Problems with Capitalism (moral, tradition, beliefs, creation, America)

[Radio Frequency X]

I have a few questions:


1. Define Capitalism.
2. What is the biggest problem with Capitalism. What is the alternative?
3. Do you believe in ownership?
4. How much of a right does government have to restrict or tax or minipulate what you own?

[ch'ang]

1. From dictionary.com

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

2. The biggest problem with capitalism is that people seem to say they like while at the same time complaining the government doesn't regulate it enough

3. Completely

4. None

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

I have a few questions:


1. Define Capitalism.
2. What is the biggest problem with Capitalism. What is the alternative?
3. Do you believe in ownership?
4. How much of a right does government have to restrict or tax or minipulate what you own?

Capitalism is creative so difficult to define. Problems issue from capitalist activity being unregulated so that personal gain overides effective social good. Ownership is an incentive to creativity and innovation characteristic of capitalism.

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Capitalism is creative so difficult to define. Problems issue from capitalist activity being unregulated so that personal gain overides effective social good. Ownership is an incentive to creativity and innovation characteristic of capitalism.

The idea of "effective social good" is what I don't understand. In a free market, individuals succeed and fail relative to luck, available resources, work ethic, and intelligence. It would seem to me that there is a natural and morally equitable system at work in nature to govern the distribution of resources. For some reason, some human beings, unlike nearly every other animal, desire a different kind of equity.

There are many types of egalitarian arguments against capitalism. Some desire complete equality in the distribution of wealth. Some desire a statistical equity (which is what we tend to see in Europe and America). Statistical equity is always arbitrary: defined by class, race, gender, and so forth. The only one of these that makes any sense whatsoever, is class. The Upper Class has greater access to resources and therefore have greater access to opportunity.

The Capitalist will argue, that because it is in the interest of the upper class to expand their wealth, by investing capital, the necessary result will be more jobs and opportunity for everyone. The Egalitarian will argue that a free process necessarily creates wage-slaves.

But now we are back to ownership. What gives the government the right to tax and restrict that which private individuals and corporations own? How do they pull it off if not through force or fraud?

[Terrywoodenpic]

1. Define Capitalism.

I will settle for the consensus on this.

2. What is the biggest problem with Capitalism. What is the alternative?

It works best when unfettered... It does its most damage when unfettered.

3. Do you believe in ownership?

Of some things... certainly not people.... nor countries....or minds.

4. How much of a right does government have to restrict or tax or minipulate what you own?

what ever rights a democratic and soverign people chose to give it.

[RevOxley_501]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

I have a few questions:


1. Define Capitalism.
2. What is the biggest problem with Capitalism. What is the alternative?
3. Do you believe in ownership?
4. How much of a right does government have to restrict or tax or minipulate what you own?

1:ch'ang's def will work fine
2: The fact that there will always be people that go without, and those that have far more than they will ever need. The alternative is communism
3: yes and no, thats a long story
4: under the current system they should have very little , under communism there would be no government, and there would be no private property (to an extent pls.) Everything for everyone, Nothing for ourselves.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

The idea of "effective social good" is what I don't understand. In a free market, individuals succeed and fail relative to luck, available resources, work ethic, and intelligence. It would seem to me that there is a natural and morally equitable system at work in nature to govern the distribution of resources. For some reason, some human beings, unlike nearly every other animal, desire a different kind of equity.

There are many types of egalitarian arguments against capitalism. Some desire complete equality in the distribution of wealth. Some desire a statistical equity (which is what we tend to see in Europe and America). Statistical equity is always arbitrary: defined by class, race, gender, and so forth. The only one of these that makes any sense whatsoever, is class. The Upper Class has greater access to resources and therefore have greater access to opportunity.

The Capitalist will argue, that because it is in the interest of the upper class to expand their wealth, by investing capital, the necessary result will be more jobs and opportunity for everyone. The Egalitarian will argue that a free process necessarily creates wage-slaves.

But now we are back to ownership. What gives the government the right to tax and restrict that which private individuals and corporations own? How do they pull it off if not through force or fraud?

Hey RFX, aren't rights (traditionally speaking) held by individuals against the possibility of governmental interference in private affairs. If so, any talk of governmental "rights" to interfere is committing a category error IMO. The Gov't does not have rights, it imposes its will. An expectation of responsible government is that it will exercise power to protect an effective social good like a reasonable welfare net.

[krashlocke]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

1. Define Capitalism.

Again, the dictionary will do here.

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

2. What is the biggest problem with Capitalism. What is the alternative?

It's a poor system for creating equitable systems for common good. Consider the failings of the US healthcare system - a situation where capitalist principles applied to a system whose very definition is to provide common good have created hardship. Ultimately, those with power need labor, but they are only encouraged to provide compensation for said labor by way of minimal subsistance. Slave camps are drastically cheaper than suburbs and provide almost as much productivity.

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

3. Do you believe in ownership?

To an extent. An implied aspect of the social contract is that you are granted ownership insofar as everyone else allows it. I can be killed by anyone, hence, they ultimately have control over my liberty on a very basic level. Ownership is not a natural right, it is a priviledge either granted through force of arms or the creation of a social contract - which typically manifests itself as a government.

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

4. How much of a right does government have to restrict or tax or minipulate what you own?

As said before - as much as we, it's populace, give it. We have been fortunate that our government has traditionally worked hard in an effort to create a broad and stable affluent middle class - a relatively new invention. The tax codes have been the most effective part of this, effectively creating huge monetary incentives to become a home owner, to build a business, obtain higher education, and other such common cues of the middle class. Money is more powerful than law at manipulating people.

[michel]

[quote=Radio Frequency X]I have a few questions:


1. Define Capitalism.1.

Originally Posted by ch'ang

From dictionary.com

2. What is the biggest problem with Capitalism. What is the alternative?
The biggest problem with Capitalism is that we humans are greedy; given the ability to make money, there is no real 'ceiling' as to what is a practical, equitable and 'fair' profit.

A typical example of this attitude is when investors see an advertisment in a paper offerring some quick "make-money" scheme - i.e an interest rate on savings which is absurdly higher that the rates quoted by Banks and other financial institutions.

Unfortunately, in their greed, they have also satisfied the greed of those who have conned them.

3. Do you believe in ownership?

Yes, I believe in ownership; ownwership is the only way to stop disputes as to "Who has the right"....

4. How much of a right does government have to restrict or tax or minipulate what you own?

In theory, every right; in practice that is dependent on the honesty of those in Government. We here, in England, have a national health service (which is actually fast falling from it's moral pedestal) - but that is not a proof that the idea of the Government controlling and metering out money to manage our lives is wrong.

Besides, since at least 50% of the population is financially illiterate, there is a need for the sheep to be shepherded.

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Hey RFX, aren't rights (traditionally speaking) held by individuals against the possibility of governmental interference in private affairs. If so, any talk of governmental "rights" to interfere is committing a category error IMO. The Gov't does not have rights, it imposes its will. An expectation of responsible government is that it will exercise power to protect an effective social good like a reasonable welfare net.

All excellent points. I only have a problem with your adjectives. What makes a welfare net reasonable? What makes entitlements reasonable, or what makes them a consequence of "responsible government"?

Personally, I'd prefer there be universal health care, but absolutely no welfare, no social security, no other entitlements. Universal Health Care could be run through the schools. We'd just have to build more teaching hospitals. Personally, I think we'd be better off getting rid of the IRS and putting all the money we save into environmental protection. What you think is reasonable and what I think is reasonable differ; should we really depend on an uneducated public, uneducated by the federal government to have faith in the federal government.

It's always artibitrary. I can say, "well if you don't agree with me, you must hate the environment and poor sick children". Which is the liberal spin I have to deal with everyday, even though I'm a strong environmentalist myself.

In a democracy, what makes you suspect that the mob will be reasonable? Experience proves that they are not. In a poorly educated society, like the United States, why should we trust the majority with a powerful federal government? It seems that we would be much more secure, much safer, with a less powerful federal government. Let the States compete with different laws and systems so that we can see what works and what doesn't, and make more reasonable, more scientific political decisions. The same is true, I believe, with our economic system. I believe that it is safer and better for all, if we remove the people's ability to minipulate it through the federal government. Let the States decide. We'll have different taxes systems and we'll be able to see which ones work the best. We'll have different social safety nets, and we'll see which ones work the best. We'll have different degrees of labor-law, and we'll be able to see which ones work the best.

Why force everyone to suffer under federal tyranny, when we could all have more options, more freedom, in finding a State suitable to our beliefs and principles.