The Second half is entitled Some Thoughts on Capitalism and Human Nature - Part 2.
Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com
Implicit in this definition is the idea of property rights. In fact, without individual and corporate property rights, capitalism, as defined above, could not exist.
Our nation is based on private property rights and capitalism. Few would argue that it has not been an enormously successful system, powering us to undisputed world leadership in the size of our economy, our living standards, and (arguably) even our cultural and political preeminence in the world.
One of the products of our capitalistic system is the establishment of stock and bond markets. These have led to broad public ownership of businesses. But a hundred years ago, some of the problems with this scheme began to emerge with the "Robber Barons," who manipulated markets to their advantage…and to the disadvantage of many smaller investors. That was followed by the Panic of 1929, when many investors, large and small, lost their life savings. Capitalism, it seemed could be a blessing or a curse.
But the system survived and eventually prospered again. New businesses emerged and thrived. Investors bought low and sold high, and our economy grew…and grew…and grew. Standards of living rose dramatically, as business and technology combined to use the resources of the earth to make our lives easier. It wasn't until the 1970's that cracks started to appear again. Air and water pollution were rampant, our domestic oil supplies were showing signs of depletion. We were going to be more dependent on foreign oil in the future. The environmental movement was started, and a few politicians started talking about an "era of limits," but they were shouted down by the capitalists. Profits were the only important thing. Money solved all problems. Instead of a "chicken in every pot," the new mantra was "a car in every garage." Even though cars were improved to reduce emissions, the huge numbers of them, both here and abroad, increased the release of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen…but most importantly, the oxide of carbon…carbon dioxide, a gas that creates "greenhouse" conditions, trapping heat from the sun in the earth's atmosphere and preventing its re-radiation into space. On top of that was the plethora of energy-demanding appliances…refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, washers, dryers, hair dryers…the list went on and on. They all required electrical energy, which had to be generated and that meant more burning of fossil fuel, more emissions, more greenhouse gases, and more depletion of those dwindling and irreplaceable fossil fuels.
Meanwhile the human population of the earth swelled from 1.6B in 1900 to 2.5B in 1950, and then more than doubled to almost 6B by 1999. US population increased over the same period from 76M in 1900 to 161M in 1950 to 291M in 2000. These trends have continued to the present day. World population is now estimated at about 6.8B, while the US total is around 305M. The growth in population exacerbated the problems…more people consuming more energy per person. Consumption of the earth's resources was going up at an exponential rate (and still is).
Anyone who has studied nature knows that exponential growth rates do not last forever, and when they end, the final phase is often a spectacular crash. And yet, our capitalistic society is built on the expectancy of growth! Listen to any corporate CEO, and his main pitch will be growth of his company...limitless, unending growth. Listen to any economist, and he will wring his hands if growth in the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) falls below 3% or so. At some point, growth in our GDP will halt permanently. The earth, and its once-seemingly-infinite riches, will reach its limit to provide for us. And that is true for every nation, every person on the earth.
It is easy to point fingers at those wretched, greedy capitalists. It's their fault! But…hold on a minute. We are the ones who own all that stock, and we want to see our portfolios grow and grow, to provide us with a comfortable retirement. We have saved for it, invested to reach it, and we deserve it! Those corporate CEO's are struggling to meet our expectations! If the next quarterly earnings report is disappointing, we will sell, driving the stock price down. Growth! Gotta have growth!
In the words of Walt Kelley's Pogo, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."
So the question arises: Is Capitalism, with its emphasis on private ownership, profits and growth, growth, growth, still the correct model for an earth that is filling up with people, depleting the precious, irreplaceable resources of the planet? Or do we need a different system that looks at the planet as a whole and makes decisions that protect the earth from over-exploitation and destructive practices? A system that recognizes that what every person does on this planet affects every other person. A system that will allow all of earth's inhabitants to live decent lives.
I know that these ideas will not please many people. "Big Brother!" they will howl. "Loss of individual freedom." And they are absolutely right. The problem is human nature. The human species is a competitive, selfish, lot. Never before in human history has the current generation had so much control over the prospects for the future habitability of the planet. If we leave our destiny in the hands of Capitalism, I fear for future generations.
I am in my 72nd year. I am a beneficiary of Capitalism. I saved and invested in my working years, and it is likely that I will live out the remainder of my life comfortably. So why am I worried about this? I want my children and theirs to have the same opportunity.
If we stay on the current path, that seems unlikely.
The second half of this article can be found at:
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 131 ( 1 removed by Bert B. )
I hope you are right, and I see the same hopeful happenings. But is it too little, too late? I think we need concerted government action to encourage actions like Toyota's Prius. Instead, we get loosened emission standards for SUV's and light trucks. Finally, after years of foot-dragging, we got some anemic and tentative steps toward improved CAFE standards. But corporate America is fighting this every step. It is sad that Japanese auto companies are far ahead of our domestic automakers. Their current crises, and losses are deserved! They have had years to do the "right thing" and they succumbed to exactly what I was talking about...next quarter's profit numbers!
The Japanese, to their credit, took a longer view, and may end op owning GM and Ford as a result.
I count my blessings every day. I...and my friends...realize how fortunate we are.
But we need to do what we can to promote responsible actions. What I am doing here on Gather is not nearly enough. I am thinking about this. Our generation, maybe the most fortunate generation of humans ever to live on this earth, need to do what we can to help those who will follow us.
I'm not certain what you are proposing... you say you are a "beneficiary of Capitalism. I saved and invested in my working years, and it is likely that I will live out the remainder of my life comfortably. "...and "I want my children and theirs to have the same opportunity."
But you don't want them to have the opportunity of capitalism.
I afraid I'm missing your point....are you saying that in order to sustain the livability of the planet that we must give up capitalism? Are you saying that we can't maintain a livable planet and maintain capitalism at the same time?
Would you please me more specific. What are you proposing?
For the first time in American history the next generation can NOT look forward to the same standard of living and retiring which their parents enjoyed. It's a very sad day and yet there are those who want to keep on growing without paying the required price. Indeed there are some who want others to pay their price for them.
It's becoming ok to doom others to death by illness which is not by covered by insurance and to take food out of the mouths of babies, children, and the disabled by simply saying "we can't afford to help."
But I am absolutely certain that adjustments must be made
Am I right, Bert?
Since Reagan, the business community, represented largely by the Republican Party, has pushed hard for deregulation of business activities, and the stifling of critical voices who sought to constrain their irresponsible and destructive practices. Under the three recent Republican presidents, and...sadly...under Clinton as well, they have made a lot of progress toward that goal.
It's now time to put the harness back on the horse.
I'll see if I can find it. It showed how many antitrust actions the government has taken by year, and it has declined by something like 90% in recent years, and has been largely ineffective. Just looking at the actions of Microsoft and Wal Mart, for example...are those two companies good for free market capitalism?
Are we ready to give up the lifestyle we currently enjoy?
Are we ready to go back to washing clothes by hand, then hanging them out to dry on a clothes line?
Are we ready to give up our cars, taking public transportation for long trips, and walking for short trips?
Are we ready to give up air conditioning?
Are we willing to eat more basic foods, eat less, and eat everything on our plate?
Are we willing to live in much smaller homes, say 250sq/ft per person?
There was a time not too long ago when none of these things were a given.
Now, we can't imagine living without them.
We wanted these things, and Capitalism provided them for us.
While I can blame unregulated capitalism on some other issues, I don't think I can blame Capitalism for giving people the lifestyle they want and ask for.
I'm with MDP on this one.
People in poverty have no choice but to live without these things.
Some people are financially sound, but still choose to live without some of these things, or at least in some moderation, on a given consideration for Mother Earth.
Rising prices will also force people to conserve more, and we are already yapping about rising oil prices (me included).
If people demand less, Capitalism, and prices, will adjust accordingly.
We need to do our part as well.
I certainly hope MDP is correct in his assessment that alternative energy sources will be found which will adequately replace oil as our energy source.
Thanks everybody.
Thanks!
We've allowed BIG business to spend most of our children's time being TAUGHT to be radical consumers. Parents went to work rather than spend their time instructing their children, as I did, that not all they see in advertising is true or good for them. Turn off the TV. Now organizations are springing up to try to untrain this distruction of our society.
Such a change begins with consensus that something needs to change to improve all of life, then education to tell need from want, and then thoughtful decisions to form laws that benefit rather than restrict and also take into consideration the needs of the most vunerable of society. Luddite thinking will notfix things anymore than rampant consumerism has.
When asked her opinion of economic and life skills, my grandmother would say "I believe in moderation in all things, and don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
As a abandoned and eventually divorced woman, who raised and supported her two children alone through the 1920-1930's and started a cottage business which succeeded during the worst of the depression, I think she knew what she was talking about.
Grandma was appalled by credit card debt and my mother always paid hers off every month. We do the same at our house. Debt is slavery, our nation is leading us into slavery without a word of real disagreement from we, the people.
Change IS coming, it can be a change we choose or a change foisted on us by our collective shallow way of life. Right now we just barely still have a choice. It may well be that we have been totally weined of self-discipline, or that we've lost too much power to the corporations that now control so much of our government's processes. But when did Americans ever let the odds stop them? Not in 1776, not in 1941 and hopefully not now.
You are right, Jerry. That's why I quoted Pogo.
I think Sandy is on the right track, Tim. We can reduce energy consumption dramatically without significant effect on our lifestyle. And then, if most of that reduced energy comes from renewable sources...we have kicked our "addiction."
Not in any of them.
I invite you to continue the discussion there.
Here is the link.
"Are we ready to give up our cars, taking public transportation for long trips, and walking for short trips?
"Are we ready to give up air conditioning?
"Are we willing to eat more basic foods, eat less, and eat everything on our plate?
"Are we willing to live in much smaller homes, say 250sq/ft per person?"
two things:
1) i already do ALL of the above(and am trying to indoctrinate others--while poor, i could get away with, say, AC; will even do so, come the hottest days--so it's a decision: i can afford it, per se, but The Future cannot), and
2) i'm sure ten years won't pass before we're ALL doing it.
it'll happen by degrees...the easy way, or the hard.
In the past, however, that capitalism was largely built on exploiting vast quantities of people and having a complete disregard for their safety or preservation of the environment. That was only corrected with regulation (which was brought on by the workers themselves speaking out and some timely media exposure). On their own, companies would not have corrected themselves. Like slavery (a concept that is not economical in the long run in addition to its unethical aspects), those using it are the last to realize that their very practices are harmful to themselves as well as others.
I guess my biggest beef with capitalism is that (a) it recognizes it's dangerous practices too late (historically), (b) it is currently preoccupied with quick bucks without a regard for the implications long term (and others will pay the price) and (c) making money and doing good for the masses can go hand in hand but can also be just the opposite. I think it behooves the government to help keep the second from happening and, help steer capitalism from destructive trends before they do too much damage.
Unfortunately, with out government being constantly switched out, it kind of has the same "not on my watch" mentality which may be a real issue for us in the long run.
Stephanie...American businesses are obsessed with short-term profits, but this is not as true in other countries. Look at Toyota's willingness to invest a LOT of up-front money in the Prius, with no return expected for several years. That design is now almost ten years old, and they may finally be making money on it. But they had the vision to see what was coming, and our domestic automakers either didn't, or chose to ignore it...to make a quick buck on SUV's and pickup trucks. Now both Toyota and GM are reaping what they sowed.
If more businesses would start making long-term plans, I would believe that Capitalism might survive, more or less in its present form. But I have yet to see much evidence of that.
The same "we'll worry about what we'll pay in the future" mentality that made the recent mortgage nightmare even possible is part and parcel of the problem. If you buy today on credit when tomorrow doesn't look actually brighter, tomorrow will be twice as bleak.
You can only prime the pump so long before you have to start actually pumping some water!
Does everybody really think that in this day and age of no national loyalty multinational corporations and places to head quarter such a Dubai and the like, that such wealth would not consider making moves to position themselves so that they might even allow, if not cause, the complete failure of a nation monetarily, when it might so well work to their long term advantages ???
Do all people not believe that an American Union of Canada the USA and Mexico (for a beginning, later to spread south further) is not on the agenda of such folks ??
How many believe that there are not think tanks funded by those very interests that are not working on such speculations 24/7 ??
For those that think this is not so, you must still believe in Santa Clause and that Jesus is God ...
IMnsHO.
I apologize...I accidentally deleted your post which included the statement:
I was trying to delete my own comment, a response to that. I am indeed sorry. Please believe me...it was an accident. I have NEVER deleted any comment before now...and this was a slip of my fingers.
What I was trying to say was, your statement is a quote from Richard Feynman, one of my heroes, now deceased. A brilliant cosmologist and teacher. Thank you for reminding me of him.
I didn't think I had been offensive so assumed it was a mistake since it was you, Bert. Don't feel bad.
Capitalism, if left unchecked, brings its own sack full of widespread calamity.
I think much of the problem is the animal instinct to procreate; until that is managed, growth is with us I fear.
But you are right...it seems to be a human obsession historically.
So, should we buy off the procreators? Seems sinister. But it is for sure complicated. Economics is the blackest of sciences.
However...the human population is far above the long term sustainable level. So while we can feed everybody for awhile, we need to get the population down to a level that the planet can support indefinitely.
awesome, awesome, awesome-- this is why i drop in, Bert.
you know it.
It ain't gonna be pretty, I'm afraid.
Good heavens Bert...get the population down? You mean by limiting growth (lowering the birth rate) or by actually lowering the population (lowering the birth rate to less than ZPG) ?
How about we just follow Johnathan Swift's plan and eat our babies...not all of us..just the poor people. This would help combat the hunger problem and reduce the population growth at the same time....AND we wouldn't have to worry about controlling the birthrate! In fact, the higher the birthrate, the more plentiful the food supply!
You know...we could also eat the remains of old people after they die ....not a very attractive idea...but what a waste of protein...just burying them or cremating them I mean.
Hey Bert..you said this ain't gonna be pretty.
Hey, easy fella! I wasn't suggesting that we should murder 3 or 4 billion people. I would hope, as I said, that rising living standards would convince many people to voluntarily reduce the number of children they plan to have. As you know, some European countries are already at or below ZPG, and we are approaching it.
The problem is the poor countries, and if they keep increasing at the current rate, eventually the rest of the world will NOT be able to supply enough food for them...especially if global warming or other weather anomalies cause widespread famines. And that is what I meant about "not pretty." The longer the population continues to expand, the more painful the eventual "adjustment" will be.
paranoid about being destitute, then they will not be as prone to procreate. It is still spooky though to see these things play out.
On the other hand? Is there a fundamental right to reproduce? Doesn't bother me, but in some cases!!!!
Yes, people have a fundamental right to reproduce, although China is challenging that right. I would hate to see worlwide restrictions. It's pretty hard to enforce unless you forcibly segregate men and women!
I'm just feeling sarcastic. I do believe that the problem of overpopulation is one of our most pressing and that this problem is exacerbated by the other problems of poverty and lack of education and opportunity. We can supply food for a lot more people than we are now and we can do it with a "green" effort. The problem of potable water is as you have said...one of our most urgent. The key word is "potable". We have water, water everywhere...it's the drinking water we are concerned about. One simple solution is to distill sea water. Too costly? Where would we get the power? We would use atomic energy...the sun...our closest and most reliable giant atomic power plant. The cost? What the fuck does it matter if the alternative is the extinction of the human race or a severe reduction in our quality of living. Water is the basic necessity for all of life and for the production of food. "What's the cost?" is not the question...the question is "what is it worth?" Plus once the solar power distillation units are built, the cost to run them is minimal as is the upkeep. Another valuable use of our seas is one of farming...aqua farming. Not just fish..(protein) but plants...sea weed, foods we haven't even imagined yet.
We can irrigate waste lands and we can do it cleanly and on a sustainable level. We have the assets to feed way more than the current population level on this planet. We just are not willing to take on the challenge...make the effort. Not yet. But we will.
I have brighter picture of the future than you Bert...We've talked about this before. What did ole Henry Ford say?....."Whether you think you can or you think you can't..you are right."
I agree that any enforcement on reproduction is a bad idea. You just make conflict that way. But, I reckon it is best to just let the information go downhill.
I do disagree that it is a right. Think about it.
I used to have a friend from Missouri, and his favorite saying was, "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped."
Human nature has to change. We have to learn to get along without depleting the planet to make war machines and materials. We have to learn to conserve, and to share. I see no indications that any of this is happening, and without a lot of cooperation, the earth will not support 6 billion people without conflicts, wars and self-destruction.
I just believe that with a smaller population that didn't strain the earth's resources, people would be more willing to share, and to live and let live. But who knows...maybe you are right. Maybe we should shoot for ten billion or twenty.
Neither of us will live long enough to see who is right, I suspect.
No, esteban, the fresh water problem is real, and it is worldwide, not just here in southern California. As I said, a BILLION people do not have access to clean, potable water.
On the subject of reproductive rights...I am conflicted. Eventually we have to convince people to act responsibly...and contraception and abortion must be available to EVERYBODY. But the world's religions are adamantly opposed to that, so now what?
I don't think we are in disagreement.
eventually, Nature may very well take things into Its own hands--influenzas (and their kin) are pretty flexible.
we can't hamstring 'em all.
and maybe THAT will be the legacy of this PC nightmare we call Waking Life: a plague, or a series of them, that just... chip at our numbers.
a mil' here; a thou' or two there.
it'll start to add up.
seems viable... and then we can all sleep at night, knowing we didn't hurt anybody's feelings.
we'll see what happens, eh?
I suppose religion protects reproductive processes and women/children because that was just a good idea in a tough times past. No one is going to break with that easily. In today's society, the most valuable human creatures are the 50 year olds with experience and those capable of back breaking work, yet we still cling to values suited for other predicaments.
I agree that, barring some major innovations in transportation (both political and physical), we have well over the number of folks required for accomplishing things.
Sounds very clinical.
That doesn't make me wrong, though. It might even mean that I am able to view things a bit more objectively. Or not. I don't claim any clairvoyant vision. All I have to offer is my...experience, including all my biases.
thomas...you hit it again, as usual. Please stick around...you say things that need to be said. Maybe we are a "cancer" that is spreading on the planet Earth, and maybe Earth will take appropriate "corrective measures" to eradicate the infection.
If you looked at the planet from outer space, it would be easy to conclude that some monstrous and terrible virus has infected the earth. Exterminate it! So that the beautiful and life arrirming forces of nature can once more take over the planet.
Are we a virus?
Don't answer.
I did say that we can, as a planet, support more people than we are supporting now...not that we should make it our goal to increase our global population.
You will also get no argument from me about your assessment of the current sorry state of affairs. But your defeatist attitude is never the best approach to solving any problem or even just ATTEMPTING to solve any problem. It's true that attitude is a determining factor but no guarantee of success. Assuming defeat is a guarantee of failure.
Don't we all, Michael.
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry.
I don't view my attitude as "defeatist." I think that we need to RECOGNIZE our problems and deal with them. Right now, I think most citizens of our nation are in denial...or more accurately, in apathetic ignorance. They don't care about the planet...they only care about today's dinner, Friday's paycheck, a beer, and TV.
Now maybe that is a little unfair...or even hypocritical. I was exactly in that mindset thirty years ago. Too busy to worry about the greater problems of the Universe. The real question was, could I make the schedule on the project at work, and would my kid make the soccer team, or whatever.
We survived that era in spite of our apathy toward the greater problems of the planet...and they were becoming evident, even back then. I am not sure that today's thirty-somethings have the "luxury of apathy" that we had. The rubber is about to hit the road, and if you aren't paying attention, you could get run over.
All I can say about that is "amen brother"..
Some numbers to play with. I'm sure you can tabulate as well as I, but just for discussion:
Global power consumption by 5+ billion people: 2. x 10^13 Watts
Of that about 75% is oil/gas/coal
Available power from the sun on earth: 2 x 10^17 Watts
Efficiency of Photosynthesis: 1% (raising corn for fuel may be ok in the short term, but we must do better, considering that you start with 1% and then add in the agrichemical efficiency. Up until the late 90's you were always better off just burning biomass for energy...unless you want to sequester CO2 with the biomass).
Solar panel efficiencies are about 10%, but you have to build the solar panels.
I am going to try to document these numbers, add more, and put things together for a thoughtful discussion.
Thanks for looking at this with a new perspective. Ethanol for fuel is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Corn is a very demanding crop, requiring lots of chemical fertilizer and water. Fertilizer takes a lot of energy to produce...usually from fossil fuel burning, and fresh water is becoming a real problem as we draw down ancient aquifers. The great plains, one of the richest and most productive agricultural areas in the world, is rapidly being desertified, partly due to global warming, but mostly due to the falling water table. Farmers have to keep drilling deeper and deeper to get water for irrigation.
But diverting prime cropland from food production to fuel for our gas guzzlers is also selfish when millions of people are starving. It has even caused big price runups in our food costs. All the way around, it's bad policy, and we are paying huge corporations to grow the corn, and then paying them again to convert it to ethanol...50 cents a gallon! The only people who benefit from this are the big agribusiness corporations who bought and paid for this handout with their "campaign contributions," otherwise known as legalized bribery.
I have a 1/2 acre in sweet corn right now, so I know the expenses of making the stuff grow. I've gone "organic", whatever that means (not the same as in organic chemistry class). That being said, availability of energy is crucial. Food is available..there is lots of land in prime areas of the US remaining dormant. Political stuff prevents cultivation and distribution.
I suppose that to the agribusiness corporations, a contract for ethanol for the US is more or of a sure thing than supplying food for the UN. I don't know..just a guess.
The only "Robber Baron's" who were able to "maipulate markets in their favor" were ones who benefited from government privilege.
Aside from taking advantage of government interevention, the only way any business interest could "manipulate markets in their favor" is by increasing the value of their stock by making themselves more productive and profitable (in other words, by serving the mass of consumers better than their competition).
For the most part, those who are now posthumously called "Robber Barons" did more for the living standards of the poor and middle-class of this country than any government agency has ever done.
The "stagflation" of the 1970's, also, was not due to capitalism, but rather the manipulation of interest rates and inflationism by the socialistic central banking cartel.
"our capitalistic society is built on the expectancy of growth!"
No; government fiscal policy and Federal Reserve manipulation is predicated on the expectancy of infinite growth.
A true capitalistic system is based on the actions and interactions of free people. If people want growth, expect growth, and reasonably expect to sustain growth, then they will act and interact in ways that foster growth.
If growth is untenable, then people will act in ways that restrict it.
You would be doing yourself a huge favor by picking up Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson."
If you're really up for some heavy-duty enlightenment, go to Mises.org right now and you can get Professor Murray Rothbard's classic treatise on economic principles, "Man, Economy, & State" for $14. You'll probably never get a chance to aquire such a wealth of understanding for 14 bucks ever again!
You state your opinions as if they are carved in stone tablets and cast down from on high by the Almighty. But...they are just your opinions, no matter how much you preach.
There is no such thing in the world as 'true capitalist system." And there is a good reason for that. As soon as corporations get enough economic (and thus political) power, they subvert government to give them greater competitive advantage. Maybe you are right theoretically...just as Marx may have been right about Communism. The problem is, in both cases, human nature got in the way and subverted the process, to the detriment of the populace.
Capitalism, by its very nature is amoral. As you have said, the overriding motive is profits.
If you read part 2 of this two-part series, you will find that I envision a change in human economic activity that I hope...and believe...will happen. The result will be a capitalism more in line with your idealistic vision...less motivated by short term profits, and more concerned with the survival of the human species. I sincerely and passionately believe that such a change is necessary if we are to survive.
What you call my "preaching" is just me pointing out facts, in attempt to help you rid yourself of fallacious lines of thinking.
I know you're up there in years, and set in your ways; odds are that you would prefer cognitive dissonance or clinging to what you know is fallacy in order to reconcile your worldview with reality, before you would adopt a different worldview.
But perhaps if I could successfully refute a fallacy here or there, it might help someone else reading this thread to come to a better understanding.
"There is no such thing in the world as 'true capitalist system." And there is a good reason for that. As soon as corporations get enough economic (and thus political) power, they subvert government to give them greater competitive advantage."
There are many things wrong with this statement.
You are correct that "There is no such thing in the world as 'true capitalist system'." But it is not for a "good" reason. It's because even in the Western world -- where there is any degree of economic liberty at all, especially relative to other parts of the world -- people are so heavily indoctrinated into collectivist statism, that they stand by and accept (and even advocate for) ever-increasing government intervention -- when in fact it is the doctrine of interventionism itself which results in so much of the evils they are forced to deal with.
Herbert Spencer wrote very presciently and with great insight about this phenomenon, in his six-essay series titled "Man versus the State."
Secondly, if corporations are able to subvert or otherwise manipulate government to give them greater competitive advantage, then the system is not one of "true capitalism."
True capitalism implies that government is so limited that it does not have power to intervene in the economy or even specific markets in such a way as to give advantage to any given individual, corporation, or industry.
If the government does assume this power -- and the people, for whatever reason, stand for it -- then capitalism has thus been repudiated, and interventionism adopted.
"Capitalism, by its very nature is amoral. As you have said, the overriding motive is profits."
Capitalism is "amoral" in the same way as freedom itself is "amoral." The morality (or lack thereof) lies within the people themselves.
Capitalism does not imply an absence of law. In fact, it is contingent upon the foundation of a system of Common Law. When every individual (and corporation) is allowed to engage in any and all activity that is intrinsically just and lawful, and prohibited from engaging in any activity that is intrinsically unjust and unlawful, then you will have capitalism.
As soon as the coercive apparatus of the state is directed at anything beyond that, capitalism is repudiated and subverted, and you will interventionism (and eventually, socialism).
What a nice motherhood idea. There might be just a slight difference of opinion between individuals and corporations about what fits that definition.
Which is why we need a system of laws to protect society from the actions of individuals and corporations. What you call the "coercive apparatus of the state" is this system of laws and its enforcement.
Your utopian visions share as much reality as Marx's idealized Communism.
You are entitled to your opinions, and welcome to air them here, but to call such mental meanderings "facts" is laughable.
"Intrinsically just and lawful" is not a "motherhood idea." It's common sense. The initiation of coercive force against the person of property of others, is intrinsically unjust and unlawful. Every individual is born with the right to be secure in their person, the free and inoffensive use of their faculties, and to the free disposition of the fruits of their labor. The only time coercive force is justified, is in the defense of the person, liberty, or property of individuals.
Will you deny this proposition? Will you say that the proper role of violence in society, could be extended beyond the purely defensive?
Will you deny this proposition?
Some people consider all taxes unjust and coercive. Do you? Is the forcible assessment of taxes "violence?" If so, I deny your proposition. Taxes are necessary for the functioning of government. Without government there is anarchy.
What a laugh!
Aren't you the one who's suggesting that all we need to do, to provide for a better future, is significantly alter human nature itself???
These are facts:
(1) Every single thing that you condemn in this article as a perceived characteristic of "capitalism," is actually a characteristic of an interventionist (essentially anti-capitalist) government policy.
(2) Justice is an immutable, natural principle. It is a natural law the same as gravity or inertia. Just as there can be different theories or interpretations of the natural laws of physics, so can there be different theories and interpretations of the natural law of justice. But the objective natural laws are not altered, or do not cease to exist, on account of different opinions or theories regarding them.
A given policy, legislation, or individual action is either just, or unjust, according to the objective, immutable law of justice.
For example, slavery is unjust. The myriad legislation and statutes, such as fugitive slave laws, etc., that tacitly or explicitly sanctioned the practice of slavery, did not make the institution of slavery just.
Tariffs are unjust. Every human being in existence has a natural and intrinsic right to produce and trade or otherwise do business with any other individual, anywhere in the world. For a government to prohibit this intrinsically just and lawful activity, or to levy a punitive penalty on them for doing so (and calling it a "tax,") is a violation of the natural law of justice.
Every individual has a right, for example, to offer an intrinsically just and lawful service (such as cutting hair, or giving manicures) for profit, on their own properties. For government to presume to prohibit them from doing so, unless they apply for and pay for a state "permit" or "license," is a violation of their natural right to produce and exchange to provide for their own survival and subsistence. No one person or group of people has an inherent authority to say "You have to pay us a fee for the privilege of earning a living." That's mafia behavior. In other words, it is unjust and unlawful; it is not made proper and legitimate just on account of the fact that the government chooses to do it.
The natural law of justice may be violated, but it may never be altered or abolished.
There is no such thing as a "lawmaker." The best thing that humans can hope to do, is to govern and make legislation in accordance with the pre-existing natural law of justice. Justice cannot be made or unmade by any human power.
The goal of judges and legislators, if they desired to be just and legitimate, should be to find the law -- the pre-existing natural law of justice -- , as it pertains and applies to any given circumstance, and to direct the coercive apparatus of government to it's maintenance; not to "make" laws, according to their own arbitrary will or the "will of the public," as true Law cannot be "made," or unmade, or altered, or abolished.
Yes, I see that human nature...or at least its capitalist manifestations...must change if we are to survive. Absolutely right. The way we are going, polluting, depleting and overpopulating the earth, is a pretty clear road to oblivion.
I don't see how your notion of private ownership of everything is a panacea that will save us from that. But it will probably allow the rich to get richer, and the poor to starve when the inevitable famines arrive
Not true; at least not in any objective sense. If something is truly coercive to to another (in the sense that it initiates coercive force against their person or property, i.e., it is not done in defense of an already-initiated aggression), then it doesn't matter what the first person thinks; the coercive force is unjust.
There is nothing vague about the concept at all. There may be certain instances or circumstances where the application of it isn't so readily apparent, but that doesn't make the concept any less valid.
And it's not "utopian." Unless you would consider the belief that every human being has equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- regardless of what some group of humans who happen to have been given a monopoly on the use of force, and who sustain their position in society through violence, confiscation, and threats, happen to impose on society -- as a "utopian" idea.
"Some people consider all taxes unjust and coercive. Do you?"
As I've stated in one of many past comments directed to you that you declined to read; yes, I believe that there are no goods or services that should be provided at the barrel of a gun.
However, I am a practical man. I realize that so many generations of humans have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into statism, that states and their peculiar system of acquiring income (conquest, confiscation, and threats) are not going anywhere anytime soon.
But is it really so awful for me to hope and wish for some measure relief from the massive insult and injustice that constitutes statism, in the form of at least limited government?
Would it be so foolish or "utopian," for me to at least expect the federal government to honor and abide by the limits drawn for it in the Constitution that gave it life? at least in those areas where it is expressly forbidden from violating the natural and intrinsic rights of individuals?
After all, I never gave my consent to being a party to the Constitution. I never signed it. I never pledged to "support the government." If I'm going to forced, against my will, to support and obey the terms of a "contract" that I never consented to being party to, is it really so much for me to ask that the "government" that the contract created, remain faithful to it's duties and limitations as plainly stated in the contract that it presumes to enforce upon me?
And I would agree. Which is why I propose that we purge our system of the destructive socialistic policies that have resulted in the imminent calamity we are facing, and instead institute a system of liberty (aka, capitalism), which results in the rational allocation and preservation of scarce resources, and the maximum satisfaction of the most urgent needs and desires of society at the same time.
"I don't see how your notion of private ownership of everything is a panacea that will save us from that."
That is because you are somehow impervious to rational concepts that differ from your entrenched fallacious ideas and beliefs.
I've already explained why the absence of property rights is what results in depletion and degradation of resources. This is not "opinion," it is the clear and rational explanation that is just a fraction of the wisdom and understanding that constitutes the contributions handed down to us by the greatest, most prescient and insightful economists and thinkers the world has blessed us with.
Just because you personally choose not to read and learn and avail yourself of this understanding (I could lead you to literally dozens of books, just to get you started), doesn't make the truths it explains and clarifies less valid.
"But it will probably allow the rich to get richer, and the poor to starve when the inevitable famines arrive"
Right. More Marxist-style, emotionally-based class warfare rhetoric. That really works to solve problems.
We have both been repeating ourselves for a while now, and frankly, I am bored with it.
I think I am done with this thread, Steve, unless someone else comes along with some new ideas. Until that happens, this is my last post.
Feel free to have the last word. I promise you I will come back to read it.
I don't know how much you read, and I surely don't know if you'd ever even consider suggestions from someone as rude as myself; but I think someone like yourself, who clearly cares and has the capacity for greater understanding, would be well served by some of the classics that have been catalysts for the philosophical and ideological awakening for so many others (myself included).
I was serious about the offer I made to you a few days ago. Send me your email address through my Gather mailbox, and I'll purchase both Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," and Murray Rothbard's "Man, Economy, & State," at Mises.org (the both of them together will come to about $25; a price I'm willing to pay considering the high likelihood that it would result in the gift of greater understanding for just one more individual), and "gift" them to you (Mises.org will send you an email, where you just complete the order form with you mailing address, and the pre-purchased books will be sent to you).
There are so many others, though. Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action" is probably the definitive treatise on the science of praxeology, still to this day. There's the true classics, like Frederic Bastiat's "The Law," and his "Economic Sophisms" volumes 1 and 2; Herbert Spencer's "Man vs. The State," and Lysander Spooner's "Letter to Grover Cleveland" and "No Treason."
A book that's been credited with converting many a collectivist-oriented intellectual to the side of classical liberalism (what people call "libertarianism" today), is Freidrich A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." When I read it, I was already firmly convinced of it's basic premise (I had already had much exposure to Rothbard and Spooner, decidedly more "radical" than Hayek, to say the least), but I was still inspired and struck by it's sheer logical force.
As they say, you can lead a horse to water...
Really? What exactly is the immutable natural law of justice?
"And it's not "utopian." Unless you would consider the belief that every human being has equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- regardless of what some group of humans who happen to have been given a monopoly on the use of force, and who sustain their position in society through violence, confiscation, and threats, happen to impose on society -- as a "utopian" idea."
Sounds pretty damned utopian to me. I read this comment in Jarred Wollstein's Society Without Coercion:and I thought it sounded extremely utopian, and wholly unnatural. Humans have been around for a couple of million years and never developed any such society. I wonder why? If this kind of society is the best option for the success of the species, why didn't it evolve naturally?
But you're not being forced to support and obey the terms of a contract you never consented to being a party to. In fact, you're not only free to change the terms of the contract (presuming you can get enough other parties to agree to the changes), or you can opt-out completely by leaving the United States and renouncing your citizenship.
That's why we have law.
What should not be too much to expect, though (but sadly it is, due to the prevalence of people like you, Wil, who believe the proper scope of law is whatever the political class says it is), is to have a system of law that is designed to protect and defend people against the initiation of force; as opposed to a system that imposes it upon us.
And just so we're clear on this, Wil; what you've asserted, in your first comment, is that the Declaration of Independence is founded upon Utopianism.
"But you're not being forced to support and obey the terms of a contract you never consented to being a party to."
That's funny; because I was under the impression that if I were to somehow find a way out of having to cough up the 25+% of my paycheck everyweek, that is taken away from me to support the government that the "contract" created, then I would be hauled off to some prisonj somewhere, and my property would be confiscated, and I would likely be shot dead if I attempted to defend myself and my property.
I don't think I'm willing to take your word for it, Wil. I trust my insticts are correct.
"In fact, you're not only free to change the terms of the contract (presuming you can get enough other parties to agree to the changes)"
But I don't want to be a party to the "contract" at all. Why should the onus be on me to "change the terms" of I contract that I never consented to being a party to?
Why would I, or anyone in their right mind, voluntarily consent to being party to a contract with another party that has plainly proven itself unwilling or unable to remain honest and faithful to the clear and explicit terms that pertain to it?
"or you can opt-out completely by leaving the United States and renouncing your citizenship."
In other words; if I don't happen to like all the arbitrary compulsions and restrictions being imposed on me, then I should just leave the country?
So to hell with human liberty? I have no right to expect to be allowed to live my life the way I see fit, so long as I do not harm anyone else or their property?
You may be so eager to repudiate freedom; I'm not.
"Really? What exactly is the immutable natural law of justice?"
Everyone has the equal right to be free from arbitrary compulsion being imposed on them by others. It's really simple. We all have the right to do whatever we want, so long as we don't harm anyone else or their property.
If the proposition of Natural Law is so baseless and silly to you, then I might ask; Do you believe there are any criteria that separates the just from the unjust?
Were the laws of Nazi Germany just? They were passed by a democratically-elected government. Is something just simply because a parliament chooses to enact it? (or unjust simply because a parliament chooses to prohibit it?)
Are anti-marijuana laws just simply because Congress passed them?
If legislation is not ipso facto equivalent to justice, then what is the source of our criteria?
In other words, could you please explain to me, how you can deny the doctrine that everything a government does is automatically just, without ultimately falling back on some sort of concept of natural law? (Or do you advocate the doctrine that everything a government does is automatically just [provided they are "a democracy"]?)
And how exactly would you devise a system of law that protected and defended people against the initiation of force without having the ability to impose force on those who do so?
Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend to know what I believe.
"That's funny; because I was under the impression that if I were to somehow find a way out of having to cough up the 25+% of my paycheck everyweek, that is taken away from me to support the government that the "contract" created, then I would be hauled off to some prisonj somewhere, and my property would be confiscated, and I would likely be shot dead if I attempted to defend myself and my property."
If you prefer to look at things that way, it's no skin off my nose, but that doesn't make it true. Still, I imagine it's very useful for propping up your whole "I hate the government" thing, so have fun with it.
"But I don't want to be a party to the "contract" at all. Why should the onus be on me to "change the terms" of I contract that I never consented to being a party to?"
Sure you did. You are free to remain a citizen or not. You choose to remain a citizen.
"In other words; if I don't happen to like all the arbitrary compulsions and restrictions being imposed on me, then I should just leave the country?"
Sure, why not? If you don't like the way the way they do things there, why stay? You feel you're being unjustly forced to abide by a contract you never agreed to, but retaining your citizenship is considered to be tacit agreement.
"So to hell with human liberty? I have no right to expect to be allowed to live my life the way I see fit, so long as I do not harm anyone else or their property?"
No, I don't think you don't have any right to expect that, and I can't imagine any sane reason why you think you do. Or should.
"You may be so eager to repudiate freedom; I'm not."
OK. You keep hoping that insulting people will help you create Libertopia.
"Everyone has the equal right to be free from arbitrary compulsion being imposed on them by others. It's really simple. We all have the right to do whatever we want, so long as we don't harm anyone else or their property."
Uh huh. And this is a law of nature? Where in nature can I see this law in action?
"If the proposition of Natural Law is so baseless and silly to you, then I might ask; Do you believe there are any criteria that separates the just from the unjust?"
An external, universal criteria? No, I don't. I think it's likely that humans (and other animals) have an innate sense of fairness, but I don't believe it necessarily manifests itself according to any universal concept of "natural justice."
"If legislation is not ipso facto equivalent to justice, then what is the source of our criteria? "
As I said, I think the only criteria we've got is an innate sense of fairness. The thing is, my notion of fairness may not be the same as yours. Legislation rarely (never?) satisfies everybody. Your notion of "natural justice" doesn't satisfy everybody either.
If you just remove the straw man that you disingenuously snuck into your argument there, you'd likely find it much more plausible.
I never said anything about not "having the ability to use force on those who do" initiate force against others.
In fact, I've stated that that is the only legitimate role of violence in society; defense against those who impose coercive force upon others.
"I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend to know what I believe."
I'm not "pretending" anything. I know from past conversations with you, as well the implications running throughout your comments here, that what I ascribed to you is exactly what you believe (or at least claim to believe).
Are you denying that you think that the proper scope of the law is whatever the political class says it is, so long as they are democratically elected?
"If you prefer to look at things that way, it's no skin off my nose, but that doesn't make it true."
Right. I suppose one could contort logic to the point of torture, and come up with some ambiguous philosphical argument about how our government is purely one of "consent;" the fact that we are all compelled under threat of imprisonment and confiscation of property for declining to support and obey it, notwithstanding.
" You are free to remain a citizen or not. You choose to remain a citizen."
You are arguing some obscure philosphical point. I'm referring to the practical, reality-based fact.
Neither I, nor anyone else who happens to have been born on this particular patch of dirt called the USA, has it within our power to tell the government: "I choose not to be a 'citizen.' I do not recognize your "'aws'; I recognize only the common sense laws of Justice. I pledge to refrain from infringing on the rights of your 'citizens,' and if I should ever harm the person or property of anyone else, then I will submit to be tried by a jury of 12, and will submit to whatever punishment I am given. I do not wish to be 'protected' by you, and I will see to my own protection. I do not wish to receive any of your 'benefits,' I want only the free exercise of my right to seek out those benefits on my own terms."
Doesn't work. If one is born here, then they are automatically a subject of the American government. They cannot own land property; only rent it from the state. They cannot truly be free, they are subject to all the arbitrary compulsions and restrictions that Congress sees fit to impose on us.
Our only choice is to leave; which is another way of saying we cannot have freedom, its either be a slave, or flee.
<<< So to hell with human liberty? I have no right to expect to be allowed to live my life the way I see fit, so long as I do not harm anyone else or their property? >>>
"No, I don't think you don't have any right to expect that, and I can't imagine any sane reason why you think you do. Or should."
So, in other words, I must be crazy for thinking I have a right to be free.
So then, why is it that you say I'm "insulting" you, for pointing out your repudation of freedom?
If you think it's so insulting that I should point it out, then why do it?
Or, do you have some alternative definition of freedom, aside from being able to live one's life the way one sees fit, so long as one does not harm the person or property of others? (You know; like it says in that Utopian screed, the Declaration of Independence?)
" I think it's likely that humans (and other animals) have an innate sense of fairness, but I don't believe it necessarily manifests itself according to any universal concept of "natural justice." "
Then you don't believe there is any such thing as Justice? Merely "an innate sense of fairness"? So as long as there is a greater number of people, in any given situation, who believe something to be "fair," then it is just?
I'm not even going to go into the implications of that. I'll just let you maybe roll it around in your head for a little bit, and see if you're able to grasp the absurdity of it for yourself.
"The thing is, my notion of fairness may not be the same as yours. Legislation rarely (never?) satisfies everybody. Your notion of "natural justice" doesn't satisfy everybody either."
First, it doesn't matter what you think to be fair or unfair. If you (or a million people who think like you) use force to violate the person or property of others, then you have committed an injustice upon those individuals.
If you say "I don't like gambling, I think its wrong; I'm going to throw you in jail if you gamble" (or decline to pay whatever punitive fines I levy on you for doing so), then you have committed an injustice, because individuals are perfectly within their rights to make bets with any other individuals, so long as all parties voluntarily agree to the terms.
Do you believe that two people have some legitimate authority to use force to take money from a third person, because they believe it more "fair" that they should have it than the original owner should get to keep it?
If you answer no, then why should you believe that 100 million people have a legitimate authority, to use force to take money from another 50 million, just because they believe it more that they should have it than the original owners?
Does the principle change when the numbers are greater? Or is there no principle at all? Is the only pertinent factor the differing and arbitrary "innate sense of fairness" of whoever happens to be writing the legislation at the time?