65 replies to this topic

[cellfighter]

The only responsibility or obligation an individual has is to refrain from violating the rights of others.

And who determines those rights RAS?

Society does consist of a sum of individuals, the relations which they have to each other are irrelevant so long as no one is violating the rights of others.

I disagree. The relationship they have to each other is the fundamental essence of society. Your attempt to write it off (despite your creation of the exception of right infringement) is
an example of my point.

Are you a Anarcho-capitalist?

[xanadu]

I think people have an inalienable right not to be hurt. But, that leads into a swamp of interpretations. Does slash and burn agriculture hurt me and other people when done in the third world? I think it does. It contributes mightily to global warming via the release of CO2 and other pollutants. In general, your right to swing your arm stops at my nose.

[cellfighter]

The Butterfly effect. Smoking banned in bars. etc

[AaronCW]

 
The only responsibility or obligation an individual has is to refrain from violating the rights of others.

And who determines those rights RAS?

 
Society does consist of a sum of individuals, the relations which they have to each other are irrelevant so long as no one is violating the rights of others.

I disagree. The relationship they have to each other is the fundamental essence of society. Your attempt to write it off (despite your creation of the exception of right infringement) is
an example of my point.

Are you a Anarcho-capitalist?

The right of the individual to their own life is inalienable; no person or group can lay claim to the life or property of an individual (without their consent) and justify these actions on moral grounds. The right to life is not granted to the individual by anyone; it is inherent and theirs by default. The rights that I refer to are derived directly from the individual’s right to life; they all are necessary conditions for the individual to protect and sustain their life, and to pursue whatever goals they choose.

What you describe as ‘society’ is more accurately called ‘culture’. Any society is composed of a collection of individuals, and the degree to which individual rights are respected and protected is the degree of freedom and prosperity in a society.

Anyone that believes that individual rights could be protected and respected in the absence of a government acting as a policeman (with the sole responsibility to protect individual rights and to use retaliatory force if necessary) is grossly mistaken. A civilized society requires that physical force be banned from social relationships. The responsibility of using retaliatory physical force is delegated to the government, which is required to act in accordance with an objective code of law and constitution. Capitalism and freedom cannot exist without a government to protect the rights of individuals. Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

[cojonelso]

I see society as serving an important function, to keep the human race together. I do not know if this is due to evolution or what, but I wouldn't be surprised. If one gets very far into psychology he or she will see that humans have relatively little free will. This includes the desire to appeal to society (that is a very concise statement, if you have any questions I would be more than happy to elaborate). I was initially disappointed that every one of my thoughts and actions had a social foundation (including the desire to be free of these social foundations) but after some time I decided to think about WHY that might be. I thought of what the world would be like if there was absolute free will...the human race, as a species fighting to continue surviving, would probably not be very well off.
It was through this that I developed a much more cooperative view of how the human race could most effectively act (notice the lack of "should"...I believe moral relativity is most accurate to date). This is where my problems with capitalism (as I know it) arised.
Capitalism seems to promote competition amongst the individuals, not cooperation. Humans may be generally pretty self serving but I think it would be most beneficial if everyone took a look at the big picture and realized "We are all a member of the human race, why don't we all work together to increase our survival as a race in addition to the quality of our individual lives?" Yes there most likely would be slackers, but I think that after a few generations of implementation (of a cooperative way of living) most would want to help each other out.

Think of a sports team, there are those who play because they like their team, feel a part of it, and want it to win, now think of those who play hard for themselves to get the multimillion dollar contract. Which team would you rather be on?

I hope I don't have to explain why competition is a problem (and I realize it's not all capitalism's fault, our culture has much to be blamed for as well) ...our country seems full of deceit, manipulation and the like. Remember, the solution to the "prisoner's game" was to cooperate at first, and then do whatever the other did.

My second problem is that through this competition it creates inequality. Someone who is a lawyer is "worth" X number of people who pick up trash.

The good part about capitalism is that (through this inequality and supply and demand) it fills jobs that need to be done. In a purely cooperative society it would be hard to determine who does the undesirable jobs and who does the desirable; if left to their own will everyone would choose a desirable job (which is subjective, but there is definitely something to be said for the bell curve).

In all, Capitalism has its flaws and I definitely believe we are capable of a better solution...even a modification of our current system, something to reduce the rampant self serving attitudes, competition and inequality.

[AaronCW]

Sorry, didn't catch this post. Glad to meet you cojonelso.

Your understanding of Capitalism is pretty much on par with how most people see it, although you probably give it a bit more slack than most. Unfortunately I would have to rate your philosophical conclusions a bit lower, though not as low as the common religion as at least you've taken it upon yourself to have an understanding of the world based on your own observations.

Humans are social, and this has root both in our evolutionary past, and as a product of our rational faculty. There is incalcuable benefit to the individual to participate in a society, provided that it is on a voluntary basis and that society recognizes the individuals rights as a human being. These rights extend so far as the rights of the next individuals rights begin. These are rights to action, meaning that the individual has the right, as the US Constitution says rather brilliantly, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This leaves the individual to pursue any course of action available to them, to cooperate and to trade with whomever they choose. Through cooperation and trade humans have achieved advanced civilization and technologies which have freed them from a life a toil and self-defense.

The moral basis and practical definition of Capitalism is voluntary trade. The motives that drive people to compete, to cooperate, and to trade are selfish, healthy, and virtuous. Competition is not a negative thing for either the individual or society (being only the sum of all individuals in a population). Competition will bring out the best in an honest and moral person, as it may expose the evil in an a dishonest and immoral person. In most cases it will improve the moral character of a person. Either way, competition in any instance is engaged in voluntarily. If a person is not able to compete in a given endeavor they will either stagnate in mediocrity or move on to a field in which they can excel. Competition is unquestionable positive for society; it is because people and businesses are free to compete with each other that we can have high quality and affordable commodities.

Inequality, your second concern, is not a bad thing either. Wealth inequality merely indicates that some have more than others, it does not indicate the conditions of those on the lower ends of the scale. The living conditions of the poor in the US are incomparibly better than the average peasant living under soviet Russia or China. There is no limit to the amount of wealth a society can produce, and there is no reason why the lowest income earners in a society making a fraction of what the upper-level income earners make would not be making a very good living. The old adage "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is true only in circumstances of economic regulation, under free market conditions a high amount of income distribution is a sign of a healthy economy. Capitalism is the only socio-economic-political system that is capable of increasing the standards of living for all classes of society, Socialism and Communism are at best capable of bringing everyone down to lowest common denominator and keeping them there.

It's too bad that you've come to the conclusion that humans do not have free will, and that morality is relative. These conclusions will prevent you from accepting the moral basis for Capitalism, as moral relativity requires that nothing have a moral basis, and it will prevent you from recognizing and accepting the true value of human life and freedom.