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 3.
As I have maintained from the beginning I will conceded my position should I find ample empirical data to squelch it.
If I have made mis or dis integrations I want to know where. None of us has complete control over our intellectual and emotional faculties. Even though we would like to believe that. I am prone to errors but a single error doesn't necessarily destroy a premise.
I am going to reply to each number so the post will be pretty long. Oh well this is important. This discussion hopefully will become a record for others to reference.
My reply:
I find little agreement with many of your assertions and find them less than objective. They remind me of the positions / historyonics espoused by today’s mass media and liberal professors from their elitist ivory towers. The real world happens outside their utopian myopic view. It is this distortion we must combat. I believe you have been unduly swayed and will attempt to provide a different perspective. I have taken an excerpt from the beginning of your paragraphs and followed with my numbered replies.
I am not in the least… #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.
However to advance a philosophy… #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.
Alternatively, to advance a 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.
This is a problem for either of us… #4 Here we have no disagreement.
Consider for a moment that we… #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.
In the Gulch, everyone had some… “abundent energy economy…” #6 A commune where people barter... This never works out well. There will not be abundance. History has abundant examples.
Now the problem… #7 Money was conceived for convenience of trade of value. If you have a horse to trade but you only want a sack of potatoes you can’t divide your horse to pay for the potatoes so you sell the horse for money so you can buy the potatoes with money left for other exchanges...
Economics is no more a science… #8 Some parts of it are empirical, some are just based on historical trends. There is also the “invisible hand” (Adam Smith) the market forces that adjust for the parameters that are beyond the human scope. It is a “fatal conceit” (Friedrich von Hayek) to imagine man can completely understand and forecast the market in minute detail because the metrics (unpredictable actions of men and environment) are always in flux and cannot be fully accounted for.
However, man is an empirical existent... #9 Games and emotional reactions are no basis for establishing a system. I do not believe in the “Kobayashi Maru”. We only entered into a civil society in order to protect our property. Some of us learned it was easier to kill and take than to produce.
Mans labor is represented… #10 Man’s time is limited, but the amount of value he creates in this time is in his power to increase. Value is his trade not his time.
I will repeat this example… #11 Owning a Lamborghini hurts no one, in fact it employs the manufacturers etc. Monopoly is a game. Real life ramifications have a way of changing ones actions. The sore losers are buying the fixed size of the pie argument. They appeal to jealousy and envy. Part of becoming successful is learning to pick oneself up after failure and learning from it. I started my own business on a shoestring, but a level of success was only accomplished after several failures. The “sore losers” need to buck up and recognize life is not fair; never was and never will be, regardless of economic system. We have wrongly given the populace an entitlement attitude and a belief life should be easy and handed to you. “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration” Edison
What will you do with sore losers… #12 I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. I survived “duck and cover.” The nuclear threat was worse in the past. I fail to see the relevance. Capitalism is not responsible for the evils you mention. People are responsible. In fact every other “ism” that has been instituted, it could be argued have done far more evil. More people have been killed tortured, and imprisoned under communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, etc. there is no comparison.
You are essentially asking… #13 I have adopted CNC robots for decades. My people have jobs programming the machines instead of running them by hand. The manufacturer of the machines is also employing people in the same way. Consumers benefit from reduced costs achieved through higher production.
It is unobjective to think… #14 I don’t think education and re-education to counter the propaganda the Marxists have fostered is futile, or un-objective. Protecting our property is the primary purpose for forming a government. If they fail to do this you do what you must. People choose not to steal from you when their life and property are at risk. This is the point of the civil society. When your property is protected it is more profitable to trade/ labor for your needs. Lunatics exist regardless of economic system.
Therefore, it is irrational to continue… #15 Machines have only improved life, and allowed people to invent or adopt new professions which are often less labor intensive. People have always had irrational fears of technical advances. The invention of the car put the horse and buggy people out of business and they expressed the same fears. The manufacturing of cars and the spinoffs have improved the lives and provided jobs to countless people the horse and buggy business never could have done.
We all know a change must occur… It would be a colossal logical error to do so. #16 Only if you view it as an obsolete system, rather than a system which when properly exercised without distortion is a matter of timeless principles, proven to elevate the masses better than any other system yet devised. I speak of free market capitalism, not what passes for it today (government distorted crony-capitalism and progressive social engineering.) These fears are not new they have been expressed repeatedly throughout history and throughout it all man has continued to find ways to improve the lives of countless millions and allow an ever increasing population to be fed and prosper. Capitalism is not the enemy. Men of envy are the enemy of capitalism. Capitalism has proved to elevate even the poor to a status undreamed of for all but monarchs and the ultra rich of only a few generations ago.
If you are interested I can provide a list of books by philosophers, economists and historians, aside from Rand, that provide convincing arguments and ample support for my positions. If you wish to continue to argue the merits of your assertions please let us take them one at a time. I seldom have time to rebut adequately such a sizable laundry list at one time.
Respectfully,
O.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rouxpbtGT...
Load more comments...