[Discussion] Is Capitalism moral?

[Yubel]

This should be required viewing.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

Capitalism only seeks to empower the individual and not the society at large.

 

[Multiply]

Capitalism only seeks to empower the individual and not the society at large.

This.
/thread.

 

[Yubel]

Capitalism only seeks to empower the individual and not the society at large.

That is not true. A society is made of individuals.

 

[slimreaper]

Capitalism only seeks to empower the individual and not the society at large.

Thats because all of the great achievements of mankind have been done by individuals working toward their own seperate interests.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Multiply]

That is not true. A society is made of individuals.

And what do the society do for the individuals that can't keep up?

 

[Yubel]

And what do the society do for the individuals that can't keep up?

Nothing, just like what the individuals who can't keep up did for society.

 

[Multiply]

Nothing, just like what the individuals who can't keep up did for society.

So we just let them die in the streets?

 

[slimreaper]

So we just let them die in the streets?

The difference between having less and dying in the streets is a large one.

My biggest of many qualms with the left is the fact that the continuously separate actions and consequences

 

[Yubel]

So we just let them die in the streets?

If you can't provide value then you're of no value in societies eyes. It doesn't owe you anything, it's as fair as it gets.

 

[BlazeRelease]

Individualism in capitalism is a fantastic thing for society that encourages individual self worth and the striving for higher skills in certain fields, etc. but the "socialist" part of society is just as important; it ensure that every induvidual re contributed to the society that helped the become what they are.

Example: schools are a "socialist" service, but serve individuals in a capitalistic way.

The two should support each other. A mix of socialism and capitalism is perfect for a modern society, it benefits all people unconditionally in a fair way.

 

[Multiply]

If you can't provide value then you're of no value in societies eyes. It doesn't owe you anything, it's as fair as it gets.

That makes you a sad individual.

 

[BlazeRelease]

If you can't provide value then you're of no value in societies eyes. It doesn't owe you anything, it's as fair as it gets.

Some people can never provide due to random circumstances, like disease, born into poverty, work place discrimination, disability etc.

I'm not saying take care of the lazy, but to say capitalism, a system that is fundamentally designed to encourage the masses to work for the corporate office, is designed to only allow a select few live in extreme excess wealth, often due to favorable circumstances without giving back to the society that allowed such conditions to take place thanks go the working class.

CEOs wouldn't be where they are without the workers to run the company.
"You are only as strong as your weakest link"

 

[Yubel]

Some people can never provide due to random circumstances, like disease, born into poverty, work place discrimination, disability etc.

I'm not saying take care of the lazy, but to say capitalism, a system that is fundamentally designed to encourage the masses to work for the corporate office, is designed to only allow a select few live in extreme excess wealth, often due to favorable circumstances without giving back to the society that allowed such conditions to take place thanks go the working class.

CEOs wouldn't be where they are without the workers to run the company.
"You are only as strong as your weakest link"

When you provide value, you either solve a problem or take care of a need. You are the producer, the society are the consumers. When you create a product or a service that society approves on a large scale, you get payed accordingly. This includes creating a better life and/or taking care of the misforunate.

 

[slimreaper]

Employing economic socialist ideas in a free market system, almost invariably hurts the people it sets out to help. Ill list some later. The only way that socialism can truly help the poor, is if the society goes entirely socialist. But by then the gov't will take power and kill millions just like every socalist regime before.

Some socialist ideas that hurt who they intended to help( minimum wage hurts minority teens, gender pay equality laws hurt women from being able to compete in the market place, no fault divorce hurts women and their children, welfare keeps minorities comfortable in poverty while simultaneously buying their votes) the list goes on and on. Socialist ideas have very little place in the free market system.

 

[Aim64C]

So we just let them die in the streets?

There was no "social safety net" in this nation prior to the 1900s. Where were the people dying in the streets for lack of provisions?

Nothing has changed about human beings. There is nothing unique to our time that has made us any less capable of providing for ourselves. If anything, we have inherited knowledge and tools from our parents to empower us to make even more efficient use of our individual efforts. Rather than a hundred people operating a farm, it is five people and a hand full of maintenance personnel running a farm ten times the size of the one that once required a hundred.

Capitalism is a model in which food waits for people to purchase it. It will always ensure there is enough food for people and that even the poorest of society have options to sustain themselves.

Socialism has killed far, far more people through disruptions of supply chains than Capitalism has. Russia starved off virtually half of its citizenry in its centrally planned communist model. It was so bad that they had to allow small businesses to return to free market capitalism in order to prevent the country from literally starving itself off the face of the planet (in many ways, it already had; the adoption of Communism in Russia put the nation nearly three decades behind in technological and industrial advancement).

Individualism in capitalism is a fantastic thing for society that encourages individual self worth and the striving for higher skills in certain fields, etc. but the "socialist" part of society is just as important; it ensure that every induvidual re contributed to the society that helped the become what they are.

Capitalism does this inherently. The fundamental aspect of any exchange is that two parties voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the exchange believe that the exchange is either an equivalent one or has worked out in their favor. Nothing more need be done.

The only other thing you can do is hold a gun to someone's head and force them to give up a portion of their money so you can pay people you've promised benefits to... or you'll blow their brains out (we call that "taxation").

Example: schools are a "socialist" service, but serve individuals in a capitalistic way.

By this example - a Theater is a socialist service because it serves the people. Yet there is absolutely no need for theaters to be anything other than free market, capitalist enterprises.

Just as there is absolutely no need for schools to be anything other than free market, capitalist enterprises. Schools are the worst offenders of socialism, to be frank.

A bunch of dolts elected by a bunch of dolts to chair the legislature decide what the children of society need to be taught in order to be considered smart, functional human beings. Then, they threaten to take away your kids and throw you in jail if your kid can't pass their arbitrarily established exams or sit in one of their 'certified' schools. And, of course, you are going to pay for that curriculum to the tune of whatever taxes the local government decides. Since most regions fund their schools through property taxes, you don't get much of a choice to protest this as your house will be locked by the police and sold at auction if your taxes aren't paid.

Home schooling is an option, but if the government puts **** sucking on the curriculum, you'd better make sure your kids can pass, or they'll be taken away and assigned to people who will teach them how to suck **** really well while taking it up the ass.

Which is why schools, today, are little better than propaganda mills designed to brainwash entire generations into being harlots for politicians as a master class. They want you just smart enough to run the machinery that produces their lavish lifestyle but too dumb to understand the world around you. Bonus points they can delude you into thinking you're a genius.

The two should support each other. A mix of socialism and capitalism is perfect for a modern society, it benefits all people unconditionally in a fair way.

Socialism and capitalism do not work together.

Socialism requires a centrally planned economy where prices and wages can be both fixed and controlled by central issuing authorities. Supply and demand must be tightly controlled.

People are naturally free agents within any market. When the supply of, say, bread becomes restricted - people will naturally begin to offer more of their fixed income to purchase what they need - rationalizing that there are other things they can more easily do without. Even without any action of the bakers - people will begin to try and offer more money to a baker in order to have the bread they want ahead of the line. The price of bread has increased - which throws into disarray the carefully planned incomes that are designed to sustain a fixed rate of production and consumption.

Without these controls - you end up with our current economic system, which is on the brink of collapse.

With these controls - there is no room for the free market as every individual exists purely to function at the behest and disposal of the socialist state. Everyone is a slave to the centrally planned architecture and can neither rise above it nor fall below it.

Some people can never provide due to random circumstances, like disease, born into poverty, work place discrimination, disability etc.

I'm not saying take care of the lazy, but to say capitalism, a system that is fundamentally designed to encourage the masses to work for the corporate office, is designed to only allow a select few live in extreme excess wealth, often due to favorable circumstances without giving back to the society that allowed such conditions to take place thanks go the working class.

This is simply incorrect.

Large corporations were a rare thing prior to the 1930s, when the U.S. transitioned to a socialist economy. The free market does not like large corporations. Individual consumers tend to not like them, and the individual employees of large corporations often have ambitions of starting their own businesses - often providing a service or product as a competitor to the larger corporation.

In these free market systems, the average person often has far greater disposable income, and is far more able to afford purchases of personal or ideological preference as opposed to simply selecting the cheapest product.

While capitalism is often billed as being a system where "the best product at the lowest price wins" - the reality is more nuanced. The product that most satisfies the demands (legitimate or superficial) of the customer wins the purchase of the individual - and individual customers have vastly different demands. Some people go to the store looking for the bargain bin in Electronics while buying the most expensive and high grade icecream they can find simply because they reason that it is more expensive and must therefor taste better.

CEOs wouldn't be where they are without the workers to run the company.

A fact that the free market recognizes.

Most companies die not because of a loss of market share, but because of a failure of leadership. Employees who do not feel their talents are being appreciated or who believe to be radically under-valued by the company will find somewhere else to go. They may join another business (perhaps a competitor), may start their own business, arguing that they can do it better than their old employer (and there are many cases of this being exactly the case) - or they may change to a different trade, entirely.

The point is that in the free market, the individual is marketing his or her skills/talents/abilities/efforts as a service to a corporation when he/she opts to bid for an employment contract. The candidate for the employee position is effectively a sole proprietorship that is negotiating a contract with another company for a labor service as defined by the contract.

When many larger businesses first began cropping up in America, their employees were hired from among free tradesmen who were contracting their trade services with a larger corporation that offered to give them consistent work. Rather than having to rely upon smaller clientele lists and a small store front for, say, your own personal welding business - you hire onto a company that fulfills contracts for thousands of customers all over the country and pays you to play a part in that. It is a consistent position with specific hours and rates of pay that are negotiated with the company. It worked out to their advantage more often than not and offered them the ability to make far more money from their trade with less time and resources invested in their own business.

And if the employer was stupid and didn't treat his employees properly - they'd just leave and start up their own competing business.

Which is exactly what happened on numerous occasions and is partly why organizations like the EPA were so heavily supported by large businesses. By forcing businesses to go through lengthy approval processes, pay for excessive equipment that is mandated by a government, etc - they turn the costs of starting up a competing business from $120,000 to over $3,000,000 - which means fewer can contest the established power-house businesses.

Socialism ingrains large corporations. The free market tends to operate in cycles - where companies form, grow, become conceited, and then fracture. It is rare for large corporations to survive without the government propping them up in some form or another.

"You are only as strong as your weakest link"

You must be registered for see images

Human networks are not linear chains.

Human networks are interwoven node architectures forming a complex mesh of interconnectivity.

There is only such a thing as a shorter link. Six degrees of separation.

The loss of even the shortest link will merely force more traffic through the remaining nodes while prompting the development of new links and nodes.

 

[BlazeRelease]

Im not responding to that, sorry. But I will say that your statement that capitalism+socialism doesn't work is 100% certified bull.

The current American economy already is one and has been for some time.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

Thats because all of the great achievements of mankind have been done by individuals working toward their own seperate interests.

You must be registered for see links

Wrong.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

That is not true. A society is made of individuals.

Wrong.
A society is made up of ideals and values.

 

[SasukeTheEmo]

Huxley's vision of society da bess btw.