The Inherent Morality of Capitalism and the Free Market

[amicus]

The Inherent Morality of Capitalism and the Free Market


I am about to embark on some unhurried and mostly passive research to learn what others in the past have said about this subject.

For the few on this forum that might have an inkling of the nature of my quest, I invite you to share any treatises or essays you may have run across.

For those who only see Capitalism through the eyes of Marx and Lenin; nevermind.

But the free, unrestricted, untaxed trade or barter or exchange of goods and services is, in my view, the keystone to an ethical and moral system of behavior for rational human beings.

Most ‘moral codes’ in human history have been handed down from on high by one supreme being or another and as such, have fallen into disrepair as time has tumbled on down.

While Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises, John Locke, Thomas Paine and a few others readily come to mind, I suspect that back through the ages, rational men, here and there saw the virtue and the beauty of the free exchange between humans as the foundation for an ethical system of conduct.

It is a system of morality that need not be imposed upon others except by time tested rules in fair trade and honesty between those who traded.

Surely it becomes more complex as society grows and producers begin to work through various ‘middle men’ between seller and buyer and more complex when trade became extensive and beyond political borders.

Even more complex when natural resources such as wood and coal and water became scarce or distant from social groups and transportation became an element.

Although it is often a giant leap between the past and the early beginnings of a system or an industry to the modern vast industrial empires that exist now, the basic moral tenets hold true without fail.

That is the inherent beauty and efficiency of freedom.

I get a woody just typing about it.

The always amicable amicus…

 

[amicus]

Well...I know I am adding to my own thread, but, the research is curious...


http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=the+morality+of+capitalism&pstart=1&fr=slv1-msgr&b=11

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/morality.htm

1 - 10 of about 1,170,000 for the morality of capitalism - 0.02 sec.

Morality
Isn't capitalism immoral?
No. Capitalism is the moral system, since it is the only system that allows man to be virtuous -- to pursue the good -- by leaving him free to act by the use of his reason. Freedom to act is a precondition of morality. This is Capitalism's moral justification.

Isn't capitalism justified by the fact it serves the "public good"?
No. As a secondary effect of allowing the creators and innovators of society freedom to create and produce, laissez-faire results in a society where progress is the norm, and the standard of living continuously rises. That capitalism serves the "public good" (properly defined as the sum of the good of all individuals) is true, though this is not its moral justification but is merely an effect of its cause: freeing the individual from the mediocrity of the collective, to live his own life as an end to himself.


The Morality of capitalism
by Mark W Hendrickson; Paul Poirot
• Type: English : Book
• Publisher: Irvington-on-Hudson, NY : Foundation for Economic Education, 1992.
• ISBN: 0910614784
• OCLC: 30329478
• Subjects: Capitalism -- Moral and ethical aspects.
Capitalism With Morality more books like this
by Haslett, D.W. other copies of this book


Capitalism With Morality
by Haslett, D.W.



A broad and lucid study of the merits of different economic systems, this work combines economic criteria of success with a philosophically sophisticated analysis of ethical foundations and moral justification. Arguing that despite the fall of socialism, the deep feelings of moral discontent
that many have with capitalism are as strong as ever, the author analyzes unadulterated capitalism and centrally-planned socialism. He considers economic systems from a moral as well as economic standpoint, considering such criteria as freedom, justice, and equal opportunity, as well as standards of
productivity, growth, and employment levels. The author concludes with an outlining and defending an alternative system which attempts to avoid the moral deficiencies of current capitalism without abandoning the traditional strengths and benefits of capitalism itself.


http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/sofia2005.html

Capitalism is the Institution of Ethics
François-René Rideau

http://fare.tunes.org/

This is a speech I have prepared for the Libertarian International convention organized by the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty in Sofia on 2005-04-02 and 2005-04-03. Since I had only thirty minutes to deliver it, I cut it down as follows: I skipped the sections The Enforcement of Property Rights, Capitalism as a Phenomenon, We Are All Capitalists, Convincing People, and I stripped down the introduction, the conclusion, and the section Errors in the Way of Liberty.


1 Introduction
2 Ethics: a Paradigm of Individual Choice
3 Responsibility: The Dynamic Feedback of Ethics
4 Capitalism: the Institution of Ethics
5 Law and Facts
6 The Enforcement of Property Rights
7 Capitalism as a Phenomenon
8 We Are All Capitalists
9 Obstacles to Capitalism
10 Errors in the Way of Liberty
11 Convincing People
12 Conclusion


Not sure what I expected to find in researcing the subject...but there is booku information....


amicus....

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I get a woody just typing about it.

Nothing to add...

this just made me smile...

 

[Kev H]

Serious question

OK, man, you got me to bite (if you wanted to preach, now's your chance): how can you possible connect ethics (even morality) with any automated system (like one governing the economy of a nation)? That's almost as presumptive as saying nature is good or bad, imo. Or am I simply missing some important point of consideration?

Here's where I come from: I see morality as a forced set of behaviors in general (forced upon oneself as in personal conviction). Before civilization, it was might makes right (and still is any time someone can get away with it), and only the realization that that unethical behavior was not condusive to the betterment of society allowed it to change. Humans are not ethical or moral by nature, they are self-preservationists <i>on a small, individual scale</i> - the good ol' looking out for #1. It is an enormous error to assume that humans naturally tend toward morality as it applies to others.

So, the question begs to be asked: how can a simple system rewarding wealth, innovation, trickery, etc have anything to do with morality? Pure capitalism only cares about money within one lifetime, for the most part. I will admit there is a tremendous amount of people like myself, who work to lead an ethical, but I have seen and heard of many who do not.

I have seen capitalism reward the sly and unethical over the ones who "play fair." I spent seven years in the computer industry observing this - I was a consultant, so I got to see all sides of it since I interacted with virtually everyone who was remotely involved with computers. I dealt with multi-billion companies (CIOs to the end-user) as well as the one-man-shop setup. I never encountered pervasive "we do this because it's the right way to do it," but the "we do this because it is the most profitable." They did not give a shit if it hurt someone as long as that could not come back to bite them (ie, regulation). When a company needed to keep its talent, it did things designed to have "employee retention" - it never did if it felt the employees were replacable in a cost-effective manner.

Capitalism, while being the best system we have ever developed, is run by nothing resembling ethics. Hendrickson's assertion that "Capitalism is the moral system, since it is the only system that allows man to be virtuous" is about the most illogical statement I have seen, since it assumes everyone is forced to be virtuous - any reasoning person knows the difference between being virtuous and having the ability to being virtuous (the choice). Humans have a chance to be virtuous every day and choose not to, and the capitalism system, at best, cares not a whit whether they are or not (in some cases it encourages them financially to be less than ethical). I have a really great recent example of this; if you are interested I'll PM you with it. (And I dont pick at examples; these are trends I observe based on normal human nature.)

I'm curious to see your rationality for something so foreign to my own experience.

 

[elsol]

Here's where I come from: I see morality as a forced set of behaviors in general (forced upon oneself as in personal conviction). Before civilization, it was might makes right (and still is any time someone can get away with it), and only the realization that that unethical behavior was not condusive to the betterment of society allowed it to change. Humans are not ethical or moral by nature, they are self-preservationists <i>on a small, individual scale</i> - the good ol' looking out for #1. It is an enormous error to assume that humans naturally tend toward morality as it applies to others.
.

Amicus believes that morality/ethics are bound by rules similar to say the laws of physics.

And his answer to 'Well, ami... I can prove gravity. Can you prove.." is "I know that you lack the required brain functionality to understand this, but I assure if you did, you would immediately see that I am right."

Think of Amicus as an atheist with all the God baggage... without the 'God' part.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[gauchecritic]

I always chuckle when MiAmico quotes Thomas Paine as a great capitalist thinker.

from ushistory dot org

He had a grand vision for society: he was staunchly anti-slavery, and he was one of the first to advocate a world peace organization and social security for the poor and elderly.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The free exchange of goods and services by consenting parties is certainly laudible and a fundamental cornerstone of freedom, but I don't see where it inevitably leads to an ethical or virtuous social system.

Where are the ethics if I sell you a "gold" ring that's actually made of brass, or a bottle of "medicine" that turns out to actually be nothing but urine? Where's the mechanism in pure capitalism that prevents this kind of thing?

The ethics of caveat emptor is not what I consider the cornerstone of a just society.

 

[The_Fool]

But the free, unrestricted, untaxed trade or barter or exchange of goods and services is, in my view, the keystone to an ethical and moral system of behavior for rational human beings.…

That could include slavery, prostitution and murder for hire which are all goods or services.


The concept of barter and keeping the honest man, honest is tied directly to not shitting in one's own bed. I will conduct honest trade so as to not create a relationship of dishonesty where reciprocal actions take place. I may need to buy what the other guy is selling next time and I don't want to him to screw me over.

Ethics is an important aspect of most modern companies. Most large companies address that with policies and codes of business conduct. But so many of the companies today still take the attitude that ethical behavior is whatever they can get away with.

Don't get me wrong, I am a free market kind of guy as well. But I don't think you can make that direct of a causal link between open markets and moral societies.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That could include slavery, prostitution and murder for hire which are all goods or services.

dang.

love a thought taken to its logical conclusion...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Dr. M: The free exchange of goods and services by consenting parties is certainly laudible and a fundamental cornerstone of freedom, but I don't see where it inevitably leads to an ethical or virtuous social system. Where are the ethics if I sell you a "gold" ring that's actually made of brass, or a bottle of "medicine" that turns out to actually be nothing but urine?

The Fool: That could include slavery, prostitution and murder for hire which are all goods or services.

I never understand why people always conflate trade with fraud. Certainly one can perpetrate fraud in the course of trade, but it's silly to imply even inidirectly that the two necessarily go together, unless you view the very concept of "profit" as a form of fraud, which I don't think is the case here.

The first part of Dr. M's first sentence is good, but the balance of his statement is a non-sequitor.

Fool's statement about slavery and murder for hire refers to another form of fraud - selling something you do not (can not) own: another person's life.

Perhaps to avoid confusion friends of capitalism should always use the term "honest trade," so everyone understands exactly what we're talking about.


PS. Fool's inclusion of prostitution in his list is odd. I do own my own body, and if I want to "rent" it out that is certainly a form of honest trade. I am disturbed by the likliehood that there's a great deal of exploitation in that profession, but in principle it's honest trade.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, man, you got me to bite (if you wanted to preach, now's your chance): how can you possible connect ethics (even morality) with any automated system (like one governing the economy of a nation)? That's almost as presumptive as saying nature is good or bad, imo. Or am I simply missing some important point of consideration?

Here's where I come from: I see morality as a forced set of behaviors in general (forced upon oneself as in personal conviction). Before civilization, it was might makes right (and still is any time someone can get away with it), and only the realization that that unethical behavior was not condusive to the betterment of society allowed it to change. Humans are not ethical or moral by nature, they are self-preservationists <i>on a small, individual scale</i> - the good ol' looking out for #1. It is an enormous error to assume that humans naturally tend toward morality as it applies to others.

So, the question begs to be asked: how can a simple system rewarding wealth, innovation, trickery, etc have anything to do with morality? Pure capitalism only cares about money within one lifetime, for the most part. I will admit there is a tremendous amount of people like myself, who work to lead an ethical, but I have seen and heard of many who do not.

I have seen capitalism reward the sly and unethical over the ones who "play fair." I spent seven years in the computer industry observing this - I was a consultant, so I got to see all sides of it since I interacted with virtually everyone who was remotely involved with computers. I dealt with multi-billion companies (CIOs to the end-user) as well as the one-man-shop setup. I never encountered pervasive "we do this because it's the right way to do it," but the "we do this because it is the most profitable." They did not give a shit if it hurt someone as long as that could not come back to bite them (ie, regulation). When a company needed to keep its talent, it did things designed to have "employee retention" - it never did if it felt the employees were replacable in a cost-effective manner.

Capitalism, while being the best system we have ever developed, is run by nothing resembling ethics. Hendrickson's assertion that "Capitalism is the moral system, since it is the only system that allows man to be virtuous" is about the most illogical statement I have seen, since it assumes everyone is forced to be virtuous - any reasoning person knows the difference between being virtuous and having the ability to being virtuous (the choice). Humans have a chance to be virtuous every day and choose not to, and the capitalism system, at best, cares not a whit whether they are or not (in some cases it encourages them financially to be less than ethical). I have a really great recent example of this; if you are interested I'll PM you with it. (And I dont pick at examples; these are trends I observe based on normal human nature.)

I'm curious to see your rationality for something so foreign to my own experience.

Capitalism does have feedback mechanisms that tend to generate fair dealing. A very good example is Ebay's user ratings. A more prosaic example is the fact that restaurants that offer good safe food at a good price do better than those that are expensive, crappy, or unsafe. It's not perfect, you can always find exceptions, but over time it can be seen that the dynamic process leads to more fair dealing, not less. In that sense I think capitalism can be seen as an ethical system.

 

[The_Fool]

I never understand why people always conflate trade with fraud. Certainly one can perpetrate fraud in the course of trade, but it's silly to imply even inidirectly that the two necessarily go together, unless you view the very concept of "profit" as a form of fraud, which I don't think is the case here.

The first part of Dr. M's first sentence is good, but the balance of his statement is a non-sequitor.

Fool's statement about slavery and murder for hire refers to another form of fraud - selling something you do not (can not) own: another person's life.

Perhaps to avoid confusion friends of capitalism should always use the term "honest trade," so everyone understands exactly what we're talking about.


PS. Fool's inclusion of prostitution in his list is odd. I do own my own body, and if I want to "rent" it out that is certainly a form of honest trade. I am disturbed by the likliehood that there's a great deal of exploitation in that profession, but in principle it's honest trade.

In this response towards slavery and murder, you are applying those morals and ethics that you find applicable. That being one cannot own another nor take another human life. I also subscribe to this belief, but not all cultures present and few in the past did.

Prostitution is also a service. It is one that I am relatively indifferent towards. However the culture of the country that I live in considered it to be immoral. Therefore in most locales it is illegal. The concept of Free Trade and Capitalism are indifferent to to moral position of a service. It is the overlay of the morality of the culture that provides the filter through which goods are deemed inappropriate for consumption.

 

[Pure]

Yep, I agree: Slavery is best; it's inherently moral.

Isn't slavery immoral?

No. Slavery is the moral system, since it is the only system that allows the worthy man to be virtuous -- to pursue the good -- by leaving him free to act by the use of his reason. Men are not free to use reason, when they must be involved in hours of drudgery, be it cleaning a home or tending sheep in pasture. Freedom to act is a precondition of morality. This is slavery's moral justification.

Doesn't slavery treat some men as less worthy?

The meaning is ambiguous, but it certainly does not MAKE anyone unworthy; it simply recognizes the lesser worth of some 'men'--men, women, and children. And it enables them to have a chance at improving their lives over their present prospects. It is a natural consequence of war, for time immemorial. It represents the *generosity* of the victors, since in a lethal war they have the right to kill all of the enemy (as was the case at Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.).

Those enslaved, being without a 'right' to live, are, out of generosity, allowed to do so, of course in consideration of the contribution their labor to the victor. That contribution, although forced, in a sense, is a form of restitution for the war damage. However onerous it may appear, it is preferred by almost all men, to annihilation, death. It follows that slavery represents an improvement of life prospects--which were zero--and a chance for redemptive labor which helps insure an equitable outcome.

But leaving aside enslavement, which appears highly moral, surely the *commerce* in human beings--selling of slaves-- is not 'honest trade.'

It was thought to 'honest' by some of the most enlightened men of the time, e.g., George Washington. But what is the proof? "Honest" commerce is that where value is exchanged for value. There is no fraud or misrepresentation. There is nothing dishonest if the seller gets, say, his $50, as agreed, and the buyer, as expected gets his slave.

Yet honest trade presupposes a *right* to sell; it's dishonest to sell stolen goods, even if they are accurately represented and agreed funds are paid.

It has already been shown that the acquisition of the slave is lawful, moral and fitting. That his status has limits on its freedom has also been explained. His status simply does not involve full rights of personhood because he sacrificed them in waging and losing a war. Hence, although a man has no right to sell his dutiful wife, an ordinary person with a right of liberty, he has a right to sell his slave; in the beginning, that being the slave he has captured.

Isn't slavery justified by the fact it serves the "public good"?

No. As a secondary effect of allowing the creators and innovators of society freedom to create and produce, laissez-faire slavery results in a society where progress is the norm, and the standard of living continuously rises. Look at the US in its first 60 years.

That slavery serves the "public good" (properly defined as the sum of the good of all worthy individuals) is true, though this is not its moral justification but is merely an effect of its cause: freeing the worthy individual from the mediocrity of the collective, to live his own life as an end to himself.

The unworthy never live lives as ends, anyway, but are forever the volunteers and conscripts of those with more vision and initiative. They are, according to nature, sheep in need of a shepherd. So their assignment to tasks that the worthy call 'drudgery' is entirely fitting and indeed acceptable to the vast majority given a degree of social order and prosperity. The abundance of examples of this effect--freeing up the worthy so they flourish-- ranges from Aristotle to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Liar]

Fool's statement about slavery and murder for hire refers to another form of fraud - selling something you do not (can not) own: another person's life.

Why can't I own that?

Ok, we both agree that morally and ethically, I can't.

But where in the mechanics of free and unrestricred capitalism does it say that I can't? The thread was about the inherent morals of the system. What you are talking about is a set of ethic code from somewhere else, imposed upon the free and unrestricted system of capitalism. Isn't it?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I never understand why people always conflate trade with fraud. Certainly one can perpetrate fraud in the course of trade, but it's silly to imply even inidirectly that the two necessarily go together, unless you view the very concept of "profit" as a form of fraud, which I don't think is the case here.

The first part of Dr. M's first sentence is good, but the balance of his statement is a non-sequitor.

Fool's statement about slavery and murder for hire refers to another form of fraud - selling something you do not (can not) own: another person's life.

Perhaps to avoid confusion friends of capitalism should always use the term "honest trade," so everyone understands exactly what we're talking about.


PS. Fool's inclusion of prostitution in his list is odd. I do own my own body, and if I want to "rent" it out that is certainly a form of honest trade. I am disturbed by the likliehood that there's a great deal of exploitation in that profession, but in principle it's honest trade.

Fool's statement about slavery and murder for hire most definitely fall under capitalism. Slave owners would argue that a slave has no more right to it's life than the beast of burden that they see it as. As far as murder for hire, you aren't selling anyone's life, you're selling a service, your skill and ability to take someone's life from them.

I do agree with you about prostitution as an honest trade, a woman's body is her own. If she wants to be a filthy whore then thats her right. (That there's a joke if ya didn't see it.)

 

[gauchecritic]

Capitalism does have feedback mechanisms that tend to generate fair dealing. A very good example is Ebay's user ratings. A more prosaic example is the fact that restaurants that offer good safe food at a good price do better than those that are expensive, crappy, or unsafe. It's not perfect, you can always find exceptions, but over time it can be seen that the dynamic process leads to more fair dealing, not less. In that sense I think capitalism can be seen as an ethical system.

Until you look at simple economics and unit costs, diminishing returns and the bell curve of sales.

The ethic or perhaps morality of those things listed decree that a company (Nike for instance) set their pricing structure at what the market will stand rather than the 'reasonable' price at the top of the curve which accrues no less and no more profit but provides more of the same goods to a greater number of consumers.

Just in case you didn't realise, I made Nike the example for their well known just and ethical use of third world labour.

And in case you still don't get the point: Capitalism (and its offspring consumerism) depend very heavily on there being an exploitable 'class' system.

And don't start me on monopolies and aggressive take-overs which capitalism accepts as a matter of course.

 

[amicus]

Gauchecritic along with many others, just don't seem to know how to divorce opinion, belief and subjective thinking from the rational and the objective, not a malady limited only to the AH, but widespread.

There are companies that have dumped toxic waste in rivers and streams, other companies denuded a hillside for lumber or minerals and caused damage to the environment and adjoining properties. There were and probably still are sweatshops paying slave wages and unsafe working conditions. There are scams and fraudulent activity and ripoffs galore; there is even false advertising and failure to perform.

There are bad men and women in this world, Gauche, your momma shudda told you, sorry to be the bearer of ill tidings, but yes, there are bad people in the world.

Capitalism however, is quite like every other endeavor mankind undertakes, it is quite human in nature and humans, god forbid, gauche, are subject to the frailties of mankind.

Capitalism is not a 'system' imposed upon men, it is rather an observation, a study and then a theoretical expansion of the observation of how men best serve their own interests and each others.

The idea of the exhange of goods and services came about naturally when two individuals possessing different items in surplus mutually agreed to exchange benefitting both.

With many themes and variations, that basic principle holds true today. Auto workers unions overpriced the labor, companies failed to meet the public demand for smaller cars and the business went overseas.

No class structure involved, no exploitation of cheap labor merely the intricate and now world wide function of the market to satisfy supply and demand.

The beautiful thing about the basics of freedom is that it does not have to be managed, controlled, regulated or even assisted, it works perfectly if the goddamned government and socialists like you would 'laissezfaire' "Leave us the fuck alone!"

Pardon my French.

amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

Capitalism bears no resemblance whatsoever to barter.

Capitalism is the exploitation of barter by those 'crafty' enough to avoid having to do any of the making themselves.

Can you explain where the economic principles of unit cost and economies of scale are subjective and opinion?

Ah, I see. That thinking which surrounds and envelops the free market: profit motive.

That which the unalloyed marketeer prays daily to in his usurous temple.

Observe away then MiAmico and ignore the dollar a day workers, the four job parents and the Macwages doled to an uneducated subclass.

Take no mind of the daily excesses perpetrated by man on his fellow man.

They'll only do it anyway so what difference does it make if their reasons are monetary?

No class structure involved, no exploitation of cheap labor merely the intricate and now world wide function of the market to satisfy supply and demand.

Why accept class structure and exploitation when you can apply objectivity and explain it away with a global economy. Or more simply; "Fuck 'em. They're only workers"

 

[Kev H]

OK Rox, I agree that assuming capitalistic trade will be used unfairly is as bad as assuming it would be used fairly. Er, wait...you did not say that? You mean you want to assume the default is fairness? From people?

*chuckles*

I still see the leap from capitalism to ethics or even morality as an impassable chasm. But I truly am open to illumination (or you can just tell me it's an unsupportable belief and I will accept it as such).

One interesting observation: when people are talking about the trade mechanisms of capitalism, they tend to become simplistic and actually talk about very basic things, like food. Technology is now an integral part of who we are, yet it requires a huge pool of research/expertise and basic investment. Small businesses lose and large companies thrive by eating the smaller companies.

Power companies have or want a monopoly over their customers because of their enormous infrastructure. Not right or wrong, it just is. So do phone companies. In fact, the phone and the internet companies have clashed recently in an interesting way.

(Warning: American only example) The phone companies own their 800-numbers and access - their work, their infrastructure, their technology, right? Some smaller companies have bought their 800 services from the giants (AT&T, SWB, etc) to spread their internet access to those who want access anywhere or cannot get local access - some of these successful companies had 3000 users or more. Nice, but not huge, but they are relying on the AT&Ts to uphold their end of the contracts. Which did not happen. The phone companies decided they could get more money by driving the smaller companies out of business so they could offer something similar, so they shut down the 800number access to those companies...no warning. It was illegal and extremely unethical, but it was in the giant's best interest, and they kept them all shut down for about a week, then said "sorry, our mistake." This was enough for the smaller companies to lose business (some probably went out of business, but I am not sure). The one company I am familiar with lost quite a few of their customers because they could not guarantee them that that would not just happen again. In the meantime the giants are lobbying and using their power in the legislature to push through a bill that would give them the legal right to end that specific use of their 800 numbers so they gain the monopoly as it applies to the internet. You get the point, if you aren't close-minded enough to say "oh but that's just one example."

Maybe it is my technological focus, but I can see no marriage of ethics and capitalism in our world, for ethical pressure from our legal system only has partial effectiveness. Would it really be better without that? Those companies who have leverage of any kind over the others would exploit anything they could to grow in their own profit. Once again, not right or wrong, it just is...but that's my point.

 

[elsol]

Capitalism bears no resemblance whatsoever to barter.

Capitalism is the exploitation of barter by those 'crafty' enough to avoid having to do any of the making themselves.

Can you explain where the economic principles of unit cost and economies of scale are subjective and opinion?

Ah, I see. That thinking which surrounds and envelops the free market: profit motive.

That which the unalloyed marketeer prays daily to in his usurous temple.

Observe away then MiAmico and ignore the dollar a day workers, the four job parents and the Macwages doled to an uneducated subclass.

Take no mind of the daily excesses perpetrated by man on his fellow man.

They'll only do it anyway so what difference does it make if their reasons are monetary?



Why accept class structure and exploitation when you can apply objectivity and explain it away with a global economy. Or more simply; "Fuck 'em. They're only workers"

Obviously, you need to do more of Amicus' objective thinking stuff.. you're just not seeing GOD'S TRUTH... err I mean THE OBJECTIVE, RATIONAL, NON-FAITH TRUTH.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

Kev H]OK Rox, I agree that assuming capitalistic trade will be used unfairly is as bad as assuming it would be used fairly. Er, wait...you did not say that? You mean you want to assume the default is fairness? From people?

*chuckles*

I still see the leap from capitalism to ethics or even morality as an impassable chasm. But I truly am open to illumination (or you can just tell me it's an unsupportable belief and I will accept it as such).

One interesting observation: when people are talking about the trade mechanisms of capitalism, they tend to become simplistic and actually talk about very basic things, like food. Technology is now an integral part of who we are, yet it requires a huge pool of research/expertise and basic investment. Small businesses lose and large companies thrive by eating the smaller companies.

Power companies have or want a monopoly over their customers because of their enormous infrastructure. Not right or wrong, it just is. So do phone companies. In fact, the phone and the internet companies have clashed recently in an interesting way.

(Warning: American only example) The phone companies own their 800-numbers and access - their work, their infrastructure, their technology, right? Some smaller companies have bought their 800 services from the giants (AT&T, SWB, etc) to spread their internet access to those who want access anywhere or cannot get local access - some of these successful companies had 3000 users or more. Nice, but not huge, but they are relying on the AT&Ts to uphold their end of the contracts. Which did not happen. The phone companies decided they could get more money by driving the smaller companies out of business so they could offer something similar, so they shut down the 800number access to those companies...no warning. It was illegal and extremely unethical, but it was in the giant's best interest, and they kept them all shut down for about a week, then said "sorry, our mistake." This was enough for the smaller companies to lose business (some probably went out of business, but I am not sure). The one company I am familiar with lost quite a few of their customers because they could not guarantee them that that would not just happen again. In the meantime the giants are lobbying and using their power in the legislature to push through a bill that would give them the legal right to end that specific use of their 800 numbers so they gain the monopoly as it applies to the internet. You get the point, if you aren't close-minded enough to say "oh but that's just one example."

Maybe it is my technological focus, but I can see no marriage of ethics and capitalism in our world, for ethical pressure from our legal system only has partial effectiveness. Would it really be better without that? Those companies who have leverage of any kind over the others would exploit anything they could to grow in their own profit. Once again, not right or wrong, it just is...but that's my point.[/[/I]QUOTE]

Although you replied to Roxanne, if I may take the liberty...


"...I still see the leap from capitalism to ethics or even morality as an impassable chasm. .."

There is no 'leap' necessary from free trade to ethics and morality, nor a chasm to conquer, merely a recogition that for two parties to exchange goods and services in freedom, certain 'polite' rules are status quo.

Those rules form the basis of an ethical and moral system including honesty, truthfulness, reliability and assurance of delivery and performance.

Thus the creation, by necessity of a 'free trade' system, aka, capitalism, is inherently a moral and ethical force in relationships between men and groups of men.

People will choose not to deal with dishonest, cheating, fraudulent purveyors of goods and services, for obvious reasons, and will choose, again, freely to deal with those who deal with honesty and integrity.

Thus, by, default, free trade/capitalism, creates its own moral and ethical system.

So, cut the bullshit and address the problem of weaning away the lackadaisical from the hard core socialists on this forum...


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

I never understand why people always conflate trade with fraud.

Or business with perfidy.

I think we do it from empirical grounds. Sink me. Have you bought a used car lately?Gone to a mechanic in a faraway town?

 

[amicus]

Or business with perfidy.

I think we do it from empirical grounds. Sink me. Have you bought a used car lately?Gone to a mechanic in a faraway town?

~~~~

Yes, Cantdog, just bought a 1992 chevy s-10 blazer from a private owner for $900.00 cash money. We both did a fair trade to the mutual advantage of both.

The exchange was amicable and efficient, he was happy, I was happy, he got cash, I got the vehicle I wanted. No compulsion, an advertisement in a newspaper, a telephone number, a meeting, a test drive, an examination of the goods for sale and a deal completed, successfully by both.

It is called freedom, you should one day explore the concept.

I will have it painted black, buy vanity plates of 'AMICUS', have signs painted on each door with my book titles and ISBN and visit college campuses over the next six months and sell 10,000 copies of my books...

bite me...


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

So I guess we aren't likely to be chums, right away?

 

[cantdog]

Nature and nurture isn't a philosophical game you get to choose sides on without data, based solely on your prejudices, you know. It's a vital concern to a lot of people, for a lot of reasons, and there's new data on it all the time.

You stopped thinking ages ago, dude, but what the fuck, let the rest of us keep on.