You use words like "greed" and "exploitation" as though they were bad things. Let's take a look at those words.
First, the dictionary defines "greed" as... An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. Who determines what "excessive" is? You? The government? We determine for ourselves what is an appropriate level of desire for material wealth. The desire for material wealth is not greed, only an "excessive" amount of it which can't be determined by anyone other than the person in which the desire for wealth exists. Let's move on to the word "exploitation". What does it mean? According to the dictionary... The first definition of "exploitation" is as follows: The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage. I don't see anything wrong with this. It means getting the most bang for your buck. It means not being wasteful. It means being efficient. The second definition of "exploitation" is a bit more specious. It says... Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes. Who determines what is selfish? If I hire someone for a job, and I make more money on what they produce than I pay them, is it selfish? Is making a profit being "selfish"? Only a fool would claim such and only a moron would stay in business if they weren't making a profit. Claims of "exploitation" in the connation of using people selfishly hold no water. If I give someone a job in a third world nation for the normal salary in that region for a person with that skill level, and I make the maximum profit I can, I have not exploited them in the second definition, but I have in the first definition. I have made the most money I could, while at the same time I have not used force or coercion against anyone. I have not harmed anyone. I have not done anything detrimental to those people. In fact the exact opposite is true. I have given them opportunity they might otherwise not have. I have put food in their bellies when they'd otherwise be starving. Companies like Nike are true heroes. They give opportunity to the most needy on earth and pay them a fair salary for their work, while at the same time they are being responsible to their shareholders in making the maximum profit possible. You ask for me to show you a single nation where peaceful capitalism thrives. It once thrived in this nation, but the more and more a government intrudes on the market, the less and less peaceful it becomes. More regulation = less peace. Capitalism works perfectly with human nature. Every person does what is in their own best interests and the result is everyone is better off and nobody is worse for it. Your laughable claims that financial competition always ends in violence is absolutely untenable. The more free the market, the more free and prosperous the people. The more unrestricted the capitalism, the less violence occurs. Your ludicrous assertation that capitalism brings about violence is diametrically opposed to the truth. Capitalism is absolutely and completely devoid of violence. It's the only system that is. --- In [email protected], "Anna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Financial competition fosters greed and exploitation. Show me one example where it does not. > One single country where a peaceful capitalism thrives. > You are thinking in idealistic terms. You assume that people are naturally just and honest. fact is, that people given opportunity to abuse, > will take it. Planning a political or social system can never be successful until you take into consideration human character. > Communists did the same mistake believing that it is possible to condition a person to be altruistic and work for common good. > As the practice has shown, people do not like to work for common good, only for their own, nor they like to share an opportunity when it arises. > Capitalism on the other hand thrives on these traits. But it does not mean that the results can be positive. Financial competition without a sense of inner justice must always end in violence. To remedy, you need the laws. But... when you introduce too many laws, it no longer is libertarian, is it? > > Anna ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
