Is Capitalism God-Ordained?

[magnet]

What happens when market failures occur and the market is either unable or unwilling to correct itself?

Free market does not equal no government regulation. Maybe you should read Adam Smith’s though on the subject.

Can you enlighten us on Adam Smith, since you know, and we don’t?

 

[freeRadical]

Can you enlighten us on Adam Smith, since you know, and we don’t?

Maybe you should read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. But make sure you read his Theory of Moral Sentiments first. His first work is vital to understand his second work.

 

[magnet]

But a free market does not prevent someone from using physical coercion. The only think that can keep a market “free” are laws and and an entity to enforce those laws.

Where does extortion fit in this scheme? If you pay me $1,000, I’ll keep your business from being trashed?

 

[freeRadical]

Where does extortion fit in this scheme? If you pay me $1,000, I’ll keep your business from being trashed?

A free market doesn’t prevent extortion either.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Just because you accept it does not make it true.

This is simply not true.

Why do you say that?

There really is no difference.

OK…

Here is a law: Thou shalt not steal. That law is applicable in every state of the Union and applies to everyone. Oh sure it is written in modern legal language but it means the same.

Here is a regulation: The Federal Aviation Administration REQUIRES pilots to be licensed.

Notice that a law applies to all and a regulation applies to a more specific group. Laws are enacted by a LEGISLATURE, regulations are created by government agencies like the EPA.

 

[freeRadical]

Just because you accept it does not make it true.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Why do you say that?

Because it is true.

OK…

Here is a law: Thou shalt not steal. That law is applicable in every state of the Union and applies to everyone. Oh sure it is written in modern legal language but it means the same.

Here is a regulation: The Federal Aviation Administration REQUIRES pilots to be licensed.

Notice that a law applies to all and a regulation applies to a more specific group. Laws are enacted by a LEGISLATURE, regulations are created by government agencies like the EPA.

I see no difference. Regulations apply to all too. If I want to be a pilot, I have to be licensed. If I want to operate a motor vehicle, I have to be licensed. Everyone who wants to be a pilot has to be licensed. Everyone who wants to operate a motor vehicle has to be licensed. Regulations apply to everyone.

Government agencies are created by legislature.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, I didn’t. Please don’t make assumptions about me, you don’t know me. And please don’t twist my words, it really irritates me. If you continue to do this, I will simply stop talking to you, plain and simple.

I’m sorry, FreeRad. I apologize.

Apparently " In a free market, I can use physical coercion." means something entirely different.

 

[freeRadical]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Forgive me if I weight established literature and theory higher than the opinion of some random person on the internet.

Because it is true.

I see no difference. Regulations apply to all too. If I want to be a pilot, I have to be licensed. If I want to operate a motor vehicle, I have to be licensed. Everyone who wants to be a pilot has to be licensed. Everyone who wants to operate a motor vehicle has to be licensed. Regulations apply to everyone.

Government agencies are created by legislature.

 

[freeRadical]

I’m sorry, FreeRad. I apologize.

Apparently " In a free market, I can use physical coercion." means something entirely different.

Apologize accepted.

Yes, “can” and “do” mean entirely different things.

 

[clintonm]

I read that in a speculative sense, not as an individual desire. He was saying that in a free market without any framework of law there is nothing to prevent the use of force. I agree with that in a vacuum, however if there is a right to use force in a free market there is also a right to self-defence. An individual has the right to protect his life, family and property from others.

As far as reading about Adam Smith he does a good job of explaining how wealth is not gold but work. I would recomend Hayeck or Mises, but that could just be the Austrain-economist in me.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

That solves nothing. It just shows that I have not convinced you that I am right and you are wrong. Or perhaps you have a closed mind to the truth.

Because it is true.

So you say…I disagree.

I see no difference. Regulations apply to all too. If I want to be a pilot, I have to be licensed. If I want to operate a motor vehicle, I have to be licensed. Everyone who wants to be a pilot has to be licensed. Everyone who wants to operate a motor vehicle has to be licensed. Regulations apply to everyone.

The above regulations do not apply to those who do not want to be a pilot or drive a car.

Government agencies are created by legislature.

True. And they are empowered to enact regulations but not laws.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

As to the regulation of a Free Market…

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.” — Ayn Rand

Or to put it more simply…regulations are like gun control. They penalize the good guys and don’t stop the crooks. Most of the fines against companies only hurt shareholders who had nothing to do with the problem.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

As far as reading about Adam Smith he does a good job of explaining how wealth is not gold but work. I would recomend Hayeck or Mises, but that could just be the Austrain-economist in me.

Yes, it has to get better than Adam Smith. He was in fact a social engineer. E.g. we will have a system where people will work hard to make a profit, however due to this competition (replacing cooperation), everyone will really be wasting their time and will work to only survive. The invisible hand will negate profits.

So you see, your laudable system is just an effort at social engineering, and every business person is its fool. Is this the laudable system that is God-ordained?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, it has to get better than Adam Smith. He was in fact a social engineer. E.g. we will have a system where people will work hard to make a profit, however due to this competition (replacing cooperation), everyone will really be wasting their time and will work to only survive. The invisible hand will negate profits.

So you see, your laudable system is just an effort at social engineering, and every business person is its fool. Is this the laudable system that is God-ordained?

“replacing cooperation”

Economic “cooperation,” such as communism, socialism, collectivism fail miserably every time they are tried.

Man can cooperate with others in many ways, but historically, Capitalism is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal.

 

[freeRadical]

That solves nothing. It just shows that I have not convinced you that I am right and you are wrong. Or perhaps you have a closed mind to the truth.

No, you have not convinced me of anything.

So you say…I disagree.

That’s fine.

The above regulations do not apply to those who do not want to be a pilot or drive a car.

So? Laws only apply to those who break the law.

True. And they are empowered to enact regulations but not laws.

I see no difference between the two…

 

[freeRadical]

I read that in a speculative sense, not as an individual desire. He was saying that in a free market without any framework of law there is nothing to prevent the use of force. I agree with that in a vacuum, however if there is a right to use force in a free market there is also a right to self-defence. An individual has the right to protect his life, family and property from others.

There are no “rights” in a free market. A free market does not grant or guarantee any rights.

As far as reading about Adam Smith he does a good job of explaining how wealth is not gold but work. I would recomend Hayeck or Mises, but that could just be the Austrain-economist in me.

I am familiar with Hayek and Mises’ work.

 

[magnet]

regulations are like gun control. They penalize the good guys and don’t stop the crooks. Most of the fines against companies only hurt shareholders who had nothing to do with the problem.

Shareholders have the right to elect different boards who have the right to change CEO’s.
If you own something, and that something is involved in a crime, you suffer.

As for the President, he has the right to fire anybody in the Executive Branch for anything he is unhappy with. He also has the right to select new officers, some of which must be approved by Congress.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, you have not convinced me of anything.

So, do you want me to try harder, or are you happy in your world?

So? Laws only apply to those who break the law.

Laws apply to all.They affect those who violate them.

I see no difference between the two…

You will…someday

 

[clintonm]

There are no “rights” in a free market. A free market does not grant or guarantee any rights.

Whether you understand this or not, there are always rights. Nothing may grant a right we are established with at creation. You either deny natural law or God’s law at that point, and in which case that will lead to certain conclusions that separate from reality.

On another note, there is a distinct difference between regulation and law. Law, in a legal sense, binds everyone and is passed by the body politic. In the United States, at the federal level, it must go through both houses of congress and be signed by the president in order to be considered a law. A regulation is a rule created by an administrator that is supposed to apply to a narrow field.

Regulations are insidious because their creators are often unaccountable and their meanings are amorphous.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Shareholders have the right to elect different boards who have the right to change CEO’s.
If you own something, and that something is involved in a crime, you suffer.

But, is it fair?
Honest shareholders lose hard earned money while dishonest CEOs and other crooked executives walk away, shielded by corporate laws.

If the company was involved in fraud…Civil Law should hold the executives responsible and put them on trial.

As for the President, he has the right to fire anybody in the Executive Branch for anything he is unhappy with. He also has the right to select new officers, some of which must be approved by Congress.

True, but what bearing does this have on Capitalism?