The morality of capitalism

[canacan]

" To be truly ignorant, be content with your own knowledge.”

― Zhuangzi

 

" You know nothing, John Snow."

― Game of Thrones

 

Morality and capitalism, seriously?

[canacan]

@Karl - Empty isn't bad. Otherwise I'd be pointing errors of yours by dozens every line, thus proclaiming hundreds of new truths that would be roughly as incomplete and wrong. More would lead to even more. And in the end the point would be entirely hidden. Being civil we'd agree to disagree and neither you, nor me, nor readers would gain a single thing. Doubt is much stronger... I took your arguments and, even though I don't adhere to your point, they enrich me, you could just as well be enriched by my doubts... But this is your choice, not mine.

Edited September 16, 2015 by canacan

[Karl]

" To be truly ignorant, be content with your own knowledge.”

― Zhuangzi

" You know nothing, John Snow."

― Game of Thrones

Morality and capitalism, seriously?

 

Interesting that first quote. I shall use that as a great example of a logical fallacy created as the rhetoric of one who wishes to control others. It is not that far removed to "don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". In other words You are ignorant if you do not listen to what I say. Open your mind to my rhetoric and put away any defences because they will make you ignorant".

 

Morality and Capitalism is a counter to immorality and collectivism.

[Karl]

@Karl - Empty isn't bad. Otherwise I'd be pointing errors of yours by dozens every line, thus proclaiming hundreds of new truths that would be roughly as incomplete and wrong. More would lead to even more. And in the end the point would be entirely hidden. Being civil we'd agree to disagree and neither you, nor me, nor readers would gain a single thing. Doubt is much stronger... I took your arguments and, even though I don't adhere to your point, they enrich me, you could just as well be enriched by my doubts... But this is your choice, not mine.

 

I can't be enriched by anything that you don't argue coherently. Posting a few quotes and ad hominems in the hope of proving me ignorant doesn't create any new insights. At most it invites retaliation.

 

 

[canacan]

I can't be enriched by anything that you don't argue coherently. Posting a few quotes and ad hominems in the hope of proving me ignorant doesn't create any new insights. At most it invites retaliation.

 

I am sorry I am so blatantly unable to assist you so far. I couldn't care less about proving you ignorant. Everybody is. And proofs are of no use in reveling ignorance or knowledge.

 

Be it taken as a philosophy, a spirituality, a science or physical practices, this is a Daoist forum. Some basic teachings are common to all these acceptions of Dao.

[Karl]

I am sorry I am so blatantly unable to assist you so far. I couldn't care less about proving you ignorant. Everybody is. And proofs are of no use in reveling ignorance or knowledge.

 

Be it taken as a philosophy, a spirituality, a science or physical practices, this is a Daoist forum. Some basic teachings are common to all these acceptions of Dao.

 

The refuge of the ignorant. I take it that you have no answers or relevant arguments to a thread in the 'off topic' part of the forum specifically titled 'the morality of capitalism'.

 

By all means slink off into your mystic mindset, but perhaps you could engage in other threads which specifically cater to your bias ?

[canacan]

Interesting that first quote. I shall use that as a great example of a logical fallacy created as the rhetoric of one who wishes to control others. It is not that far removed to "don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". In other words You are ignorant if you do not listen to what I say. Open your mind to my rhetoric and put away any defences because they will make you ignorant".

I am amazed.

Morality and Capitalism is a counter to immorality and collectivism.

Marxism is about capital just like Capitalism. They are not very different. Non of them is intrinsically moral by the way.

 

Capitalism only seemed to tolerate spirituality for a little longer.

 

Now, amorality is the absence of morality, immorality is morality twisted in a mirror. So maybe your sentence makes perfect sense.

 

Morality and capital are next to morality and capital. Indeed. Though it doesn't say much.

 

And I may be wrong. (... and don't care, because I'll change my mind again a hundred times)

[canacan]

The refuge of the ignorant.

You flatter me. But truely I can't pretend to be that wise... Far from it.

By all means slink off into your mystic mindset, but perhaps you could engage in other threads which specifically cater to your bias ?

I have no mystic mindset. That's one of the acceptions of Daoism I am less at home with.

 

Cater to my bias? ... No idea.

[Karl]

I am amazed.

 

Marxism is about capital just like Capitalism. They are not very different. Non of them is intrinsically moral by the way.

 

Capitalism only seemed to tolerate spirituality for a little longer.

 

Now, amorality is the absence of morality, immorality is morality twisted in a mirror. So maybe your sentence makes perfect sense.

 

Morality and capital are next to morality and capital. Indeed. Though it doesn't say much.

 

And I may be wrong. (... and don't care, because I'll change my mind again a hundred times)

 

You might be wrong, but that's far better than the punch in the face you were delivering previously.

 

First we need to define morality. Morality is a self imposed code by which a man lives. That code is a choice and it is reasoning that produces it. If there is no choice, if man is born good or evil by some other determination then there is no morality because there is no choice. Therefore, like a robot, a man would be amoral. Immorality is the act of not living by ones own moral codes and by choice acting outside of them. A psychopathic killer might be regarded as immoral, but if they are not acting outside of their moral codes then that is not an apt description.

 

Capitalism is really only man acting voluntarily to produce and consume without coercion and with free will to choose a moral course. If the free will is replaced with coercion as it nominally would be in a Marxist society-or any collectivist society including our modern western neo-liberal/conservative cronyism, then the free will aspect and voluntarism is removed. Now man has to adapt and is often forced to violate his code in order to live in the more controlled paradigm. He has been forced to obey another persons morality and not his own.

[Karl]

You flatter me. But truely I can't pretend to be that wise... Far from it.

 

I have no mystic mindset. That's one of the acceptions of Daoism I am less at home with.

 

Cater to my bias? ... No idea.

 

Well, let's see how it goes. I promised you a reaction :-)

 

Interesting that you say you do not have a mystic mindset with regard to Daoism. I would say that few here fit that description and your response certainly seemed to be along those lines. How does a non-mystic cope with Daoist philosophy-funnily enough I don't think The Dao- as I read it-gets into mysticism at all, but I suspect I'm in a minority and would be castigated for my lack of understanding of the 'true way of the Dao'.

[dust]

There are no laws to prevent nepotism why would there be ?

 

Aren't you against cronyism? Nepotism, cronyism, very much the same. They don't disappear with the government.

 

 

Education doesn't determine success. Many entrepreneurs, inventors and scientists had no formal education at all. There needs to be equal opportunity without a requirement for state sanctioned qualifications. It's noteable that a poem written by a six year old girl working down the coal mines prior to the start of state education in the UK, and the daughter of a poor mine worker, was able to produce a written piece of work with perfect spelling and grammar.

 

Rich families regularly become poor one generation after being blindingly succesful. The number of companies that go to the wall due to the sons or daughters taking charge is very high. Those businesses were quite likely started by people who had nothing to begin with.

 

Education does determine success, to a large degree. Not entirely, we will always be able to find exceptions, but by and large the people I know who had a private education have been far more (academically and economically) successful than those who went to a state school.

 

I find it hard to believe that in a school system run entirely privately, a greater gap would not develop between rich and poor.

 

 

A less educated/skilled worker has at least the option of selling his labour for less and thereby undercutting the more skilled worker. That's how markets work, we don't all buy Rolls Royces do we. This gives the less skilled worker a competetive advantage to gain employment and then improve his skill set to obtain a higher price for his labour. He will of course have to compete with the same undercutting by the less skilled.

 

True.

 

 

 

Actually an 'economy' is a state manipulated system, there is no such thing in a totally free market. Only the state talks about 'its economy' if the state didn't exist we would only talk about economics and the market. People have tried manipulating semi free markets and come unstuck. Standard oil is a good example. The company tried to create and control a Cartel but someone always tried side dealing. This is what's funny in a free market, those that try and firm monopolies in a corrupt sense soon discover that the same corruption they had employed to try and create the monopoly eventually destroys it. The only way to keep a monopoly going is with the consent of a Government which will force the actors to remain loyal through the coercive application of force. Indeed this is precisely how Nazi Germany and Soviet Rissia worked. The businesses were run by the state completely and the owners, managers and workers told what, where and how. No competition arose in these states.

 

Economy or economic system refers to the production, trade, and consumption of goods between agents.

 

If I farm and you build and sew, we have shelter, clothes, and food to eat. We have formed an economy of two. Given the right circumstances, one of us can easily manipulate the other.

 

 

 

Yes, governments and their crony warfare, welfare providers like wars and poverty. The only option is to get rid, or minimise the state in such a way as it could not engage in these pursuits. This was the idea of the U.S. Constitution which stated 'no foreign entanglements'. Now the U.S. President- since 9/11-has had a deep state second Government (CoG) which is in a state of continuous emergency allowing foreign intervention without the need to debate the requirement for war through Congress. Obama can declare a war unilaterally on anything, but worse, the CoG has the power to enact any laws or actions it chooses without consultation with the constitutionally elected Government.

 

There will always be someone who benefits from war, no?

 

 

 

I don't imagine this answers everything to your satisfaction, it's easier to tackle one part of the subject at a time and devote space to discussing it more fully.

 

To be honest, I agree with you to a large extent. I've left parts of your response out because I feel no need to argue with them any longer.

 

My opinion (as someone influenced greatly by Daoism) is that people should be left free to do what they like -- as long as they're not harming others. A free market is indeed a part of that. Indeed, I've read (on Wikipedia, so I don't know how true it is) that the original proponents of laissez faire were influenced greatly by the concept of wu wei.

 

I was, though, not really impressed by the video or its assertions. I do not think it does a very good job. But I am happier with some of your answers.

[thelerner]

So.. the actual policies you'd want..

 

No minimum wage.

Ending medicaid and medicare

No regulations.. on businesses- food? medicine?  on banks? on business?  on environment?

Are you for tariffs or more protectionist?

In your ideal, does the government provide education, build roads, police, rails..

 

 

 

 

there are some countries that do those things now but they're not exactly ideal

[Karl]

Aren't you against cronyism? Nepotism, cronyism, very much the same. They don't disappear with the government.

 

 

 

 

Education does determine success, to a large degree. Not entirely, we will always be able to find exceptions, but by and large the people I know who had a private education have been far more (academically and economically) successful than those who went to a state school.

 

I find it hard to believe that in a school system run entirely privately, a greater gap would not develop between rich and poor.

 

 

 

 

True.

 

 

 

 

 

Economy or economic system refers to the production, trade, and consumption of goods between agents.

 

If I farm and you build and sew, we have shelter, clothes, and food to eat. We have formed an economy of two. Given the right circumstances, one of us can easily manipulate the other.

 

 

 

 

 

There will always be someone who benefits from war, no?

 

 

 

 

 

To be honest, I agree with you to a large extent. I've left parts of your response out because I feel no need to argue with them any longer.

 

My opinion (as someone influenced greatly by Daoism) is that people should be left free to do what they like -- as long as they're not harming others. A free market is indeed a part of that. Indeed, I've read (on Wikipedia, so I don't know how true it is) that the original proponents of laissez faire were influenced greatly by the concept of wu wei.

 

I was, though, not really impressed by the video or its assertions. I do not think it does a very good job. But I am happier with some of your answers.

 

Just picking up on two points. Yes I'm against cronyism, but neither cronyism or nepotism can function without government blessing. At least I should add the caveat 'successfully' in the case of nepotism. Cronyism requires the state to privilege a business so it's hard to see how that could happen without government.

 

Private education invariably leads to better outcomes, but often this is not only because of the subject matter, but the delivery. Private students are taught the art of debate, proper diction, social interaction and often have networks of other people close to the reigns of power. This gives them a tremendous advantage over state educated students-no doubt about that at all.

[Karl]

So.. the actual policies you'd want..

 

No minimum wage.

Ending medicaid and medicare

No regulations.. on businesses- food? medicine?  on banks? on business?  on environment?

Are you for tariffs or more protectionist?

In your ideal, does the government provide education, build roads, police, rails..

 

 

 

 

there are some countries that do those things now but they're not exactly ideal

 

No minimum wage for certain as it destroys opportunity for those who have less skills or are less employable. It is one of the few things they have in their armoury- to undercut everyone else.

No tariffs, subsidies or protectionism.

The Government would provide any education, roads etc. that would all be private-as indeed it once was.

 

I've left regulation/Medicaid off that list, as you are really implying something that isn't true. Laws and rules can spring from the market as long as there are clear property rights and protection. Charities would deal with those people who fell through the net medically or otherwise-a lot of people regard charities as not being proper businesses, but they operate as any other business does by providing something that people wish to pay for.

 

It must be remembered that the West is highly advanced. We aren't Somalia, we have grown up with a high level of technical sophistication and wealth. We aren't running around in gangs because we recognise it isn't efficient-except for the ultimate gang of course which is the Government/state.

 

It's also not important to lay out exactly how much, where or what will come of operating a free market sans government. It isn't up to me to try and create a communist style state in which every detail is worked out, instead it is the market that will do that. Wether we have no government, some governance, the type and geography of that governance has to emerge from the need to stop what we are currently doing and starting to liberate people.

[canacan]

How does a non-mystic cope with Daoist philosophy-funnily enough I don't think The Dao- as I read it-gets into mysticism at all, but I suspect I'm in a minority and would be castigated for my lack of understanding of the 'true way of the Dao'.

We seem to be on the same boat on this.

 

Sorry I don't answer more on the rest for now. Lot of things to do today. In time, we may learn to understand each other better. Answering line for line seems pointless to me right now.

[thelerner]

No minimum wage for certain as it destroys opportunity.. It must be remembered that the West is highly advanced. We aren't Somalia, we have grown up with a high level of technical sophistication and wealth. We aren't running around in gangs because we recognise it isn't efficient-except for the ultimate gang of course which is the Government/state.

I'd argue we're advanced we developed a strong middle class.  All your life you've enjoyed the hard won fruits of the union reforms, from 5 day work week, minimum wages and safer work conditions.  So much so you take it for granted.

 

We aren't running in gangs because we have choices.  People in gangs often don't.  They're born into poverty and stay there.  We're living in an era where people need 2 jobs in order to make it.  Living on $7.50 an hour keeps you poverty and means the government ends up throwing in extra cash to keep people afloat.  That doesn't mean it should it should $100 or even $15, but it means it should rise somewhat along with inflation so working people can thrive, cause when they do society as a whole thrives.

 

Your enemy is government, but I doubt you'd want to live in a place without it.  But as an experiment, perhaps you should. 

 

I've written about good anarchic places in the Anarchy thread, heck I'm a Burner and enjoy such places.  But I argue they get that way due to strong community activism and policing, ie exile if you break enough rules or piss off enough people.  Society en masse can't do that. 

[Karl]

I'd argue we're advanced we developed a strong middle class.  All your life you've enjoyed the hard won fruits of the union reforms, from 5 day work week, minimum wages and safer work conditions.  So much so you take it for granted.

 

We aren't running in gangs because we have choices.  People in gangs often don't.  They're born into poverty and stay there.  We're living in an era where people need 2 jobs in order to make it.  Living on $7.50 an hour keeps you poverty and means the government ends up throwing in extra cash to keep people afloat.  That doesn't mean it should it should $100 or even $15, but it means it should rise somewhat along with inflation so working people can thrive, cause when they do society as a whole thrives.

 

Your enemy is government, but I doubt you'd want to live in a place without it.  But as an experiment, perhaps you should. 

 

I've written about good anarchic places in the Anarchy thread, heck I'm a Burner and enjoy such places.  But I argue they get that way due to strong community activism and policing, ie exile if you break enough rules or piss off enough people.  Society en masse can't do that. 

 

Well you are in the U.S. Which is marginally different. Our unions pretty much wrecked the country. If you look back in your own history you will find the government collusion during the new deal era which was part of the reason the depression to continue far longer than it should have.

 

What we really have is restrictive working practices. Why should businesses, labour and customers be restricted to a specific, set number of hours ? It makes no sense at all.

 

The improvement in working conditions is a gradual change and the result of competition for labour. If a business does not offer better wages then it must substitute with better conditions. This is why a lot of females don't work in dirty, dangerous heavy industry. They prefer office work which pays less but is clean and safe- apart from those paper cuts. Companies also don't like accidents because the law is involved as well as their business being closed. Paradoxically unions are not the enemy of businessman but really a go between. They should be pointing out areas which could cause accidents so business can avoid the losses from accidents. Insurance companies are often the ones who will demand safe working practices to avoid paying out. In the long run an injured employee results in losses from that reduced labour force, payouts, stoppages, reputation as damage. Again, there are bad actors in all walks of life, but employers aren't monsters, they are human.

 

The middle classes in the U.S. Are a result of a long history of laissez faire which is now coming to an end. The middle classes are being hollowed out and the jobs they did have vanished without replacement. That is a direct result of the state stifling competing, over regulating, welfarism, warfare, central control of monetary and fiscal policy, high taxation, minimum wages, subsidies and all the rest of the boondoggles that go with big expensive government. I expect that what's left of your economy will hit a brick wall sometime in the coming months. Then perhaps there will be a movement to end the state as it is.

 

I'm happy to live where I currently live without the state. I have no wish to move anyway to realise a life without the state. This is what Ayn Rand proposed in Galts Gulch, but it's not really a workable solution. In a larger population the advantage is the sheer number of people and the diversity of options. Some people might want communism in a small group whilst others having complete anarchy. Just like the free market, groups will compete for people to join their specific communities. Those that do well will attract the majority, those that offer alternative lifestyles might not be as wealthy, but would offer a different type of bonus.

[thelerner]

Ayn Rand's god was pure capitalism.  The cure for all things, anti-dote for all the world's problems.  I understand why she felt that way, growing up in very repressive Soviet Union but she took her idea's to an extreme that simply don't work. 

 

Why restrictions?  Because the best deal is to have slaves do your work, after that a few dollars an hour. There are people who will work others til they drop.  We decided to move against a feudalistic system. 

 

If you lived 50 or 100 or 150 years ago, you would be able to write about the horrors of society and why its going to collapse.  Its always been an easy game.  And sometimes the writers are correct.  But the horrors of paying a living wage and calling for extra pay over 40 hours is not going to be the end of society. 

 

On the other hand systems get bloated and people vote themselves too much bread and circus.  The answer there is elections, finding someone who'll tell the truth- that bills have to be paid and gravy boats have to end.   For that you still need a government.   Knock down the government and people will just build it up again, too often in dictatorial fashion. 

 

For me the answer is balance.  I lean democratic, but its good to have an enema in the system; to have tightening of the belts, shaving of programs that come with Republicans.  Better though is when democratics get the balls to do it themselves.  Which does happen as witnesses by Bill Clinton greatly reforming welfare rules. 

[Karl]

Ayn Rand's god was pure capitalism.  The cure for all things, anti-dote for all the world's problems.  I understand why she felt that way, growing up in very repressive Soviet Union but she took her idea's to an extreme that simply don't work. 

 

Why restrictions?  Because the best deal is to have slaves do your work, after that a few dollars an hour. There are people who will work others til they drop.  We decided to move against a feudalistic system. 

 

If you lived 50 or 100 or 150 years ago, you would be able to write about the horrors of society and why its going to collapse.  Its always been an easy game.  And sometimes the writers are correct.  But the horrors of paying a living wage and calling for extra pay over 40 hours is not going to be the end of society. 

 

On the other hand systems get bloated and people vote themselves too much bread and circus.  The answer there is elections, finding someone who'll tell the truth- that bills have to be paid and gravy boats have to end.   For that you still need a government.   Knock down the government and people will just build it up again, too often in dictatorial fashion. 

 

For me the answer is balance.  I lean democratic, but its good to have an enema in the system; to have tightening of the belts, shaving of programs that come with Republicans.  Better though is when democratics get the balls to do it themselves.  Which does happen as witnesses by Bill Clinton greatly reforming welfare rules. 

 

Slaves are only applicable with a virtually captive market and where labour faces no challenges from automation. They are costly to look after as they represent a capital investment. The early settlers in the U.S. Preferred indentured workers who would volunteer to work in order to pay off their passage, debts, fines etc. We never really had feudal style systems until recently. In th UK it was manorial-but don't quote me on that-workers rented there own plots something like a franchise.

 

150 years ago there wasn't any sign of anything but growing wealth. Conditions in factories were worse than they are today of course but that has to viewed in context.

 

Rand wasn't anarchic though. She didn't want rid of the state at all. She was right though. Free market capitalism is the answer, now what's the question ? :-)

 

We need rid of the state because it's dangerous, corrupt and too costly for us all. I came to that conclusion as the only option. The answer for me was to become an opponent of the state at every turn and in every piece of writing. Someone has to oppose it. Those that simply sit in the middle and compromise, hasten the growth of the state and then we all have to go through the pain that is the result.