R
Rau
Guest
The naïveté!
A true capitalist is guided solely by the rational adherence to the goal of maximizing profit and fear of transgressing the law.
- Status
A true capitalist is guided solely by the rational adherence to the goal of maximizing profit and fear of transgressing the law.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
When people are free to trade, with reason and reality, and as long as they don’t interfere with the freedom of others to do the same, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor. There is no need for regulations.The naïveté!
A true capitalist is guided solely by the rational adherence to the goal of maximizing profit and fear of transgressing the law.
R
Rau
Guest
Your proviso is itself the basis of much regulation! Eg., rules that:
- prevent cartels
- prevent restraint of trade
- prevent monopolies
- treat the information imbalance between seller and buyer (eg require disclosure of performance specifications)
- etc etc etc
M
minkymurph
Guest
The National Health Service is not free Zolt. I seriously object when people say it is ‘free.’ It is funded by national contributions. Everyone contributes to it and thus everyone has a right to avail of the services provided. There is nothing ‘free’ about it.I see…
Well then perhaps a whole new social program should be started in the Commonwealth.
I suggest a “National Legal Fund” based on the ever popular, National Healthcare Service. It would be a publicly funded devolved system. Essentially all legal service would be free. Everyone, regardless of income, would be afforded the best possible legal representation the government could provide…at no cost.
Is this a great idea…or what??
Doctor’s, nurses and all other NHS employees get paid.
M
minkymurph
Guest
There will never be a society in which ‘Crony Capitalists,’ unscrupulous businessmen and corrupt government officials do not exist. Thus, we need the rule of law.
R
Rau
Guest
Exactly. Capitalism is not a noble search for the best product. It is commerce motivated by profit. Not itself a bad thing, but unfettered, the result should be evident…
S
Selah_KY
Guest
Yes, I’m sure it was the government who locked the workers inside the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I think that, at it’s best, capitalism can be good. I see the problem having its roots in incorporation more than in capitalism itself. There is a big difference between a sole proprietor or partnership where the owners are members of the community where their business is, and a corporation that exists only to make a profit. Even a CEO can’t be compared to a sole owner, since the CEO has NO loyalty to the corporation he heads and will prosper whether his tenure is successful or not. They are also incentivized to succeed in the short term with little concern for long range planning.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The naïveté!Your proviso is itself the basis of much regulation! Eg., rules that:
- prevent cartels
- prevent restraint of trade
- prevent monopolies
- treat the information imbalance between seller and buyer (eg require disclosure of performance specifications)
- etc etc etc
If you had any concept of true, pure Capitalism you would know that the items on your list could not exist in a Capitalist economy.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Ta-DAH…now we are getting some where…
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
You have no faith in humanity…?
Our version of the rule of law is “Lex Rex” NOT “Rex Lex”.
It is why “the Colonies” had a little “dust-up” with Good King George back in the late 1700’s.
One of the things that made America exceptional was a very limited government. We do whatever we want unless or until our government says otherwise. Other governed people must obtain permission from their government to do anything.
R
Rau
Guest
Read my post again - nothing wrong with profit.
I mention unfettered since you started out requiring “no regulation”.
Zoltan said: “Capitalism / Free Market cease being free when the first regulation is applied.”
R
Rau
Guest
What prevents them if not regulation?The naïveté!
If you had any concept of true, pure Capitalism you would know that the items on your list could not exist in a Capitalist economy.
R
Rau
Guest
**Capitalism definition: ** “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit”.
Can you explain why a system operating in accord with this definition (the first that Google provided) cannot produce the undesirable characteristics I listed (and others)?
What features would make the Capitalism “pure” - is it something other than the absence of regulation to which you allude?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
When I say “Capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire Capitalism…with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
The actual definition of Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The moral justification of Capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival, and that its ruling principle is: justice.
In a Capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. We are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as our own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. We can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.
R
Rau
Guest
And in such a system, economic actions are motivated by profit and limited by respect for individual rights. The set of “personal rights” you allow in the system itself requires a matching level of regulation to ensure their respect - therefore the system is regulated to protect individual rights.
We are not discussing capitalism versus systems which are entirely distinct from capitalism. We are discussing “capitalism with no regulation” versus “capitalism with some regulation”. Is your rejection of the latter because you believe that any State participation renders the system no longer consonant with man’s rational nature and threatens man’s survival? How can that be demonstrated?
When did such a society as this exist? Was it before Schooling was compulsory? Before communities agreed to submit to the law of the majority (democracy)? Before they to taxation and a communal approach to concern for the vulnerable?
Why do you think that such a scheme (pure unregulated, capitalism) is inexorably directed to avoid “wrongs” such as those I listed? Why is a cartel impossible in your model of “pure capitalism” ?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Not to the extent you describe.
I understand your position on limited government but this thread is about law. As I said in an earlier post, if the only laws a society should have are those that protect property and the person, then there would be no law preventing; two consenting adults from having sex in the street, an employer from refusing to hire someone because they had a big nose, they are married/not married or have children, firing someone because they have gone grey - I could list many more.
I would interpret your definition of ‘freedom’ as particularly those with means being able to do exactly as they like. Such a state of affairs would create a lawless society.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Who should define what is Just and who should decide how Justice should be applied?
Is it Just for an employer to fire someone because they have dyed their hair a colour the employer does not like? Who is entitled to greater ‘freedom?’ The employer or the employee?
- Status