Capitalism and the rule of law

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It makes sense for Government to fund schools. It makes sense to ensure all children can be educated regardless of their family financial circumstances. It makes sense that school education (or equivalent) is compulsory. Is this guaranteeing the rights of some, or trampling the rights of others? Are rules required?

If you think economic monopolies are bad…I promise you government monopolies are worse.
That specifically means government schools.

In the U.S., the government has a monopoly on education. This monopoly can only be maintained by laws making education compulsory and taxing everyone to support it. This is unfair to people without children to educate and those who CHOOSE to use private education.
It can also be said that government schools breed government indoctrination.

Are rules required? No. But the government should get out of the business of education.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The discussion appears to have lost any grip on what is capable of being real.

You are right Rau.

One side is criticizing a system that does not exist and I am “tilting with windmills”.

As far as true, pure Capitalism is concerned…"…for only a brief moment we had Camelot".

It is often asked: Why was capitalism destroyed in spite of its incomparably beneficent record?

The answer lies in the fact that the lifeline feeding any social system is a culture’s dominant philosophy and that capitalism never had a philosophical base. It was the last and (theoretically) incomplete product of an Aristotelian influence.

As a resurgent tide of mysticism engulfed philosophy in the nineteenth century, capitalism was left in an intellectual vacuum, its lifeline cut. Neither its moral nature nor even its political principles had ever been fully understood or defined. Its alleged defenders regarded it as compatible with government controls (i.e., government interference into the economy), ignoring the meaning and implications of the concept of laissez-faire.

Thus, what existed in practice, in the nineteenth century, was not pure capitalism, but variously mixed economies. Since controls necessitate and breed further controls, it was the statist element of the mixtures that wrecked them; it was the free, capitalist element that took the blame.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Regulating sexual behaviour at home may only work for minors who live with their parents. What do you think?

I agree it is not for the state to micromanage sexual behaviour between two consenting adults. It is a private matter. My point is we need laws regulating sexual behaviour when it is a public matter - for example displaying pornography - and I don’t see protection of the person could stretch as far as the law needs to.

Actually the state has the responsibility and duty to regulate sexual behavior at home, on the street and between consenting adults when such sexual behavior spreads disease and endangers public health.

I agree with you, and in an ideal world no one would discriminate against anyone, but we don’t live in an ideal world and people do discriminate. Thus, we need legislation.

We need specific legislation…

The term “Discrimination” as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against inappropriate conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

Agreed, but on interpretation the law cannot be inflexible and the rigors of objective laws need subjective interpretation for Justice to prevail. The law of Equity is an example of that.

I am not familiar with the Law of Equity but I think flexible laws are very dangerous.

The law is the law.

That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislation…not in a free country, not if we are to have “a rule of law and not of men.”

An undefinable or flexible law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others.

A dictatorship does NOT rule a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. He rules because he can change laws any time he wants.

My argument is not Capitalism is bad and the root of all evil. There is little that in itself is bad. It is often application that makes something good or bad. This is not an argument supporting central planning or nationalization of all industry and services. As I have said before, even Lenin realized capitalism was necessary. The argument is to create a just society in which the rule of law prevails laws that protect property and the person are insufficient. Yes, if we were a society of Saints we would not need laws at all, and probably would not need a government. But we are not a society of Saints and never will be.

Thus - I’ll run the following by you Zolt.

Among other things what prompted my thread was zero contracts. What is your position on zero contracts?

Zero Hour Contracts are just another way to enslave poor unsuspecting Britons.

For our American forum members…

This scam has been going on in England since 1995. An employer offers a job with a Zero Hours Contract. That means the worker gets a straight salary and does the job…no matter how many hours it takes.

I have had middle management jobs like that. Once you add up the time you put in and convert to hours…I was making less per hour than the janitor.

But the Zero Hour Contract gets better…If there is no work…the employee does not get paid. AND…in most cases the employee has agreed NOT to work for anyone else.

If I was not a Saintly ethical Capitalist I could make a fortune in labor cost savings in a labor intensive industry by using “Zoltan’s Zero Contract”.

Murph, please tell me if the job market in the Commonwealth is so bad that really exists…

 

[Rau]

If you think economic monopolies are bad…I promise you government monopolies are worse.
That specifically means government schools.

In the U.S., the government has a monopoly on education. This monopoly can only be maintained by laws making education compulsory and taxing everyone to support it. This is unfair to people without children to educate and those who CHOOSE to use private education.
It can also be said that government schools breed government indoctrination.

Are rules required? No. But the government should get out of the business of education.

Tax rebates for those attending private schools eliminates unfairness. Access to education needs to be possible regardless of parental means.

 

[minkymurph]

Actually the state has the responsibility and duty to regulate sexual behavior at home, on the street and between consenting adults when such sexual behavior spreads disease and endangers public health.

I agree Zolt, but the lines of demarcation are difficult in terms of when the state should step in and when it should not.

We need specific legislation…

The term “Discrimination” as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Yep, I could run with what you say but it means we need legislation beyond protection of property and the person.

Discrimination against inappropriate conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

I don’t think ‘discrimination’ is the best term for what you describe. I wouldn’t categorize such an action as discrimination, but I get what you are saying.

I am not familiar with the Law of Equity but I think flexible laws are very dangerous.

The law is the law.

The law of Equity tempers the rigors of the common law. The reason is because the rigors of the common law can produce an unjust result. For example - wills. Equity attempts to give effect to the testators wishes rather than a black letter interpretation of their will. If you are behind on your mortgage payments for three the lender has right to repossess your home. Equity steps in to try and reach a solution acceptable to both parties short of repossession.

Zero Hour Contracts are just another way to enslave poor unsuspecting Britons.

Now on this you and I are certainly singing from the same hymn sheet.

Murph, please tell me if the job market in the Commonwealth is so bad that really exists…

I wish I could, but I cannot. It is DIRE. Things were better during the ‘Troubles.’ This is the worst I have ever known it to be. This is what prompted the thread. Things are so bad employers think they can completely disregard Employment law.

I told you I was sacked from my last job. I was sacked because I asserted my statutory rights - right determined by statute. They made up another reason but it was a blatant lie.
If I wasn’t a member of a trade union I would not be able to take them to court. The union thinks I have a case and have referred the case to a lawyer. I couldn’t believe what I experienced in that place in terms of a lies, deceit and a blatant disregard for the law. I just hope the lawyer thinks the case can be won. I will with him soon.

This is why I am arguing as I am. The government has now stepped in and zero contracts may be made unlawful. I have a friend who works in a pub on a zero contract. The owner closed the bar for refurbishment for three months. His contract determines he cannot work for anyone else, and he cannot claim benefits because he has a contract of employment.

I went for a job recently that was advertised as ‘casual/part-time’ It isn’t. You don’t know what hours you are going to be working each week making it near impossible for me to arrange childcare. You can turn into work and be told to go home as you are not needed, and you still have to pay childcare. Your shifts change every week making it near impossible for the childminder to schedule.

In addition, in my last job I was paid £6.51 per hour. One penny above the minimum wage. Childcare costs £6.50 to £8,00 per hour meaning you are either working for nothing if you have to pay for eight hours, or you it costs you money to work. And they wonder why people don’t work.

I’ll end by saying Zolt in spite of our differences I would work for you. I don’t think you would put up with any nonsense and rightly so, but I would be confident if I performed well and I would, you would treat me well irrespective of the fact you may think I’m a bit of Bolshevik.

I can identify with how you feel about state interference. Businessmen often do know how to run their business better than the government and their policies are not influenced by elections. But in my experience time and time again the government has had to step in to both preserve individual rights and for the sake of the economy. I know you say in the society you promote it would not happen, but we have to deal with things as they are and not how we would like them to be.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Tax rebates for those attending private schools eliminates unfairness.

That would be nice…and fair…but they don’t exist here in California.

Access to education needs to be possible regardless of parental means.

Why?

Some one has to dig ditches…right?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I agree Zolt, but the lines of demarcation are difficult in terms of when the state should step in and when it should not.

then you need objective laws. Clear cut, understandable and promulgated so everyone understands them.

I don’t think ‘discrimination’ is the best term for what you describe. I wouldn’t categorize such an action as discrimination, but I get what you are saying.

Good point. How about “Discernment” or “good judgment”.?

The law of Equity tempers the rigors of the common law. The reason is because the rigors of the common law can produce an unjust result. For example - wills. Equity attempts to give effect to the testators wishes rather than a black letter interpretation of their will. If you are behind on your mortgage payments for three the lender has right to repossess your home. Equity steps in to try and reach a solution acceptable to both parties short of repossession.

Then why have laws pertaining to wills and mortgages? What you are describing is nothing more than arbitration. That could be handled very well at a pub over a few Guinness’s. Good heavens Lady…do I have tp come over there and straighten out a legal system that has been doing wrong for centuries???

Now on this you and I are certainly singing from the same hymn sheet.

OK…

 

[SuperLuigi]

So no right to not have my air polluted by a factory, but a right to not have my river polluted by the same factory?

Unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism does not naturally produce a perfect market. Your assertion to the contrary is wishful thinking.

The discussion appears to have lost any grip on what is capable of being real.

So let’s fix it.

No one is in favor of unchecked capitalism. But that really isn’t the problem today. It’s crony capitalism and big government regulations that choke it for some but reward others.

I would also urge everyone to keep in mind that it is market forces that keep the environment clean much more so than demanding top-down regulation.

 

[Rau]

Some one has to dig ditches…right?

Yes, but preferably by choice, rather than necessity.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, but preferably by choice, rather than necessity.

Of course…but one who chooses to be a ditch digger does not need a Master’s Degree.

That would be true of anyone who does not aspire to be any more that a ditch digger.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So let’s fix it.

No one is in favor of unchecked capitalism.

I am…I am…I am. And i am ready to try it to prove to the world how great it would be…:extrahappy:

 

[Rau]

Of course…but one who chooses to be a ditch digger does not need a Master’s Degree.

Who’s talking about that. I’m talking about the first 13 years of school!

 

[Rau]

I am…I am…I am. And i am ready to try it to prove to the world how great it would be…:extrahappy:

Luigi, I rest my case.

 

[minkymurph]

Then why have laws pertaining to wills and mortgages?What you are describing is nothing more than arbitration. That could be handled very well at a pub over a few Guinness’s.

It is arbitration, but we have laws on wills because the dead person cannot speak and the court needs to know how to give effect to their wishes if the will is contested. In addition, people have been known to make bizarre bequests that cannot be given effect to. Times change and not everyone updates their will. Secret Trusts can be written into a will.

Mortgages are a contract and we need Contract Law for all sorts of reasons. If we had no law on mortgages, then there would be no restrictions on interest rates - as is the case with loan sharks.

Good heavens Lady…do I have tp come over there and straighten out a legal system that has been doing wrong for centuries???

A very entertaining image has come into my head.

Whadayya say I come over the the US and put their system to rights.

 

[minkymurph]

I am…I am…I am. And i am ready to try it to prove to the world how great it would be…:extrahappy:

Go - tell us what measures would exist to curtail if not eradicate completely human trafficking, zero contracts, loan sharks, unemployment - I could go on but I think I’ve made my point.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Go - tell us what measures would exist to curtail if not eradicate completely human trafficking, zero contracts, loan sharks, unemployment - I could go on but I think I’ve made my point.

Human trafficking and Zero contracts are slavery. Capitalism essentially wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century. Sure there were laws against slavery but Capitalism, with its respect for human rights, made slavery much less profitable. In a Capitalist society even slaves have to be paid. So what is the point of buying an employee.

No economic system will eradicate crime. That is a job for the police. No economic system can guarantee full employment. A prosperous economy will always have low unemployment. History shows that when Capitalism is less regulated the more prosperous the economy becomes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A very entertaining image has come into my head.

Whadayya say I come over the the US and put their system to rights.

I have a better idea…let’s you and I get together and straighten out the whole world.

 

[minkymurph]

Human trafficking and Zero contracts are slavery. Capitalism essentially wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century. Sure there were laws against slavery but Capitalism, with its respect for human rights, made slavery much less profitable. In a Capitalist society even slaves have to be paid. So what is the point of buying an employee.

No economic system will eradicate crime. That is a job for the police. No economic system can guarantee full employment. A prosperous economy will always have low unemployment. History shows that when Capitalism is less regulated the more prosperous the economy becomes.

I can’t disagree with what you are saying in that the economy is more prosperous under a Capitalist economic system, and no system will eradicate crime.

Human trafficking and zero contracts are slavery, but this proves my point - we need the rule . A Capitalist economy does not in itself prevent these irrespective of how much the government does not interfere. Thus, the government must interfere by passing legislation making such practices unlawful - Contract Law and Employment Law.

 

[minkymurph]

I have a better idea…let’s you and I get together and straighten out the whole world.

There was time when I thought I could sort the world out Zolt, but I grew out of it. Particularly when democracy threw a spanner in the works and Thatcher got elected.

She ruined my plans!!!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I can’t disagree with what you are saying in that the economy is more prosperous under a Capitalist economic system, and no system will eradicate crime.

Human trafficking and zero contracts are slavery, but this proves my point - we need the rule . A Capitalist economy does not in itself prevent these irrespective of how much the government does not interfere. Thus, the government must interfere by passing legislation making such practices unlawful - Contract Law and Employment Law.

Human trafficking is a crime in any civilized society and would be a crime in a Capitalistic society. No economic system exists to prevent crime. That is why a Capitalistic society depends on police to enforce objective laws and the courts to settle contract disputes.

Now as to Employment Law (shudder)

You know that I am not a big fan of laws or unions telling me who and how to hire and/or fire. Sooooo…

Employment is in itself a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement. It can be as simple as:…you work for me—I pay you money. The boss gets his job done and the worker get a paycheck…everyone is happy.

At higher levels of employment contractual arrangements become more complex and at CEO levels require legal council. But it always boils down to “you work for me—I pay you money.”

Now if I find an employee who is not “working” for me (poor performance, incapable, lazy, bad attitude etc.) why should I pay him? Like wise, if an employee can be paid more for the same job by a different employer…why should he work for me?

It is really pretty simple. I know there are hundreds of “what ifs” . But just apply the “you work for me—I pay you money” rule and see how uncomplicated and unnecessary the Employment Law becomes.