Planned Parenthood and Capitalism

[gnjsdad]

Because man is an imperfect creature and can take any idea and change it and twist it to fit what is going on at the present time. So going all the way back to Henry VIII as you discuss in your post is taking your idea way off to never neverland.

I realize it seems like a stretch but I thought it necessary to go back to capitalism’s historical origins.
frangiuliano:

Getting back to Planned Parenthood. Every system will be immoral in some ways because MAN is immoral. Do we throw out everything? And replace it with what?

We can start by realizing that an economic system born of theft is no basis for a sound social order. It results in the kinds of economic transactions we see here between PP and it’s customers. God and morality are removed from the equation because the equation is based solely on market considerations.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Systems of state sponsored usury exist all over the place, the US being the most prominent.

Capitalism IS theft and plunder.

If the State is involved (usury or whatever) in any way…it is a government regulated economy. Not Capitalism

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I assume you’re referring to the Lockean interpretation of property rights, which was developed in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. Locke’s idea of the absolute nature of private property rights was a throwback to the pre-Christian era of pagan antiquity, especially the Roman system. Locke basically ignored centuries of Scholastic thought on the nature of property. The Scholastics taught that there is no absolute right to private property ownership; there is always a public dimension to property ownership.

I believe you mean “The Socialists” rather than “Scholastics”.

**Socialism ** teaches that there is no absolute right to private property ownership.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since we have to sustain our life by our own effort, the person who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

I’m sorry, but these statements are belied by history. The first modern capitalist state was Henry VIII’s England. Henry rebelled against the Church and appropriated all the Church property in England. This act of plunder inaugurated the modern capitalist era. The beneficiaries of Henry’s act became the first “owners of private property”. Elizabethan England set up the most advanced police state of its age in order to protect the plunderers. The plunderers’ power wasn’t consolidated until the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, when the Whig oligarchs put down the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland. It was during this rebellion that ethnic cleansing was introduced, when the capitalist Whigs tried to make good Protestants out of the Highland Scots who clung to the old way of life. The same tactics were used in the New World against the French Arcadians and Indians. So, the history is not as benign as you present.

Your “interpretation of history” is amusing.

When Henry appropriated private property he ceased being a Capitalist. Worse…by appropriating private property and giving it to “beneficiaries” he became a socialist. (Take from one and give to another)

No…Henry was far from a Capitalist.

Capitalism began in Europe and England with the end of serfdom.

As I have said elsewhere, capitalism as it exists in reality, is grounded in Newtonian physics, where morality has no place.

Your imaginary form of capitalism can’t be found anywhere because state and economics cannot be separated. Just because it’s not as you imagine it should be does not mean it does not exist in another form.

My form of Capitalism created the highest standard of living ever known on earth simply because the state had little control.

 

[frangiuliano115]

**Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since we have to sustain our life by our own effort, the person who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
**

Excellent point made by Zoltan Cobalt in post no. 23.

I had said that your (gnjsdad) going all the way back to Henry VIII is a moot point because no matter how anything started it’s useless to argue about it in that way but only in the sense that it is being used TODAY. You’re in never neverland because that place doesn’t exist anymore.

There are towns here near me where serfdom was the way of life. You’ll see a big castle or Villa (a real one) up at the beginning of town and then going all the way down to the end of town you’ll see the current day homes where the serfs huts used to be.

So you have the super-rich up on the top, and the super poor down in the bottom. Literally!

So yes, capitalism (current day) also “uses” people BUT Zoltan is right; it has created the middle class and the best standard of living in the entire world. I’ve already mentioned how other countries don’t like us sometimes because of Envy. I don’t see how this could be disputed??? There should come a time when ideaology stops and reality sets in. The conversations I’ve had with socialists (and even communists) here are really interesting. Their thinking is so convaluted. It’s like they’ve been brainwashed w/o ever really thinking things through on their own.

Also, if you RECEIVE something from a socialist state, you must RELINQUISH something. It could be your money, your privacy, your very soul since your life is not your own. A socialist state tries to control your every move since they feel that they OWN you and they are ALLOWING you to do whatever; work, drive, get medical attention etc.

Sometimes I feel like we’re going to get to the point where they take all my income and decide how much of it I need to get along and ALLOW me to have that back!

I’m just getting worried that people in the U.S. are also desiring to have a Big Daddy…

God bless you
Fran
p.s. I don’t live in the U.S. now so I get to see first hand the effects of all I’m saying.

 

[Latias]

I believe you mean “The Socialists” rather than “Scholastics”.

**Socialism ** teaches that there is no absolute right to private property ownership.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since we have to sustain our life by our own effort, the person who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Your “interpretation of history” is amusing.

When Henry appropriated private property he ceased being a Capitalist. Worse…by appropriating private property and giving it to “beneficiaries” he became a socialist. (Take from one and give to another)

No…Henry was far from a Capitalist.

Capitalism began in Europe and England with the end of serfdom.

My form of Capitalism created the highest standard of living ever known on earth simply because the state had little control.

I don’t know why I am answering. Where?

So who’s a capitalist? Is Boris Yeltsin capitalist? Your definition of capitalist would exclude too many people, even all US administrations, which have likely use eminent domain in some respect?

I actually respect Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, but were they “capitalists” because they wanted to protect nascent American manufacturing from the foreign free market of cheap British goods?

I typed “living standards” and “Mao” on Google. Most people in the West think socialist can only lead to penury and misery, and even though Mao Zedong was a lunatic in the Cultural Revolution, and the Great Leap Forward was horribly implemented, Mao did improve the standard of living and life expectancy of the Chinese even though acknowledging that is an anathema for US conservatives:

So really there’s a bit of a gap in the market when it comes to modern Chinese history. Instead of ‘How Many People Died Because Of Chairman Mao’, let’s ask: ‘How Many People Lived Because Of Chairman Mao’? If it’s reasonable to attribute all unnatural deaths in China since 1949 to this one man, then surely it’s also reasonable to attribute all life beyond the 1949 life expectancy to the same man!

Before the revolution, life expectancy in China was around 35 years. China was ravaged by famine, war, stagnation, feudalism and colonial brutality. By the time Mao died in 1976, life expectancy had almost doubled, to 67 years. Now it’s 76. The pre-revolution literacy rate in China was around 20%. By the time Mao died, it was around 93%. China’s population had remained stagnant between 400 and 500 million for a hundred years or so. By the time Mao died, it had reached 900 million – clearly, something changed for the better; clearly circumstances were generally favourable for human life! Women, ground down by millennia of feudal backwardness, were able to make unprecedented gains towards attaining social equality. A thriving culture of literature, music, theatre and art grew up and suddenly became accessible to the masses of the people – even to the endlessly ground-down Chinese peasantry, who had never had access to such things. Chinese land was irrigated. Universal healthcare was established.

invent-the-future.org/2013/12/monster-liberator-legacy-mao-zedong/

A few statistics demonstrate the significance of that period. In 1949, industrial infrastructure was negligible. Electricity availability outside small urban areas was near zero. Literacy rate was below 20 per cent. Immunisation rate was virtually non-existent and average life expectancy 41 years old.

On the eve of Deng’s reforms in 1979, China had built the framework of basic industrial infrastructures, though still very limited. Extensive national and local grids with about 10,000 newly built hydroelectric dams increased electricity coverage to over 60 per cent even in the poorest rural areas. Literacy rate reached an astonishing 66 per cent meaning well over 80 per cent of youth - among the highest among poor developing nations. Hundreds of millions of people were immunised, nearly 100 per cent of children at the age of one, and average life expectancy reached 65. In fact, by 1978, China’s human development index was already closing in on much richer developed nations

scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1390108/debunking-myths-mao-zedong?page=all

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t know why I am answering. Where?

I typed “living standards” and “Mao” on Google. Most people in the West think socialist can only lead to penury and misery

invent-the-future.org/2013/12/monster-liberator-legacy-mao-zedong/

scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1390108/debunking-myths-mao-zedong?page=all

Just quick:

A poster says:

“My form of Capitalism created the highest standard of living ever known on earth simply because the state had little control.”

And you ask:

“Where?”:

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

And - socialism does lead to misery, be it economic and/or moral. (Europe is not such a happy place right now - except for Germany).

But, I know we all have our ideas and we’re not going to change them.

So with that, I’m outta here.

God bless you all
Fran

 

[gnjsdad]

I actually respect Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, but were they “capitalists” because they wanted to protect nascent American manufacturing from the foreign free market of cheap British goods?

Without question, that was Hamilton’s goal. Yet great as he was, Hamilton shared the same prejudiced assumptions as others in his economic class. Hamilton was a Whig, even though he fought against English Whigs. He, like they, undervalued labor. He, like they, took usury as a given. As such, his system was undergirded by Newtonian physics, the “invisible hand”. Hamilton had no problem praising the English factory system and attempted to implement that system in America. At that very moment, the English were in the process of herding women and children into factories.

I began this this thread in order to shed light on how the capitalist system, which makes it a point to divorce moral considerations from economic transactions, provides a comfy place for Planned Parenthood and its customers to do business.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t know why I am answering. Where?

So who’s a capitalist? Is Boris Yeltsin capitalist? Your definition of capitalist would exclude too many people, even all US administrations, which have likely use eminent domain in some respect?

As I said previously…"…a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire form of Capitalism" does not exist anywhere in the world today. Even in America. Here we have government regulated capitalism or a mixed market. Keep in mind that a Free Market (Capitalism) ceases to be FREE when the first government restriction or regulation is imposed.

The premise of this thread is flawed in that the OP is identifying some alien economic system as Capitalism.

I actually respect Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, but were they “capitalists” because they wanted to protect nascent American manufacturing from the foreign free market of cheap British goods?

If that is what Hamilton and Clay did they are “protectionists” not Capitalists.

The essence of Capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges. True Capitalism requires the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

How else can consumers be served justly? Why should consumers pay a government inflated price for products and services they want?

No…Hamilton and Clay did not have “the common good” in mind if they practiced protectionism.

I typed “living standards” and “Mao” on Google. Most people in the West think socialist can only lead to penury and misery, and even though Mao Zedong was a lunatic in the Cultural Revolution, and the Great Leap Forward was horribly implemented, Mao did improve the standard of living and life expectancy of the Chinese even though acknowledging that is an anathema for US conservatives:

Mussolini improved the standard of living in Italy by making the trains run on time…big deal.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Without question, that was Hamilton’s goal. Yet great as he was, Hamilton shared the same prejudiced assumptions as others in his economic class. Hamilton was a Whig, even though he fought against English Whigs. He, like they, undervalued labor. He, like they, took usury as a given. As such, his system was undergirded by Newtonian physics, the “invisible hand”. Hamilton had no problem praising the English factory system and attempted to implement that system in America. At that very moment, the English were in the process of herding women and children into factories.

That was the start of the Industrial Revolution. Or the beginning of true Capitalism. No one “herded” or forced women and children to work in factories. They received wages that saved them from starvation, crime and prostitution.

The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a system of free trade on a free market: Capitalism.

No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire Capitalism…as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference and control still remained, even in America, (and this is what led to the eventual destruction of Capitalism.) But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of Capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty…it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of pre-Capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of Capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof we have the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 %, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 % per century.

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between North and South Korea is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see.

I began this this thread in order to shed light on how the capitalist system, which makes it a point to divorce moral considerations from economic transactions, provides a comfy place for Planned Parenthood and its customers to do business.

No economic system embraces moral considerations. Morality is a individual human trait.
It is a code of values that guide our individual choices and actions… the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of our lives.

However, Capitalism can be morally** justified** because it is the only system consonant with our rational nature, it protects our survival and its ruling principle is: * justice*.

 

[Latias]

No economic system embraces moral considerations. Morality is a individual human trait.
It is a code of values that guide our individual choices and actions… the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of our lives.

However, Capitalism can be morally** justified** because it is the only system consonant with our rational nature, it protects our survival and its ruling principle is: * justice*.

Since there is no such thing as “capitalist” economy, only mixed economies, how could you ascribe the “best living standards” entirely to capitalist elements of the economy. Please note that socialist economies were able to modernize quite abruptly too. There is also no such thing as a “laboratory experiment”, especially regarding North and South Korea, since the DPRK is under ruthless and punitive sanctions from the West.

Regarding the “morality of capitalism”; its primary concern is the maintenance of the property relations of the means of production. Maybe its secondary concern is to ensure that the participants of a transaction consent to it and can reasonably expect to “benefit” from it (Pareto efficiency). But these only provide some mild constraints to one’s social and economic conduct in the service of personal enrichment. In general, it does promote an amoral social milieu.

 

[gnjsdad]

Regarding the “morality of capitalism”; its primary concern is the maintenance of the property relations of the means of production. Maybe its secondary concern is to ensure that the participants of a transaction consent to it and can reasonably expect to “benefit” from it (Pareto efficiency). But these only provide some mild constraints to one’s social and economic conduct in the service of personal enrichment. In general, it does promote an amoral social milieu.

Exactly.

According to capitalist dogma, a contract or transaction is just merely because two parties agree to it.

It doesn’t seem to trouble the apologists for capitalism that Planned Parenthood and its customers (the sellers and buyers of dead baby body parts) are revealed by these videos to have an established set of procedures in place to make this market run smoothly and efficiently. It’s obvious that both parties have wall-to-wall lawyers whose purpose is to skirt any hint of illegality.

There is no moral mechanism in capitalist markets that prevents this.

 

[estesbob]

Appears this is a problem in non capitalistic countries also. It would appear that plain old evil drives this marker-not a specific economic system

glennbeck.com/2012/05/08/disturbing-china-fills-capsules-with-human-baby-flesh/

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Since there is no such thing as “capitalist” economy, only mixed economies, how could you ascribe the “best living standards” entirely to capitalist elements of the economy.

Historically…when Capitalism was least restricted or government controlled…it produced the highest standard of living and most prosperity for more people than any socialist economy or collective could hope for.

Please note that socialist economies were able to modernize quite abruptly too. There is also no such thing as a “laboratory experiment”, especially regarding North and South Korea, since the DPRK is under ruthless and punitive sanctions from the West.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. All too soon, producers notice that they are producing while others consume. It is human nature, in this situation, to ask oneself…why produce? Why not just consume? When this happens totalitarianism steps in and ALL are are FORCED to produce.

I think it is quite a stretch to blame the West for the condition of North Korea.
Speaking for America, I would remind you that we are still at war with North Korea. There exists only a mutual agreed “cease fire”. Negotiations for peace still continue. It would be insanity to consider aid or the removal of sanctions from an enemy.

Regarding the “morality of capitalism”; its primary concern is the maintenance of the property relations of the means of production. Maybe its secondary concern is to ensure that the participants of a transaction consent to it and can reasonably expect to “benefit” from it (Pareto efficiency). But these only provide some mild constraints to one’s social and economic conduct in the service of personal enrichment. In general, it does promote an amoral social milieu.

You indicate that social and economic conduct needs to be constrained. I would agree that social conduct should be regulated by objective laws…but government has no business involving itself in business.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Exactly.

According to capitalist dogma, a contract or transaction is just merely because two parties agree to it.

It doesn’t seem to trouble the apologists for capitalism that Planned Parenthood and its customers (the sellers and buyers of dead baby body parts) are revealed by these videos to have an established set of procedures in place to make this market run smoothly and efficiently. It’s obvious that both parties have wall-to-wall lawyers whose purpose is to skirt any hint of illegality.

There is no moral mechanism in capitalist markets that prevents this.

No economic system needs a moral mechanism. Morality applies to the society and individuals who embrace a particular economic system.

In a true, pure, Capitalist society the Market would be totally unregulated and government would exist in a very limited form. The only proper functions of the government would be: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; 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.

In theory, as horrible as it sounds, the Market could include the sale of baby parts.

However, there would be the issue of objective law. Capitalism holds individual rights. as sacrosanct. Government would be authorized to enforce laws protecting these rights. If the society recognized the rights of the un-born, abortion would not exist, since it is the ultimate violation of human rights. There would be no market for baby parts.

I would also expect the morality of the society to be repulsed by such transactions and there would be no demand for such. Without demand the supply would have no value and there would be no market for baby parts…

 

[gnjsdad]

Historically…when Capitalism was least restricted or government controlled…it produced the highest standard of living and most prosperity for more people than any socialist economy or collective could hope for.

Let’s subject this claim to the acid test: study the British government’s reaction to the Irish potato famine. Laissez faire was at it’s zenith in England in the 1840s. It wasn’t a pretty picture, I can assure you. The Communist Manifesto came in reaction to what was taking place in Ireland at the time.

 

[gnjsdad]

No economic system needs a moral mechanism. Morality applies to the society and individuals who embrace a particular economic system.

This is where we just disagree.

It is my contention that economics was ripped away from its true locus in the moral law by the Reformation. The Scholastics had always taught that economic transactions, which always involved human choice, had a moral dimension. Now, at the time of the Reformation, the science of economics was in its infancy and the Church, which had always condemned usury, was in no position to develop its teaching further due to its own moral failings. Popes and Bishops were in up to their eyeballs in usury and corruption. It was Newton and his intellectual heirs (Hume, Hutchinson, and most notably, Adam Smith) who relocated economics in realm where morality seemingly had no place. Not coincidentally, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” worked very well to the advantage of his own economic class and his patrons, the Scottish Whigs who controlled all the wealth he new money economy was creating.
Zoltan Cobalt:

In a true, pure, Capitalist society the Market would be totally unregulated and government would exist in a very limited form. The only proper functions of the government would be: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; 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.

That may very well hold for the “capitalist society” but for the Catholic society (which unfortunately does not exist nowadays) the government ought to exist to uphold the common good, the good of EVERYONE within the government’s purview, not just the part that controls the wealth.
Zoltan Cobalt:

In theory, as horrible as it sounds, the Market could include the sale of baby parts.

Not just in theory, but now, in practice.
Zoltan Cobalt:

However, there would be the issue of objective law. Capitalism holds individual rights. as sacrosanct. Government would be authorized to enforce laws protecting these rights. If the society recognized the rights of the un-born, abortion would not exist, since it is the ultimate violation of human rights. There would be no market for baby parts.

Even in a Catholic society in which abortion would obviously be illegal, it would still go on, but in the shadows. It’s naïve to say it would not exist, because evil, despite all our best efforts, still persists. Yet still we would not have the spectacle we have now: PP and its customers engaging in their sordid trade out in the open under the cover of some legal fig leaf.
Zoltan Cobalt:

I would also expect the morality of the society to be repulsed by such transactions and there would be no demand for such. Without demand the supply would have no value and there would be no market for baby parts…

But there IS a market for baby parts, only it’s called “research”. This is positively enabled by the capitalist system.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Let’s subject this claim to the acid test: study the British government’s reaction to the Irish potato famine. Laissez faire was at it’s zenith in England in the 1840s. It wasn’t a pretty picture, I can assure you. The Communist Manifesto came in reaction to what was taking place in Ireland at the time.

The great famine was caused by British conquest, theft, bondage, protectionism, government welfare, public works, and inflation. All of which can be attributed to government intervention and control of the market. If a Free Market existed in Ireland, that country would have been more prosperous than most of Europe.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is where we just disagree.

It is my contention that economics was ripped away from its true locus in the moral law by the Reformation. The Scholastics had always taught that economic transactions, which always involved human choice, had a moral dimension. Now, at the time of the Reformation, the science of economics was in its infancy and the Church, which had always condemned usury, was in no position to develop its teaching further due to its own moral failings. Popes and Bishops were in up to their eyeballs in usury and corruption. It was Newton and his intellectual heirs (Hume, Hutchinson, and most notably, Adam Smith) who relocated economics in realm where morality seemingly had no place. Not coincidentally, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” worked very well to the advantage of his own economic class and his patrons, the Scottish Whigs who controlled all the wealth he new money economy was creating.

You, of course, are welcome to disagree all you want. But your contention has no bearing on the fact that the morality of an economic system mirrors the individuals who create it.

What is more morally acceptable: True Capitalism, socialism or communism?

That may very well hold for the “capitalist society” but for the Catholic society (which unfortunately does not exist nowadays) the government ought to exist to uphold the common good, the good of EVERYONE within the government’s purview, not just the part that controls the wealth.

There are Catholics suffering under socialist systems and Catholics prospering as Capitalists. Capitalism serves ALL religions. Socialism rejects God.

I do agree with you about government serving the common good. That is a proper function of government in a Capitalist society. By common good, of course we mean ALL citizens equally. No special favors or treatment for individuals, groups, or corporations. All government services are applied equally and serve ALL equally. The wealthy receive as much government service as the poor and the poor are treated equally. No more, no less.

“In theory, as horrible as it sounds, the Market could include the sale of baby parts.”

Not just in theory, but now, in practice.

That is true, but remember this is not a Capitalist economy. We have a mixed economy.
One that has overwhelming government regulation and intrusion. Planned Parenthood is heavily supported by the government…morality is not.

Even in a Catholic society in which abortion would obviously be illegal, it would still go on, but in the shadows. It’s naïve to say it would not exist, because evil, despite all our best efforts, still persists. Yet still we would not have the spectacle we have now: PP and its customers engaging in their sordid trade out in the open under the cover of some legal fig leaf.

Actually Planned Parenthood has broken several federal laws by selling fetal tissue. But since it is government supported, I doubt that there will be any charges brought against it.
Another great reason to keep government out of the market place.

But there IS a market for baby parts, only it’s called “research”. This is positively enabled by the capitalist system.

No it is enabled by the law of supply and demand.

If legitimate “research” had a justifiable need for the fetal tissue of aborted babies…then that trade would be legitimate. However since the demand could exceed the supply and cause the suppliers to promote or encourage abortion, Capitalism, the system that embraces individual rights, would not support such trade.

 

[gnjsdad]

You, of course, are welcome to disagree all you want. But your contention has no bearing on the fact that the morality of an economic system mirrors the individuals who create it.

I believe that is what I’ve been trying to say. Capitalism is a system born of theft and plunder, and it reflects the morality of those who created it.
Zoltan Cobalt:

What is more morally acceptable: True Capitalism, socialism or communism?

None of these systems is morally acceptable. Socialism and communism arose in reaction to laissez faire capitalism. They were cures worse than the disease, and the disease is quite bad.
Zoltan Cobalt:

I do agree with you about government serving the common good. That is a proper function of government in a Capitalist society.

That is the proper function of government in any society. Capitalism, by its nature, is incapable of promoting the common good because its history proves that it promotes the interests of the wealthy, the creditors, over that of the debtors. The merchant class, the “job creators” in modern parlance, always fare better than those whose only asset is their labor, the ordinary worker. In a sense, class warfare began with the rise of the capitalist ideology because it pitted creditors, whom it favored, over debtors.
Zoltan Cobalt:

That is true, but remember this is not a Capitalist economy. We have a mixed economy. One that has overwhelming government regulation and intrusion. Planned Parenthood is heavily supported by the government…morality is not.

This is true to the extent that it is recognized that plutocratic corporate interests control the government. All one need do is look at the sordid spectacle of our Presidential candidates groveling for billionaire money, the notable exception being Bernie Sanders, and he will never be elected president.
Zoltan Cobalt:

Actually Planned Parenthood has broken several federal laws by selling fetal tissue. But since it is government supported, I doubt that there will be any charges brought against it. Another great reason to keep government out of the market place.

PP is government supported because it is in the interest of the usurers who control the government to do so. PP is essential to their purpose of driving down wages, the sine qua non of capitalism.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I believe that is what I’ve been trying to say. Capitalism is a system born of theft and plunder, and it reflects the morality of those who created it.

I am getting the distinct feeling that you do not like Capitalism…

No one created Capitalism…it evolved as man’s FREEDOM increased.

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise our rational faculty or not depends on the individual, our survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since we are neither omniscient nor infallible, we must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment.

** Freedom is the fundamental requirement of our mind.** and that is what Capitalism is based upon.

None of these systems is morally acceptable. Socialism and communism arose in reaction to laissez faire capitalism. They were cures worse than the disease, and the disease is quite bad.

Of course they were.

Socialism and communism were derived by those who wanted to control people.
Capitalism proves that people do not need to be “controlled” in order to produce prosperity.

That is the proper function of government in any society. Capitalism, by its nature, is incapable of promoting the common good because its history proves that it promotes the interests of the wealthy, the creditors, over that of the debtors. The merchant class, the “job creators” in modern parlance, always fare better than those whose only asset is their labor, the ordinary worker. In a sense, class warfare began with the rise of the capitalist ideology because it pitted creditors, whom it favored, over debtors.

That is simply not true.

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.

The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to our most valuable attribute: the creative mind.

This is true to the extent that it is recognized that plutocratic corporate interests control the government

.

In a true Capitalist economy the government would have no means or power to even recognize plutocratic corporate interests. A cab driver would have as much influence on the government as General Motors.

All one need do is look at the sordid spectacle of our Presidential candidates groveling for billionaire money, the notable exception being Bernie Sanders, and he will never be elected president.

Yeah…that is sad. Thankfully we have one candidate who doesn’t need any financial help and will not be obligated to anyone. Is this a great country…or what?

PP is government supported because it is in the interest of the usurers who control the government to do so. PP is essential to their purpose of driving down wages, the sine qua non of capitalism.

Again…PP would not exist in a Capitalist society. It would be beyond the the government’s authority to support such a deviant organization.