tolerating unequal outcomes

[whatbogsends]

Actually, capitalism IS a moral system. The fundamental business transaction is about as moral as moral gets - two people freely exchanging value for value. It doesn't get much more moral than that because to do that, moral excellence is absolutely demanded.

Capitalism is an economic system that allows the accumulation of capital to be wielded as a weapon against your fellow man.

Just as physical threats can coerce people into accepting an unfair deal, economic leverage can do the same.

While capitalism may offer a good foundation for a system that provides fairness, it needs to be layered with morality to reach that end. In of itself, it is an amoral (not immoral) system, which can be exploited by man, just as any other tool is.

 

[Subdood]

If things happened in a complete vacuum, you might have a point. Since there is a LOT more that influences social interactions, however, this idea that capitalism is full of "free exchange" is without merit.

Only I wasn't talking about "social interactions;" I was talking about business transactions, specifically the "fundamental business transaction" which is the irreducible of two people freely exchanging value for value.

Are there things that influence business transactions? Certainly. But then there are things that influence EVERYTHING so unless you want to argue relativism, your rebuttal is what's without merit, as is your opinion about what capitalism is, fundamentally.

 

[whatbogsends]

Define that for me.

Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.

If you voluntarily agree to the hours and wages I offer you, how is that unfair?

In situations where one's options are limited, the accepting of an deal doesn't necessarily affirm fairness.

Whether the threat is economic or physical, a coerced decision isn't fair.

One of the reasons we have a growing number of people on welfare is exactly because the jobs being offered to those at the bottom are unfair. The government is guilty of enabling businesses in engaging in these unfair behaviors.

If you think you are worth more than what I am paying you, go out there and see if you can get more. What can be more fair than that?

If you think this government is taxing you too much, go out there and find a better country to live in. What can be more fair than that?

 

[Redac]

Only I wasn't talking about "social interactions;" I was talking about business transactions, specifically the "fundamental business transaction" which is the irreducible of two people freely exchanging value for value.

Are there things that influence business transactions? Certainly. But then there are things that influence EVERYTHING so unless you want to argue relativism, your rebuttal is what's without merit, as is your opinion about what capitalism is, fundamentally.

And I'd say it is your understanding of capitalism that is flawed if you think it is reducible to the exchange of value for value; exchange of that sort existed prior to capitalism. Capitalism depends on things like private ownership of means of production, production for profit, market exchange, wage labor, and so on. Saying it boils down to the "fundamental business transaction" is grossly misrepresenting what the system is.

 

[Subdood]

Capitalism is an economic system that allows the accumulation of capital to be wielded as a weapon against your fellow man.

Well that's a rather biased and jaded opinion, don't you think? I could assert the same about what this administration is doing, calling on their "system" they use as justification for their actions and be accused of being biased and jaded as well, wouldn't I?

Just as physical threats can coerce people into accepting an unfair deal, economic leverage can do the same.

Well, this is true; but it doesn't mean it must be that way. W/r to physical threats coercing people into accepting an unfair deal, I'm mindful of our wonderful unions who are quite versed in employing physical threats - well, actually physical force to get their way. But economic leverage can be used coercively, certainly - as can political leverage or emotional leverage - the latter being the sort of argument I'm hearing here in this thread as an attempt to coerce those ideologically opposed to the premises behind the "unequal outcome" debate.

Nevertheless, that someone can use a "weapon" for good or evil does not mean the "weapon" itself is good or evil - c.f. the debate on guns. Of course in the gun debate certainly we see light on why some must therefore believe capitalism is evil. Why they don't believe their own system can be used for evil itself (for the same reason they accuse others of theirs) is a question well worth the asking.

While capitalism may offer a good foundation for a system that provides fairness, it needs to be layered with morality to reach that end. In of itself, it is an amoral (not immoral) system, which can be exploited by man, just as any other tool is.

Again, I would point you to the fundamental business transaction upon which capitalism is based - that, and the fundamental rights to private property and to pursue one's own happiness - all of which are required by the fundamental business transaction, so I wouldn't call it amoral at all.

 

[JCSr]

If you think this government is taxing you too much, go out there and find a better country to live in. What can be more fair than that?

ding, ding, ding


We have a winner!!!!!!!

 

[Subdood]

And I'd say it is your understanding of capitalism that is flawed if you think it is reducible to the exchange of value for value; exchange of that sort existed prior to capitalism. Capitalism depends on things like private ownership of means of production, production for profit, market exchange, wage labor, and so on. Saying it boils down to the "fundamental business transaction" is grossly misrepresenting what the system is.

Applying a name to something that existed before the name did does not mean the two aren't equal.

And the fundamental business transaction DOES depend on two parties "owning" what it is they desire to freely exchange, certainly - whether it be the product itself, or the means to make that product. So what? How is that wrong, except that it doesn't fit the Marxist ideal?

Seriously, you're throwing around classic Marxist terms to denigrate capitalism - "private ownership of means of production." Classic Marxist aspersion. "Production for profit." Classic Marxist aspersion.

What's wrong with profit anyway? Where's the implied "evil" in that?
What's wrong with "wage labor???" What, do you expect everyone to be salaried or something? So, let's salary everyone. Fine. The person who works 2000 hours a year at $10 / hour will get a salary of $20,000 now (and likely be required to work more hours than they would've if they were hourly). And the one who earned $20 an hour will be salaried at $40,000. Fine. Is that what you're stumping for?

 

[bricklayer]

Then why not find someone in lesser circumstances and give them a portion of your earnings or transfer a portion of your wealth to them. Then they will be happy and you should be happy as well.

Charity is indispensible to freedom; however, charity has a voluntary nature.

 

[bricklayer]

Capitalism is an economic system that allows the accumulation of capital to be wielded as a weapon against your fellow man.

Just as physical threats can coerce people into accepting an unfair deal, economic leverage can do the same.

While capitalism may offer a good foundation for a system that provides fairness, it needs to be layered with morality to reach that end. In of itself, it is an amoral (not immoral) system, which can be exploited by man, just as any other tool is.

Capitalism coordinates markets by prices moves, nothing more and nothing less.
It is the least worst way to coordinate markets.

 

[kermit]

Being ruled by your emotions is your business. The problem with those ruled by empathy is that they seek to employ the state to enforce that empathy on everyone. Nowhere have I advocated that the state enforce bigotry in hiring. It shoudl be as univolved in preventing bigotry as is should be in enforcing empathy. My objection, if you notice, is the involvement of the state and, thus, the introduction of force into the equation. How you run your life is your business so long as how you run it doesnt violate my rights.

But thing is that you didn't criticize the use of the state you criticized the use of emotion over reason; you are backpeddling now. In one case you attacked the use of emotion over reason and on another you defended it. Is it too much to ask that you at least a little consistent?

 

[Redac]

Applying a name to something that existed before the name did does not mean the two aren't equal.

Right, but if we're going to call every sort of market exchange "capitalism" regardless of whether capital is involved, then the term becomes meaningless.

And the fundamental business transaction DOES depend on two parties "owning" what it is they desire to freely exchange, certainly - whether it be the product itself, or the means to make that product. So what? How is that wrong, except that it doesn't fit the Marxist ideal?

Alright. So we've established that private property is a part of the system as well. So next up: how is this exchange carried out? What mechanism does it use?

Seriously, you're throwing around classic Marxist terms to denigrate capitalism -

About half right. I used terms often used in Marxist theory (though not exclusively there), but nothing I said there is a denigration of capitalism, just a description.

"private ownership of means of production." Classic Marxist aspersion.

Replace "means of production" with "capital" if it makes you feel better. Or are you disputing that people privately own things that produce products and other wealth, and that they hire people to use those things to make those products?

"Production for profit." Classic Marxist aspersion.

So is profit NOT the name of the game here? Is the system making things to satisfy the needs and desires of everyone regardless of the ability of business owners to make profit? Or would you say, like lordbt even said, that profit is the bottom line here?

Again, you're not disputing what I'm saying, you're just taking issue with the terms I used.

What's wrong with profit anyway? Where's the implied "evil" in that?
What's wrong with "wage labor???"

It is an inherently exploitative system.

What, do you expect everyone to be salaried or something? So, let's salary everyone. Fine. The person who works 2000 hours a year at $10 / hour will get a salary of $20,000 now (and likely be required to work more hours than they would've if they were hourly). And the one who earned $20 an hour will be salaried at $40,000. Fine. Is that what you're stumping for?

Lel, no.

 

[whatbogsends]

Nevertheless, that someone can use a "weapon" for good or evil does not mean the "weapon" itself is good or evil - c.f. the debate on guns. Of course in the gun debate certainly we see light on why some must therefore believe capitalism is evil. Why they don't believe their own system can be used for evil itself (for the same reason they accuse others of theirs) is a question well worth the asking.

Correct, which is why i never said or hinted at "capitalism is evil". I have asserted, quite correctly, that it is an amoral system. It is you who have tried to make the assertion that capitalism is inherently good.

People who are asserting that there is a wage discrepancy in relationship to production aren't asserting that capitalism is evil or that whatever system they propose can not also be abused. What we are saying, however, is that the system is not perfect, and that government is the only mechanism capable of improving it. We also understand that currently, government is a large part of the problem that needs to be addressed - however, we refrain from making the blanket statement that anything done by the government is de facto evil, as lordbt seems to assert.

The reason worker protections were enacted by the government was due to societal pressure, as business was clearly exploiting labor during the industrial revolution. While that exploitation is less pronounced now, we have been trending in the wrong direction for the past 30+ years.

 

[kermit]

Correct, which is why i never said or hinted at "capitalism is evil". I have asserted, quite correctly, that it is an amoral system. It is you who have tried to make the assertion that capitalism is inherently good.

Now I understand Subdood's confusion. He is conflating amoral and immoral.

 

[whatbogsends]

Now I understand Subdood's confusion. He is conflating amoral and immoral.

Although i don't think i used the term amoral (post 84) until after Subdood claimed capitalism to be a moral system (post 79).

 

[MachZer0]

As usual, your "solution" misses the mark entirely.

I (as i would imagine many in my economic position do) donate to charity as well as provide financial support for groups that i support. However, one person making a change by "giving someone a portion of their earnings" doesn't significantly alter the financial/societal landscape, as the problem is systematic. It makes much more sense to try to effect a systematic change, even if that systematic change negatively impacts me personally.

One person making a change can start an entire movement. It seems easier to force others to do your will rather than do so yourself

 

[MachZer0]

Charity is indispensible to freedom; however, charity has a voluntary nature.

Not to some of our liberal friends. For instance, Ted Kennedy thought he could earn his way to heaven by forcing others to be "charitable" through taxation

 

[variant]

Actually, that hands off policy preceeded the Guilded Age by about 100 years.

Yeah and it worked much more effectively in an agrarian United States, that's the point. For an industrial united states we have done much better with more progressive ideas than those of the Guilded Age.

I don't generally point to the pre-civil war era as a good example of libertarian philosophy because it was legal to own people.

The Guilded Age did not create poverty and human suffering, those were general conditions of mankind dating back to the dawn of time. What the Guilded Age did was show what sort of unimaginable wealth was possible in a free market system. That some could live in guilded castles while others lived in slums was , and is, just too much for the envious left to bear.

With the emergence of the industrial revolution and the lack of a good system to help people work within it the Guilded Age gives us some of the most stark examples of excessive capitalism ever.

Give me a modern example and I will discuss it with you.

It's a more modern example than the Guilded Age which you seem fine discussing. So, why not regail us with how your philosophy would have done away with such things, or, you could tell us how wonderful they are.

If you don't wish to discuss it I shall simply consider the point conceded.

If you wish to discuss other examples I suggest:

Loan sharks, bonded labor contracts, poor/unsafe working conditions, sweat shop labor, and shipping jobs to dictatorships to take advantage of lower labor costs

nonsense. If people were so well off prior to the industrial revolution, from where did those evil industrialists acquire their labor? And what sort of parents sent their children off to work in a dismal factory from dawn til dusk if things were all smiles and sunshine? That people flocked to factories with their long hours (by our standards), low pay (by our standards) and dismal working conditions (by our standards) is evidence enough to me that the alternative was far worse. So like it or not, the industrial revolution and the Guilded Age improved the lives of Americans immeasurably, but all you see is that someone got to live in a nice house.

A more impassioned defense of child labor and poor labor conditions I have never seen.

Having to choose between squalid factory conditions and starving sounds like the kind of liberty I can get behind. No, economic coercion there.

What this signifies is that if left to their own devices the people who were running industry in the Guilded Age would perpetrate terrible conditions on the people who work for them.

And, it is exactly what we should expect them to do.

The alternative is not the agrarian communities of before the Guilded Age but the protection from such brutalization offered by the government actions of the period afterwards.

you can say whatever you want, but I don't see how we are supposed to make sure the power that comes from the state is not overly abused. In a free market, you can move on to other lines of work if you feel you are being treated unfairly by your mean employer. But when the state has free reign to trample your rights, you have nowhere to run.

And yet somehow states that do not take such an absolute right to property as you would like, the modern mixed economies, don't all seem to be under the thumb tyranny.

Weird how that works.

No, thats your conclusion, not the logical one.

It's logical if you think similar conditions will yield similar results.

If my employer exerts too much economic power over me I quit and work elsewhere.

Your choices can be limited by limiting the number of options available.

If enough power in the society you live in is accumulated in the hands of few enough people, or the people who have wealth agree on how to treat those without wealth, you will see your choices dwindle down to nothing.

So you are the only one allowed to exert power over others? How nice of you.

You should save your quips for arguments I actually made.

 

[bricklayer]

Not to some of our liberal friends. For instance, Ted Kennedy thought he could earn his way to heaven by forcing others to be "charitable" through taxation

Mandatory-charity is oxymoronic. In fact, taking in the name of giving does great harm to charity. This is tragic because only charity has net benefit.

 

[variant]

To the extent to which government law, regulation or action is responsible for discrimination, there almost certainly has to be a government remedy. But if I dont want to hire women, or blacks, or jews, or whites, or italians or Christians or Muslims or people with blue eyes, that is my business, not younrs and not the states. So long as I am not violating anyones rights, the state has no moral authority to step in and use initiate the use of force against me.

One wonders why the classes of people who recently enough lacked any form of economic recourse would be against such a philosophy.

You know, small segments of society like women.

 

[lordbt]

Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.

That is your definition of fairness. That said, lets look at your next sentence:

In situations where one's options are limited, the accepting of an deal doesn't necessarily affirm fairness.

The fact that your employment options might be limited has no bearing on the "fairness" of my offer to you. My hiring you was free from bias, dishonest and was in no way unjust, so by your own defintion it was "fair."

Whether the threat is economic or physical, a coerced decision isn't fair.

But what you arent getting is that the threat or coersion is not coming from the employer. That your options are limited is not your employers fault. In fact, you should be grateful for the fact that he is giving you a job at at all. The idea that someone with zero alternatives would denounce the one guy willing to hire him is the height of ingratitude.

One of the reasons we have a growing number of people on welfare is exactly because the jobs being offered to those at the bottom are unfair.

You keep claiming that yet have not given a single example that would fit your own definition of what is fair.

If you think this government is taxing you too much, go out there and find a better country to live in. What can be more fair than that?

There are few things more ironic then those who would tell someone seeking only liberty to seek that liberty outside of the US.
Unbelievable.