Hypothetical Dilemma: The Curse Of Capitalism

[VeritasLuxMea]

The OP clearly states that it is virtually certain the human race will be instinct in 50 years because of capitalism.

Now, I know you are in love with capitalism. You are a fan-boy. But you should assume for the sake of the hypothetical that what I am saying is true.

The use of the phrase “fan-boy” to describe me is a tad confusing, given the context of this thread - and the way you’ve clarified it.

In response to me you say, “It is virtually certain the human race will be instinct in 50 years because of capitalism,” and that makes me the fan-boy of something?

Supposing, for example, you had started a thread that said, “Supposing most gaming critics believed that PS4 would be the absolute worst console in the world, would you then buy an Xbox 720 instead?”

Then if I say, well, I think the PS4 will be good… then you call me a fan-boy? What the heck?!

Utterly bizarre thread. It would be like asking, “Supposing almost all philosophers believed Catholicism was wrong, would you still be Catholic?”

Uhhhhhhhhh yes, because my Catholicism has NOTHING to do with some consensus of philosophers. It has to do with the REASONS I am Catholic.

So I’ll give these philosophers a chance to show me why Catholicism is wrong. I won’t convert to a different religion on their mere say so.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

6 over 2 people are saying abandon capitalism. Nice.

And all it took was promising to act under the assumption that capitalism would lead to complete human oblivion.

 

[PrayHarder]

Here’s where you are going wrong prayharder. This is a “hypothetical thread”. I am not trying to prove that Capitalism is going to kill us in 50 years. I am asking what would you do if that was in fact true.

There is no point getting upset.

Not upset at all. I clearly stated in my post that I understood you were posing a hypothetical question. Like many others who replied, I wanted to point out that the question is slanted, leading, and incomplete.

From a logic point of view, you are asking, “if X is true, and if X causes Z, and Z is bad, would you support X?” Of course the answer is no. Whether the value of X is “capitalism,” “drugs,” “war,” “fuzzy kittens,” or “cupcakes” doesn’t matter. It’s just an algorithm. Would you still interested in a discussion if the question was phrased like this?

In the year 2015 Scientists and Philosophers both agree that it is virtually certain that if “eating pineapple” continues the human race will become extinct in 50 years.

We either abandon “eating pineapple” as an economic model, or continue to be “pineaple eaters” and watch our miserable race die out.

All the countries of the world deicide that the decision should not be in the hands of any one individual, and that therefore a voting ballet should be held.

What will you vote for and what is your philosophical reasons for doing so?

Based on how gleefully you responded to those who share your dislike of capitalism, I’m guessing that you aren’t all that interested in an actual philisophical discussion. It just seems like this is some bizzare attempt to validate issues you have with the capitalist system.

 

[kbachler]

So we can’t put people in prison, Agreed?

Disagreed. Why would you conclude that?

 

[kbachler]

Any situation where one human beings has more than enough, and another does not have enough, is evil. Any situation where a person claims ‘ownership’ of land or resources, at the exclusion of others is evil.

Define “enough”.

Whether its evil or not, the person earned it and thus has rights to it.

What the person does with what they earned is within their rights.

I MIGHT NOT LIKE what they do, but thievery by taxation is also inappropriate.

Since ALL situations of claiming ownership are to the exclusion of others, your statement implies that all ownership is evil. That’s nonsensical.

 

[kbachler]

Grasshopper.

Meet ant.

 

[kbachler]

Well, a free (market) economy is good, but in order to be truly free it needs some limits (i.e regulations). Therefore capitalism, a free market economy without limits, isn’t good. This is why I am for a social market economy. It is largely based off of Christian principles in its form now because it is advocated mainly by Christian Democratic parties, which are heavily influenced by Catholicism. Plus, it works.

Generally, a free market should have minimal constraints. Education of the consumer is the preferred method over regulation. Regulation should be kept to what is simple, principles-based and necessary in order to minimize regulatory constraint and cost.

A social market economy is a masquerade of Christian principles. FORCED GIVING does not develop individual responsibility. Plus, it doesn’t work.

The major weakness of capitalism is an implicit flaw - the market will tend to make decisions based on the life span of those in the market, and the economics of those in the market in the near terms - even though for society as a whole some costs in the long-term would be better IF a different decision were made today. Those are the instances where we should have a non-politcal branch of government (likely similar to a supreme court) to advocate/guide for long-term direction, and to advise on how to cost shift expense so that it is fair over time.

Hence - acting to resolve climate change does not garner support until it is too late and too expensive to tackle the problem, when in fact it should have been a major issue as early as the 1970’s. But there was no market to advocate for it.

 

[lemondiesel]

First of all, capitalism has no curse. The reason capitalism receives a bad name is because of the hierarchy that has developed. It is just like politics in America. It isn’t that our system is corrupt; it is the people in the system which make it corrupt.

Secondly, if there was a curse, it would be that capitalism promotes corporations. These are obviously destructive to any area. Locally owned businesses are pushed out, obviously. Take Starbucks for example. They may open two or three store locations around local coffee shops, just to take over the local market. Thus, these local places have to either shut down or sell to Starbucks who shuts them down anyway. YOU THEN ARE LEFT WITH NO CHOICES FOR COFFEE!

Lastly, capitalism is the best form of economic structure. However, it is up to the citizens who benefit from it to make the right choices. Would you rather get a mop at Walmart that is 13 cents cheaper than a local family owned business? ****, we do not even have family owned movie stores anyway. It is a huge chore just to find local book stores anymore! It is all Barnes & Nobles, and they put the SAME STUFF on the shelves in all their locations.

As to the alternative, I personally promote en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism, which is different than en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

This movie received some hype from the internet crowd awhile ago… in case you haven’t seen it.
youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5K07c72Tw&list=PLC0BF49A9FD6D92AB&index=6&feature=plpp_video

MoM, why is your account under review?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

A social market economy is a masquerade of Christian principles. FORCED GIVING does not develop individual responsibility. Plus, it doesn’t work.

What made you think a social market economy = forced giving? It isn’t socialist (socialist like Sweden, not communist) so it doesn’t equal redistribution of wealth.

 

[sw85]

In the year 2015 Scientists and Philosophers both agree that it is virtually certain that if Capitalism continues the human race will become extinct in 50 years.

We either abandon capitalism as an economic model, or continue to be capitalists and watch our miserable race die out.

All the countries of the world deicide that the decision should not be in the hands of any one individual, and that therefore a voting ballet should be held.

What will you vote for and what is your philosophical reasons for doing so?

Well, I object to it in principle, anyway, so of course I’d be quite alright with it. Money should be subordinated to social and ethical interests, not vice-versa.

 

[tonyrey]

Capitalism today is not working. Not in a Christian way, it lends itself to the few, right now ignoring the masses. The culture today ignores Christian values, the family is basically destroyed, look what is happening, theres a law that says you HAVE to buy insurance etc. One indicator that is used in this economy is the GDP. which is a formula to extinction (probably the 50 year thing brought up) GDP says produce and consume all our natural resoucers for the profit of a few. The CCC talks about social and economic justice. There is a better way, I don’t what it is, but the way it is now is not working.

A better way is the co-operative system which has been unjustly neglected…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I object to it in principle, anyway, so of course I’d be quite alright with it. Money should be subordinated to social and ethical interests, not vice-versa.

The truth in a nutshell!

 

[Rhuarc]

This thread makes me sick, I like how all of you are implying that communism is better. Communism never has nor ever will work, socialism doesn’t work either. None of these things will work unless the good Lord comes down and rules his earthly kingdom.

 

[tonyrey]

This thread makes me sick, I like how all of you are implying that communism is better.

Exaggeration! Communism implies that everything is owned by everyone!

 

[sw85]

This thread makes me sick, I like how all of you are implying that communism is better. Communism never has nor ever will work, socialism doesn’t work either. None of these things will work unless the good Lord comes down and rules his earthly kingdom.

Communism was invented as an ideology in the mid-19th century. Capitalism was invented as an ideology about a century before. Surely we had methods of organizing our economic life prior to then?

 

[kbachler]

What made you think a social market economy = forced giving? It isn’t socialist (socialist like Sweden, not communist) so it doesn’t equal redistribution of wealth.

Sorry, it does have elements of “forced giving” just as our economy does - such as medicare, social security, and the current income tax system.

I don’t have an issue with such systems in terms of providing social safety nets when there is balance, planning (including long term planning), asset reserves for times of bad economies, and a lack of deficits, and also so long as all citizens/potential recipients of the safety nets have skin in the game. That’s not the current situation in the U.S., or IIUC, Germany OR Austria.

 

[kbachler]

Well, I object to it in principle, anyway, so of course I’d be quite alright with it. Money should be subordinated to social and ethical interests, not vice-versa.

Since money represents someone’s economic value, by what right should someone’s economic value be conscripted to social and ethical interests?

Perhaps I should simply decide to conscript your money to my interests?

Funny that we wish to protect civil rights, but seem to forget that the right of ownership is a civil right.

 

[kbachler]

Communism was invented as an ideology in the mid-19th century. Capitalism was invented as an ideology about a century before. Surely we had methods of organizing our economic life prior to then?

Actually, early Christians did live fairly communistically (in a pure sense of the term.) Capitalism arises fairly naturally as well, in terms of investing effort and resources with the goal of generating value and realizing a profit. The fact that the systems were studied and developed relatively recently doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before.

 

[sw85]

Since money represents someone’s economic value, by what right should someone’s economic value be conscripted to social and ethical interests?

Perhaps I should simply decide to conscript your money to my interests?

Funny that we wish to protect civil rights, but seem to forget that the right of ownership is a civil right.

I don’t really care about “civil rights” (i.e., arbitrary concessions made by the state). I care about natural rights. Per natural law, the right to private property extends no further than what is necessary for one to discharge one’s duties, i.e., to oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s state, the Church, and God. There is certainly no natural “right” to excessive wealth (although there is certainly not a right to have one’s wealth taken without good cause – but the bar for good cause is on the low side).

If you were in a position of legitimate authority (for instance, my king), I would be obligated to give you all my money if you commanded it. You would likewise be obligated to take no more than was necessary in order to promote the interests of the polity.

Actually, early Christians did live fairly communistically (in a pure sense of the term.) Capitalism arises fairly naturally as well, in terms of investing effort and resources with the goal of generating value and realizing a profit. The fact that the systems were studied and developed relatively recently doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before.

As I said, communism as an ideology was invented in the 19th century.

That the principles of modern economic systems were not formalized until recently also doesn’t mean they’re the only economic systems in play. The economic order of, for instance, the Middle Ages was not recognizably capitalist OR communist. In fact it was not really recognizable as an “economic order” at all, because economic values were not held to be the socially constitutive values. As well they shouldn’t be – money is simply a means to any of a variety of ends, not an end in itself.

 

[TEPO]

A better way is the co-operative system which has been unjustly neglected…

Every economic system is “better” depending on what outcome one desires… But since not all people desire the same things -why not have multiple economic systems (including co-ops) within a single nation, with multiple privatized monetary systems that are interchangeable with the government established monetary syst.

It’s never been done, I wonder why…?