Freedom and Capitalism

[warrior_won]

It would be hard to level an argument against nitpicking when I could probably be accused of it quite often. In mentioning "historical" examples, I mean that a reasonably knowledgeable person can pick any society and go back in time, and know of a time where there was no minimum wage and simultaneously wealth was concentrated in the hands of a minority class. I left it at that hoping that people would accept historical as the proper emphasis and all the caveats that should go with history would necessary weaken any examples that I could currently come up with.

The reason I asked for examples, is because I couldn't think of any historical examples to support your hypothesis. Seems to me that it was the recognition of human and employee rights that prevented workers from being exploited as cheap and/or slave labour. A minimum wage was established as one element in establishing the rights of workers, but elevating the minimum wage only contributes to inflation. That means that the cost of living creeps upward, thus necessitating the need for another rise in the minimum wage.

Anyway, the net effect is that minimum wage earners are no further ahead by raising the minimum wage from $7 to $10, for example. It is quite likely that the opposite would occur. Instead of putting more money in the pockets of consumers, a dramatic raise in the minimum wage would put more folks on the unemployment line. When unemployment rises, wages actually go down because employers no longer have to offer good money for labour, because of the paradigm shift. i.e. instead of employers competing for employees, employees compete for employment.

Course, I'm in way over my head on this topic... But I do enjoy a challenge.

Plus, I really didn't feel like it was at all essential to my argument, so I left it intentionally weak, not wanting to string off debates on the applicability of early Canada, the early USA, pre-victorian England, pre renaissance European countries, and so forth.

I feel that it is necessary. If you were a prosecutor, do you think that a judge would be satisfied with you simply stating that the accused had a record of similar offenses? Hell, no! And even if the judge were satisfied with just your word, the defense sure as hell wouldn't be. The defense would be screaming, "What similar offences? What record? What history? What are you talking about Mr. Prosecutor?"

If one could keep the employment rate and the value of the currency constant, raising the minimum wage would indisputably make the minimum wage class richer: they would not be laid off or they would be but get jobs at equal or higher than minimum wage, the buying power of the money would be equal and so they are richer. Thus the dream of using it to empower the minimum wage class depends strongly on one's ability to control two capitalist indicators.

The employment rate and the value of the currency? Those are the only factors that would have to remain constant? What about the cost of producing the goods and services? Who pays for employers extra labour costs? The consumer! The consumer has to pay more for the same goods and services that cost him/her less before the rise in the minimum wage. It's a cycle. And the minimum wage earner is never further ahead. So an increased minimum wage is a placebo remedy. i.e. The minimum wage earner gets the psychological benefit of thinking that he/she is further ahead, but in reality he/she is still earning the same $7 per hour... Only by a different name.

One can also weaken the requirements and still arrive at net gains for the minimum wage class, so long as the net gain from those still employed is higher than the net loss from those who end up seeking welfare due to layoffs, one can argue that it is better is some restricted sense.

One could argue it, but one would be wrong.

In any case, given the reality of economies, doing away with the minimum wage or not increasing it with inflation would be disastrous from a social indicator standpoint.

Disastrous in what sense? Aren't labour costs the single largest contributers to inflation?

By the way, I'm just stumbling through this. I'm hoping you can help me out by teaching me this stuff as I go along. So don't laugh too much at my blunders. I'm learning... I really am. I'm just a bit slow.

 

[karrie]

iARTthere4iam

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .

the other way around of "people taking advantage of people", is "people taking advantage of people" Hmm. lol.

lol... and apparently I'm not the first to notice that!

 

[Toro]

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.

It is definitely true that "capitalism" and "freedom" are not necessarily the same thing. However, classical liberals - who believe in individual liberty and freedom first - ascribe to capitalism because it is the capitalist system which allows the individual to most fully reap the benefits of his labour. When the benefits of labour are taxed away and markets - which is the economic manifestation of free choices made by individuals - are obstructed by statism and central planning, then the will of the individual is subsumed to the state and violates the tenets of freedom.

Of course, this is semantics since all economic systems are mixed economies to some extent.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.

Your mistake is assuming capitalism is a government, it is not. It is, as you pointed out, a freedom. Our government is a parlimentary democracy, capitalism is the system that generates wealth, and socialism is the system that is supposed to protect us from falling too low financially. Capitalism could very well exist in a monarchy and freedom could exist where a tyrant ruled as long as the tyrant allowed it. Democracy gives us a say in the government but requires that we subjugate ourselves to the will of millions of others (and especially to the governing party). Capitalism allows us to pursue our own livelihood and to negotiate with others for things we want and need and socialism takes a piece of our work, steals from us, to provide a safety net should we ever find ourselves in economic trouble.

 

[coldstream]

Free market capitalism, and specifically that which has come to dominate the World Economy of the last 30 years trades on the word 'Free' as a fundmental aspiration of the human condition. It is however, anything but free.. its implementation has always been done through crises and tyrannies.. as in Chile's full acceptance of enshrined Chicago school dictates under Pinochet.. or the rule of the oligarchs in post Soviet Russia. It conflates corporate welfare with that of the nation. To do that it has to diminish the power of the state. It is every bit as destructive as socialism, but much more covert.

Naomi Campbell's book The Shock Doctrine gives a comprehensive view of the motives of methods of what its leading the world into an economic debacle of unkown depth and duration.. but it will be unprecedented.

 

[warrior_won]

Capitalism allows us to pursue our own livelihood and to negotiate with others for things we want and need and socialism takes a piece of our work, steals from us, to provide a safety net should we ever find ourselves in economic trouble.

Is that what Socialism is? Security against an economic downturn? I always thought that Socialism was the idea that the least productive should reap the rewards of the most productive. In other words, I always thought of Socialism as stealing from the rich to give a free ride to the poor.

I should probably elaborate on that. I kind of make myself sound like a student of the great Josef Stalin experiment. Remember that? Lenin had this idea that the state should look after the interests of the people. A noble idea, but not one that was terribly practical.

As you may or may not recall, Stalin and his government soon realized that the State did not have the resources to look after the people of the Union. So they allowed millions of people to just die. They looked after the unfortunates by allowing them to starve/freeze while miserably waiting for their early grave.

I suppose you could say the same thing of Capitalism. There are always those who point out that our great nations have homeless people in the streets, and that there are people who have trouble making ends meet, but Capitalism goes a little further in helping those in need than Socialism does. In a Capitalist state, the people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. Through taxation and philanthropy on the part of the haves, a capitalist state actually has fewer 'have-nots' than your average socialist state.

In Socialist state, the Government must have the resources to look after its people. If the government cannot meet the burden, then people suffering have no alternative but to suffer. They cannot rely on philanthropy because the state does not allow individuals to have excess.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, but everyone is given the opportunity to be a predator.

Socialism is a Zoo. If the Zoo keeper can't feed the animals, the Zoo keeper decides who gets put down.

Sorry if I sound like a grade schooler... But I am a grade schooler. Grade seven to be exact. Are you smarter than a grade schooler? lol

 

[darkbeaver]

A very insightful and intelligent post as always N, but I would disagree.

Most of those who believe in capitalism as the ideal - and I stress the word "ideal" - would say you have it backwards. It is capitalism that puts the individual first while socialism subjects the individuals to the powers and whims of the state. To the idealistic capitalist, the rights of the person in a socialist society is everywhere and always subsumed by the state, stripping away her ability to choose what is best for her. In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and placed ahead of those of the state. In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual. Thus, the ultimate objective is the highest possible quality of life, but that cannot be obtained in a socialist society where the state's interest always subsumes the individual's.

The (Democratic State)= (the electorate)=(the majority)" In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and must be placed ahead of those of the state."
"Isn't that state "the majority"?

I think that the highest possible quality of life cannot be delivered to the individual by capitalism, since the highest quality of life is not determined by accumulation., all that capitalism offers most of us is the promise of the highest possible accumulation which may not be the highest quality of life. What is the highest quality of life?

" In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual." I think that's been the practice, but I don't think it's because of flawed ideology, but rather flawed execution.


iartthere4iam said;
"The right to make a living by using your talents and hard work is one of the greatest blessings we can hope for. Capitalism is the natural result of freedom of action. Capitalism is not Walmart, or "big" oil, or the stock market but the thousands of private enterprises that employ the majority of us in this country."

I believe capitalism is a natural result of freedom of action, I also believe that communism is a natural result of freedom of action. Which promises the best chance of continuation of the state? What's important for the herd a concert or a solo?

I don't think rights exist in the sense of a natural thing, I think it's ability to make a living that's a great blessing. Thousands of private enterprises have been eaten to build a muscle of capitalism like Walmart. Where did you think it came from? You should reconsider socialism before you're eaten by the capitalists.


peace on earth and goodwill to women begats piece on earth and more goodwill to women:smile:

 

[Unforgiven]

The problem is within both capitalism and socialism that power sinks into the depression that is caused by the weight of corporate structure where a few are privileged over the majority who for the most part are favored with less restrictions than the common with the odd sacrificial tossed up to the wrath of the common through the courts when they get caught with their hands dirty. This way the status quo remains while the misleading claim that fairness for all is paramount.

I feel what is needed is a balance of both and a good dose of social liberaltarianism thrown in over individual rights.

 

[Niflmir]

Your mistake is assuming capitalism is a government, it is not. It is, as you pointed out, a freedom. Our government is a parlimentary democracy, capitalism is the system that generates wealth, and socialism is the system that is supposed to protect us from falling too low financially. Capitalism could very well exist in a monarchy and freedom could exist where a tyrant ruled as long as the tyrant allowed it. Democracy gives us a say in the government but requires that we subjugate ourselves to the will of millions of others (and especially to the governing party). Capitalism allows us to pursue our own livelihood and to negotiate with others for things we want and need and socialism takes a piece of our work, steals from us, to provide a safety net should we ever find ourselves in economic trouble.

I called capitalism "a government philosophy" not a form of government. In particular it is a certain type of economic system or politics which strive towards it.

I feel that it is necessary. If you were a prosecutor, do you think that a judge would be satisfied with you simply stating that the accused had a record of similar offenses? Hell, no! And even if the judge were satisfied with just your word, the defense sure as hell wouldn't be. The defense would be screaming, "What similar offences? What record? What history? What are you talking about Mr. Prosecutor?"

Not at all. In fact, courts are often the base cases of where a debate can occur where multiple points are made but evidence for some of them are not entertained because the case is settled before those points need to be considered. Lately I have been reading many cases on freedom of expression in the supreme court of canada. The points made by the appellant are generally:

"Such and such a section of such and such an act violates section 2.b of the charter. This section is not validated by section 1 of the charter."

Those are two seperate points of law and two seperate assertions made by the appellant. However, the court will only ever make a section 1 analysis if section 2.b is indeed contravened.

Here, I didn't think that historical examples were actual evidence but were more items of interest, so I mentioned it for interested parties, not as a form of evidence. I tried to emphasise my actual argument, and in no way relied on it, as I believed it to be a red herring in any case.

The employment rate and the value of the currency? Those are the only factors that would have to remain constant? What about the cost of producing the goods and services? Who pays for employers extra labour costs? The consumer! The consumer has to pay more for the same goods and services that cost him/her less before the rise in the minimum wage. It's a cycle. And the minimum wage earner is never further ahead. So an increased minimum wage is a placebo remedy. i.e. The minimum wage earner gets the psychological benefit of thinking that he/she is further ahead, but in reality he/she is still earning the same $7 per hour... Only by a different name.

If the price of something rises, than you haven't really controlled the value of the currency. I did not say it was possible; I said that were it possible to do so minimum wage would be an obvious betterment. Of course I used the extreme merely to illustrate that it can be possible to achieve social betterment through a minimum wage. In reality what you need to do is cause the rise in the consumer price index integrated over your minimum wage population to be less than the net gains from the minimum wage increase.

 

[darkbeaver]

Is that what Socialism is? Security against an economic downturn? I always thought that Socialism was the idea that the least productive should reap the rewards of the most productive. In other words, I always thought of Socialism as stealing from the rich to give a free ride to the poor.

I should probably elaborate on that. I kind of make myself sound like a student of the great Josef Stalin experiment. Remember that? Lenin had this idea that the state should look after the interests of the people. A noble idea, but not one that was terribly practical.

As you may or may not recall, Stalin and his government soon realized that the State did not have the resources to look after the people of the Union. So they allowed millions of people to just die. They looked after the unfortunates by allowing them to starve/freeze while miserably waiting for their early grave.

I suppose you could say the same thing of Capitalism. There are always those who point out that our great nations have homeless people in the streets, and that there are people who have trouble making ends meet, but Capitalism goes a little further in helping those in need than Socialism does. In a Capitalist state, the people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. Through taxation and philanthropy on the part of the haves, a capitalist state actually has fewer 'have-nots' than your average socialist state.

In Socialist state, the Government must have the resources to look after its people. If the government cannot meet the burden, then people suffering have no alternative but to suffer. They cannot rely on philanthropy because the state does not allow individuals to have excess.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, but everyone is given the opportunity to be a predator.

Socialism is a Zoo. If the Zoo keeper can't feed the animals, the Zoo keeper decides who gets put down.

Sorry if I sound like a grade schooler... But I am a grade schooler. Grade seven to be exact. Are you smarter than a grade schooler? lol

( capitalism is survival of the most ruthless, that involves not giving the enemy any oportunity.

 

[MikeyDB]

Capitalism is what's driven the social engine in North America and distributed so much suffering to the rest of the world. We paid the price for gasoline to nations who don't regard "human-rights" as a concept that applies to women and others. We buy the cheapest knock-offs from China and Banagaladesh that turn the willing user-societies of North America into self-absorbed "me-first" consumers without conscience.

We owe Capitalism the plaudits due for marginalizing humanity all over the planet.

We owe Capitalism for the greed that drives the wars we enter.....

Is Socialism any better?

Nope.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Capitalism is what's driven the social engine in North America and distributed so much suffering to the rest of the world. We paid the price for gasoline to nations who don't regard "human-rights" as a concept that applies to women and others. We buy the cheapest knock-offs from China and Banagaladesh that turn the willing user-societies of North America into self-absorbed "me-first" consumers without conscience.

We owe Capitalism the plaudits due for marginalizing humanity all over the planet.

We owe Capitalism for the greed that drives the wars we enter.....

Is Socialism any better?

Nope.

Everything is crap? Nice nhilism.

 

[warrior_won]

I think that the highest possible quality of life cannot be delivered to the individual by capitalism, since the highest quality of life is not determined by accumulation., all that capitalism offers most of us is the promise of the highest possible accumulation which may not be the highest quality of life. What is the highest quality of life?

That's why Capitalism provides the highest quality of life. You are correct in your assertion that quality of life is more than mere accumulation of wealth. The premise that people are rewarded for their efforts motivates them to put in more effort. So there is the constant drive in a capitalist society to make things easier, better, and more efficient.

A socialist society generally has workers that work harder for less. They don't enjoy the many life enriching benefits that those in a capitalist society enjoy, simply because there is no motivating factor for employing them. In other words, the reward for hard work and no work at all is the same in a socialist society.

 

[warrior_won]

( capitalism is survival of the most ruthless, that involves not giving the enemy any oportunity.

Yes, it most certainly is. It most certainly is. :lol:

 

[warrior_won]

Not at all. In fact, courts are often the base cases of where a debate can occur where multiple points are made but evidence for some of them are not entertained because the case is settled before those points need to be considered. Lately I have been reading many cases on freedom of expression in the supreme court of canada. The points made by the appellant are generally:

"Such and such a section of such and such an act violates section 2.b of the charter. This section is not validated by section 1 of the charter."

Those are two seperate points of law and two seperate assertions made by the appellant. However, the court will only ever make a section 1 analysis if section 2.b is indeed contravened.

Okay, let me see if I'm following you here. lol. Section 1 of the Charter guarantees the rights and freedoms as set out in the Charter, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 2 lists the Fundamental Freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Paragraph 2(b) guarantees the freedom of expression, thought, belief, and the press.

So you're making the argument that Section 1 can only be considered if it is determined that a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter has been contravened. In your example, you're looking at Section 2(b) as it specifically relates to freedom of expression.

Well, obviously, it will have to be determined whether your rights under the Charter have been denied or infringed. I mean, that will be the crux of your argument in a Charter case, right? You wouldn't make a Charter case if you did not feel that you had somehow been denied a right or freedom guaranteed under it. So yeah, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether your rights have been violated before they can look at whether that violation was justified.

I don't see where you're going with this. It seems a bit of a red herring.

Here, I didn't think that historical examples were actual evidence but were more items of interest, so I mentioned it for interested parties, not as a form of evidence. I tried to emphasise my actual argument, and in no way relied on it, as I believed it to be a red herring in any case.

Interested parties? You mentioned that there were many historical examples. I am one of those interested parties. I asked you to provide one or two of those examples. Instead of providing the examples, you entered into a long winded diatribe on why you don't think it necessary to provide examples.

Are there many examples? Yes or no? Do you know of any? If so, why are you reluctant to provide them? If not, why are you attempting to embellish your argument with information that you know to be incorrect?

If the price of something rises, than you haven't really controlled the value of the currency.

The price of a good or service is not determined exclusively by the value of the currency. Controlling the currency does not mean that the price of a good or service will not fluctuate. There are many factors involved in determining the price of something. I'm no expert in this area, but I figure anyone with half a brain can figure out what some of them are: cost of raw materials, cost of labour, cost of transportation, taxes, cost of energy, cost of property (rent, mortgage, whatever), etcetera.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:


<a rel="nofollow" href="http://m-w.com/dictionary/capitalism" target="_blank">As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.

My goals as they relate to capitalism have nothing to do with "social freedom" but rather individual freedom. Focusing on corporations as opposed to individuals confuses the issue. I do not assume capitalism is the only concern for a society. It is a concern for individuals and individuals make up a society. I only want to make it clear what capitalism is and to inject some appreciation for all it offers. Capitalism is not materialism. Corporate welfare is not capitalism. Freedom of action is understood to stop short of violating other's rights and so should it be understood of capitalism.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

( capitalism is survival of the most ruthless, that involves not giving the enemy any oportunity.

Let's assume that I am a plumber. For a fee I install and repair plumbing. Who is my enemy. My competition? Other plumbers? Opportunity for what? Why would I have to be ruthless? If there are too many plumbers in the business and as a result prices that plumbers charge starts to fall and as a result of that plumbers can no longer make as good a living as before. The number of people taking up the trade will fall, plumbers may move to some underserviced town or take up other employment. So What? If plumbers started vandalising eachother's work or murdering competing plumbers than that would be a legal issue to be dealth with by the couts. Generally these issues are balanced out by the market. So what if feelings are hurt. Would the socialist solution be to add a tax to the citizens and subsidise plumbers so that none has to abandon their chosen field? Is that a better option?

 

[gopher]

`` Government spending accounts for a third of the economy in Canada and the US.``


eliminate the military industrial complex and much of that would be gone in the USA

 

[Toro]

`` Government spending accounts for a third of the economy in Canada and the US.``


eliminate the military industrial complex and much of that would be gone in the USA

Goph, my man, this ain't the 1950s no more.

Considering that military spending is about 20% of the federal budget and 4% of the economy, then you'd be down to about 30%. And of that 4%, half is procurement. So the mighty "military-industrial complex" accounts for 2% of GDP, or less than Wal-Mart.

(The good thing about responding to Gopher is that I immediately remembered I had a Guinness left in the fridge. Cheers!)

 

[L Gilbert]

Um ...

Capitalism ised wisely is pretty good, IMO. Unfortunately, we rarely see it. Pretty much the same as anything else we have developed; it's rarely used wisely.