The Inherent Morality of Capitalism and the Free Market
- Thread starter amicus
- Start date
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Around the fuckin horizon, dude. 
Okay, you're the spider in the web of Science, feeling its pulses every second. But you never listen to a thing anyone says, on the boards, here. I find it very much a stretch to imagine you with any variety of open mind. Tonight, though, I am ready to laugh at htis pretension of yours. Have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy your line of snake oil.
Okay, you're the spider in the web of Science, feeling its pulses every second. But you never listen to a thing anyone says, on the boards, here. I find it very much a stretch to imagine you with any variety of open mind. Tonight, though, I am ready to laugh at htis pretension of yours. Have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy your line of snake oil.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
You quickly become tiresome, Cantdog, with your 'snake oil socialism' and situational ethics and a total lack of any rational thought or the ability to defend any position, only attack others.
I have no idea why you even participate in a forum such as this; hair shirt syndrome?
amicus...
I have no idea why you even participate in a forum such as this; hair shirt syndrome?
amicus...
elsol
I'm still sleeepy!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 3,964
cantdog said:yeah, you got me. It gets me laid. What can I say?
Hey... I understand... forum's are like the college coffee shops without the prententious poet-boys...
Err... okay there's Ami but that's like smelly, crazy dude that asks for quarters outside the door of the coffee shop... he adds ambiance.
Sincerely,
ElSol
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Oh, for Christ's sake, did you just say Cantdog was a broad? Shit oh, dear, no fucking wonder the exchange was without content...damn...
amicus
(oh, am I gonna regret that, sorry, S&P, Cloudy, Colleen, Roxanne, Mckenna, SheReads and the dozen or so intelligent females on this forum...)
uhmmm or are they female?
egads..
alas, alack, woe is me...
However...in my sig line...you will note a link to 'She & He', which has not received a single public comment. Would it entice you to read if you suspected that the two characters were an experiment in fan fiction involving Sean Connery and the Hermione Granger character in Harry Potter, Emily someone who is really a blonde?
(I think she is old enough now...) chuckles...
amicus again....
amicus
(oh, am I gonna regret that, sorry, S&P, Cloudy, Colleen, Roxanne, Mckenna, SheReads and the dozen or so intelligent females on this forum...)
uhmmm or are they female?
egads..
alas, alack, woe is me...
However...in my sig line...you will note a link to 'She & He', which has not received a single public comment. Would it entice you to read if you suspected that the two characters were an experiment in fan fiction involving Sean Connery and the Hermione Granger character in Harry Potter, Emily someone who is really a blonde?
(I think she is old enough now...) chuckles...
amicus again....
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
~~~~~~~~elsol said:
~~~~~~~~~
Y'know, Elsol, that may be the first rational thing you have sent in my direction.
Although I have always sought intelligent, alert, commensurate females who caught my eye, they seemed always to be hankering after jocks and accountants. But the fluffy, spontaneous, light hearted airheads, seemed always beneath my feet to trip over by the hundreds...
Can anyone explain that?
a curious amicus...
I was embarrassed and quit counting at a thousand....sighs...
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
Look at the crazy man about to post.
I'm sorry, Happy Fun Ball, but you provide an overly specific microcosm as evidence of how every exchange goes. One could make many counter-arguments to that happy bartering exchange. One can point out barter exchanges in which a fallacious good was touted as something else and sold under false pretenses. One could also point out exchanges in which genuine fraud and theft occured. One could point out simple over-charging, where availability was restricted due to monopolization and so one's choices are reduced to buying over-priced crap or doing without. One could even point out in a similarily misleading manner, communistic exchanges which worked just as well in the real world. My example is operating system and programs. My linux box suffers fewer crashes, more stable programs, and a systematically improved system which overly caters to all my needs except for games sold on market (it has a large abundance of its own games which are available and are exceedingly fun). THis linux box and its subsequent applications cost me absolutely nothing because those who use linux like creating programs, perfecting programs and insuring they are not malicious, and sharing their intellectual property for free. They do this because others share it for free and the OS was free thus allowing pure communism to rule the exchanges.
Yeah, I know. Blah blah blah Lucifer loves Stalin and is a woman, did I mention how many women I've slept with over the years? I know that's all you heard. Eh.
There is also the issue of fundamental principles. Capitalism stresses as drive the accumulation of wealth. It is motivator and reward. What gives wealth substance, what separates it from the market forces of equalization is the existence of poor. It is a system which specifically states that there are winners and losers. The winners get wealth and the losers do not. Thus one man's happiness is built on another's peril.
Let's go back to the car example. In the exchange, let us assume you gave car and he gave the exact amount of money for it. You needed to get rid of the car, he needed the wheels. You exchanged equally and fairly with none profiting. You have as you pointed out did a flawless mutualistic exchange of goods. However, neither of you gained anything wealthwise from the exchange. You merely traded substantial object for its equal and corresponding value in legal tender.
Now we do another example wherein you exchange the product for greater than its value in cash. You have gained an excess in cash and thus have made a profit. He has overpayed for something with less value than he gave. Perhaps he is happy, but he received the short end of the stick. Now replay the circumstance and he has paid you less the value of the car in money and so he has profited while you have something, but less than it's worth. You have not gained a profit from the exchange.
Now capitalism stresses as its morality the persuance of profit. So much so that corporations are legally bound to maximize profits. However, as we've seen in the previous example, both sides of a barter exchange can not gain a profit from the exchange. One will triumph over another. Thus all sides can not benefit from a system reliant on profit. Someone has to be the sucker who pays more than worth. For another to be rich and overfed, another must be poor and underfed.
Is this inherently mutualistic and furthermore, is this a circle of expanding good for both sides? Obviously not. One must win and one must lose. In sociology and biology, this is not mutualism as you claim, but more commonly referred to as parasitism. One side benefiting, one side suffering.
Yeah, I know. Blah blah blah, Look he said he hates capitalism because he links it to parasitism. I know I'm not getting through to you because obviously science and basic economics couldn't get through your head and you say you love them. As such I truthfully don't have to qualify shit, but for shits and giggles let's do a Conclusions section.
Does this mean that I'm against capitalism or think it an agent of evil rather than good? No. It is the only system which reliably works and when properly maintained prevents the seizing of total wealth and power by monopolies. By assuming the worst about people and assuming they will fight to the death for wealth and the prestige it grants, it allows anyone to join and succeed in the fight and overall aids the country it resides in to survive reasonably well as long as it is well-maintained against oligarchies and monopolies. It is as they say the best thing we got to work with.
Does that make this system moral? No. It distinctly relies on people losing to support success and without maintainence will devolve into the same nightmare that feudalism and communism start out with. It never has had any pretense to being fair or nice. There is a reason that those who style themselves most strongly capitalists tend to also believe in the "morality" of social darwinism (might makes right). It is not a moral system, not an economic system.
Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. I realize if this meant anything to you, you would never have arrived at your conclusion in the first place. One cannot jump to the values of capitalism (look out for number one, strive to succeed OVER your fellow man, etc...) to an inherently moral system which leads to total mutual benefits if any amount of actual fact had any hope of roosting. It is an absurdist jump, which requires extreme amounts of careful and deliberate filtering out of mass swathes of humanity and an overly optimistic and unrealistic worldview (you know, like the common complaint about liberals). Such aged filters are surely strong enough to block out my feeble attempt to evoke basic economics.
Anyway, I'm done now and I expect you thoroughly enjoyed my speech in which I donned a complete Soviet uniform and read from Das Kapital while pouring boiling pitch onto my face immensely. I hope you remembered to make me a black lesbian as well so that hating me was much easier to accomplish. You'll have to tell me if I made any decent self-depreciating jokes. One with such a limited cranial capacity as I couldn't possibly have discerned anything of worth I may have inadvertenly mentioned and need a strong white male to note it for me. It is after all his role as genetic superior. At the end I suspect I renounced lesbianism now that I have found your wonderful cock, but I am not allowed to touch it because you have grown overly tired with showing up my type. Thus as an additional gift for such poor showing in your reading of this text, I present to you a pre-pubescent girl for which to lose your virginity on, just as you've always wanted.
No, don't thank me. I am only too happy to serve my superiors.
I'm sorry, Happy Fun Ball, but you provide an overly specific microcosm as evidence of how every exchange goes. One could make many counter-arguments to that happy bartering exchange. One can point out barter exchanges in which a fallacious good was touted as something else and sold under false pretenses. One could also point out exchanges in which genuine fraud and theft occured. One could point out simple over-charging, where availability was restricted due to monopolization and so one's choices are reduced to buying over-priced crap or doing without. One could even point out in a similarily misleading manner, communistic exchanges which worked just as well in the real world. My example is operating system and programs. My linux box suffers fewer crashes, more stable programs, and a systematically improved system which overly caters to all my needs except for games sold on market (it has a large abundance of its own games which are available and are exceedingly fun). THis linux box and its subsequent applications cost me absolutely nothing because those who use linux like creating programs, perfecting programs and insuring they are not malicious, and sharing their intellectual property for free. They do this because others share it for free and the OS was free thus allowing pure communism to rule the exchanges.
Yeah, I know. Blah blah blah Lucifer loves Stalin and is a woman, did I mention how many women I've slept with over the years? I know that's all you heard. Eh.
There is also the issue of fundamental principles. Capitalism stresses as drive the accumulation of wealth. It is motivator and reward. What gives wealth substance, what separates it from the market forces of equalization is the existence of poor. It is a system which specifically states that there are winners and losers. The winners get wealth and the losers do not. Thus one man's happiness is built on another's peril.
Let's go back to the car example. In the exchange, let us assume you gave car and he gave the exact amount of money for it. You needed to get rid of the car, he needed the wheels. You exchanged equally and fairly with none profiting. You have as you pointed out did a flawless mutualistic exchange of goods. However, neither of you gained anything wealthwise from the exchange. You merely traded substantial object for its equal and corresponding value in legal tender.
Now we do another example wherein you exchange the product for greater than its value in cash. You have gained an excess in cash and thus have made a profit. He has overpayed for something with less value than he gave. Perhaps he is happy, but he received the short end of the stick. Now replay the circumstance and he has paid you less the value of the car in money and so he has profited while you have something, but less than it's worth. You have not gained a profit from the exchange.
Now capitalism stresses as its morality the persuance of profit. So much so that corporations are legally bound to maximize profits. However, as we've seen in the previous example, both sides of a barter exchange can not gain a profit from the exchange. One will triumph over another. Thus all sides can not benefit from a system reliant on profit. Someone has to be the sucker who pays more than worth. For another to be rich and overfed, another must be poor and underfed.
Is this inherently mutualistic and furthermore, is this a circle of expanding good for both sides? Obviously not. One must win and one must lose. In sociology and biology, this is not mutualism as you claim, but more commonly referred to as parasitism. One side benefiting, one side suffering.
Yeah, I know. Blah blah blah, Look he said he hates capitalism because he links it to parasitism. I know I'm not getting through to you because obviously science and basic economics couldn't get through your head and you say you love them. As such I truthfully don't have to qualify shit, but for shits and giggles let's do a Conclusions section.
Does this mean that I'm against capitalism or think it an agent of evil rather than good? No. It is the only system which reliably works and when properly maintained prevents the seizing of total wealth and power by monopolies. By assuming the worst about people and assuming they will fight to the death for wealth and the prestige it grants, it allows anyone to join and succeed in the fight and overall aids the country it resides in to survive reasonably well as long as it is well-maintained against oligarchies and monopolies. It is as they say the best thing we got to work with.
Does that make this system moral? No. It distinctly relies on people losing to support success and without maintainence will devolve into the same nightmare that feudalism and communism start out with. It never has had any pretense to being fair or nice. There is a reason that those who style themselves most strongly capitalists tend to also believe in the "morality" of social darwinism (might makes right). It is not a moral system, not an economic system.
Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. I realize if this meant anything to you, you would never have arrived at your conclusion in the first place. One cannot jump to the values of capitalism (look out for number one, strive to succeed OVER your fellow man, etc...) to an inherently moral system which leads to total mutual benefits if any amount of actual fact had any hope of roosting. It is an absurdist jump, which requires extreme amounts of careful and deliberate filtering out of mass swathes of humanity and an overly optimistic and unrealistic worldview (you know, like the common complaint about liberals). Such aged filters are surely strong enough to block out my feeble attempt to evoke basic economics.
Anyway, I'm done now and I expect you thoroughly enjoyed my speech in which I donned a complete Soviet uniform and read from Das Kapital while pouring boiling pitch onto my face immensely. I hope you remembered to make me a black lesbian as well so that hating me was much easier to accomplish. You'll have to tell me if I made any decent self-depreciating jokes. One with such a limited cranial capacity as I couldn't possibly have discerned anything of worth I may have inadvertenly mentioned and need a strong white male to note it for me. It is after all his role as genetic superior. At the end I suspect I renounced lesbianism now that I have found your wonderful cock, but I am not allowed to touch it because you have grown overly tired with showing up my type. Thus as an additional gift for such poor showing in your reading of this text, I present to you a pre-pubescent girl for which to lose your virginity on, just as you've always wanted.
No, don't thank me. I am only too happy to serve my superiors.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Capitalism as religion
Ayn Rand made it so, and Ami worships at the temple.
Note the parallel: First person says 'Capitalism generates fraud." Ami, "Fraud is a human defect, sometimes appearing in capitalist activity."
On religion: First person says, "Religion generates murder." Pope, "Murder is a human, evil tendency, sometime appearing in ostensibly religious activity."
The virtue of capitalism, like the goodness of the Church is a postulate, an axiom. All the later maneuvers are to attempt to accomodate the obvious facts, while insulating the prized object of devotion.
Ayn Rand made it so, and Ami worships at the temple.
Note the parallel: First person says 'Capitalism generates fraud." Ami, "Fraud is a human defect, sometimes appearing in capitalist activity."
On religion: First person says, "Religion generates murder." Pope, "Murder is a human, evil tendency, sometime appearing in ostensibly religious activity."
The virtue of capitalism, like the goodness of the Church is a postulate, an axiom. All the later maneuvers are to attempt to accomodate the obvious facts, while insulating the prized object of devotion.
