of America and the industrial revolution.
While Kant was not an economic philosopher, he was a metaphysical, epistemological and ethical philosopher. His philosophy was very anti-reason. When this philosophy hit the U.S., hit men who were living off of a philosophy without a solid base, they were knocked from the base they did stand on. They could not defend reason, the father of capitalism and america.
What Kant did preach was collectivism, which bread philosophers like Marx and Hegil and bore Socialism, Statism, Nationalism and Communisim. It is the anti-reason Ideas and collectivist attitude that began to destroy this country and all it stood for.
When we began to create things like welfare and social security, things that scream collectivism, is when the country began its destructive course away from capitalism and into a Socialist, Statist mixed economy.
In life a mix of something bad with something good is always going to be bad. A little poison in your food is eventually going to kill you. The same goes in a mixed economy. Freedom cannot exist with controls, Capitalism cannot exist with controls. Throw in controls and eventually capitalism is going to die. We are watching it die now.
To touch on one more poit you made about consumerisim and capitalistic ideology I would like to say that consumerisim is a consequence of capitalisim. Responsible consumerism, educated consumerism would lead to a better system.
What is truly at fault here is the lack of rational judgement, the lack of reason on the part not only of the consumers but also the producers. Rational judgement would make it much easier for those producing to determine how to create a lasting product. Rational judgement would make it much easier for those consuming to know what is good and what is bad and how to properly save and spend their money.
It is true that we live in a society that may engage in over consumption. But that is the consequence of bad epistemology and even worse metaphysics. People walk into life assuming that things will always be there without determing weather or not it may be wise to perhaps save some money or wait until the product is better and will last longer.
But again, this is the consequence of irrational judgement. When someone sees an exciting advertisement for a new product they immediately want it without evaluating the value of the product and its cost in relation to its overall quality. That is where the waste comes in and that is where the problems arise.
The issue isn't in capitalims itself. The issue is a philosophical one. Without a reason based philosophy, people are doomed to perpetuate the same mistakes. Without taking reality for what it is and using the mind to make rational judgements history will continue to repeat itself. As it has. Only each time will be worse.
For more information on Capitalisim and its philosophical base I refer you to the following sites and books.
Home — Principles of a Free Society
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_let_us_alone
"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" By Ayn Rand
"The new Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" By Ayn Rand
"The Voice of Reason" By Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand

2 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

There are catalysts in life that can have profound influences on ones mode of thought. There can be a sense of magic in how they touch our lives seemingly out of nowhere and the result of the experience can be a "eureka" moment, but is more often a "dot" connected in oneself over time, until a pattern of thought emerges that now "carries" you rather than you carrying it. In other words you have manifested yourself into a "reality" that did not exist before, at least not as far you're concerned.
You can see that this trait of attaining conscious awareness of the "external" world is common to all life, not just human, and could be thought of as the ethereal element of evolvement.
Why is it then that human manifestation of the external world is so fraught with opposing views of how life should be conducted?
Can it be simply because of the sheer number of opposing views created into existence and propagated by the social and capital "ism's"?
Can it be that the "ism's" total dependency on the power of subscription to them by "faithful" followers has brought us to a dead end, rather than the Promised Land?
We are certainly experiencing bumping into the person in front of us, as the line slows on this journey to nowhere. A journey devoid of guidance by the wisdom that the very Earth we tread on supplies all funding.
We have become so accustomed to third party methods of dependence that reliance on ourselves (personal survival) can only be achieved through the governments, businesses and religions that propagate them, which are, in reality, third party extensions of ourselves.

We are all pondering the same questions of what is the "right" way in hopes of some kind of general consensus being reached. We have "met" and will eventually depart from this meeting place. We will not forge into physical groups of anti-establishment like-minded hippies desirous of a better world, nor do I believe we want to.
The best we can achieve from this experience are a few catalytic "dots" that may help shape personal thoughts into a viable, Earthly sustainable, vision of reality for the individual. Attempts to bring such visions into the "real" world can be like introducing anti-matter to matter, such is the opposition of the established polarity of thought.

The fluidity of human nature allows for radical change to occur, but an immediate global reversal of priorities is an impossible notion for those polarized to the magnetic draw of the power of money as the only means to security.
Just as surely as the magnetic poles of the Earth will one day reverse themselves, so will the priorities of mankind, the effects of such reversals are bound to be cataclysmic and their forms only imagined.
None of this may appear to be helpful in our solution-finding quest, and I apologize for continually stating the obvious. But if truth is to light the way then courage to see what it illuminates must be found, including failings in oneself.
You guys have illustrated tremendously insightful observations of human nature, politics and economics. I have wanted to respond to many of the points raised but have been "busy" these past few days.
The interesting thing I find today is my lack of desire to take "more water" from the well; I feel I have drunk my fill for now, and must take a few more steps in my own journey.
I look forward to reading what you post at this oasis of the mind.

0 Replies

@CJDOUGLAS,

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]First it is important to understand that the Idea of Laissez-Faire Capitalisim is only 5 or 6 decades old and one should understand the full meaning and context of the phrase.[QUOTE]

If it is 5 or 6 decades old, as you say it is,....... than i am afraid it needs greater scrutiny, and would give a hard thought to it. At least the skeptics would.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]The term was coined by Ayn Rand in expressing the political branch of her philosophy. A hands off aproach to capitalism where the government is limited only to defending a persons inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty, property and the persuit of happiness. No guarantees, only the right to attempt. Success is up to you.[QUOTE]

Frankly i detest, Ayn Rand and her philosophy eulogising Objectivism and Individualism. Her ideas followed a line of thinking which presumes that Ethics is a constant, and an ideal world devoid of conflict is possible. Her theory is a culmination of a feminine thought process of a Garden of Eden - an utopia of sorts. I assume all good authors including male authors especially of classics, start from this stand point. Although i enjoyed reading her, her writing styles and characters in her fictions were very interesting. I enjoyed the luxury of indulging in reading novels during my younger times.

But today, one realises that life is not a fiction. Although metephysics seems to argue through some of its proponents and enthusiasts that it may well be one. ......hah ha.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]Under Laissez-faire capitalism these branches would be paid for in a number of different ways, one might be a voluntary tax, meaning that people would voluntarily pay for the services of these branches monthly for their use. Obviously large corporations and those who have alot to lose would be more than happy to pay for the service, or alternately supply their own protection. The cost of these services and the ammout of people paying for them would determine weather or not it would be possible for those who cannot afford the cost to recieve the benefit free of charge.
Another way is by charging a fee to recognize contractual agreements between business and citizens. The fee would cover all court costs, etc. and this would guarantee a hearing should someone default on the contract. You wouldn't be required by law to pay for the contract, but then there is no guarantee the government will hear your case.
How ever it runs people with a much greater understanding of government costs and economy would have to define the objective laws behind this to ensure that it was voluntary and not forced.
This is the essence of Laissez-Faire, a society absent of force.[QUOTE]

What a rosy picture you paint. I would have loved if it was possible, as the theory suggests it should be. According to MHO, there cannot be a society absent of force. Philosophers and authors should read history before proposing any drastic changes in economic systems.

Although i can understand that what you have written is basically a broad framework of the economic system within which a Laissez Faire society is supposed to function, i am sorry to say that it is not possible for reasons given below. The examples has many flaws.

1) Voluntary payment of taxes can happen in small nations, groups or village towns. Disparity in income, education, livelihood skills and techniques will contradict the feasibility of such arrangements, and absence of provisions under law.

2) large corporations will very well pay to protect their own interests, but would petty, small and medium businesse pay voluntarily, is the question. And what about daily wage earners, housewifes, and the labour class which i presume forms the bulk of the tax net. Sorry, such a strong ethical community of voluntary tax payers does not exist in large nations and countries. It may exist only on paper. It is not a viable option.

3) On contractual agreements, whereever it is not registered on payment of fees, unconstitional authorities will rise like the Mafia to resolve conflict of interests, Italy and In US itslef Chicago are good examples. To leave it to choice, which individualism proposes, will create anarchy in society.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]In Laissez-Fiare there is a separation of the following, Church and State, Economy and State, Education and State, Science and State. The government would not be alowed, in any case, to interfere with any part of an individuals life unless that individual is infringing on another persons rights.[QUOTE]

If the state does not oversee Formal Education, there will not be any State.

If the state does not regulate economy, there will not be any state.

If the state doesnot regulate science there will be an Army of Clones.

And, may i ask, on whose authority and might would the 'govt will not be allowed' to interfere. No unjust governments have survived long. So the question does not arise. In normal circumstances in democracies like in US, Canada, Europe and in India, individual rights are not trampled upon as easily as it is been shown to for the sake of arguments. Universal suffrage, rotational system of governement, legislative apparatus, and judicial bodies creat enough checks and balances to safegaurd the basic human rights.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]I noted that you breifly touched on ecological distress and that capitalism was to blame. However, It is important to understand that it is nonobjective laws already in place that have determined where we can dump garbage and what we can dump. These laws also determine what we can recycle and what we cannot.
While I do agree that things like over fishing, pollution etc. are harmful not only to the environment but also to human well being, it is our current system that has allowed these things to go unchecked.[QUOTE]

Unchecked!.........., and you propose that laissez-Faire system will 'CHECK' the problem of pollution and overfishing. Can you guanratee that it will never happen. If so, by what means?
At least, i am glad to hear that a Laisez-Faire system has inbulit exceptions for 'garbage dumping laws' to be effective. Any scope for punitive punishments or is it a civil offense?

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]Take for instance the oil crisis of the late 70s that you mentioned earlier. Several years after the crisis they had developed an electric car. Pressure groups from oil companies immediately saw the threat and rallied around law makers. The car never made production.
Even today it is difficult for car makers to produce nonpetrolium run cars. In a laissez-faire capitalistic society, an oil crisis would have prompted car makers to solve the problem.
"Oil is in limited supply, we do not control the oil supply so we need to find an alternative way to gain motive power without oil." The answer was the electric car. It would have and still can turn our dependancy on oil around. But it requires an uncoerced industry free from restriction.
Pressure groups could not exist in a free society. They would have no one to pressure into making these laws that prevent or hinder production. Interests would turn from securing investments by coersion to enhancing investments by innovation.[QUOTE]

In a world after WTO, and globalisation, even that excuse has gone. It was in 1996 or so when WTO was created. Even if i believe your story, that production of electric cars are restricted by US governement policies, what stops others in Japan & other countries to produce the same.

Sir, this is not the story. The story of electric cars have not taken off because of the simple reasons like its cost viability, technical viability, end-user friendly constraints, and other technical factors like speed etc. Even if all can be managed in future, and that may turn out to be advantageous to the environment, perhaps, but, however to blame the economic system for electric car nonavailability/failure to run on roads as expected has nothing to do with restrictive laws.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]Another example of pressure groups can be given by discussing the birth of the rail road. At the time the government decided that the entire country should be connected by rail. A great idea, but that the time impractical.
The government offered subsidies to people in order to build these rail roads. It was tax money, not an individuals money. The stories of what occured are typical of what happens when government intervenes with the natural order of industrial expansion.
Some people took the subsidies and disappeared. Others built rail roads into places that had no need for rail at all. Others built rail and then, as was the case in California at the time, used law makers to create laws keeping other companies from competing in the industry.[QUOTE]

And so, subsidies or governement funds are bad ideas. A deficit in expenditure and revenue is also bad. So goes the theory. Your example demonstrates how businesses are not any better than individuals who run away with subsidy without giving anything back. It is corruption of moral values. If the people are currupt, so also will be the government.

Here, one should agree that socialistic policies sucks more out of the system in terms of mony and resources than a capitalistic one. The cost of resource management is highly skewed and drains out the nations bourses - a fallout seen in the esrtwhile Soviet Union, a economic reason for its eventual collapse.

But I wonder how laisez faire economy will run a Rail Network where there are no profits. ????

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]Behold the birth of a monopoly. Monopolies are only made possible by government intervention. A perfect example of this in todays society would be energy companies. All are government run or government subsidized. It is nearly impossible to start a competeing energy company in any state without government backing. Anyone who has tried has failed miserably.
In a laissez-faire economy there would be no government intervention. If you didn't like the way a company ran it self, you could get in on the action. If you can out produce him, if you can create a better product more efficiently and sell it for less you will likely either make him change his tune or he will fail. Monopolies cannot exist in Laissez-Faire solely because the individual has a choice not to patronize the company. They can get their energy anywhere, provided someone else is making it. If no one is making the product they are more then welcome to start doing it themselves.[QUOTE]

Where do you think the resources of energy-production comes from. Who owns resources like water, coal, wind, tides, oil? If the answer is Governement, than by the principle of Laissez faire theory the government has every right to get the profit for itslef, impose whatever rules are necessary on behalf of the people and in the interest of the people.

Talking about monopolies, have you heard about 'cartelisation'?

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]When nonobjective laws come into place that hinder production and competition, when laws are passed that set guidelines for production and hinder innovation you have stagnant industries that eventually fall apart. You get laziness and apathy. "Why do it a better way when the government inspector is only going to say its not up to code."
You call it old world to discuss innovation, but innovation is progress and innovation is what will solve the problem of waste management.
A fine example of government intervention destroying production lies in the Anti-Trust Laws. A Hazy undefined law that can be interpreted by anyone to mean anything and through history has. I encourage you to look deeper into Anti-Trust and decide for yourself. [QUOTE]

I do not want to be bogged down by specific laws etc. If there is a flaw, rectify it.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]To touch breifly on Kant. Prior to his philosophy the world was caught up in the age of reason. Science was sweeping the globe. The wolrd was progressive and alive. It was due to the ideas fostered in the Rennisance and Enlightenment that lead to the birth of America and the industrial revolution.
While Kant was not an economic philosopher, he was a metaphysical, epistemological and ethical philosopher. His philosophy was very anti-reason. When this philosophy hit the U.S., hit men who were living off of a philosophy without a solid base, they were knocked from the base they did stand on. They could not defend reason, the father of capitalism and america.
What Kant did preach was collectivism, which bread philosophers like Marx and Hegil and bore Socialism, Statism, Nationalism and Communisim. It is the anti-reason Ideas and collectivist attitude that began to destroy this country and all it stood for.
When we began to create things like welfare and social security, things that scream collectivism, is when the country began its destructive course away from capitalism and into a Socialist, Statist mixed economy.
In life a mix of something bad with something good is always going to be bad. A little poison in your food is eventually going to kill you. The same goes in a mixed economy. Freedom cannot exist with controls, Capitalism cannot exist with controls. Throw in controls and eventually capitalism is going to die. We are watching it die now.[QUOTE]

I like your Logic........ now i know, America practised capitalism in the book while it was infact into a Socialist, Statist mixed economy.??

I also now come to reason why George Bush took days to take any effective action when Katherina devasted an american coast and city like never before.

According to the principles of Laissez Faire, the poor will die for the deserve to die since they have not fended against the wind and elements. However, it was heartenning to see George Bush Jr eventually reach New Orleans because as a believer his conscience would not have permitted him not to intervene.

I wonder what does Bush think of a Laisez Faire economy? Suppose SARS
virus hits America, wonder who should come to rescue whom. Rescue operation costs money, does it not? What about emergency services???

Just to disclaim a point, i would like to stress that i am not for controls. Controls is a very strong word, dirty in some circles, and notorious in other circles. I do not see anything wrong in a regulatory authority. The free reign of men are over. laisez faire economy is a flawed concept. It is a fairy tale. I intent to substantiate it in later submissions.

[QUOTE=CJDOUGLAS;138679]To touch on one more poit you made about consumerisim and capitalistic ideology I would like to say that consumerisim is a consequence of capitalisim. Responsible consumerism, educated consumerism would lead to a better system.
What is truly at fault here is the lack of rational judgement, the lack of reason on the part not only of the consumers but also the producers. Rational judgement would make it much easier for those producing to determine how to create a lasting product. Rational judgement would make it much easier for those consuming to know what is good and what is bad and how to properly save and spend their money.
It is true that we live in a society that may engage in over consumption. But that is the consequence of bad epistemology and even worse metaphysics. People walk into life assuming that things will always be there without determing weather or not it may be wise to perhaps save some money or wait until the product is better and will last longer.
But again, this is the consequence of irrational judgement. When someone sees an exciting advertisement for a new product they immediately want it without evaluating the value of the product and its cost in relation to its overall quality. That is where the waste comes in and that is where the problems arise.
The issue isn't in capitalims itself. The issue is a philosophical one. Without a reason based philosophy, people are doomed to perpetuate the same mistakes. Without taking reality for what it is and using the mind to make rational judgements history will continue to repeat itself. As it has. Only each time will be worse.[QUOTE]

I like your appeal to reason. But reason and rational also makes me wonder whether rational judgement will come to people by way of books like 'How to buy a product for dummies'; Can laisez-faire economy make people to buy 'rational judgement' from book stores?
There is a huge contradiction when you say education consumerism will solve those problems of over-consumption. Please tell me who is going to educate them. You have already ruled out governemnt or any governemnt intervention. Now, to understand consumer laws, affairs and its philosophy of how not to or what to consume, a citizen need study or educate himslef by paying for class advertised as 'COME LEARN ABC OF CONSUMPTION: ONLY $100 A SESSION'. thats the implication of your proposition.

Come On. Piece-Meal Economic anecdotes and example cannot solve the problem of over-consumption in a vast economic system where the driver are multi-faceted and multi-pronged.

The assumption that every individual in a society has the capacity to take rational decisions, to be educated, to be self suffficient and moneyed enough to have contractual agreements, voluntarily pay taxes, and have their own security personnals is as like in dream where everything is abstract.

There is a small world theory and there is a island man theory....... it is all theoretical. We need to look for practical solutions, not laboratory solutions.
This is the problem i see with Ayn Rand philosophy. It is nothing personal. The high pedestal it puts the individual to follow ethics belies Reason, and disregards true human behaviour, history and ecology. Please Reason it out.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

I used to love Ayn Rand, for a time. Near election time, I picked up and read Atlas Shrugged. It was a well written book that made some very good points.

The problem is, like Jack said, is that it paints too rosy a picture. Ayn Rand felt bad about herself at times for not living up to her own standards, the standards she employed in characters like John Galt. The men of reason, and of power. I, honestly, cannot think of many men like John Galt - probably none exist. There are men, like Bill Gates, who rise to the occasion, but ask Steve Jobs how he got there.

On paper, in her books, her ideas work. In the real world, someone looking to make money is going to look for ways to secure it in proportion to the amount they have. Capitalists on the way up, Socialists on the way down IIRC is the saying.

But if any of these "isms" run into their own brick walls soon enough, or become corrupted in a matter of time, what is a sustainable solution? Is the problem that we always have to be moving forward in a linear path, and thus, we exploit others or our world to do it? But does that mean we should just stop trying to "get ahead" and stop trying to make more "conveniences" for living? Have we gotten away from natural human existence with every new incarnation of technology? But, isn't technology and the use of tools, questions and answers, language even, what we have evolved to do?

It seems the more we use our brain, the more we think up new ways to use something, the more human we are - the closer to extinction we get. Or, at least, that's the picture as it seems to be painted.

Does any country, any political philosophy, any economic philosophy, have it right? Does absolute truth exist, as any proponent of any one system claims there's is?

1 Reply

@bmcreider,

To start, No, Life is not a fiction. Nor have I met an objectivist who believed so. While I can see why one may think that objectivists see the world through rose colored glasses, I would have to correct you by saying that this isn't the case. What objectivists believe that gives this appearance is that the natural state of man is happiness. That rational judgment and a solid ethic will necessarilly breed a life where suffering is not the norm, as it isn't but rather a consequence of thought in action. (As much as happiness, achievement and a horde of other things are the consequence of thought in action.)

In terms of absolute truth, a proper philosophy etc. I believe there is absolute truth. Than any other kind of truth isn't the truth. This "whats true today isn't going to be true tomorrow, or whats true for you isn't true for me" foolishness undercuts the absolute truth of metaphysics. Reality is real, things are what they are. Things can change yes, but opinions are not metaphysical fact and should the metaphysical change in some way, by either natural or man made means, it has changed. But that doesn't mean that it isn't what it was or isn't now what it is.

To Jack: You suggest that without government overseeing various things I listed there would be no state. That is the point. There is no need for a beaurocrat with no experience in education to tell schools how to raise children. People wonder why the US is not doing better in education. This is the root of the problem.

While it may be easy to say then, how can you be sure in a laissez-faire govt. that private education will not necessarilly be worse, the answer begins and ends in having a rational philosophy. Our intelectual atmosphere needs to change before our economics can change and education can change. If a school under laissez faire is bad, no one is stopping you from changing schools or starting your own. If there is only one school in a community, why couldn't the community band together to start their own school, better than the other one?

Charity can and does exist in a Laissez-Faire Govt. Laissez Fiare does not mean get yours and screw everyone else. An ethical base wouldn't allow for that. You give the example of Katrina and GW Jr. as an example of Laissez-faire dropping the ball on human suffering and the poor. But we do not live in a purely Laissez-Faire govt. It is more akin to socialism.

GW Jr. was an avowed mystic besides. He possessed, as far as I can tell, no rational judgement at all. The man believed that god spoke to him...need I say more? He treated the economy like a party favor and is in part responsible for our current recession.

GW Jr. dropped the ball because he was more interested in helping his friends than doing a good job. When it came time to "pony up" as he would say, his friends, who had no relevant experience in the jobs he had appointed them to, floundered and caused a huge mess.

I followed the story for a time and there were regular people who wanted to help, Lines of trucks carrying supplies that wanted to get in and help. The National Guard wouldn't allow these people access. Again, I stress that Chairty can exist in any society. But that should be left to the individual to decide. Not the government. If the individual decides, then great, they shouldn't be kept from doing it.

While I agree that a government should provide checks and balances to safe guard human rights, I do not think that food is a RIGHT, nor do I think that money is a RIGHT, or housing a RIGHT. A system that begins to base its legislature on self-sacrifice inevitably enslaves it population and creates things like Drug dealers living off welfare. (I live in an area where this and a great many other terrible things occur at the expense of the tax payer so take care in suggesting that these are theories or hear say.)

Where does all this leave the poor? It leaves them to voluntary charity. If none is available then yes, they starve. The natural consequence of any other creature in the world who chooses laziness over productive work. If it is cercumstance that cannot be helped, I couldn't see there not being someone who wouldn't be willing to help. But the individual shouln't be expected the carry around parasitic moochers who have no interest in earning their livelyhood.

In terms of energy control, the government does not own all natural resources. The individual owning the property owns the resources that are on that property and should be alowed to dispose of them as they see fit. In terms of things like the air and the ocean, no one can own those things. Man cannot live in the ocean or in the air and so he should have no real vested interest anyhow. In terms of energy and resources, yes I agree that there should be regulations, but not government ones. A company that fishes it self out of business is irrational and self destructive. It would be in the best interest of the companies not only to be conservative but to also find new ways to not only replenish stock but perhaps find a way to change the industry. Like they are starting to do now with fish farms.

While it seems far fetched I suppose a market for teaching consumers could and likely to some degree already does exist. In Laissez-Faire it would be up to the consumer to educate themselves. Either learn the proper way or squander your living. Either way is fine and either way has consequences. But it isn't the governments problem nor anyone elses how you decided to spend your money and when you wind up broke, no one should have to foot the bill for your irresponsibility. Learn by educating yourself, or learn trial by fire. Either way...

In terms of the philosophy of Objectivisim belying reason and disregarding "true human nature" I would have to say this is a false assumption or ascertation. Human nature is a consequence of ideas. We are the only creatures capable of the type of rational thought that we exude. That comes with a specific nature only to certain degrees. We do not possess the instinctual life skills that animals do. We LEARN them. You learn and deal with reality by way of reason. Objectivists, myself included are staunch advocates of reason. No where have I ever seen anything to the contrary. (Unless you refer to the TOC)

While you may aruge that genetics predisposes us to certain kinds of behavior, I would argue that the same feild also shows that this is a consequence of choices made by the parents throught life and choices made by the individual throught their life. Rational or Irrational, better or worse. (I don't recognize any type of mystical approach to this as anything but arbitrary so understand that arguments of that kind would be ignored. Nothing personal.)

The issue of overconsumption is ultimately a metaphyiscal one. People ingnore the fact that resources exist in a static quantity and assume that they will always be there and so consume to their hearts desire. Americans are seing the error of that thinking now. A shift in our intelectual atmosphere is necessary before we can truly discuss radical economic change. Reason is the guide and can only be the guide. Anything else has proven disasterous.

P.S. Capitalists wouldn't build a rail road where no prophits exist. It would be an impractical waste of resources.

TO BM:
But if any of these "isms" run into their own brick walls soon enough, or become corrupted in a matter of time, what is a sustainable solution? Is the problem that we always have to be moving forward in a linear path, and thus, we exploit others or our world to do it? But does that mean we should just stop trying to "get ahead" and stop trying to make more "conveniences" for living? Have we gotten away from natural human existence with every new incarnation of technology? But, isn't technology and the use of tools, questions and answers, language even, what we have evolved to do?

The solution and answer to all these questions is reason. Weather capitalism is the right choice or not, reason and practice will ultimately determine this. I do not think we should stop progressing, I think we should stop progressing irresponsibly. It can be done without exploitation of others for certain.

What is it you mean by "Natural Human Existence"? Do you refer to the primative man? If so I have no interest. I would rather live now and live to be seventy or eighty, possibly older, than go back and only live into my early or late teens. We did evolve to those things and so we should continue, but do it rationally and responsibly. Otherwise we will inevitably destroy ourselves.

It is our lack of thought in progressing that gets us into trouble.

In the words of Leonard Peikoff, "To save the world, is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think." I couldn't agree more.

0 Replies

A consequence of capitalism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know