And, let's see now, what's the simplest, most robust mechanism you can build into an intelligent organism to measure "favor with one's society"?
It's difficult to accurately read others' perceptions of you, and even harder to predict how those perceptions will be affected based upon your actions. Self-regard is easier to measure and monitor, and actions that improve self-regard will generally also improve societal regard and standing within the community. So the simplest mechanism to advance favor with one's society" is to have a "conscience".
BTW, one very important way that capitalism advances morality which the author doesn't happen to mention is in teaching humans to vastly expand the scope of cooperative behavior and trust. Of course there are simple profit motives encouraging cooperative behavior, but psychological experiments indicate that such behavior becomes more deeply ingrained, and is more readily extended beyond the family or tribe to include strangers, in individuals from capitalistic societies versus individuals from traditional societies.
This has been demonstrated with simple games where players can get the highest overall rewards only by cooperating with other players, but at the same time opening themselves up to betrayal and exploitation by other players. In such games capitalists consistently cooperate more than non-capitalists.
BTW, this is about the only argument regarding capitalism and morality that I've ever found to make any headway in arguments with lefties.
Of course I've always thought the argument regarding increasing wealth and opportunity was by far the most compelling, but no matter how forceful lefties just can't seem to grasp (or refuse to accept) that one. I don't know if it's ingrained "zero sum" thinking or what. Mystery to me.
Anti-liberty systems do not permit individuals to exercise personal morality through their conduct - excessive laws, regulations, and compulsory redistributive practices act to usurp individual morality. That I pay taxes that go toward feeding the hungry does not make the paying of those taxes a moral act. It is merely a compulsory act I must perform to remain lawful. Similarly, forcing someone, at gunpoint, to pronounce the "Our Father" does not make his (nor my) action a moral one.
In the Abrahamic religions, one is taught that God bestowed upon mankind free will, and that with this free will one can either go with God or go against God. By replacing these moral choices with institutional regulations, many questions of morality become questions of legality. This is true even when such institutions claim to weave moral doctrine into their institutions - conduct at the threat of the gun, the prison, or the fine loses all moral definition.
The absence of government regulation, unfortunately, does not equate to the absence of agents that limit moral choice and liberty. Individuals and groups of any size are also capable of warping (by sword or other threat) liberty and moral choice. It is a system of limited government acting as an agent to protect our negative liberties that constitutes the system under which our liberties and potential for moral choice are maximized. A government operating under such commission is a government that, as a critical component, endorses capitalism. (This is not meant to be an endorsement of all US trade policy, much of which is not capitalistic - and no, I do not mean this in the sense of the True Scotsman)
Less related to the topic of morality, capitalism is a system that yields optimal results in the presence of our "flaws" (innate elements of the human condition that will always be with us despite any attempts at social engineering - greed, selfishness, sloth, envy, pride, deception) as well as our merits. To endorse it is to bow humbly to reality and at least put our flaws to work to generate some benefit.
Let me see, which has the potential for more evil?? A free people making their own decisions about what to buy, what to eat, how to live, where to live, where to build, what to believe,, A free people making their own decisions whether for good or bad, for themselves,,,, or a few people or even one person making all their decisions for them? The fact this is a serious discussion shows how desensitized we have become to the loss of our liberties, and how accustomed we are to more and more socialism in our lives. If some bleeding heart really wants to help the less unfortunate, than go out and start a business, make a lot of and give it all away. Or start a free school for the poor. Or build free homes for the homeless. Or teach the uneducated how to be successful. Give free seminars on positive thinking. If nothing else, you can always go around and knock on doors asking for contributions for the poor and needy. And don't try to use the Bible to show how unfair Capitalism is to the poor. Exodus 23:3 "Nor shall you be partial to the poor man in his dispute." Also in Exodus 30 "The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less." Also in Lev the Bible talks about not being partial to the rich nor to the poor. Jesus never told anyone to take from someone and give to another. He told people to give of themselves. Socialism enslaves. It always has and it always will.
This is so incredibly short-sighted. I always liked Zig Ziglar's comment, similar to the above: "Failure is an event, not a person". In a capitalistic society, even losers can turn around a losing situation. That's what is lost on nearly everyone, even some "conservative" economists.
And I'm SICK TO DEATH (yep, I'm shouting) about how money isn't everything. Of course money isn't everything. What money IS is a way of achieving what you want out of life.
Imagine if you were always well fed, well clothed, and had a roof over your head, but no disposable income. Your basic needs would be taken care of, but who only has basic needs?
Wouldn't you be much better off, by any measure, if you had the disposable income to travel to France, the liberals' favorite country, to see how our "betters" live? Or to be able to travel more often to see your favorite Aunt Martha, the one who raised you when your mother was dying? Or to express your deep appreciation to your wife with jewelry for the wonderful way she cares for you?
What money allows you to do is take care of the top level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs - self-actualization. To have the freedom to do what you really want to do, what really satisfies you in live. Anyone who would deny me the fruits of my labors, driven by my intense desire to be self-acutalize, is nothing more than a petty dictator who believes they know more what's good for me than I do.
Capitalism doesn't create winners and losers; winners and losers create themselves.
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill's statement: "Capitalism is the worst form of governance except for all the others."
The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image. - Christopher Lasch, "The Revolt Of The Elites"
We are now seeing it begin to absorb nations.
It's a little like that giant planet-eating space turd on Star Trek.
Freedom is generally preferable to coercion.
Who gives a flying frack what one's society thinks about them?
The test of morality is moral results. Capitalism has moral results. Capitalism is life and nature itself. It leads to prosperity and life and growth.
Capitalism is unrestrained liscence to engage in non-coercive relations with other individuals. The more pure the better.
Greed isn't just good. It's Grrreat!
Bookmarking great article
Bump
Capitalism, as well as money, is amoral.
bump
capitalism is the only moral economic system
We would be more correct to use “conservative” as an adjective than a noun. Conservativism is a way of thinking not a body of chiseled in stone beliefs. Conservativism is a way of looking at civil social order. Who is and who is not a “conservative” depends on a self definition. If you believe you are a “conservative” you are one.
While it is not possible to draw up a laundry list of conservative positions, there are some general beliefs that most “conservatives” will ascribe to.
III. Ten Underlying Conservative Principles: Which of these principles conservatives will emphasize varies with circumstances and time. The following ten articles of belief or assumption reflect the concerns of American conservatives in the modern era. When you read these, anything in quotes indicates a direct quote from Russell’s essay.
”First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.” That order is part of the human endowment and these moral truths are permanent. Order is synonymous with harmony and a society so governed by a strong sense of right and wrong is a good and just society. Government machinery may be used to sustain justice, honor, right vs. wrong but these things are part of the human cultural and biological endowment. People who do not ascribe to this view are not only unhappy but usually suffer lawlessness as a consequence.
”Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention and continuity.”The common culture has customs that permit people to live in an orderly fashion with one another. These customs are ancient and have resulted from trial and error over centuries of use. Besides that these customs link us to not only the past but to the future. As Russell puts it, “…conservatives prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know..”
It is not that conservatives are against change. What they want is prudent change that is gradual and based on satisfactory outcomes and never completely unfixing old ways or traditions.
”Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.”We are “dwarfs on the shoulder of giants, able to see farther than our ancestors only because of their great stature.” Conservatives emphasize ”prescription”as a means to understand the whys and wherefores of our culture. Prescriptions are principles of living and belief established in times past.
Prescriptions of immemorial usage include private property rights as well as morals. Our morals are basically prescriptions that antedated Christianity. In my way of thinking, the best pro life argument can be found in the Hippocratic Oath written in 400 B.C. and taken by most US physicians until 25 January 1973. The species cannot endure if birth can be terminated by whim and convenience.
Russell summarizes thusly, “the individual is foolish but the species is wise as a Burke quote.” The human species has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far beyond any group ideology or private predilection. The species cannot endure if birth can be terminated by whim and convenience.
”Fourth Conservatives are guided by their principles of prudence.” Burke, Plato and many others considered prudence a principal virtue. Public measures should be judged on long run consequences even beyond the current generation. Liberals and radicals as well as David Brooks all want immediate changes and immediate results. To be popular is as Randolph says pleasing to the devil because “the devil always hurries.”
”Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.”Contrary to what many liberals believe conservatives celebrate variety and do everything possible to preserve it.
Orders, social classes, inequalities of ability and wealth and all sorts of other differences must be supported and championed.
The only two types of real equality must be: (1)Before the law; (2) And, before god. All other attempts of leveling will lead to social stagnation. Leveling and other attempts to achieve egalitarian goals invariably lead to “squalid tyrants” and another form of inequality.
”Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.” Call it original sin or human frailty human nature suffers from serious faults. Since man is imperfect no perfect social order can be devised. Claims to the contrary should arouse suspicion. “To seek for a utopia is to end in disaster…” We are definitely not made in perfection for perfect systems of governance.
We may seek and achieve prudent reform if we preserve tolerable order. If we neglect traditional safeguards then man being imperfect results in chaos and destruction.
”Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.”Destroy the holding of private property and the state rules all in every conceivable way. As a corollary, economic leveling is not economic progress and neither is getting and spending the chief aim of human existence.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism.”Americans are noted for a sense of community. Charitable and other voluntary community efforts are important to maintain and protect the vulnerable.
When these efforts are usurped by the government they fail to achieve their goals. Further, these government efforts standardize human beings and destroy freedom and dignity. “For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed.”
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and human passions.” “Politically speaking power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the will of one’s fellows…if only few or one dominates we call that despotism..” Contrariwise, when everybody does what they want society falls into anarchy. The conservative does an imperfect and changing effort at avoiding both despotism and anarchy.
Radicals always see power as a good thing destined to force others into his way of thinking and behavior. While power cannot be abolished it can be controlled and that is precisely why conservatives so jealously guard their freedoms. Conservatives also know not to simply trust human benevolence or claims thereof. They also know humans are capable of good and evil and restraints against overweening will and appetite are necessary.
”Tenth, the understands permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” The conservative is not opposed to social progress. “…Although he doubts whether there is any such force as mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world.” Where something progresses something else is usually in decline.
I previously summarized Russell Kirk's thoughts on this and the above is a section of that. The remainder can be found: HERE
There are many here at the FreeRepublic who have such a disdain for free people...in fact half of the replies here seem to be hostile toward capitalism and many have also perverted the origins of the word "liberal".
There is a whole lot that could be learned here if people took the time to read some good books about These subjects...an excellent start would be Milton Friedman's, Capitalism and Freedom. Sadly, though, it is this same hostility and disdain for the ideas contained in this book that cause much of the things, events, and consequences that these hostile and disdainful people abhor; making a viscous cycle of ignorance and self-inflicting wounds.