Is Capitalism God-Ordained?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yohji
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThomasJMullally said:
You are burdened with an orthodox, rote view of the Middle Ages as you say: “The Daaaark Ages”. How boring. During that epoch, there was an equal amount of sunlight. During that epoch, the light of the world was our Church.

At the time, people kept the fruit of their labor, as much as they ever have since. There was less printed currency, less stuff, but why you would think people were not as happy as they are now, is inexplicable. They knew no other way, they were submitted to faith, and to fate. They had a personal relationship with their knight, or whoever ran the town. They were happy for every little thing, not craven for ever more. (As we should be.)
Click to expand...
Gee, the poor were not very happy with the Sheriff of Nottingham back in Robin Hood’s time.
Are you suggesting that all the serfs merrily took to the fields singing “Hi Ho, Hi Ho” and gladly served their good knight?
ThomasJMullally said:
Serfs and peasants… disparaging terms for simple people, but yes that is mostly what we have today. They are harnessed into a system of consumption, they are fed a continuous stream of advertising and entertainment to tie them down. I would hardly call that “leisure” and “arts”.
Click to expand...
If serfs and peasants exist today it is because they have been conditioned to believe that there is no hope for them other than a government program…and they are happy to be harnessed to it for life.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Gee, the poor were not very happy with the Sheriff of Nottingham back in Robin Hood’s time.
Are you suggesting that all the serfs merrily took to the fields singing “Hi Ho, Hi Ho” and gladly served their good knight?
Click to expand...
Well, we could learn something from them. Going back that far on the “growth” rate, I am not going to advise… 🙂
 
ThomasJMullally said:
You are burdened with an orthodox, rote view of the Middle Ages as you say: “The Daaaark Ages”. How boring. During that epoch, there was an equal amount of sunlight. During that epoch, the light of the world was our Church.

At the time, people kept the fruit of their labor, as much as they ever have since. There was less printed currency, less stuff, but why you would think people were not as happy as they are now, is inexplicable. They knew no other way, they were submitted to faith, and to fate. They had a personal relationship with their knight, or whoever ran the town. They were happy for every little thing, not craven for ever more. (As we should be.)

Serfs and peasants… disparaging terms for simple people, but yes that is mostly what we have today. They are harnessed into a system of consumption, they are fed a continuous stream of advertising and entertainment to tie them down. I would hardly call that “leisure” and “arts”.
Click to expand...
Dark Ages: the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
European Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries AD), particularly:
European Early Middle Ages
Migration Period of c. 400 to 800 AD
Saeculum obscurum or “dark age” in the history of the papacy, running from 904 to 964
 
The Manorial System that gave rise to feudalism:
Manorialism was an essential element of feudal society, was the organizing principle of rural economy that originated in the villa system of the Late Roman Empire, was widely practiced in medieval western and parts of central Europe, and was slowly replaced by the advent of a money-based market economy and new forms of agrarian contract.

Manorialism was characterised by the vesting of legal and economic power in a Lord of the Manor, supported economically from his own direct landholding in a manor (sometimes called a fief), and from the obligatory contributions of a legally subject part of the peasant population under the jurisdiction of himself and his manorial court. These obligations could be payable in several ways, in labor (the French term corvée is conventionally applied), in kind, or, on rare occasions, in coin.

In examining the origins of the monastic cloister, Walter Horn found that “as a manorial entity the Carolingian monastery … differed little from the fabric of a feudal estate, save that the corporate community of men for whose sustenance this organization was maintained consisted of monks who served God in chant and spent much of their time in reading and writing.”
 
stinkcat_14 said:
So the next question is, how do you have a government that protects property rights without being captured by the upper part of the business class?
Click to expand...
Simple.

The only function of the government, in a Capitalist Society is protecting our rights. This is done with a military to protect us from foreign invasion. With police and firemen for domestic protection and the courts to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Since the government has no power over business, the “upper part of the business class” would have no influence over the government.

However, if an objective law was violated, and property rights were “captured”, then the government is required to protect those rights…no matter who’s they are.
 
magnet said:
Dark Ages: the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
European Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries AD), particularly:
European Early Middle Ages
Migration Period of c. 400 to 800 AD
Saeculum obscurum or “dark age” in the history of the papacy, running from 904 to 964
Click to expand...
Yes thank you… I have assumed the term originated alongside “Age of Enlightenment” which I find equally specious. No one thought they were in a Dark Age at the time. In my view, the Catholic Church was dominant and worship came first, wealth second. It rather seems a period of relative peace and happiness. This idea of “darkness” compared to “enlightenment” seems like just so much justification, for casting aside faith.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Simple.

However, if an objective law was violated, and property rights were “captured”, then the government is required to protect those rights…no matter who’s they are.
Click to expand...
You believe that the richest would not pay for extra protection (as they do now) but and wouldn’t crowd out rights for the little guy. This is delusion. The little guy, just trying to make enough from the land for himself and his family, has been dislocated and expropriated without fail on a worldwide basis, for the past five centuries. This is not civilization you are advocating… you are just accelerating the same old capitalist frenzy, to be more than just a little guy, to eat things up or to otherwise get eaten.
 
ThomasJMullally said:
Simple-- you destroy it to produce more and more, you are trying to beat your competitors. You need a higher ratio of capital, you aspire to greatness, to dominance, to the hitory books. You don’t see it? You turn the other way… you WON’T see it.
Click to expand...
You cannot produce more of something if you destroy it. Doesn’t make sense.

I knew of a lumber company that had harvesting rights to almost a thousand acres of forest.
They went in and clear cut everything in one season. They made a huge profit. But next season they had nothing to cut. Soon expenses began eating away at what profit was left and they tried to sell the harvesting rights. No one was interested in the rights to harvest a clear cut wasteland so the lumber company went bankrupt. The owner willed the harvesting to his son, who gave it to his son. After +/- 50 years the forest had grown back as if it had never been cut. Now the grandson is using a more sustainable method of harvesting the forrest. He uses less labor and equipment and makes more money than grandpa did…and he gets a crop every season.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Destruction of the environment is terrible.

It would never happen in a a true, pure Capitalist society. Simply because Capitalists share the environment with other Capitalists. Why destroy it?
Click to expand...
There is no reason for one capitalist to necessarily care about the well being of another capitalist.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
There is no reason for one capitalist to necessarily care about the well being of another capitalist.
Click to expand...
Why not? We are human. We enjoy the company of our friends. I know a lot of Capitalists who’s well being I care about.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
There is no reason for one capitalist to necessarily care about the well being of another capitalist.
Click to expand...
Exactly… we have a system of “bigger is better”. Of relentless ambition to have and to hold. I don’t advocate stopping the sellers-- we have too many laws that mean nothing. I just want people to work and consume less voluntarily. (It could happen in due course. The young people in college now are sharp as whips on these matters… they do not buy the Fool’s Gold of bigger is better. Just want to encourage them, that they are not crazy.)
 
ThomasJMullally said:
You believe that the richest would not pay for extra protection (as they do now) but and wouldn’t crowd out rights for the little guy. This is delusion. The little guy, just trying to make enough from the land for himself and his family, has been dislocated and expropriated without fail on a worldwide basis, for the past five centuries. This is not civilization you are advocating… you are just accelerating the same old capitalist frenzy, to be more than just a little guy, to eat things up or to otherwise get eaten.
Click to expand...
Not true at all, Tom.

The little guy gets crowded out by influence over government.

One person can bribe a government to regulate another out of business. That is the Phony capitalism we see today.

If government is only empowered to enforce laws and is restricted from regulating business…then government cannot be used to dislocate or expropriate any one. When one person FORCES his will on another then, and only then, does government step in and punishes the one who violated the other’s rights.

Essentially in a true Capitalist society the “Big Guy” cannot FORCE the little guy to do anything. He can offer him something to do or not to do something and then it is up to the little guy to accept or deny. The government cannot tell the little guy what to do, because the Big Guy has no influence over the government.

It really is pretty close to the perfect system. We should try it. I know it will work
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Why not? We are human. We enjoy the company of our friends. I know a lot of Capitalists who’s well being I care about.
Click to expand...
I may care about some people, but I don’t care about everyone. I don’t necessarily care about the well being of my competitor. Are you really saying that no capitalist will ever take the opportunity to gain at someone else’s expense?
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Simple.

The only function of the government, in a Capitalist Society is protecting our rights. This is done with a military to protect us from foreign invasion. With police and firemen for domestic protection and the courts to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Since the government has no power over business, the “upper part of the business class” would have no influence over the government.

However, if an objective law was violated, and property rights were “captured”, then the government is required to protect those rights…no matter who’s they are.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of a country that does exactly this?
 
Suuure-- the police will step in against the big guy who supports them. And eminent domain would not occur, as it does now… the state acting in favor of “most productive use” as it determines (and by sponsors) e.g. the biggest and most wasteful, destructive projects.

Yours is a world of might makes right, not a utopia of fairrness among men. The utopia of fairness and morals among men which might be possible, is directly contravened by the sytem you are advocating.
 
And who prints the money in this world? The government, but they will be powerless… suuuuure… 🙂
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I may care about some people, but I don’t care about everyone. I don’t necessarily care about the well being of my competitor. Are you really saying that no capitalist will ever take the opportunity to gain at someone else’s expense?
Click to expand...
I’m a Catholic. I love my neighbors. I may not like some of them but I love them anyway.

I know one atheist Capitalist who is a grumpy old phart. I know he does not care about anyone.

“Gaining at someone else’s expense” is what we Capitalists call “risk”. We know there is the chance to fail and some else will probably profit from our failure…but we take the risk.
If your goal is to cause someone to fail, that is evil and backfires more than it succeeds.

There are winners and losers in a true Free Market. That is understood by all before the game so there are no hard feelings.
 
ThomasJMullally said:
Suuure-- the police will step in against the big guy who supports them. And eminent domain would not occur, as it does now… the state acting in favor of “most productive use” as it determines (and by sponsors) e.g. the biggest and most wasteful, destructive projects.

Yours is a world of might makes right, not a utopia of fairrness among men. The utopia of fairness and morals among men which might be possible, is directly contravened by the sytem you are advocating.
Click to expand...
Might makes right = tyrant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top