Is capitalism really the ONLY economic system proper to man?
Posted by no1laserjock 12 years, 3 months ago to Economics
I am an objectivist. I am extremely well-versed in philosophy and economics. I have come to believe that up to this point in history that may have been true. I believe it is against man's life at this point in time, considering the availability of technology.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
{?$} No1laserjock
{$!} Objectiveanalyst
{?$) In the Gulch, everyone had some basic laboring job to earn gold, which they traded for their basic living requirements.
{$!}#6 A commune where people barter... This never works out well. There will not be abundance. History has abundant examples.
Actually, bartering is unnecessary and undesirable as a means for any goods. The implication is that human labor is required for a so-called value now and forever. Isn’t this a “mystic of muscle” approach? People only get values from ideas that free man’s energy. Energy is man’s primary resource and it is axiomatic to a living being.
I find it fascinating that capitalists stop at the broad abstraction of “value” and disregard that value comes from energy and creativity. Capitalists invert this by insisting that creating values somehow creates energy. No! Only nutrition, exercise and an unsequestered mind produces energy and creativity a priori to “capital”.
This is very simple. You are referencing History, an appeal to history as a logical fallacy.
The past does not equal the future. As I pointed out in the previous post “Utopian Dream”
One cannot draw on those broad philosophical social and economic generalizations that were conceived and written prior to the present moment.
Again, presume I live in Galt’s Gultch, I was a robot expert that also went on strike because the mob was threatening my life. Nevertheless, there I am, renting my property from Midas Mulligan (the government) , on the gold that supposedly represents the value of my ideas, that Ragnar Danneskjold “recovered” for me. Great I have 100 gold bars and ½ again in the same weight of coins of different weights and denominations.
I use all my gold to buy materials to build a robot. My robot will do all the laborious work so I don’t have to keep my menial job as Street-sweeper. The robot does it for me.
I use the robot to build a spare and then a third. I then offer to trade a robot or the use of a robot to save the rest of the strikers the need for all their menial labor in trade for my sustenance, which allows me to achieve Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and be completely free to improve the model. They are also now completely free to pursue their creativity by being completely unencumbered by labor.
The robot frees all in the valley of manual labor should they not wish to perform it. It does not free them from thought and action, and as such the stikers lives are made easier as is mine. I keep developing a better robot that incorporates Galt’s motor. It can now run indefinitely and the other robots can repair it. Resources are now free to access. There is abundance. All the strikers are now completely free to think and create since their caloric needs are in greater reserve for brain functioning, rather than being squandered digging up potatos.
I don’t need the gold anymore unless it is a material required for the machine (that can mine the gold). Now what value is Midas Mulligan giving me? The right to use –THE EARTH- the absolute most fundamental requirement for life!- HIS property? (!)
I have never witnessed a human being make land yet. Maybe someday he can terraform a planet but I think he’ll have out grown money and chimpanzee politics by then.
What is it throughout history that has given man his “rights” to his land?
“First come first serve! AND if you don’t like it I or my Army will run you through!”
Might Makes Right / Mystics of Muscle /Divine Rights of Kings
At this point in history I think so-called capitalism and communism have an equally bad rap. How many people have to die at the hands of their governments to justify the other? There has never been a good idea at the point of a gun. All we have now are guns pointed at us. I want them out of my way. The only way to do that is to apply technology, get our values in order as to who we are as a species, and where we are going. Voluntarily, and by demonstrating that there is a mutually beneficial long term goal worth working towards. The Greeks Called it “The Good Life.” Maybe every one else is settling for the lessor of two evils but I am not! I will not give up.
It is interesting to note that any private, or collective property that one holds, whether land or “a toothbrush” can be “collided upon”. An idea cannot it is impervious (until we have thought rays anyway –God forbid-) to access without one’s consent. What then, are we grasping so damn tightly? If any one or many own something that can be collided upon there will always be the necessity of war… All we have to do is think…
No1laserjock’s Premise= {?$}:
Objevtiveanalysts premise= {$!}
#5
{?$}”Consider for a moment that we here in the Gulch, built an actual protected utopia, where people live conservatively, only for the necessities required to sustain creativity, and use the best manufactured devices and tools that are designed for quality (“The best that men have to offer, rather then the shoddiest..”) in order to ease the burden of labor, free the creative mind and thus extend life.”
{$!}#5 A Utopian dream. See More’s “Utopia”, or Plato’s “Republic”. Not a good start. People will not bend to others visions. I would suggest you contrast the perspectives of Locke and Montesquieu to those (More, Plato) who imagined they could change man’s nature, rather than except it and benefit from it.
“People will not bend to others visions”.
{?$}No they wont’t! So what makes you think they’re going to bend to Capitalism; something that has no vision other than profit that pits us against them, and is arguably responsible for all human suffering since the Bhudda left the palaces of the Zamindars. Please don’t tell me that wasn’t capitalism proper. One class horded resources and kept the other class indentured to them by artificially inflating their value when they decide to “distribute’ the surplus wealth.
You reference Plato, Locke, and Montesquieu as an argument against a utopian ideal. Are you honestly going to tell me that Galt’s Gulch IS NOT a utopian commune? Please.
Anyway referencing them is a non-sequitur because they lived prior to this moment.
Plato: 427 –347 BC
Montesquieu: 1689-1755 AD
John Locke: 1632-1704
Did they have computers Charles Babbage 1822, Microsoft, Apple, Intel? No!
Did they have the internet and have access to all human knowledge, including the ability to observe events and phenomenon in real-time anywhere on earth, and now portions of other planets via exploratory spacecraft? No!
Did they have access to 100-600 watts of solar energy per square meter per hour? No!
Did they understand that we would eventually have fusion power? No!
Did they have orbiting communications satellites, surveillance satellites and earth-data acquisition satellites? No!
Did they have robotic devices to alleviate human labor? No!
Did they have a scientific understanding of human behavioural evolution Darwin 1809-1882, Sapolski 1957 – Stanford? No!
Did they have any idea of brain science, neurology or psychology, Freud 1836-1939, Split brain studies Gazzinga and Sperry 1950s? No!
Did they have PET introduced by David E. Kuhl, Luke Chapman and Roy Edwards in the late 1950s, CAT , MRI, fMRI and SPECT scans to understand the human brain and how it functions? No!
Did they believe that we could fly, go to the moon or leave the solar system while viewing it through “the eyes of a machine”? No! Did they even conceive of it? Not until H.G. Wells 1866-1946…
I reject their premises because, in fact, they become arguments from ignorance in light of present technology.
Also, since man can think, he can modify his nature, a bit of a paradox when trying to anchor him to particular behavioral traits that support a premise. Capitalists essentially maintain that man is a loaded dice of competition, that must have shiny things, so-called “values” (! WTF?) in order to justify, what equates to: I want it! And If I don’t get it, I’ll Cry…
…The psycho-epistemology of a child.
No1laserjock’s Premise= {?$}:
Objevtiveanalysts premise= {$!}
{?$}Alternatively, to advance a philosophy that shifts from a resource scarcity mentality to a resource abundance mentality, also will require an ‘integration overhaul’ in an individual’s philosophy.
{$!} #3 Yes. Many possess the unsubstantiated limited resource mentality, from natural resources to money (we “make” money/ value thus increasing the pie). Technology always finds new ways to replace resources. One only need look at the increased production of an acre of farmland over time, to see the benefits.
{?$} We’re in agreement except ,
{$!}“We make money /value thus increasing the pie.”
I’d like to clarify three words (concepts).
1. Money is the medium represented (traditionally) by a sum of gold. Fiat currency is that which, is instituted by governments (ideally) to represent a sum value of gold. Fair enough?
How exactly does the act of growing wheat hyper-efficiently, for instance cause the supply of gold to be increased? Or do you mean that since one wants wheat to eat they’ll mine more gold for the wheat? That is not making money, that is expressing your energy to mine the gold in exchange for another’s energy that grew the wheat. Personally, if I am growing wheat, Gold is of no practical or metaphysical use unless I am making semiconductors, or need tarnish-free, reliable electrical connections. Gold is very efficient that way.
Gold is “made” via supernova nuclear synthesis and the majority of it arrived here over 200 millions years ago via meteoric bombardment. Earths gold and other precious metals were pulled into the molten core. If we could get at all the precious metals there is thought to be enough to cover the earth 4 meters thick! There is an estimated 70 billion tons thought to be dissolved in ocean water and another 10 billion tons on the ocean floor, but we don’t yet have the technology to acquire it.
2. Value (according to Ayn Rand) “Is something that one acts to gain and or keep”.
{AR}”To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
{AR}I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”
To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.”
Here’s the crux of the problem:
“It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible”.
“Life” is the operative word here.
Again, we are back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:
· Physiological needs are to do with the maintenance of the human body. If we are unwell, then little else matters until we recover.
· Safety needs are about putting a roof over our heads and keeping us from harm. If we are rich, strong and powerful, have good friends, or social construct of individual protection, we can make ourselves safe. {?$} “Rich” means securing ones safety supposedly completely independently…
· Belonging needs introduce our tribal nature. If we are helpful and kind to others they will want us as friends.
· Esteem needs are for a higher position within a group. If people respect us, we have greater power.
{?$}Great! If it is an actual achievement. I do not see hording useless crap that we have been conditioned to accept as status symbols as a respectable or necessary achievement. It is childish. Having something that someone else doesn’t have is not a means to acquire self-esteem. It is simply irrational snobbery.
· Self-actualization needs are to 'become what we are capable of becoming', which would be our greatest achievement.
How exactly, metaphysically, does a precious gem-encrusted, Unobtainium Crown, necklace, bracelet or Rolex wristwatch (besides knowing the time) enhance life? How can one possibly make the leap that owning a culturally promulgated “artifact” enhances ones needs via Maslow’s principles?
What exactly does it do to my metabolism and brain function that will make me live longer?
Consider the DeBeers, Rothchild, JP Morgan diamond monopoly that convinced women that “A diamond is Forever” and through psychological manipulation via advertising, set the outrageous prices for rocks that have no intrinsic value except for their hardness as applied to industrial abrasives. Never mind the monopoly, price fixing and anti-trust situation.
If I paint a beautiful woman or man in a silver jump-suit surrounded by others who are all involved in the delight of watching a ballet I have presented life as it ought to be.
Painting the man or woman with a Rolex watch or Diamond necklace, does not change the context in the least as to what is going on. In this case, if anything it would be a distraction.
I have never seen a piece of art that caused me to want to own something, it has always inspired me to do something. Perhaps I am more evolved… Or just plain too stupid to get it?
I think that the act of comparing expensive clothing, bobbles, Thneeds and whatzits is absolutely childish. All it says is , “Looky here! I have acquired more resources than you! I am better than you because I am closer to God (the DRK), I am more deserving and come see my self-congratulatory blue ribbon. Pretty sick in my opinion and totally narcissistic.
“Ooh, ooh, ooh! The Hope Diamond is so beautiful I know I’ll live longer and be happier if I own it!” Wow! This is EXACTLY the same as a child throwing a tantrum because he can’t have the “red one” even though the blue one does exactly the same thing.
The only reason that anyone would want something so incredibly useless, is that they have been conditioned thanks to the Divine Rights of Kings, that in order to amass resources (land, gold, cattle crops etc.) they must be closer to God. I.e. Better than you!
There is a lot of psychological programming, and cultural indoctrination that promotes this. There is NO actual need for the diamond -unless you want to cut a really big piece of glass. How many times have you bought something that at the moment was aesthetically pleasing only to have it boxed up and end up in the garage? It is fleeting and intellectually and emotionally ultimately unsatisfying.
As an aside, concerning ego, there is an 18, 40, 60 rule:
“When you’re 18, you worry about what everybody is thinking of you; when you 40, you don’t give a darn what anybody thinks of you; when you’re 60, you realize nobody’s been thinking about you at all.” Dr. Daniel Amen
3. Pie I am presuming this to mean resources; as in the pile of gold gets bigger?
Or is this “Pie” some unspecific broad abstraction represented by economic theory? I’ll presume you mean gold supply as I can’t think of what other objective referent we could use, as presently, the gov-mint simply prints more fiat money to increase this pie.
My argument reaches the same conclusion here as “Make Money” above, except that it is implied there is some community Pie, that I am assured to have a slice of if I simply work my ass off and out compete my neighbor then I’ll get a distribution of this wealth? Or if I build a better Frequency Doubled Laser, is there someone who will Twitter the D’anconia Gold mine and say, “Hey! Jamie just built a frequency doubled YAG laser, and someone wants it. You better go chip another 8 oz out of the south-east vein!” Really?
Again, I maintain that the subset to this social spirit around money is merely an arbitrary tradition. And has absolutely no metaphysical basis in reality as a concrete. Money is a broad abstraction to represent: A method of exchange via a neutral medium. The neutral medium is gov-mint controlled fiat money not gold. I am completely unconvinced that any government can be trusted to set and determine the value of my creative energy and time. If I want to trade for gold or a pound of wheat, I don’t need a middle man or group. Even drug addicts know to avoid the middle man and go directly to the dealer.
No1laserjock’s Premise= {?$}:
Objevtiveanalysts premise= {$!}
{$!}#2 Yes, and I believe you have expressed several [Mis] and [Dis] –integrations. I question many of your expressed premises, your metaphysics, epistemology, and your dialectic arguments.
{?$} First, if you could point out my mis or dis integrations I’d really appreciate it. It is possible I am philosophically “locked out”. I wish to be enlightened.
However, hopefully I can keep this down to “One Foot”
Metaphysics: Existence Exists. It is entropic: A is A -the One is in the Many- {Mode I –Integration}
Existence exists. And the act of that statement implies THREE corollary axioms:
1. That something exists which one perceives.
2. That one possesses consciousness: the faculty of perceiving, that which exists,
3. And one may only act in THIS moment in time.
Epistemology: I perceive “existence” and perform an act of cognition, integrate the many and induct them into their appropriate particulars and universals. I am looking for the one. I know that A is not B and that I am capable of classifying ‘A’ further, then I may examine ‘B’ for its particulars and universals as compared to A (integration). At this point I do my best to determine the hierarchies of A and B in terms of abstractions, and broad abstractions.
I try to avoid floating abstractions such as “God”, “Spirituality”, “Infinity” and “Perfection”. They are useless social conventions, except perhaps infinity for its mathematical usefulness, and perhaps perfection for seeing, and acting on the world as it “ought to be”. (jumping ahead a bit)
Ethics: Since accurate integration of reality (which I think I do extremely well) is required to take action, I am moral. My morality is maintained by insuring others are also free to take action to our mutual benefit without force. Doing so relieves our mutual burden of labor, improves the quality of our life and is mutually beneficial to attain more life. This requires compassion a basic recognition that all suffer (Bhudda). I believe this approach to humanity is objectively within my and his best interest.
Psychologically this practice, Benevolence / recipricol altruism supports healthy brain function and happiness:
“Tit for Tat”, “Rock Paper Scissors” Robert Sapolsky Ph.D Stanford.
“The Prisoners Dillema” James Rilling and Gregory Berns, Ph.D Emory University.
My ethics can be summed up in part of a song:
“Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip. . .”
Frank Zappa
My Politics:
Man is a creative being capable of reflecting on the universe. He is self-aware and tied to entropy /space/time in simultaneity with all other life and existence. Therefore, any man, group or assertion of supremacy cannot undermine his worth. He requires a nurturing socio-educational system, based on a system of cooperation and abundance for his happiness. He must be free to rationally (based on the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics above) pursue his own creativity and endeavors in concert with environmental concerns, as in this moment he is still environmentally dependant. By bringing his creativity into concert with the natural world, and unity of purpose he will naturally modify his surroundings to ease his and others burdens and achieve “The Good Life.” Any centralized power structure is antithetical to his life.
Aesthetics:
Art is the expression of mans most deeply held value judgments. Man ought to present his art as the world ought to be, and be consciously aware of not developing art to undermine mans psycho-epistemological relationship to reality. It should lift mans consciousness to new ideas to improve his world or demonstrate mastery or virtuosity, providing a means of inspiration that fosters creativity.
On one foot:
1. Stuff exists and I know it.
2. I am capable of understanding stuff.
3. I am good because I can perceive and know stuff.
A. Compassion is a prerequisite to happiness.
4. Any system that creates a “social contract is evil.”
5. Reject, unheroic, uninspired art that supports disintegration or misintegration.
No1laserjock’s Premise= {?$}:
Objevtiveanalysts premise= {$!}
{?$}Capitalism may have been sound at some point in history, but MAY not be today (one of the points of this exploration)
Objevtiveanalysts premise {$!}
{$!}#1 The only thing that has changed is our application. We have distorted capitalism to the point of reduced efficacy. When we return to freer markets with less government manipulation (as in picking winners and losers) the market will improve the lives of all as it has in the past.
{?$} We USED to have distorted capitalism I agree! We don’t have Capitalism today. We have a small corporate oligarchy controlling the primary resources required for Military, Industry and FOOD! Not to mention medicine!
The term ‘market’ is a broad abstraction representing particulars of an economy. It’s not a conscious entity. An unencumbered Individual’s creativity leads to innovation and inventions –not to mention happiness. Not a group of some kind.
Capitalism requires a centralized government. You presume it must be people. You presume it will provide a military to protect your Capital. In order to control your government I presume you will vote? How? … via Mob Rule!
We share a crucial problem here. Individual philosophies. How do you intend this voting system to work, when the mob decides to tax you just 1% more for something or other?
“Sure 1%. No big deal, I see their point. I don’t want little old ladies to suffer either.”
Since the instillation of Christianity and the wholesale slaughter of Western Philosophy from Jesus, Hegel, Kant and Dewey (sounds like a sleazy attorney’s office) on the western mind we are facing a massive force of individuals that share some variation of deontological ethics whether God, the State, and now the Environment.
Supposedly we had laissez faire capitalism in the US before it became the USSA from about 1800- 1913. Then the Federal Reserve (a private banking Cartel) was created… How did that happen? The result of philosophical corruption. What drove it? Irrational greed and lust for power. Not man’s nature -but the metaphysical manifestation of his deepest ideals and philosophical corruptions.
How do you intend to reach a mind that either believes there are no absolutes, there is no certainty possible and our only moral purpose is duty to the “greater good”, or the others that believe all belongs to God in heaven, and are simply biding their time for “The Jailbreak of the Grave”?
I am sorry but the game has been lost. Most people don’t understand Capitalism. I do. I think it would be great under the Objectivists terms. But I think it is unobjective to pursue considering the problems inherent in personally unexplored philosophies: The masses.
The masses are emotionally judging capitalism by the hell-hole we’ve ended up in. Most of these are unaware or incapable of critical thinking.
Do you want your government to act on emotionalism or empiricism and science? Only the latter two integrate reality. We have a system in place now to self-govern: The Internet.
So far every argument for capitalism keeps coming back to this dead-stop orthodoxy that completely blanks out the present human condition, in light of technology that is approaching any reasonable definition of magic. We did not have this in the past!
Since we did not, no One can build an empirical argument that technology is incapable of freeing us from the burden of an economically based laboring society, to an access based, educational, creative and explorative society that takes us into space and planetary exploration, mining and terraforming. I.e. a Star Trek world. The vision I grew up with and will not release. One does NOT need money to do this! Only a creative idea and energy.
Let’s expand the possibilities. Presume for a moment, that E.T. drops in. It is peaceful and amicable. Let’s say he needs Gold, And is willing to trade “unobtainium” for it. He is not going to be the least bit interest in Federal Reserve Notes, Euros or Yen. We are not paying each other in anything, we are merely exchanging something that has applicable use to the species needs (Extending life, health, happiness, creativity and cognition, presumably) under agreeable terms. He may use force but I don’t think a species can get to interstellar travel under those kinds of philosophical terms; unless all sentient life is corrupted by devils and demons.
Capitalism will collapse in on itself because scarcity exists only because of the challenges of human labor (energy) and technology (the manifestation of a creative idea). The easier (the least energy required) a process, the more available it becomes (unless it is regulated), the less it is worth in terms of energy or its application to man.
Now the Capitalist experiences diminishing returns, he is loosing the energy. He thinks it is safely stored away in something that represents gold or whatever. Now XYZ corp comes along and makes it possible to print all the gold ingots it wants. How is the capitalist’s energy; his life’s-work stored? Alternatively, he can invest this tenuous energetic concept of gold into another company that can keep perpetuating that energy and so on. And it continues like an unfolding fractal, that must constantly have energy put into it above and beyond the requirements of the initial life-enhancing product or service to keep it going.
What does the capitalist do when demand diminishes? Remember this energy he is engaging in is his life. He acts to gain and keep his life by either an improvement to the product or by regulating the products availability by falsely creating scarcity.
The latter is the path of least resistance and to prevent it will require an “Intransient Philosophy” in that individual’s mind. This is impossible (until we can modify the brain) considering the inherited primate, mammalian and reptilian automatic emotional processes we all “enjoy”. Not to mention the horrible influences most of us here despise.
Ayn Rand fails to deal with emotions properly. And that is pertinent because we ARE influenced by our knuckle-dragging ancestors. Emotions are much more complicated than “[R]esponses to value-judgments.” There is a helluva lot more going on then that!
It is an empirical fact, that technology is reducing labor and processes at a nearly inconceivable rate TODAY! Again, >80% of the workforce is in the service sector. How many of those 80+ percent have ideas that could change the world, and free us further?
A capitalistic system requires a tax to pay for its government infrastructure. According to Constitutional Corporate law that should be around 15%. That equals someone’s irreplaceable time and productive energy seized at gunpoint (unless your system will allow me to homestead. Oh no! That is a limited resource with value, especially the one with the ocean view! So I am not “allowed” to pursue the rights to my life to live and be happy unless I comply with your arbitrary “social contract”?(!) Isn’t that about the gist of it? … to those born into it. To me this equates to another unnecessary, rhetorically conceived, duty-bound “social contract”. I reject Duty.
Ayn Rand:
“Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices…”
{Then she launches into more angry diatribes, false dichotomy bifurcations and slipper slope arguments disparaging the egalitarian – That evil son-of-a-bitch that simply wants to live and be happy without other assholes placing demands on him..}
She admits all men are not endowed with equal beauty intelligence or skill.
This contradicts that capitalism is the only system geared to men. Sure geared to men of ability, who have already accepted a 15% tax but reject investing and using that money to free all men.
The only truly objective system is totally unencumbered, non-government controlled freedom that is democratically manipulated via an artificially intelligent (NOT sentient!) system, that is programmed to distribute resources and energy in a mutually beneficial balanced system. That is the closest you will ever get to a fair system of politico economics. Any other system will create an angry mob and stratification. It is thus against your life and theirs to do so. It is irrational.
Load more comments...