Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[minkymurph]

I still maintain that slavery cannot exist in a Capitalist society. Freedom and individual rights are the cornerstones of true Capitalism. No man has the right to enslave another – that is a violation of individual rights. Government exists solely to protect those rights.

Now let’s get mean.

Did you just say the Government exists solely to protect those rights? What if a businessman infringes the rights of his employees? Should the Government interfere? Or are you going to argue real capitalists would be far too nice to do such a thing?

Where do you stand on legalizing prostitution and paying tax on it? What about marijuana?

How should the Government protect those rights? Human trafficking is business, so is prostitution and drugs. Does the Government have the right to interfere in how someone runs their business and the way they make their living? Is so, why?

Do individuals not have the right to be prostitutes and take drugs if they want?

 

[nmgauss]

Now let’s get mean.

Did you just say the Government exists solely to protect those rights? What if a businessman infringes the rights of his employees? Should the Government interfere? Or are you going to argue real capitalists would be far too nice to do such a thing?

Where do you stand on legalizing prostitution and paying tax on it? What about marijuana?

How should the Government protect those rights? Human trafficking is business, so is prostitution and drugs. Does the Government have the right to interfere in how someone runs their business and the way they make their living? Is so, why?

Do individuals not have the right to be prostitutes and take drugs if they want?

Concerns of the Government often extend into activities it regards as objectionable to Society. They may be OK from a capitalist view, but the socialist view intrudes into the thinking of many of its participants. That is why capitalism in its pure form does not exist in the West.

Several European countries have legalized prostitution. Has this been bad for their societies? In the U.S., the states of Washington and Colorado have recently legalized marijuana. So far, nothing bad has been reported.

Taking drugs, including alcohol, alone is an individual choice. But when it leads to burglary, robbery, and murder, and when it jeopardizes others in the vicinity, then the Government feels it is justified to step in. Drinking alcohol is OK, as long as one does not jeopardize others by doing it.

 

[minkymurph]

Concerns of the Government often extend into activities it regards as objectionable to Society. They may be OK from a capitalist view, but the socialist view intrudes into the thinking of many of its participants. That is why capitalism in its pure form does not exist in the West.

What you say here is what I am trying to get at. When Government extends into activities regarded as objectionable I would argue that is restricting the rights of an individual for the good of society.

I agree socialism does not permit the same degree of freedom of thought, (I think that is what you are saying) but as you are also saying radical capitalism would say it’s ok to make money from anything. Personally I think ‘mixed’ societies are best because according to my theory, capitalism and socialism should exist together as they balance and restrain each other. This is a theory I have been working on and I started it because I thought it’s easy to critique someone else’s theory, but what if you had to write your own? So far I have composed two chapters - scrumpled them up because I came to the conclusion they were tosh, threw them in the bin and started again.

I agree socialism does not permit the same degree of freedom of thought, (I think that is what you are saying) but as you are also saying radical capitalism would say it’s ok to make money from anything.

Several European countries have legalized prostitution. Has this been bad for their societies? In the U.S., the states of Washington and Colorado have recently legalized marijuana. So far, nothing bad has been reported.

I have mixed feelings about legalizing prostitution and marijuana. I kind of on the fence and I know that may sound a cop-out, but at present I remain undecided.

Taking drugs, including alcohol, alone is an individual choice. But when it leads to burglary, robbery, and murder, and when it jeopardizes others in the vicinity, then the Government feels it is justified to step in. Drinking alcohol is OK, as long as one does not jeopardize others by doing it.

This again is what my point is - restricting the rights of the individual for the good of society. Why do some think this is a bad thing? You cannot just let people do what they like. That is not if you want to live in a good society. Or have I got something wrong?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We are arguing definitions. Slavery cannot lawfully exist in a capitalist society but a practice that is the equivalent of slavery can certainly exist and as the evils of human trafficking demonstrates - does. As you say, it all depends on your definition of slavery.

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 government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some people to rule others.

The law needs a means of controlling human trafficking. They have chosen to label it slavery because the laws on human trafficking are rooted in property law. In a capitalist society an individual cannot be owned by another as you say, but that does not mean no one treats anyone as if they own them. At law, slavery is defined as exercising control over another individual in ways that attach to the rights of ownership. A key factor (Tang case) is where a person is not free to leave. As you say, that is an infringement of the right to liberty. That right may be a cornerstone of capitalism and one that is fiercely protected and defended, but that does not mean infringements of that right don’t happen.

I wouldn’t call it a infringement…Human trafficking is a horrible CRIME. But, remember, the fact that it exists is not a function of Capitalism…but the failure of government.

If physical force (or Human Trafficking) is to be barred from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why we need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

Now, if you argue human trafficking is not slavery, how would you define it? Do you think property law is the correct means to address the issue? If not, what would you suggest?

In the U.S. we abolished slavery, and it cost us a war. Human trafficking can be a form of slavery and also a form of kidnapping. Both highly illegal. It should be up to a government to enforce laws. Unfortunately, all to often, corrupt governments that have controls over business are open to bribes and will look the other way.
A small efficient government with the power to enforce OBJECTIVE laws without influence would be best.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Now let’s get mean.

I don’t like “mean”. I like “nice”.

Did you just say the Government exists solely to protect those rights? What if a businessman infringes the rights of his employees? Should the Government interfere? Or are you going to argue real capitalists would be far too nice to do such a thing?

Of course…nice Capitalists would never do such a thing.

But if a naughty Capitalist did violate the rights of his employees, a proper government would have the power to protect those rights. A proper government has no business telling the Capitalist how to run his business…but when rights are violated…government is EXPECTED to act.

Where do you stand on legalizing prostitution and paying tax on it? What about marijuana?

Personally I don’t care for prostitution. But where it is legal…it is legal.
The same with marijuana. If and when legalized…it is legal. I do not make laws. I only vote for those who do.

How should the Government protect those rights? Human trafficking is business, so is prostitution and drugs. Does the Government have the right to interfere in how someone runs their business and the way they make their living? Is so, why?

Human Trafficking and prostitution are BIG Businesses. If they are illegal and /or violate anyone’s rights, then government has the responsibility to interfere

Do individuals not have the right to be prostitutes and take drugs if they want?

Individuals have the right to do anything other than violate the rights of another.

 

[minkymurph]

Now that Russia has put its mitts on Crimea at the objection of Ukraine, pressure for Putin to relent on Chechnya might be justified. If the Chechnyans don’t want to be part of the Russian Federation, why must they? I wonder if they have ever had a referendum?

These are really big questions.

The problem is, put simplistically, the UN supports self determination yet at the same time will not support cessation which is a paradox.

As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected as my understanding of this situation to date is what I have learned from the media, Crimea wants to be part of Russia not the Ukraine. So, if one supports self determination Crimea is free to affiliate with Russia. But, no cessation means they must remain part of the Ukraine. Most national borders are not natural borders. The formation of weak and unstable states are not the answer. Yet, do people not have the right to determine their own fate? What is the answer?

I have to say to go into all this would go way off the thread.

 

[minkymurph]

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 government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some people to rule others.

It must be. Law is not abstract. It must have realistic application in people lives if it is to be of any use to them. There are objective benchmarks in law, but the law must also be subjective for the reasons I have stated.

I wouldn’t call it a infringement…Human trafficking is a horrible CRIME. But, remember, the fact that it exists is not a function of Capitalism…but the failure of government.

Your right, it is not merely and infringement, it is a crime. But what crime?
It is not a function of capitalism from your perspective because you have a degree of honour. Not all ‘capitalists’ do. Now, the question is government interference with business. What of the business of prostitution? Some see prostitution as business. If the government says you cannot make money this way, are they interfering in business and restricting an individual right to earn their living as they choose? Now, you seem like a good guy and a very moral person. If it’s any consolation, I bet you would be a good boss. But - not everyone is you. Not everyone has the same sense of duty to others. Can you see that capitalism needs government intervention to prevent it from oppressing people? From becoming corrupt and exploiting people? Or do you really think people who run businesses are far too nice to do that? Can you understand many would think that is really naive?

If physical force (or Human Trafficking) is to be barred from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why we need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

In the U.S. we abolished slavery, and it cost us a war. Human trafficking can be a form of slavery and also a form of kidnapping. Both highly illegal. It should be up to a government to enforce laws. Unfortunately, all to often, corrupt governments that have controls over business are open to bribes and will look the other way.
A small efficient government with the power to enforce OBJECTIVE laws without influence would be best.

Now we are on the same hymn sheet. We just have different approaches to solving the same problem.

I agree with protecting rights under an objective code.

I agree with institutional changes.

I agree we need government for moral justification.

I agree governments are corrupt.

I agree we need a small government. It amazes me the US manages to function with 100? members of the Senate? Yet, the UK needs 500 ‘Lords.’ On that issue my friend, you have a point.

I like your description of human trafficking as kidnapping. I intend to answer an exam question on slavery. The question will be connected with a critical analysis of property law as a foundation for slavery laws. Now - I am going to explore kidnapping as an alternative in my critical analysis.

Is it fair to say despite our different approaches we pretty much agree on the same principles?

Would you now like me to tell you what I see as the weaknesses of capitalism, where it lacks compassion and humanitarianism, and you can critique them at your leisure? Given you have admitted it eludes you.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t like “mean”. I like “nice”.

I like mean, but then I want to be a lawyer and is it not fair to say most people want a mean lawyer in preference to one who is nice?

When I say mean I mean ‘mean’ in a good way; being assertive, not afraid to stand by your principles and say what you think, not walking on eggshells for the sake of political correctness, not being afraid to be ruthless is you need to be.

But if a naughty Capitalist did violate the rights of his employees, a proper government would have the power to protect those rights. A proper government has no business telling the Capitalist how to run his business…but when rights are violated…government is EXPECTED to act.

But this is my point. Why does the Government Act? Is it not for the good of society? Is it not a case of restricting an individual right, in that yes you can run a business but not this one, you can do this but not that, for the good of the majority - community, society, greater good? Is that not the responsibility of the Government? So why is it a bad thing to say Government should restrict the right of the individual for the good of the majority?

Personally I don’t care for prostitution. But where it is legal…it is legal.
The same with marijuana. If and when legalized…it is legal. I do not make laws. I only vote for those who do.

I have a similar view. Personally I’m not sure which is best.

Human Trafficking and prostitution are BIG Businesses. If they are illegal and /or violate anyone’s rights, then government has the responsibility to interfere

But is this not a welfare principle? Why do people have rights? What is the point of rights? Why protect right? Is it not for the welfare of the individual and the welfare of society? So, how can you say capitalism is just about profit and has nothing to do with welfare? Or, we just rely on the capitalist to be nice? Forgive me but that sends a shiver up my spine. :winter:

Individuals have the right to do anything other than violate the rights of another.

I am going to take you up on this in another post as there is not the space here.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It must be. Law is not abstract. It must have realistic application in people lives if it is to be of any use to them. There are objective benchmarks in law, but the law must also be subjective for the reasons I have stated.

I “think” you are agreeing with me here…
Just to amplify a bit…:

An objective law protects a society’s freedom. A non-objective law can give a ruler or even a government agent the chance to impose his arbitrary will—his policies, his decisions, **his **interpretations, his enforcement, his punishment or favor—on defenseless victims.

Your right, it is not merely and infringement, it is a crime. But what crime?
It is not a function of capitalism from your perspective because you have a degree of honour. Not all ‘capitalists’ do. Now, the question is government interference with business. What of the business of prostitution? Some see prostitution as business. If the government says you cannot make money this way, are they interfering in business and restricting an individual right to earn their living as they choose? Now, you seem like a good guy and a very moral person. If it’s any consolation, I bet you would be a good boss. But - not everyone is you. Not everyone has the same sense of duty to others. Can you see that capitalism needs government intervention to prevent it from oppressing people? From becoming corrupt and exploiting people? Or do you really think people who run businesses are far too nice to do that? Can you understand many would think that is really naive?

By this line of reasoning, I see the only solution would be the outlawing of prostitution and the banning of Capitalism. All products and services provided by a government.

Because some businesses are questionable and prostitution is morally wrong…

Is this what you are suggesting…?

Now we are on the same hymn sheet. We just have different approaches to solving the same problem.

I agree with protecting rights under an objective code.

I agree with institutional changes.

I agree we need government for moral justification.

Careful there…I said a proper government was Morally Justified…governments don’t make moral justifications.

I agree governments are corrupt.

Let’s say…governments are corruptable

I agree we need a small government. It amazes me the US manages to function with 100? members of the Senate? Yet, the UK needs 500 ‘Lords.’ On that issue my friend, you have a point.

Actually my argument is not exactly about the number of clowns in government, but rather the extent of government involvement in our lives.

I like your description of human trafficking as kidnapping. I intend to answer an exam question on slavery. The question will be connected with a critical analysis of property law as a foundation for slavery laws. Now - I am going to explore kidnapping as an alternative in my critical analysis.

I am pleased to know that I have had some small influence on your education.

Remember to define your terms in your analysis. Being a “slave” to a computer is not exactly like being chained to a grindstone. And “working for slave wages” is an oxymoron because slaves do not earn wages.

The concept of slaves as property is interesting and can be a great legal discussion. However that concept is unthinkable in a pure Capitalist society because individual rights are sacrosanct.

Is it fair to say despite our different approaches we pretty much agree on the same principles?

Would you now like me to tell you what I see as the weaknesses of capitalism, where it lacks compassion and humanitarianism, and you can critique them at your leisure? Given you have admitted it eludes you.

I am open to your ideas anytime. I would just ask that you focus on pure, laissez-faire Capitalism which I have been describing throughout our discussion. “Crony” capitalism, mixed markets, and government regulated economies are NOT real Capitalism.

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of Capitalism which have been used as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on Capitalism were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I like mean, but then I want to be a lawyer and is it not fair to say most people want a mean lawyer in preference to one who is nice?

When I say mean I mean ‘mean’ in a good way; being assertive, not afraid to stand by your principles and say what you think, not walking on eggshells for the sake of political correctness, not being afraid to be ruthless is you need to be.

OK…I mean like Wow! I like what you mean about being mean.

But this is my point. Why does the Government Act? Is it not for the good of society? Is it not a case of restricting an individual right, in that yes you can run a business but not this one, you can do this but not that, for the good of the majority - community, society, greater good? Is that not the responsibility of the Government? So why is it a bad thing to say Government should restrict the right of the individual for the good of the majority?

Who decides what is good for society…government? or society?

The source of a government’s authority should be “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights or power except the rights and power delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

But is this not a welfare principle? Why do people have rights? What is the point of rights? Why protect right? Is it not for the welfare of the individual and the welfare of society? So, how can you say capitalism is just about profit and has nothing to do with welfare? Or, we just rely on the capitalist to be nice? Forgive me but that sends a shiver up my spine. :winter:

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of a government—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. A permission is not a right.
A permission can be revoked at any time.

Yes, Capitalism is about profit for self interest. Yes, in a pure Capitalist society welfare would not exist because everyone would be productively engaged and prosperous.
In a Capitalist society CHARITY replaces welfare when needed.

Currently, in welfare states, society is, in fact, relying on “Capitalists to be nice”. Without productive Capitalists a government would have no source of funding for it’s welfare roles.
There would be no “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Because there would only be “need”.

I am going to take you up on this in another post as there is not the space here.

I look forward to this…as long as you are not mean about it.

 

[nmgauss]

Can it be argued that, since slaves are supported by their masters, they are in effect being paid? But they are being supported only to the point of being effective slaves.

 

[minkymurph]

Can it be argued that, since slaves are supported by their masters, they are in effect being paid? But they are being supported only to the point of being effective slaves.

Good question. I remember a scene in North and South (yes I know its fictional but I liked the series ) where Ori says to George our slaves are better off than your workers. They go to bed with their bellies full every night and have warm houses. Your workers don’t.

There was a time in Ireland when the factory owner owned all the houses workers lived in and they didn’t get paid cash, they got food vouchers they had to take to the factory owners shop.

 

[minkymurph]

I look forward to this…as long as you are not mean about it.

I will get back to you I’m just a bit swamped at the moment.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Can it be argued that, since slaves are supported by their masters, they are in effect being paid? But they are being supported only to the point of being effective slaves.

That is a stretch.

A slave, forced to do work at the point of a gun, could be fed three gourmet meals a day, provided Champagne at dinner, and be slathered with unguents by vestal virgins…and as long as he did not WANT to be there…that would NOT be support.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That is a stretch.

A slave, forced to do work at the point of a gun, could be fed three gourmet meals a day, provided Champagne at dinner, and be slathered with unguents by vestal virgins…and as long as he did not WANT to be there…that would NOT be support.

When I worked here in America, I really did not want to be there but was forced with implicit threats of homelessness.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

When I worked here in America, I really did not want to be there but was forced with implicit threats of homelessness.

LOVE!

So you CHOSE work that PAID you a wage and consequently avoided homelessness. You could have chose homelessness and no one would have shot you.

Working in America makes any job in any other country look like slavery.

P.S. Where have you been, Bob? We missed you

 

[minkymurph]

I am open to your ideas anytime. I would just ask that you focus on pure, laissez-faire Capitalism which I have been describing throughout our discussion. “Crony” capitalism, mixed markets, and government regulated economies are NOT real Capitalism.

That is difficult, given that the only pure laissez-faire capitalism is the pilgrims? Or have I got that wrong?

I can’t really discuss my ideas here because it would derail the thread, but it’s interesting because a friend of mine said when we were discussing my theories, ‘How would you go about persuading an out-and-out capitalist of your theories?’ It would be interesting to see if I could persuade them on anything. If I could, I would say I had a pretty sound argument.

 

[minkymurph]

Working in America makes any job in any other country look like slavery.

Come on Zoltan that’s a very sweeping statement. How many countries have you visited let alone worked in? There is a vicious rumor only 10% of Americans have a passport. It is true?

 

[Robert_Sock]

So you CHOSE work that PAID you a wage and consequently avoided homelessness. You could have chose homelessness and no one would have shot you.

Working in America makes any job in any other country look like slavery.

P.S. Where have you been, Bob? We missed you

Thanks! I’m never far away, and I think you guys are carrying on a great conversation.

Based on your reasoning, a slave is perfectly free to refuse to work too. They would probably get beaten, but not experience homelessness. Slaves are not free to switch owners, but such is not much of a freedom assuming slave owners basically treat their slaves in a similar fashion. The ‘free’ workers are able to switch employers, but that’s of little consolation given the employers are also so similar to each other. Yes, we are free in that respect, but it’s of little consolation.

Capitalism is like a pyramid, with ‘successful’ entrepreneurs at the top of the pyramid and less successful towards the bottom. Thus, the capitalistic societies always have the same structure of a pyramid, no matter how competitive things get. Plus there is little chance that one will ever dethrone those in the upper part of the structure because of all the power and capital that those in the upper part of the pyramid ‘enjoy.’ Capitalism is anything but equal opportunity, but more like that of a caste system where one is born into wealth.

Laugh if you may, but I view humans as spiritual beings that actually operate off of good and evil spirit (experienced as inner voices), external of themselves. I also think people in the future will work for spiritual delight and to avoid mental aversions. There is actually a pleasure in the brain that elicits extreme pleasure when stimulated; likewise, there is an aversive center in the brain. Indeed, I believe Satan already has this power. My advice is to not seek too much pleasure while in this world, but always carry the Cross of Christ instead.

 

[nmgauss]

Come on Zoltan that’s a very sweeping statement. How many countries have you visited let alone worked in? There is a vicious rumor only 10% of Americans have a passport. It is true?

Americans do not need a passport to cross state lines. Also, a passport is not needed when crossing the border into Mexico and Canada. One can fly to Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii without a passport. Only those who want to go farther need one. So why is it so bad when only 10% of Americans have a passport?