ideal capitalism

[emprworm]

I like to consider myself an idealist.

[DukeLeto]

This is capitalism at its finest.

Exactly, because it's socialism.  There's government intervention in the economic system; ergo, socialism, albiet not much.

No one talks about ideal capitalism bacause it is not just an illusion, it's a fiction.

[Dante]

I like to consider myself an idealist. Optimism and utopian dreams are not far from me.  Having said that, I beileve we should, as a human race, strive towards the utopian, idealist pure capitalist state.  That is one in which all people's have financial freedom in a democratic republic.  The state's role is to protect rights, not grant them (objective moral law is assumed, protecting all citizens from tyranny of the majority).

'Objective moral law'? And this would be what, exactly? Christian values for those who are not Christian? Or even Muslim, Sikh, Jewish values? Values from the upper classes, values from the lower? Swapping the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the minority? Pff...

Everyone in this society has a place to live, and food in their belley.  This is because, in this ideal society, the most successful people choose to volunteer and donate their wealth.  A minimum line of poverty is established, such that those who fall below the line are given government assistance (EDUCATION being the primary form, with food and housing).  This is afforded by the flat tax that society pays (those in poverty pay no tax).

Idealistic, but also completely impossible and hardly capitalist anyway.

Freedom for all, and the freedom to pursue invention, innovation, and to sell and profit from your creation.  In this ideal society, no company can establish a monopoly, or abuse its workers as the limited government would restrict the following among other things:

monopolies prohibited

child labor prohibited

stock manipulation / after hours "priveleged" trading prohibited

Abortion prohibited? Gay rights prohibited? Stem cell research and cloning prohibited? Euthanasia prohibited?

a Business that wants to plant iself in a community must have clearance from the COMMUNITY first.

Now that is definately not capitalist.

Those who make 50K a year are still happy- they dont writhe with greed simply because their neighbor makes 100K a year.  Socialist envy doesn't exist in the ideal capitalist society, because everyone has food, clothing and most of all...a chance to become great.

Oh, yeah, wipe out envy. I suppose next you'll eliminate all disease and declare world peace.

I hear all this talk about ideal communism, but what about ideal capitalism?  Like ideal communism, there is no place on earth where ideal capitalism has been established.  Ideal capitalism is far better for humanity, IMHO. 

Then again there's ideal monarchy, where everyone is happy and content under the rule of a just and fair absolute monarch who gives out free ice cream on Saturdays. Or ideal nazism, where everyone is happy and content because all the unhappy people are dead. Hmm?

[nemafakei]

Is this the same Emprworm who criticises taxation to support 'lazy jobless' people, yet promises them all free food and housing for doing nothing? What stops the system being abused by those who really are lazy?

Pedantically, what happens when flat taxation puts someone below the poverty line?

"This is because, in this ideal society, the most successful people choose to volunteer and donate their wealth."

Ok, with this ideal society question, where do we stop? 'In my society, food magically appears, and all are happy'? Whereas some systems assume people will obey society's rules, those rules are written in, and can be relied upon, insofar as they are guaranteed by the existance of police, say. How can you know that rich people will be nice and kind?

"Freedom for all, and the freedom to pursue invention, innovation, and to sell and profit from your creation. In this ideal society, no company can establish a monopoly"

Do I assume form the former that you want the sorts of copyright and patent laws which guarantee the first discoverer a monopoly on the use of an idea?

Is there anything to stop two companies, who between them control the market, from agreeing to effectively wield a monopoly?

"This is capitalism at its finest"

The local governance you describe has little per se to do with capitalism. What you refer to is, I think a form of communarchic capitalism. The word soviet might also be appropriate here. It is a form of capitalism, just as much as many modern western economies; LEDC economies are often similar, but with less local power. It's your ideal of capitalism, but be discerning how you name it. Free provision of education also entails an aspect of the welfare state... that may alter how you wish to consider naming it.

How does governance work, how are representatives elected, if at all? The main problem with extant capitalism is that it overrides democratic government; how are you going to prevent bribery, etc.?

Incidentally, what's to stop businesses destroying the environment?

"Like ideal communism, there is no place on earth where ideal capitalism has been established.  Ideal capitalism is far better for humanity, IMHO"

Small point here, but repeaed elsewhere, ideal communism, as you say, has never existed, nor has any form of communism as far as I know, whereas many forms of capitalism do exist.

[SurlyPIG]

This is capitalism at its finest.

Exactly, because it's socialism.  There's government intervention in the economic system; ergo, socialism, albiet not much.

No one talks about ideal capitalism bacause it is not just an illusion, it's a fiction.

Mixed economy, people, it's called a mixed economy.  Pure anything is pure idiocy.

[Edric O]

Optimism and utopian dreams are not far from me.

Well, your post certainly proves that. Your ideal system has a lot of good points, but also a number of rather big holes. I'll point out both of those types of features.

Having said that, I beileve we should, as a human race, strive towards the utopian, idealist pure capitalist state.

A pure capitalist state is far from "utopian". Dystopian would be a better word. As I've explained in another topic, in the ideal capitalist state (as described by those who support such a state, namely libertarians like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Fredrich von Hayek, etc.), poverty and suffering would be commonplace. An ideal capitalist state means something very close to the kind of capitalism we had before we started adding socialist elements to it - in other words, the capitalism of the 19th century. No state intervention in the economy whatsoever, no aid for the poor, no kind of protections for working people (your boss could fire you for any reason - such as joining a union, being black, having a certain religion, or just looking at him in a funny way), no laws against monopolies, no legal limits on working hours (12 hour working days would be the norm), no laws against child labour, no minimum wages, etc. That is what pure capitalism looks like. Your system is NOT "pure" or "ideal" capitalism - not even close!

And, of course, it's a good thing that your system isn't "ideal capitalism". Ideal capitalism would be, simply put, the "ideal" evil.

objective moral law is assumed...

Just out of curiosity, who gets to decide what the "objective" moral law is? After all, we have at least a couple of dozen groups who claim their particular moral law to be the one true objective one. How do you decide between them? Certainly, there are some things that nearly everyone agrees on (e.g. "murder is bad"), which can therefore be considered "objective". But what about all the ones that people DON'T agree on?

Everyone in this society has a place to live, and food in their belley.  This is because, in this ideal society, the most successful people choose to volunteer and donate their wealth.

Riiiiight... ::) But you don't actually expect this to happen in the real world, do you?

A minimum line of poverty is established, such that those who fall below the line are given government assistance (EDUCATION being the primary form, with food and housing).

Excellent! This is one of the best things about your system - but keep in mind that it's a socialist element.

This is afforded by the flat tax that society pays (those in poverty pay no tax).

That's not a flat tax. It's a progressive tax system with two brackets: 0% for those below the poverty line, X% for those above. No matter how you look at it, any sort of fair and reasonable tax is a progressive tax. There is simply no justification for a flat tax - unless your goal is to favour the rich, of course.

Yet people have the freedom to make poor choices, and no one will be penalized for someone else's poor choice.  People can choose to succeed or to fail.

I don't think anyone willingly chooses to fail... Also, keep in mind that your choice is often determined to have been "good" or "bad" by factors outside your control.

Freedom for all, and the freedom to pursue invention, innovation, and to sell and profit from your creation.

And what happens when one man's freedom to profit clashes with another man's right to live? (for example, when a man suffering from an incurable disease can't afford to pay for the necessary medication)

In this ideal society, no company can establish a monopoly, or abuse its workers as the limited government would restrict the following among other things:

monopolies prohibited

child labor prohibited

stock manipulation / after hours "priveleged" trading prohibited

Very good ideas. Just keep in mind that these are yet more socialist elements that you're adding to your "capitalist" economy. Maybe you're not as capitalist as you think...

a Business that wants to plant iself in a community must have clearance from the COMMUNITY first.

Wonderful! More socialism! Like I said, you don't sound half as capitalist as you seem to think.

A wal-mart, for example, could not simply set up shop in a small villiage and run everyone else out of business without first getting permission from that villiage itself.  This is capitalism at its finest.

Capitalism?? In pure capitalism, private property is held as an absolute right, above anything else - even above human life. In other words, if a member of the community sells his private property to Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart can do whatever the hell it wants with it, no matter how much it harms the surrounding community. That would be pure capitalism (in fact, pure capitalism might well include slavery as well, or at least it would be opposed to abolishing previously existing slavery, since such an act deprives slave owners of their property). The system you're supporting is a mixed economy with lots of socialist elements that moderate capitalism.

[emprworm]

lol.  all you socialists come running to bash me.  I knew it.  You played into my hands,  :D

Before you say I am promoting socialism, remember, in my ideal capitalist system:

private property is absolutely 100% foundational.  ALL CITIZENS can own wealth as they please.

The government merely RESTRICTS people from gaining wealth unethically.  The government ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT redistribute wealth.  This is certainly not socialism.  I believe in LIMITED government.

A small community holds the power for that community (rather than big government).  If Wal-Mart wants to set up shop in Jonesville, Nebraska, the community's elected officials will decide the matter.  Not big government.  The community says "No, we dont want wal-mart", then wal-mart has no ability to run business in that community.  The PEOPLE decide via their elected officials what kinds of stores they want.  This certainly is not socialism, but call it what you will.  (the reason it is not socialism is because everyone within that community can invent and profit and hold private property as they so please).  Big Government is very very limited, enforcing  the rights of citizens and ensuring that the laws are kept.  It does NOT in any way shape or form strip wealth or property from those who have earned it. 

THe only part of my system that contains social elements would be how poverty is handled.  As a moral society, individuals who fall below the poverty line are assisted.  they do NOT get a free ride, but are given free trade/skill training and helped for a period of time (say 2-3 years)   

And regarding objective moral law.  No one decides what it is.  It just is.  As soon as someone "decides" what it is, then it no longer is objective.  The ideal capitalist society affirms objective moral law, it does not invent it.  Contrast with the atheist moral relativism, where morality is simply decided upon by society (i.e. society 'decides' that slavery is wholesome...therefore slavery is wholesome)

If you are wondering the difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism, here you go:

MORAL ABSOLUTE:  Slavery was is and always will be WRONG

MORAL RELATIVIST:  Slavery may have been good in the past, and it could be good in the future.  We cannot say if slavery is wrong for all time.

MORAL ABSOLUTE:  Killing scientists like Galileo that do not affirm a religious view is WRONG

MORAL RELATIVIST:  We cannot say that killing a scientist that doesn't affirm religion is always wrong.  Yes, its wrong right now, here in this society.  But I cannot make an absolute claim that it will always be so.  It MAY BE the case that one day, it would be perfectly great if atheists or scientists were killed simply because they denied Christian faith. 

secular relativist societies killed more people in the 20th century (150 million) than the last 1000 years of religious wars combined.  but that is another topic.  i prefer to talk about my ideal capitalist society.

call it socialism if you want, but that seems like a stretch since this society I am defining has, at its heart, private property and freedom to gain privately owned wealth.

[Dante]

lol.  all you socialists come running to bash me.  I knew it.  You played into my hands,  :D

If you actually had some cunning method by which to turn this to your advantage, this would perhaps be important. Also, how many times must I repeat myself to you? Don't you remember our debate? I'm not a bloody socialist, I'm more right wing than you are!

And regarding objective moral law.  No one decides what it is.  It just is.

There is no absolute moral code. Even if there was, nobody would agree on one. How can you enforce a fantasy?

As soon as someone "decides" what it is, then it no longer is objective.  The ideal capitalist society affirms objective moral law, it does not invent it.

There is no way to have morals without inventing them.

Contrast with the atheist moral relativism, where morality is simply decided upon by society (i.e. society 'decides' that slavery is wholesome...therefore slavery is wholesome)

It is possible for athiests to have their own objective moral code. I'm not one of them, but I thought I'd point it out.

MORAL ABSOLUTE:  Slavery was is and always will be WRONG

MORAL RELATIVIST:  Slavery may have been good in the past, and it could be good in the future.  We cannot say if slavery is wrong for all time.

MORAL ABSOLUTE:  Killing scientists like Galileo that do not affirm a religious view is WRONG

MORAL RELATIVIST:  We cannot say that killing a scientist that doesn't affirm religion is always wrong.  Yes, its wrong right now, here in this society.  But I cannot make an absolute claim that it will always be so.  It MAY BE the case that one day, it would be perfectly great if atheists or scientists were killed simply because they denied Christian faith. 

MORAL ABSOLUTE: Black people can never have the vote! Woman can never have the vote! Gays are abomination! Abortion = murder! Cloning is an affront to all decent human beings! native tribes aren't really human!

MORAL RELATIVIST: Depends on your opinion.

See, you're actually reinforcing my belief in moral relativism, not shaking it.

secular relativist societies killed more people in the 20th century (150 million) than the last 1000 years of religious wars combined.  but that is another topic.  i prefer to talk about my ideal capitalist society.

So don't bring it up. Alternatively, give some examples.

[emprworm]

MORAL ABSOLUTE: Black people can never have the vote! Woman can never have the vote! Gays are abomination! Abortion = murder! Cloning is an affront to all decent human beings! native tribes aren't really human!

I have one question of which I'd like you to answer:

At one time in history...Yes, blacks and women did not have the right to vote

Are you saying those views were WRONG?

[Dante]

I fail to see your argument here, there doesn't seem to be any logical progression of one point to another. If I'm correct then...

MORAL ABSOLUTE: Slavery was is and always will be WRONG

MORAL ABSOLUTE: Killing scientists like Galileo that do not affirm a religious view is WRONG

To use your terminology, "Are you saying those views were WRONG? Was it not their OPINION? Yet didn't you just call it an Absolute?"

I really cannot understand the argument here (which probably shows that you phrased it poorly). I didn't call anything an absolute, I gave examples of what moral absolutes once were and in some places still are.

[nemafakei]

Try one thing at a time...

How does governance work, how are representatives elected, if at all?

[emprworm]

I fail to see your argument here, there doesn't seem to be any logical progression of one point to another. If I'm correct then...

To use your terminology, "Are you saying those views were WRONG? Was it not their OPINION? Yet didn't you just call it an Absolute?"

I really cannot understand the argument here (which probably shows that you phrased it poorly). I didn't call anything an absolute, I gave examples of what moral absolutes once were and in some places still are.

you cant understand my terminology?

[Dante]

Riiight. Maybe it's just me, but it's sounding more and more like you're using exactly the same arguments I use to support moral relativism, only against it. With different scenarios, perhaps, but the same arguments.

"The slave society 200 years ago all thought their views were right, but they were still absolutely wrong!  Just "thinking" you are morally right is NOT a moral absolute, it is still subjective reasoning."

Yes... And is there any way to prove that what is being practiced is actually right or wrong as opposed to only being thought of as right or wrong?

[emprworm]

is there anyway to prove you exist?

moral absolutes cannot be denied, only affirmed.  For the moment you deny an absolute, you turn around and make an absolute.

Moral absolutes are known by all and can be affirmed.  Moral relativism brought slavery to the world. 

Ask this question, "what ended slavery?"

Not moral relativism!  People Upholding Slavery > People Against Slavery, yet still slavery was ended.

only moral absolutes could end slavery, and indeed, thats exactly how it ended.  If the entire world were a bunch of atheists, slavery would not have ended, since it served a useful purpose and was considered morally wholesome by the majority.

[Dante]

Morality had nothing to do with the ending of slavery. In Britain it was no longer profitable and in America freed slaves made good soldiers. No morality at all.

And incidentally, it was a belief in a moral absolute that created slavery. An incorrect moral absolute by today's common standards, but an apparant absolute nevertheless. The fact that these two positions can exist and be contradictory just shows that there is no absolute.

[emprworm]

Morality had nothing to do with the ending of slavery. In Britain it was no longer profitable and in America freed slaves made good soldiers. No morality at all.

And incidentally, it was a belief in a moral absolute that created slavery. An incorrect moral absolute by today's common standards, but an apparant absolute nevertheless. The fact that these two positions can exist and be contradictory just shows that there is no absolute.

false.  learn your history.  Moral absolutes, and moral absolutes only are the driving force behind the rise of civil rights.  THe majority of people even throughout the 20th century thought blacks were less than whites.  This has NOTHING to do with profit or money.  You think Martin Luther King's cause was about profit and being a "good soldier"?  Thats like saying a gay guy fighting for rights makes a good anus, nothing more.  ITs a pathetic statement, and what you just said insults the plight of the black race.

Groups like the QUakers who helped create the underground railroad and the push to end slavery, as well as Christians in Britain who loathed it UPHELD the Moral Absolute Law, while the majority of people disregarded it.  If it wasn't for the MINORITY of people who upheld MORAL LAW, slavery would not have ended.

[Dante]

Both the belief that slavery is wrong and the belief that slavery is right are moral absolutes to the people who believe them. Therefore anyone campaigning either for or against slavery was following moral absolutism. Moral relativists tend not to campaign. We don't see the point.

The civil rights movement was driven by moral absolutism, and so was the fight to retain slavery.

And I do know my history. My points about the abolition of slavery in America and Britain stand.

[VigilVirus]

Emprworm, you should just give up cause you have no idea what you are talking about.

Pro-choice or Pro-life, which is absolute for example? Is it more important for a woman to have the right to do with her body whatever she wants or to have the baby not killed? If you name one of these to be an absolute you will have millions of people who say quite the opposite.

[emprworm]

Both the belief that slavery is wrong and the belief that slavery is right are moral absolutes to the people who believe them.

this statement violates the law of non-contradiction. 

A moral absolute does not care what anyone thinks it is.  IT JUST IS.

If jack says the moon is red, and harry says the moon is blue...does that mean the moon is both red and blue?  FALSE!  Color is measurable by physics, it is determined by a particular wavelength of light.  Jack and Harry are both making ABSOLUTE CLAIMS, and they are both ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Moral Absolutes simply ARE no matter who, what, or when someone tries to say otherwise.  It doesn't matter what some bipedal anthropod bag of 90% water human being says about them.  A Moral Absolute stands immutable and unchanged despite what some human (or civilization) claims it to be.

you (and devil's advocate) just don't get it.

[Dante]

In that case, I see where one of the problems has arisen.

You actually believe a moral absolute in your terms exists. I don't. For me, the term 'moral absolute' is no more than an opinion held by a person that their views are absolute. An opinion of an absolute, rather than an absolute itself. You, on the other hand, somehow seem to believe that there are real moral absolutes that are not opinions but actually exist and can be verified. Perhaps you would like to prove this to us?

[nemafakei]

How does governance work, how are representatives elected, if at all?

[Egeides]

lol.

[emprworm]

emprworm, you are self-proclaiming your intelligence now... it is often

[Dante]

And for Dante, I find it interesting that you make an absolute claim that there isn't an absolute. To deny an absolute truth itself sets up an absolute truth.  That kind of sounds...well...illogical.

It's known as the sceptical paradox, and there is no way around it. It's true form is more "There can be no certain knowledge." Which of course is an attempt at certain knowledge. *Shrugs* If you want to go that route then we just enter uncertainties and meaningless nothings.

Edit: Nice to know you really can spell my name.

You, on the other hand, somehow seem to believe that there are real moral absolutes that are not opinions but actually exist and can be verified. Perhaps you would like to prove this to us?

Not going to take me up on this?

[Anathema]

Big government is a nasty beast, and I disdain it.

Hehe, and to think it was the Bushes and Reagan who are to blame for the incredibly huge federal budget.

Pretty much everything you have said in your first post is a breech in the entrepreneur's freedom of allocating his own goods. Not to mention forbidding monopolies (wich is odd coming from you, because you once flamed the EU for fining Microsoft for their monopoly position. See this thread. Glad you've proved yourself to be a hypocrite again.)

And seeing your comments about trading with Nazi's being perfectly ethical in the UN thread, I'd rather not live in your dreamworld.