A world without capitalism

Originally posted by normbenign
There are enough examples of capitalism being minimally effected by statism to demonstrate its effectiveness in advancing the human condition.

There are also examples of pure Statist regimes which compare unfavorably to those mostly free capitalistic ones.

I disagree. Where does that leave you? Making unsupported assertions is not impressive. You have failed to address the argument and simply evaded it.

Originally posted by finnegan
I disagree. Where does that leave you? Making unsupported assertions is not impressive. You have failed to address the argument and simply evaded it.

There are two roads of argument. One can argue the theoretical merits of various systems, or alternatively to review the results of various attempts at governance, comparative amounts of freedom and capitalism or of various forms of autocracy, and their results.

I doubt that either of us will convince the other, but I am confident of being right, and not wanting to experience any further erosion of individual liberty and responsibility, in favor of being taken care of by the State.

Originally posted by normbenign
There are two roads of argument. One can argue the theoretical merits of various systems, or alternatively to review the results of various attempts at governance, comparative amounts of freedom and capitalism or of various forms of autocracy, and their results.

I doubt that either of us will convince the other, but I am confident of being right, and ...[text shortened]... erosion of individual liberty and responsibility, in favor of being taken care of by the State.

How do you measure individual liberty and responsibility? Let's compare Canada and the United States. Which has more "liberty and responsibility", why, and how does that make one system more successful than the other?

Originally posted by finnegan
Wajoma, you have really advanced the theme of this thread:
Without the drive of [two people to recognise each others right to property], couldn't it be said that the internet wouldn't be as advanced as it is, because the financial reward wouldn't be what is without [two people to recognise each others right to property]?

Yeah cheers for that, I was responding to ATYs' mis-definition of capitalism in which he stated a requirement for there to be rich people, money and investments. No reputable definition of capitalism includes such poppycock and to save him further embarrassment I set him straight.

Capitalism exists without state intervention in the most humble dirt lot market places of the world and is a hundred times more pure than what occurs on Wall St.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yeah cheers for that, I was responding to ATYs' mis-definition of capitalism in which he stated a requirement for there to be rich people, money and investments. No reputable definition of capitalism includes such poppycock and to save him further embarrassment I set him straight.

Capitalism exists without state intervention in the most humble dirt lot market places of the world and is a hundred times more pure than what occurs on Wall St.

James Fulcher, Capitalism A Very Short Introduction, "the investment of money in order to make a profit, the essential feature of capitalism." p. 14, Oxford, 2004, ISBN 9780192802187.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yeah cheers for that, I was responding to ATYs' mis-definition of capitalism in which he stated a requirement for there to be rich people, money and investments. No reputable definition of capitalism includes such poppycock and to save him further embarrassment I set him straight.

Capitalism exists without state intervention in the most humble dirt lot market places of the world and is a hundred times more pure than what occurs on Wall St.

Nonetheless, capitalism involves the investment of money that is available one way or the other --- from savings, by borrowing, etc. That means that the money is not spend on daily needs. It is an overstatement to say that the availability of such investment money defines the investor as "rich" but the concept is correct.

Originally posted by normbenign
There is no pretence that capitalism is for the public good. It doesn't aim for that, but nonetheless accomplishes it better than systems which do proclaim the public good as their primary motive.

Capitalism allows people, individuals, to seek their own good in mutual agreement. Lots of individual good results in public good, without coercion.

The theory is correct but given that we are human, regulation is needed to prevent corruption and those other sins from creeping in to an otherwise morally neutral enterprise. This can be regulation by the industry, but the historical record is not too bright. I think your argument is more philosophical than it is practical.

Originally posted by JS357
Nonetheless, capitalism involves the investment of money that is available one way or the other --- from savings, by borrowing, etc. That means that the money is not spend on daily needs. It is an overstatement to say that the availability of such investment money defines the investor as "rich" but the concept is correct.

The more money a person has, the more he gets paid. Grannies investing their savings is barely the fringe of capitalism. Heirs, landlords and venture capitalists is where the real money gets made.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How do you measure individual liberty and responsibility? Let's compare Canada and the United States. Which has more "liberty and responsibility", why, and how does that make one system more successful than the other?

"How do you measure individual liberty and responsibility?"

The more things you must do by mandate, the less liberty and choice you have. The more things are "taken care of" by government, the less responsibility you have. Of course these are not precise measurements, and people will disagree on what is appropriate on either.

"Let's compare Canada and the United States."

That's difficult, as I don't live in Canada, but do live in the US. I do know that both liberty and responsibility are diminishing in the US. From the little time I spend in Canada, none since the tightening of border crossing, many people there feel the same about their liberty and responsibility. That could be self selecting, due to my choice of friends who think as I do.

The comparison, if it could be made, doesn't mean much as Canada and the US are entirely different places, with different populations, cultures, land and resources. A huge amount of the Canadian population lives very close to the US border, and in the big cities. In these areas, say Windsor across the river from Detroit, you really don't notice much that would tell you you're in a foreign country. On the other hand, when I visited Montreal, and got outside the city, speaking French was absolutely necessary. In short, there isn't enough difference in the US and Canada to make a determination on what is better. Both have a significant blend of capitalism and collectivism.

Originally posted by JS357
The theory is correct but given that we are human, regulation is needed to prevent corruption and those other sins from creeping in to an otherwise morally neutral enterprise. This can be regulation by the industry, but the historical record is not too bright. I think your argument is more philosophical than it is practical.

The human condition is present in all forms of government and economies. Centralizing power in government only makes some humans more powerful than others, but doesn't make them less human. If you said a "rule of law" applicable to all is necessary, I would agree, but the system of regulation differing by who is being regulated leads to great moral risk, and much corruption as is demonstrated by the book "Extortion".

Briefly, I trust much more dealing with my neighbor honestly, man to man, than one of us calling the cops to see that our way is preferred.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The more money a person has, the more he gets paid. Grannies investing their savings is barely the fringe of capitalism. Heirs, landlords and venture capitalists is where the real money gets made.

Some people spend all the money they make on present wants. Others, even of limited means find ways to save, so that they have money to invest. It is a progressive scale not simple classes which we are locked into as in a caste system.

Originally posted by normbenign
"How do you measure individual liberty and responsibility?"

The more things you must do by mandate, the less liberty and choice you have. The more things are "taken care of" by government, the less responsibility you have. Of course these are not precise measurements, and people will disagree on what is appropriate on either.

"Let's compare Canada ...[text shortened]... determination on what is better. Both have a significant blend of capitalism and collectivism.

If you say you want more "liberty and responsibility", you would do well to think a bit more about what those concepts (ought to) mean. You could always read J.S. Mill's classic On Liberty. It is a bit outdated, especially considering Mill's pro-colonial views, but a good read nonetheless.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you say you want more "liberty and responsibility", you would do well to think a bit more about what those concepts (ought to) mean. You could always read J.S. Mill's classic On Liberty. It is a bit outdated, especially considering Mill's pro-colonial views, but a good read nonetheless.

I think Isaiah Berlin may be close to the crux for those Americans who subscribe to simplistic notions of what is meant when they seek "Freedom" or "Liberty."

Berlin argued for a nuanced and subtle understanding of our political terminology, where what was superficially understood as a single concept could mask a plurality of different uses and therefore meanings. Berlin argued that these multiple and differing concepts, otherwise masked by rhetorical conflations, showed the plurality and incompatibility of human values, and the need for us to distinguish and trade off analytically between, rather than conflate, them, if we are to avoid disguising underlying value-conflicts. The two concepts are 'negative freedom', or freedom from interference, which Berlin derived from the British tradition, and 'positive freedom', or freedom as self-mastery, which asks not what we are free from, but what we are free to do. Berlin points out that these two different conceptions of liberty can clash with each other.

Americans on the Right seem unable to grasp that their values are not monolithic but can indeed clash with each other.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
James Fulcher, Capitalism A Very Short Introduction, "the investment of money in order to make a profit, the essential feature of capitalism." p. 14, Oxford, 2004, ISBN 9780192802187.

James Fulcher? Now I need to define the word 'reputable' and 'definition.'

...but not 'BS'.

ATY sure knows what that is already.

Originally posted by JS357
Nonetheless, capitalism involves the investment of money that is available one way or the other --- from savings, by borrowing, etc. That means that the money is not spend on daily needs. It is an overstatement to say that the availability of such investment money defines the investor as "rich" but the concept is correct.

Investing ones own rightfully acquired property and using money as a tool to do so is an aspect of capitalism, it's not a requirement, it does not define capitalism.

Your reference to 'daily needs'? what's your pointy there? That the purchase of daily needs is capitalism? That only non-daily needs can be purchased to define capitalism?

Wot...?