Ras, you are as constant as the northern star, I respect you for that. Capitalism is moral? Tell that to the other 80% of the world who starve so we can enjoy our nikes. Do I understand the principles of capitalism? Simply put, I do, it's not hard. Theory and practice are two different things however. And the end to capitalism isn't the end of freedom. This is rich person paranoia talk for 'don't take my power away, I like being on top'. The end of capitalism simply means the playing field will be more even. Capitalism is a breeding ground for thugs, theives, opportunists and users. I'm not offended at all that you think I'm primitive and transparent, on the contrary I think I'm going to enjoy debating with you from time to time on many subjects, just not this one, as any reasonable person can see the ills of capitalism and would find your equating of the corporate mentality to that of a hero as pure tomfoolery not even worthy of debate. I love very much the ideals of liberty, freedom, life and democracy, but I also acknowledge that social responsibility must come first in any reasonably civilized society. I do however find it disturbing that you see my philosophy as atavistic. The thing that seperates us from animals is our ability to empathize with others and our compassion for our fellow human, capitalism does not address this very well, and corporate merchantilism doesn't even consider it relevant. So your calling me atavistic is misplaced. So, selfless in philosophy I may be yes, but not even close to atavistic, it was in fact my conscious concern for others that made me see the wrongs of capitalism. Self determination has it's place, yes, but not at the expense of the life and liberty of others. It might surprise you to know that even the founding fathers would've agreed with my point and I can assure you that none of them would have supported corporate merchantilism. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who warned against that very thing, saying that he believed it would destroy the true principles on which America was founded. But hey, good luck to you on your capitalist quest to accumulate as much personal wealth for yourself as you can or probably even need or could use, while some very good people don't even know where their next meal is coming from. 90% of the wealth controlled by 5% of the people is what capitalism is all about.
Is Capitalism moral? No, not according to the altruist/collectivist morality which holds the individual life as a means to the end of 'higher good'. This is the standard of morality which I fully reject. This concept of morality has it's roots in the mystical doctrines of Christianity, and many other religions. Once religion began to lose hold of it's grip on society (ie. the Renaissance) this doctrine was saved by the efforts of Emmanuel Kant, who dedicated his life to redefining reason so that altruism would once again be compatible with a 'rational' life. In reality, altruism is both irrational and impossible. Does this mean that I reject compassion and charity? Absolutely not. Am I in a position to provide charity to others (considering I cannot afford health insurance or my own car)? Am I forced by the government to provide charity in the form of welfare programs to those that I may or may not regard as worthy of charity? Yes.
Capitalism can only operate on the principle that each individual is responsible for themselves; their only responsibility being to abstain from violating the rights of others. The rights I refer to are primary rights of the individual, derived from the right to life, and stated explicitly in the US Constitution. This does not include various, modern, invented ‘rights’ that are talked about today, such as the ‘right’ to a job, the ‘right’ to inflated wages, or the ‘right’ to healthcare. These are not rights, in fact they clearly violate the actual, fundamental individual rights guaranteed to all under the Constitution (you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right to happiness). Your “conscious concern for others”, which you believe has led you to “see the wrongs of capitalism”, has in fact led you to find acceptable the sacrifice of the basic principles of the US Constitution. Anyone that is genuinely concerned with the welfare of others should be interested in understanding what the causes of poverty are today, and what factors perpetuate this condition. They should be interested to know that Laissez-faire Capitalism is the only politico-economic system that is capable of consistently and dramatically increasing the standard of living for all levels of society.
Also, your refering to socialism as a 'welfare state' is a cheap shot play on words.
I can’t find where I said this specifically, but I will say that any form of collectivism is evil; it is only a matter of degree. The current US economy can be considered a welfare state, i.e. a mixture of Capitalism and statism. The US is not socialist, but many of the policies it has adopted during the 20th century, such as; socialized healthcare services (Medicaid), socialized retirements funds (social security), etc. are blatantly socialistic.
And Ras, just so we don't lose sight of the base of my point. I am arguing for socialism in a world that has reached a tech level where the complete control and manipulation of matter at the subatomic level is possible and thusly where the acquisition and control of natural resources would be more or less irrelevant. Capitalism in such a society would be nonsensical, unnecessary and pointless.
This argument, unfortunately, sound eerily familiar to that ‘argument’ that has been used by Socialists everywhere, since the logical and necessary consequences of Socialism have been revealed to the world in the form of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany; that it would have worked if done differently, that it has to work somehow.
Technological progress does not occur naturally under Socialism; therefore Capitalism is required to take us there, which you seem to admit. The point to consider here is that Socialism would still not work, and would still be immoral, even if technological progress allowed for all production to happen instantly and without any significant manual labor. Imagine a civilization in which an elite group of government scientists, creating food and supplies using incredibly advanced technology, distributing the wonderful bounty to the masses who accept the governments offerings graciously and unquestioningly. Where is motivation for such a government to provide anything more that just the bare necessities for living? Where is the motivation for such a government to provide even that? You may argue that property rights could be preserved and that you could retain government accountability through democracy. The mistake made here is that property rights does not represent an individuals right to own any given material object, it represents the right of the individual to take whatever legal actions are required to produce material objects and of their ownership of those products; hence to engage in production. When the means of production are taken away from the individual, property rights become meaningless.
The most interesting part of this whole debate is that it is entirely unnecessary. If such technologies were developed privately (as they only could be), than the result would be exactly the same as it has been with every other previously developed technology; the cost of production would reduce dramatically and hence the cost of products would also drop. In this case, everything would be ridiculously cheap and people would barely have to work. The laws of competition and supply and demand guarantee this. The only force that could prevent or alter this from happening is government intervention.
I would dedicate my life to the development of such technology, and I would fight to the death to prevent the collapse of Capitalism and freedom in the US.
rasputin:
"Also, doctors and hospitals need to cover themselves by requiring all patients to sign extensive paperwork defining exactly what risks are inherent in the administration of any medical procedure or drug. This should effectively eliminate the majority of lawsuits against doctors/hospitals."
Shouldn't people get compensation for a mistreatment? I agree it could be necessery to people who're going to make a risky medical procedure, but if it is a normal medical procedure and the doctor makes a mistake, isn't he (or the company) responsible for that? And if, do you have statistics that show that it mostly is particulary risky treatments that people sues hospitals for?
It is the right of any individual who has been the victim of theft or fraud to seek legal recourse. If a doctor violates the terms of a contract than they should be subject to the appropriate punishment. I don't have statistics to show that the majority of lawsuits occur due to risky treatments, but it should be obvious to anyone who pays attentions to the healthcare crisis that doctors are routinely sued out of existence for performing procedures in which the patient was not required to sign paperwork documenting the risks involved.
The kind of public schools and healthcare I was talking about would be for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves, eg kids, mentally handicapped. What if a kid got a terminal disease and it's parents wouldn't care for it. Some parents doesn't. Shouldn't the government protect this person(s) right to live? Or are those who are capable to help such helpless persons obligated to help them?
The fact that private institutions, besides churches, do not currently exist in great enough capacity to help disabled or mentally challenged persons does not mean, or even suggest, that they wouldn't once the government steps out of the way. Such persons that are incapable of caring for themselves are not the responsibility of the government or society. If there is enough good will and charity to be found in private donation and contribution, than the problem will solve itself. If not, than it is still not the place of the government to force it onto people.