Posted on 01/13/2002 8:05:27 AM PST by tonyinv
George Will just uttered the most absurd statement I've ever heard. He said (paraphrasing)
"Rebpublicans need to understand that capitalism is complex web of laws and regulations" and further "that capitalism is a government program"
I knew George Will wasn't exactly a conservative, but this is unbelievable.
LOL.. who knows what LaBelleDameSansMerci is on about, best just to ignore her and hope she goes away:)
Not so, actually.
I'll grant you that they're self-centered and many fall prey to greed as fall prey to gluttony, sloth, anger, vengeance ... all manner of human faults.
But a society that is MORAL and in which all men are essentially equal, retain sovereignty over themselves and their families, enjoy the fruits of their labor and are able to purchase and retain their own private property usually turns out very selfless folks.
The United States still is very much this way ... if only because the folks in the "red" portion of the Bush/Gore election map still more than make up for the entirely atomistic, selfish, adolescents of the left and the middle.
I refuse to believe it is human nature to be greedy. We are social by nature and -- be it a matter of faith or pure logic -- even some of my atheist friends live such that they treat others always as they themselves wish to be treated.
Only those CONDITIONED by an immoral or pseudo-moral system like capitalism would believe all humans are naturally greedy by nature.
Which is one of the reasons I'm glad I live in the US of A.
My company has done business in many areas where the local or federal government was the greatest THREAT to fair and safe capitalistic transaction.
So you know first hand how important it is that capitalism be supported by (i.e., be a program of) government.
Believe it or not, capitalism can happen outside of the graces of government regulation. It is not a government program.
I suppose you can say that, if you define capitalism as individual transactions taking place between people, that by luck or happenstance occur in the absense of coercive force by one of the parties or by outside forces. But that's not my understanding of the word. Here another definition, this one from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand:
Capitalism is a social system based on the recogition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.We're nowhere near that ideal here in the US, and sometimes it seems like we're getting further away every year, but the point is that capitalism as a social system.
And how do free people go about organizing and implementing this social system? By creating representative governments to enforce individual rights and property ownership.
And when I have meditated sufficiently upon my many sins, I shall put my own feet to the fire.....
However, the preferences and information themselves evolve. Preferences include morality. It is the institution of capitalism that allows that evolution to take place least obtrusively. Regardless of whether one agrees with the conclusion of the last sentence, there is, in fact, a relation between all economic institutions, including capitalism, and morality. It is logical but there is nothing "moral" about capitalism to save it from its fatal flaws See the above-given remark.
The following is on an even shakier ground.
... rabid individualism This, most certainly, has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.
...and the centralization ????????
This is what characterizes socialism, not capitalism. I am sure you know that.
-- merger & acquisition -- Nothing to do with capitalism: these very things occur and are advocated by central planners as well. It's just that central planners are more brutal and less effective when they implement M&A.
Further, your statement about M&A is one-sided --- through no fault of your own. This is because you hear from the press and "pundits" like Buchanan about only one part of the process. Were M&A the only process in the economy, you are correct --- we would by now how one company, "Firm U.S.A." We do not. This is because M&A is only the first stage of industry restructuring. At the second stage, business of the newly formed enterprise are sold or otherwise divested. Most of them, contrary to the press, survive.
The socially unpleasant part is the correction of wages that occurs in the process. This is a difficult social issue rather than purely economic. Many of the problems occur because labor becomes overpriced due to the overwhelming power of trade unions, coupled with the general ignorance of the populous. Specifically, the union representatives never trust management's anticipation of bad times, most often not even understanding how their own companies blend into the economy. Hence, they demand "their portion of the pie." When the troubles hit, they, similarly, prefer any other managerial actions rather than pay cuts. The management is often left with no alternative but layoffs. Even here, they are often restricted by past agreements. With no corrective action, the company starts going down, becomes cheap, is bought by someone else who --- and this is key --- is not bound by past agreements. It is only after M&A that one can lay off labor. To use Dostoyevsky’s words, "And who is at fault? Who is at fault?"
In the foregoing, please note, I am not suggesting that labor is the only problem: management, too, often does not guess right. The points are (i) you only hear about a minute part of the process and judge the whole process based on that part; (ii) all of these features are not exclusive to "capitalism;" and, (iii) difficulties are largely extra-economic. This last point may be broadly stated as a question, how does one govern and ignorant populous?
Finally, in the present climate of cynicism, you never hear about the victory that capitalism can claim as its own: unprecedented, unparalleled job creation. When you do hear about this in the press, it is passed as "human interest," or oddity. In 1999, for instance, corporations were luring undergraduates with expensive dinners and gala concerts. Why? Because the explosion in job creation created an enormous shortage of even unqualified labor. Now, when was the last time you heard this stated so?
that not only obliterates respect for the individual (the "masses" we've been slashing) The "masses" part is factually incorrect. The "respect" part is related to the question of who bares the responsibility and, actually, morality in general. Most often a laid off worker ends up finding another job at a smaller, perhaps, salary. Even this is not necessarily a pay cut, considering the rather generous severance packages. But even if so, why does this "obliterate respect?" And whose? Certainly not mine. My respect to you is not predicated on what you are making at your job. This may have become an American value, but it has nothing to do with capitalism.
but the "free enterprise" of all but those most closely connected to the Central Planners ... de facto state corporations. This is not even close to reality. You may want to study a bit more how these institutions actually function.
Capitalism -- like socialism -- is an economic and therefor purely materialistic construct. It is not only a construct but also a social institution. Once again, you disregard the fact that all ethics of the people are included, in principle, into the economy via preferences of the agents.
Which explains why the US gives more to charity per capita than any other nation on earth? Askel, those not conditioned by capitalism should be living in a caring, sharing, socialist utopia using your logic. Ever ask yourself why this is not so?
I am no longer a fan.
Capitalism doesn't explain that. It only explains why we have MORE to give than others.
The society's selflessness is directly proportional to its morality. I shouldn't wonder that the vestiges of Christendom (as existing HERE, rather than the formerly militant atheists Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or totally decadent and largely "democratic socialist" EU ... much less Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu nations) have instilled in them a greater sense of CHARITY for their neighbors.
LOL... don't know, but if we are not then we should be:) Got all these really cool bombs ya know, would be a shame to let them go to waste! hehehe
Example: Ted Turner is the largest private real estate holder in the U.S.; he is in possession of only one house or ranch at a time.
I dont need governemnt to sanction that fact that I own something, do I? That's exactly the point: you do. Without the government, you will be overcome by a mightier neighbor who will termination your "possesion" with one blow. Hobbsian nightmare.
George H. Bush and the rest of the capitalists banking on the "saving graces of Western Materialism" will be sorry to hear you say that.
They fully expect it to transform China, believe it or not.
(And they continue to believe -- for what reason, I have no idea -- that the "former communists" of the Soviet Union were likewise transformed. Ha!)
Religious beliefs produce a social order, which results in laws. Among many of those laws are those that, for example, protect private property, which are, of course, entirely consistent with the everything that preceded them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.