Unanswered Questions about Economics or the Philosophy of Law

[PseuTonym]

I am creating this thread for people to post questions that they posted already somewhere on the Catholic Answers Forums, questions that require very little context to be understandable.

I should mention that I have a reason for specifying “the Philosophy of Law.” There could be laws that constrain action in a way that elicits material poverty, and those same laws might lack any moral justification. Thus, it would make sense for people to ask what is the moral justification for a given law. As morals and ethics are a branch of philosophy, the topic would be philosophy of law, to be distinguished from law and legal advice, something to be avoided, just as we avoid soliciting or providing medical advice on these forums.

Context is provided by the following claim:

“Capitalists own property, whether that be a factory, an office, or whatever, and employ other people to work in that property.”

That claim looks like it might be an honest attempt to answer the question “what is a capitalist”, a question that naturally arises when anybody uses the word “capitalist.”

The first question was and is:

What if somebody owns a unique restaurant, and you buy the rights to sell franchises of that restaurant? You don’t own the first of those restaurants. You don’t buy any of the franchises. You sell the franchises to people by persuading them that they can make money creating copies of the restaurant, copies that are required to operate according to your instructions, and to pay fees to you. Are you then not a capitalist?

Link to original posting of the question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14103894&postcount=103

 

[Latias]

I am creating this thread for people to post questions that they posted already somewhere on the Catholic Answers Forums, questions that require very little context to be understandable.

I should mention that I have a reason for specifying “the Philosophy of Law.” There could be laws that constrain action in a way that elicits material poverty, and those same laws might lack any moral justification. Thus, it would make sense for people to ask what is the moral justification for a given law. As morals and ethics are a branch of philosophy, the topic would be philosophy of law, to be distinguished from law and legal advice, something to be avoided, just as we avoid soliciting or providing medical advice on these forums.

Context is provided by the following claim:

“Capitalists own property, whether that be a factory, an office, or whatever, and employ other people to work in that property.”

That claim looks like it might be an honest attempt to answer the question “what is a capitalist”, a question that naturally arises when anybody uses the word “capitalist.”

The first question was and is:

Link to original posting of the question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14103894&postcount=103

I. I don’t think it makes sense to ask for a moral justification for a given law, since that assumes that there is some abstract moral independent of human reason and social institutions.

The Marxist answer would be related to the notion that society is profoundly influenced by the dominant class interests, and laws are formed based on preserving the dominant class’ status and position. They say that liberal democracy is a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, irrespective of any pretense of the formality of constitutional and republican principles.

A Chinese legalist would insist that a strong, universally known and impartially (and ruthlessly) enforced law is necessary for strong nation, since that is the primary means for imposing his authority on his subjects. A legalist ruler would make little pretense to morality or the moral character of its citizens, but instead rely on laws to provide incentives, such as rewards and punishments for appropriate behavior. This legal philosophy, by dispensing of supposedly extraneous tradition and morality, would be regarded as realistic and pragmatic. since the state would be able to focus on aspects that make it strong such as military strength and economic production.

II. The question seems to be what is a “capitalist”? Of course, when someone uses an abstract term with no universally accepted concrete predicates, such as justice, freedom, and liberty, one would naturally wonder what is the definition of such a term. Similarly there would obviously be no consensus definition of the term “capitalist”, but obviously one conception of the term would involve the ownership of some productive property. The capitalists, of course, have legal rights since the state enforces and defends their ownership of productive assets (this is reflected in the concept "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and gives them legitimate possession of whatever profit those assets may generate.

One could also expand the ownership of property to equities and debt in the capital structure of corporation. Some may have an ownership share since are tied to the company as having provided it significant capital, and their ownership in the capital structure reflects the type of risks they are willing to assume for their investment. Equities and debt are essentially legal contracts that are claims on the property of company that entitle one to the company’s profits (if it is not reinvested into the company) or some of the company’s cash flow (or if that is not possible, some of the company’s remaining assets it is liquidated). Stocks and bonds are very liquid assets if they traded on a high capitalization exchange, and thus one’s ownership of those assets may be ephemeral if one is a speculator or trader. Regardless of the fugacious status of those assets, the point is that those assets are linked the material (financial and economic) status of the respective company, and theoretically, those assets should be priced based on their prospective discounted cash flow based all the available information.

Regarding the specific example of the restaurant franchise. The person buying the rights would essentially be speculator, since that person is essentially betting that the cash flow from the trademark (a form of intellectual property) would be worth more than the price of buying the rights.

III. No, Venezuela is not socialist.

 

[o_mlly]

… Capitalists own property, whether that be a factory, an office, or whatever, and employ other people to work in that property."

That claim looks like it might be an honest attempt to answer the question “what is a capitalist”, a question that naturally arises when anybody uses the word “capitalist.”

The first question was and is:

Link to original posting of the question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14103894&postcount=103

An entrepreneur is not always a capitalist (yet). In your hypothetical, the entrepreneur purchased and owns a right. How did that person obtain the right? Barter? Promise of future payments? Borrowed money (from a capitalist)?

If the right was acquired with his own savings then he is a capitalist. The simple definition of a capitalist is anyone who spends less than their entire income in a given period. In the macro sense, total savings always equals total investment.

Often those with an idea for a good or service lack the capital to implement the idea. The capital markets bring those with ideas and no capital in contact with those who have no ideas but have capital.

 

[PseuTonym]

The Marxist answer would be related to the notion that society is profoundly influenced by the dominant class interests, and laws are formed based on preserving the dominant class’ status and position. They say that liberal democracy is a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, irrespective of any pretense of the formality of constitutional and republican principles.

The capitalists, of course, have legal rights since the state enforces and defends their ownership of productive assets (this is reflected in the concept “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”) and gives them “legitimate” possession of whatever profit those assets may generate.

The Marxist method of analysis and Marxist tactics of language could be applied to something usually not classified under the human-constructed category “economics.”

I am thinking of chess games conducted according to the official rules, with effects on ratings of the players.

Looking at the “Fortune 500” of rated players in the world (i.e., at the 500 highest-rated chess players), we see an outcome of far fewer than 250 women, and far more than 250 men.

That inequality can be explained along Marxist lines by saying that the traditional rules of chess were originally created, designed, and structured to be biased against women.

Now, in officially recorded games of chess, there is an authority that enforces and defends the disproportionate success of men who play chess, an authority that isn’t neutral, but is a dictatorship of the male chess bourgeoisie.

The same authority forbids a woman who is competing in an official chess game from making a move that is – under the traditional rules of chess – classified as “illegal” or a “violation of the traditional rules.”

To permit such a situation to continue could be said to be morally unacceptable on the grounds that it perpetuates the disproportionate outcomes of more than 50% men among the “Fortune 500” of chess, and helps to maintain the dominant male position in chess.

Any governing authority for chess (and that includes moderating games-in-progress in case of any dispute about whether or not a given move is legal, and also recording official chess game results and chess player ratings) is simply an enforcement arm of a dictatorship of men over women.

 

[PseuTonym]

The Marxist answer would be related to the notion that society is profoundly influenced by the dominant class interests, and laws are formed based on preserving the dominant class’ status and position. They say that liberal democracy is a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, irrespective of any pretense of the formality of constitutional and republican principles.

In a contractual dispute in Egypt between a Coptic Christian citizen of Egypt and a Muslim citizen of Egypt, what happens?

According to the Marxist analysis, if the Coptic Christian citizen of Egypt belongs to the “Bourgeoisie class” then the government of Egypt favors and supports the Coptic Christian, regardless of the merits of the case.

However, here is a news story suggesting that sometimes the Egyptian government might be in some cases biased against Coptic Christians, regardless of their money-job-class-status:

Standing on the steps of a courthouse in the capital, some three dozen demonstrators braved Egypt’s draconian protest ban to hold signs aloft, calling for their legal rights to be upheld in disputes between Muslims and Christians.

“I am an Egyptian citizen above all,” said Michael Armanious, a Christian demonstrator. “We pay taxes, we serve in the army, we are dealing with all the same economic problems in Egypt with the rest of our countrymen, why should we have fewer rights?” he said, flanked by roadblocks and equal numbers of police, who forced the crowd to disperse after an hour.

The article continues …
washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-christians-stage-rare-cairo-protest-demanding-rights/2016/08/13/4864788c-6164-11e6-84c1-6d27287896b5_story.html

Link to Catholic Answers Forums thread “Egypt Christians stage rare Cairo protest, demanding rights”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1021311

 

[Latias]

The Marxist method of analysis and Marxist tactics of language could be applied to something usually not classified under the human-constructed category “economics.”

I am thinking of chess games conducted according to the official rules, with effects on ratings of the players.
…].

Are you saying that capitalists are simply good at being capitalists, and they are innately endowed to be capitalists? You seem to imply that capitalists do not enjoy any structural advantages or influence the laws of the state to fit their interests, thus anyone could potentially be successful capitalist, much like anyone could be a successful chess player. Certainly, they prefer laws such as law capital gains taxes, weaker labor unions, weaker labor standards, free movement of capital around the world, at the expense of the workers. This illustrates how there are divergent material interests between classes, and how the state prefers the capitalists.

I would acknowledge that men in general have the psychological disposition to be good at chess, since they are more likely to be motivated by the intellectual or competitive challenge at chess.

Regarding bias, do you think the FBI is an unbiased law enforcement agency? Why were leftists mainly targeted in COINTELPRO? I do see how a chess analogy could explain that.

Of course, the Marxist position does not deny racial or religious discrimination.

 

[Theo520]

“Capitalists own property, whether that be a factory, an office, or whatever, and employ other people to work in that property.”

That claim looks like it might be an honest attempt to answer the question “what is a capitalist”, a question that naturally arises when anybody uses the word “capitalist.”

Your definition is not sufficient. Can’t a capitalist also just believe in the right of ownership but not actually own or employ anyone?

Why isn’t having exclusive franchise rights an asset and thus a form of property? If I own a patent, I can similarly lease it for use by other people that actually do production.

 

[PseuTonym]

Your definition is …

Here is a link to help you:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14103894&postcount=103

If you use that link, then you will see that the quoted definition isn’t mine. It set the context for my question that was unanswered in the thread where I posted my question. Be here now: “Unanswered Questions about Economics or the Philosophy of Law” is the title of this thread.

Link to this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1021314

Here is the next link to follow if you want to see from what actual, long-winded message, the thing that looks like an attempt to define the word “capitalist” was selected:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14082375&postcount=18

I used my judgment to select what I considered to be worth selecting. I selected an actual chunk of text.

Can’t a capitalist also just believe in the right of ownership but not actually own or employ anyone?

From the point of view of my chess analogy, that is a very strange question. If disproportionate outcomes are the entire issue, then the beliefs of highly rated chess players would seem to be of no significance, unless those beliefs somehow influence performance in playing chess. In other words, “capitalist” is used as a pejorative label based on outcomes. The only opinions accepted as worthy of consideration are the opinions of Big Brother, or perhaps O’Brien.

Why isn’t having exclusive franchise rights an asset and thus a form of property? If I own a patent, I can similarly lease it for use by other people that actually do production.

Now you are entering into the discussion of that other thread. Why not go there and post your questions there?

Beware that you have no way to distinguish between a lofty principle proclaimed as not open to any compromise whatsoever, and a tactical pretext that can be abandoned at the drop of a hat. You have no way to distinguish between attempts to confirm a conjecture, and attempts to bluff and mislead. You will be operating in territory that is the other person’s mind warped by ideology and struggling to hold to the ideology, and also spread the ideology, and in that realm or territory you have essentially no power.

 

[Theo520]

I used my judgment to select what I considered to be worth selecting. I selected an actual chunk of text.

The term “proof texting” comes to mind

From the point of view of my chess analogy, that is a very strange question. If disproportionate outcomes are the entire issue, then the beliefs of highly rated chess players would seem to be of no significance, unless those beliefs somehow influence performance in playing chess. In other words, “capitalist” is used as a pejorative label based on outcomes. The only opinions accepted as worthy of consideration are the opinions of Big Brother, or perhaps O’Brien.

You didn’t answer my very straight forward question, please try again.

Now you are entering into the discussion. However, I warn you to beware that you have no way to distinguish between a lofty principle proclaimed as not open to any compromise whatsoever, and a tactical pretext that can be abandoned at the drop of a hat. You have no way to distinguish between attempts to confirm a conjecture, and attempts to bluff and mislead. You will be operating in territory that is the other person’s mind, and in that realm or territory you have essentially no power.

Yet again you ignored my straight forward question.

I think you are the one attempting to bluff and mislead, based on your non responses.

 

[PseuTonym]

I think you are the one attempting to bluff and mislead, based on your non responses.

My reference to bluffing and misleading was not aimed at any particular person. I don’t see any reason to believe that there is a human being who is “the one” who is, was, or will be bluffing or misleading. Uniqueness in such a context is casually proclaimed in a Tu Quoque fallacy.

Link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

If you could please quote my actual words where there is an accusation that you honestly interpreted as being an accusation directed against you personally, then I will reconsider what I wrote, and possibly rewrite it, or withdraw it entirely.

 

[Theo520]

My reference to bluffing and misleading was not aimed at any particular person. I don’t see any reason to believe that there is a human being who is “the one” who is, was, or will be bluffing or misleading. Uniqueness in such a context is casually proclaimed in a Tu Quoque fallacy.

Link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

If you could please quote my actual words where there is an accusation that you honestly interpreted as being an accusation directed against you personally, then I will reconsider what I wrote, and possibly rewrite it, or withdraw it entirely.

Please stop deflecting and answer my questions, that were directly related to your OP.

 

[PseuTonym]

Please stop deflecting and answer my questions, that were directly related to your OP.

I created this thread for people to post questions that they posted already somewhere on the Catholic Answers Forums, questions that require very little context to be understandable.

I thought that it would be appropriate for me to go first, and post a question that I had already posted somewhere on Catholic Answers.

Perhaps I should have posed the question “Is it appropriate?”

I had the option of asking that question and waiting for replies. I apologize for failing to see that I had that option. I apologize for failing to see that the correct option was to wait and allow somebody else to provide the first specific example of a question already posted elsewhere on the Catholic Answers Forums, with a link so that everybody could confirm that it was unanswered in its original location.

 

[PseuTonym]

Are capitalists simply good at being capitalists …?

How many different possible meanings does that question have? You have to give something like a definition for the word “capitalist” first, don’t you?

Note: I deliberately edited your question to make it not about “you” (i.e., me), and not about “what you are saying” (i.e. the meaning of my actual post, which is I hope fixed and available for you to read, rather than fluctuating, being edited and modified in various subtle ways, etc.)

I would like to know how you feel about my editing of your question. Did I go beyond liberty into license? Have I misrepresented your way of thinking in such a way that you feel it is inappropriate for me to attribute the question to you?

Here is the question:
“Are capitalists simply good at being capitalists …?”

Take out the word “simply” and the question would be altered in an interesting way. Does the word “simply” make the question clearer?

Here is a question that you didn’t ask:
“Are capitalists good at being capitalists?”
It’s kind of an odd question, and I take a bit of credit for conjuring it up.

Are prime numbers good at being prime numbers? Maybe the number two, although it is a prime number, creates confusion in the minds of so many people (because it happens to be the only number that is both even and prime) that you could make a case for the debating position that two isn’t good at being a prime number, although two is in fact a prime number.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps I should apologize for saying this is one of the most confusing threads I have ever seen. But I’ll try to speak to it without inordinate fear of being totally irrelevant to the intent of it.

Regarding the question originally posed, of course the franchisor is a capitalist, assuming he is not compelled to sell franchises and the franchisee is free to buy or not buy. Is the “franchise” also “capital”? Of course it is if the franchisor has the right to possess it; to own it or sell it and if it has the capacity of making labor productive.

I will readily admit to being a simple fellow, but it has long seemed to me that “capitalism” is nothing other than a political and economic background in which people are reasonably free to do that which they choose to do. Fundamentally, it is the absence of an “ism”. Certainly there should be some constraints on that, and laws in “capitalist” societies to impose them. But even those laws tend to simply heighten the banks of the channels in which human economic activity would flow on its own, and minimize perversity in the process. A very good example of this is the Uniform Commercial Code which is a detailed and very logical channeling of what, for the most part, simply makes good sense in economic activity. If one thinks of what’s “reasonable” or “fair” in exchange, he’s quite likely to come up with at least a snippet of what’s already in the Code.

And (uh oh ) it’s largely based on Judeo-Christian moral teaching.

Understanding as I do that some posters here are not Catholic and do not particularly revere Catholic thinking, I feel compelled to at least state that in economic matters, as in all others, the best economic arrangement is one in which the “good” of individuals is facilitated. What’s the “good”? Well, it’s that which leads one to one’s proper “end” or “purpose”. For Catholics, that’s salvation, or union with God.

For practical purposes, then, what does that? Well, the “Social Encyclicals” deal with the question quite a bit, as do the writings of some of the thinkers in the Church. One of the things the Church teaches, of course, is that a good part of the pathway to the “good” is “written on the heart of man”. We call it “natural law”, others would think of it as the better instincts of mankind; those that seem to work out best of human development and well-being. Every man thinks he knows what that is, and most are reasonably correct in thinking what he does. Yes, now and then there will be notions of the “good” (in a secular sense) that don’t pan out; that don’t stand the test of time.

So, for example, we have the utterly failed “socialist” system of the Soviet Union that was actually an oligarchy dependent on violence. Some still try it, and Venezuela stands witness to the fact that it’s no better now than it was in 1917.

On the other hand, there are striking similarities between, say, the economic regulations in the Code of Hammurabi and today’s Uniform Commercial Code. Those principles worked well then and they work well now, with lots of historic parallels between them. Some things seem always to work reasonably well, and some don’t.

But underlying the successful ones is always some cognizance of whatever people thought of as “natural law”; that is, the arrangement most beneficial and widespread, to humans. And, in thinking about it, we cannot ignore the fact that human instincts tend to flow in those same directions.

So, a situation in which people are “allowed to do what they would do if allowed to do it” with reasonable restraints, makes eminent good sense, and it has a lot of historical success behind it.

I hope I actually addressed the question.