Capitalism. Good or Bad?

[rdmayo21]

Okay...typical capitalistic system without regulation or protections for the non-rich.
If you are the owner of that copper mine,
you are going to be protected.
Nobody is gonna hurt you because you have the police on your side.
Because of your money.

You're saying this is a morally righteous arrangement?
The owners of the copper mine are
"free of force from other men."
Everything's cool?

Like I said, the defining characteristic of laissez-faire capitalism is the removal of the initiation of force, which should be the sole function of government. When you talk about buying government off, you're talking about cronyism, not capitalism. In your scenario, if it had occurred within an actual capitalist system, the government would have retaliated against the owners of the mine for initiating force against the natives. You might say to this, "Yeah, in an ideal world, but in reality the people with the money are going to try to buy the government off". The only reason today's governments are worth buying off in the first place is because they have such a large amount of control over the direction of society. Do you think that Big Business doesn't have an influence over what policies and regulations are created? It is only by removing government's role in the economy that you'll end lobbying, because who's going to try to buy off the government when there's nothing to gain from it? The social system of a society is a consequence of the philosophy that dominates within that society. It is only by changing the philosophy within society that you can establish a social system that protects all individuals from the force of other men.

 

[narouz]

Like I said, the defining characteristic of laissez-faire capitalism is the removal of the initiation of force, which should be the sole function of government. When you talk about buying government off, you're talking about cronyism, not capitalism. In your scenario, if it had occurred within an actual capitalist system, the government would have retaliated against the owners of the mine for initiating force against the natives. You might say to this, "Yeah, in an ideal world, but in reality the people with the money are going to try to buy the government off". The only reason today's governments are worth buying off in the first place is because they have such a large amount of control over the direction of society. Do you think that Big Business doesn't have an influence over what policies and regulations are created? It is only by removing government's role in the economy that you'll end lobbying, because who's going to try to buy off the government when there's nothing to gain from it? The social system of a society is a consequence of the philosophy that dominates within that society. It is only by changing the philosophy within society that you can establish a social system that protects all individuals from the force of other men.

Here is something I find confusing in your post:
On the one hand
you maintain "laissez-faire capitalism" is the only moral political philosophy.
But then on the other hand
when unjust, immoral things eventuate as a natural and predictable result of laissez-faire capitalism,
you shift the blame,
absolving laissez-faire capitalism
instead blaming "the social system of a society"
which is a consequence, you say,
"of the philosophy that dominates within that society."

It would seem to me that there should be,
in your vision of the ideal laissez-faire capitalistic society,
no intervening social system:
there should just be capitalism--its markets, its energies, and a police force to protect it.
No other government agency empowered to check or regulate that.
Right?

 

[rdmayo21]

when unjust, immoral things eventuate as a natural and predictable result of laissez-faire capitalism
Right?

Incorrect. Unjust, immoral things eventuate as a natural and predictable result of the fact that man possesses a volitional consciousness that enables him to go against his nature as a rational being if he chooses.

Perhaps I should have been more concise with defining the term "capitalism". Its one rule is not "the absence of initiation of force", but rather "the non-toleration of initiation of force". For the record, there is only one type of capitalism: that which involves the non-toleration of initiation of force, so I use the terms "capitalism" and "laissez-faire capitalism" interchangeably. If humans were at the stage in their development where they didn't seek to have power over other men, there wouldn't be a need to have a formal social system, since people would already interact in a peaceful manner. However, since some do seek power, it is necessary to have a social system that doesn't tolerate the initiation of force in any way.

there should just be capitalism--its markets, its energies, and a police force to protect it

Again, capitalism, in essence, has nothing to do with markets. I don't give two shits about the efficiency of markets. All I care about is individuals having the freedom to "perceive, think, act", which is key to their survival. It just so happens that a market, which is just a group of individuals acting as traders by exchanging value for value, is a usual result of this freedom.

So, I would say there should just be capitalism--individuals free to perceive, think, act, and a government whose sole purpose is to retaliate against those that initiate force.

Whenever a government creates a regulation that affects an individual that has not initiated force upon anyone by hindering his/her ability to perceive, think, and act, the government is initiating force upon that individual. The fact that certain regulations will occasionally prevent someone from initiating force is no justification for initiating force upon anyone. Instead, it would be more effective for government to focus all of its efforts on retaliating against those that have initiated force and not interfere with those that have not. I suppose you could see this threat of retaliation from government as a kind of regulation, since anyone that thinks about initiating force would be fully aware that there will be consequences for doing so.

As far as what government agencies should exist, my answer is: as many as there needs to be to effectively retaliate against those that initiate force.

 

[jaguar43]

when unjust, immoral things eventuate as a natural and predictable result of laissez-faire capitalism
Right?

Incorrect. Unjust, immoral things eventuate as a natural and predictable result of the fact that man possesses a volitional consciousness that enables him to go against his nature as a rational being if he chooses.

Perhaps I should have been more concise with defining the term "capitalism". Its one rule is not "the absence of initiation of force", but rather "the non-toleration of initiation of force". For the record, there is only one type of capitalism: that which involves the non-toleration of initiation of force, so I use the terms "capitalism" and "laissez-faire capitalism" interchangeably. If humans were at the stage in their development where they didn't seek to have power over other men, there wouldn't be a need to have a formal social system, since people would already interact in a peaceful manner. However, since some do seek power, it is necessary to have a social system that doesn't tolerate the initiation of force in any way.

there should just be capitalism--its markets, its energies, and a police force to protect it

Again, capitalism, in essence, has nothing to do with markets. I don't give two shits about the efficiency of markets. All I care about is individuals having the freedom to "perceive, think, act", which is key to their survival. It just so happens that a market, which is just a group of individuals acting as traders by exchanging value for value, is a usual result of this freedom.

So, I would say there should just be capitalism--individuals free to perceive, think, act, and a government whose sole purpose is to retaliate against those that initiate force.

Whenever a government creates a regulation that affects an individual that has not initiated force upon anyone by hindering his/her ability to perceive, think, and act, the government is initiating force upon that individual. The fact that certain regulations will occasionally prevent someone from initiating force is no justification for initiating force upon anyone. Instead, it would be more effective for government to focus all of its efforts on retaliating against those that have initiated force and not interfere with those that have not. I suppose you could see this threat of retaliation from government as a kind of regulation, since anyone that thinks about initiating force would be fully aware that there will be consequences for doing so.

As far as what government agencies should exist, my answer is: as many as there needs to be to effectively retaliate against those that initiate force.

I think you have good points, however your are still missing the complexity capitalism. Like the superstructure of the society. Conflicts of interest, wages and workers rights. Here is a quote by Dr Peat.

It should also be pointed out that Carl Rogers' version of phenomenology denies objective conflicts of interest, and as a result is popular among United States business leaders: Rogers has argued, for example, that there is no real conflict between workers and owners, and that "good communication" will lead to resolution of conflicts, rather than to the understanding that wages and profits are really opposed. The fact of power is ignored.

Mind and tissue Page 42.

The question then becomes, should we allow oppression of the many so the few can have their "freedom". Or should we look to other economic systems for answers.

 

[narouz]

I think you have good points, however your are still missing the complexity capitalism. Like the superstructure of the society. Conflicts of interest, wages and workers rights. Here is a quote by Dr Peat.

It should also be pointed out that Carl Rogers' version of phenomenology denies objective conflicts of interest, and as a result is popular among United States business leaders: Rogers has argued, for example, that there is no real conflict between workers and owners, and that "good communication" will lead to resolution of conflicts, rather than to the understanding that wages and profits are really opposed. The fact of power is ignored.

Mind and tissue Page 42.

The question then becomes, should we allow oppression of the many so the few can have their "freedom". Or should we look to other economic systems for answers.

Cool quote by Peat, jag!
It helpfully focuses the issue.

So my guess is that "oppression" will be fine and moral by rdmayo21
because It does not equate to
"the non-toleration of initiation of force."

 

[rdmayo21]

What oppression are you talking about?

 

[pboy]

good idea, bad application

theres many things that are common sense that people ignore and abuse in our capitalistic society. In fact...even the need to talk about governments or social structures and all that on a large scale is a symptom of the ill minds of ill people living in an area.

Humans in touch with themselves, would never even need to speak about government or this concept or that. You would do only what was practical

 

[jaguar43]

What oppression are you talking about?

Do you not understand the quote by Ray Peat ? Why don't you address where you disagree with him.

 

[rdmayo21]

What oppression are you talking about?

Do you not understand the quote by Ray Peat ? Why don't you address where you disagree with him.

I agree with Ray that workers want to receive as much compensation as possible for a set amount of productivity, and employers want to give as little compensation as possible for a set amount of productivity, but so what? What does Ray propose to change? Wouldn't you consider it immoral for the workers to not have the right to negotiate their level of compensation?

 

[narouz]

What oppression are you talking about?

Do you not understand the quote by Ray Peat ? Why don't you address where you disagree with him.

I agree with Ray that workers want to receive as much compensation as possible for a set amount of productivity, and employers want to give as little compensation as possible for a set amount of productivity, but so what? What does Ray propose to change? Wouldn't you consider it immoral for the workers to not have the right to negotiate their level of compensation?

Workpoints:
-(in USA) Republican dominated Supreme Court has said that Money=Speech!
-laws regulating money into our politics have been eviscerated by big money interests
-Thomas Piketty's newish book shows that
throughout the centuries,
wealth concentrates at the top;
the mild equalization of wealth in the middle of the century in the USA
was an aberration
attributable to the strenuous exertions of government on behalf of the non-rich
-haidut posted a Princeton study showing that
the US is an oligarchy.
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3639&hilit=oligarchy
-"Wealth Inequality in America"
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/youtube]

 

[jaguar43]

What oppression are you talking about?

Do you not understand the quote by Ray Peat ? Why don't you address where you disagree with him.

I agree with Ray that workers want to receive as much compensation as possible for a set amount of productivity, and employers want to give as little compensation as possible for a set amount of productivity, but so what? What does Ray propose to change? Wouldn't you consider it immoral for the workers to not have the right to negotiate their level of compensation?

I wouldn't say that workers want to receive much more than their productivity is worth, but enough to live on.

So now that you seem to understand the economic structure that the quote was revealing, lets look the cultural implications of capitalism. Here I provide another quote.

Random variation of the genetic material is their basic assumption, and natural
selection of certain alterations is their proposed mechanism. Both of these doctrines, randomness and natural selection, are important ideological components of capitalist culture, so the ethno-centrism of the neo-Mendelists is just a little more modern than that of the creationists who threaten them.

Mind and tissue page 27 and page 28

So if what he says is true, then we must provide an alternative economic system before trying to change the cultural and scientific ( and therefore nutritional and health) institutions. Because the scientific culture is use to justify capitalism. Instead of the other way around.

 

[rdmayo21]

So if what he says is true, then we must provide an alternative economic system before trying to change the cultural and scientific ( and therefore nutritional and health) institutions. Because the scientific culture is use to justify capitalism. Instead of the other way around.

An alternative system that is based on what fundamental principle?

 

[jaguar43]

So if what he says is true, then we must provide an alternative economic system before trying to change the cultural and scientific ( and therefore nutritional and health) institutions. Because the scientific culture is use to justify capitalism. Instead of the other way around.

An alternative system that is based on what fundamental principle?

essential anti-capitalism.

 

[rdmayo21]

An alternative system that is based on what fundamental principle?

essential anti-capitalism.

If it's got "capitalism" in the term, then it's not fundamental. Try again.

 

[jaguar43]

An alternative system that is based on what fundamental principle?

essential anti-capitalism.

If it's got "capitalism" in the term, then it's not fundamental. Try again.

So now you want me to be categorize Ray Peats work in a reductionist kind of way ? I will pass, on your "mental poverty." AKA William Blake.

Let me remind you that this is the ray peat forum. So therefore you should address the quote if you disagree.

It's not the jag2594forum.com

 

[rdmayo21]

So now you want me to be categorize Ray Peats work in a reductionist kind of way ? I will pass, on your "mental poverty." AKA William Blake.

Fair enough. Would you please elaborate on what is meant by "essential anti-capitalism"?

 

[jaguar43]

So now you want me to be categorize Ray Peats work in a reductionist kind of way ? I will pass, on your "mental poverty." AKA William Blake.

Fair enough. Would you please elaborate on what is meant by "essential anti-capitalism"?

Exactly what it states. Any thing that is anti-capitalism. Now that is extremely generalized, But I think a fair answer.

 

[rdmayo21]

So now you want me to be categorize Ray Peats work in a reductionist kind of way ? I will pass, on your "mental poverty." AKA William Blake.

Fair enough. Would you please elaborate on what is meant by "essential anti-capitalism"?

Exactly what it states. Any thing that is anti-capitalism. Now that is extremely generalized, But I think a fair answer.

Are you saying that Ray Peat advocates all other social systems above capitalism?

 

[narouz]

So now you want me to be categorize Ray Peats work in a reductionist kind of way ? I will pass, on your "mental poverty." AKA William Blake.

Fair enough. Would you please elaborate on what is meant by "essential anti-capitalism"?

rdmayo21-
What do you make of the issue of wealth inequality in America?
I think this might cut through some of the language snags and get us to the point.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/youtube]

 

[jaguar43]

So now you want me to be categorize Ray Peats work in a reductionist kind of way ? I will pass, on your "mental poverty." AKA William Blake.

Fair enough. Would you please elaborate on what is meant by "essential anti-capitalism"?

Exactly what it states. Any thing that is anti-capitalism. Now that is extremely generalized, But I think a fair answer.

Are you saying that Ray Peat advocates all other social systems above capitalism?

I don't know what he advocates to be completely honest. But I don't think its all about the social system. Different cultural, scientific, literature characteristics are as important as the system at hand. Here's a quote that sums it up

This optimistic view is an official part of Marxist doctrine, but I think much of it derives from a cultural optimism that has been recurrent in Russian history. Marxism without the rich Russian culture can be a relatively sterile branch of Hegelian philosophy, or a relatively abstract economic theory. Marxism on a foundation of Aristotelian attitudes is less abstract than a marxism that is grafted onto Cartesian and Hegelian ideas.

mind and tissue page 170

He taking into consideration other characteristics that can influence a direction a society goes, when he says Marxism is a sterile branch of Hegelian philosophy. I think that is a relatively good way of approaching any theory that can be taken and applied.