At 3:48 PM -0700 on 7/13/99, Rob Cozens wrote:
>>Would you be happier if capitalism had never existed?
>
>There you go Anthony, right to the heart of the question again.
>
>If we limit our discussion to the present physical reality I can't say,
>because it does exist.
Nice dodge :)
>I will say this:
>
>* I don't accept a priori that the life of a modern day capitalist on Wall
>Street is happier, healthier, or of higher quality in toto than the life of
>an aboriginal person isolated from modern technology (if there are still
>any).
I will say that such people existed in the Middle Ages, and over 50% of
them died before turning 10.
And I bet there are some African tribes which would meet the description.
>
>* I see a great disparity between the theory and practice of capitalism,
>and feel any discussion must differentiate between the theory of laissez
>faire capitalism (do you know of an example anywhere on the planet)
I know of none, other than underground economies and yardsales, perhaps.
>and
>capitalism as implemented by human society. To really understand your
>position I would need to know whether your concept of laissez faire
>capitalism allows:
>
>Government taxes on business?
Drop the "on business" part. I don't allow it _at all_. It's an affront on
the right of property.
>Government subsidies of business?
Seeing the above, I think that's been answered.
>Businesses employing people to influence legislation?
It should not be relevant. There should be no reason. The extent which
Government should legislate is the punishements for various crimes, how to
keep order, provide for a national defence, and to establish courts.
Businesses could not play for legislative favors, as there would be none.
These favors traditionaly violate a combination of the three rights.
When I say provide for a defense, I mean minimally. Most (for example, the
army) should be volunteers. And I mean a _defense_.
>Government tariffs on imports or exports?
No (although that is where I'd be most leniant towards an implementation to
support an air force, for example. But I think it could be done otherwise).
It's a violation of the rights of property and liberty.
>Businesses conspiring to divide territories and fix prices?
>Businesses selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business?
>Businesses threating suppliers who do business with competitors?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Stopping them is a violation of the right of liberty.
>Unchecked business consumption of irreplacable natural resources?
So long as they own them (I would not have any tragedy's of the commons,
because I would have _no_ commons). But I don't know which are
irreplacable, and I don't think they would: If they consume them all, they
would have no more.
Stopping them violates the rights of property and liberty.
>Unchecked dumping of industrial wastes into water, pits, or the atmosphere?
No. You can't pollute other's property [right of property]. Other than
that, if you own it, yes [right of liberty].
>The rights of workers to organize and bargain as a unit?
Yes [right of liberty].
>Businesses engaging in hazardous activities without regard to, or
>responsibility for, the welfare of their employees?
If the employees are told it is safe, then I'd call that fraud, punishable
in court.
And I'd expect the unions, and the competition for employees, to take care
of offenders who do not commit fraud.
>Businesses issuing false advertising or promoting fraud?
No. Fraud ultimately boils down to a violation of one of the rights.
>Businesses selling products they know to have safety or health risks?
Not if they claim it's safe (see false advertising). But they would not:
It'd hurt their reputation. And if you don't have a government saying "yes,
it's safe", that's all consumers could go by. Reputation is _very_
important. If someone comes up to you off the street and offers you medical
services, you're not going to accept: He has no reputation, at least with
you. The same would apply -- but more so -- if there were no government
agency.
And I do support trademarks (and their varients), so an organization could
get together and certify perople. Except that this organization could not
afford false-certification: It would harm their reputation, making their
mark worthless.
>Government bailouts of business?
No.
>Corporate buyouts (a la Cannon Industries) that bankrupt pension plans and
>leave hundreds of former employees without the benefits they paid for?
I'm not familiar with Cannon Industries, could you be more specific?
But, I'm for the honoring of contracts [you can't have much trade without it].
>
>* It seems to me no one sat around thinking of ways to regulate business
>until businessmen acted so irresponsibly it became evident to society that
>allowing business to operate unchecked was not in the best overall
>interest--exactly the opposite of what Adam Smith promised.
I doubt that. Or maybe there was a specific example, but had they waited a
year or few, all would of fixed itself -- and done a far better job than
their regulation.
More likely, they wanted power.
My theory of how government arose is that someone did not approve of their
neighbor And I don't mean bevcause he was a murderer.
>
>* Which leads me to my final point: Isn't the primary argument for
>capitalism, "everyone will be better off", rooted in altruism?
Yes, and that's the logical flaw by which the alleged defenders of
capitalism laid it to rest in the graveyard of history.
I don't defend capitalism because everyone will be better off (though they
will). I defend capitalism because it is the only system which supports
individual rights, which I believe the be basic to human nature.
I I take the folowing as an axiom:
Every individual has the right to his life.
I can then derive:
If a person is to have the right to his life, in order to use
that right, he must be able to support his life. He must be able
to say: "That food is mine because I produced it" and not have a
stronger man (a thug) take it from him. He must have the right to
property.
or
If a person has the right to life, then he must also have the
right to the products of his life: They are, in many cases, a
part of his life. This is the right to property.
If a person has the right to property, he must have the right to
use that property. Saying "that is my food" but not being allowed
to eat it is rather silly. He must have the right to dispose of
his property as he chooses; he must have the right to liberty.
or, if you don't take the deriviations above, I'll claim them
axioms, too.
I can then say:
If a person has the right to life, liberty, and property, and wishes
to trade, he should do so in a system that supports that. This
system must allow him to own what he trades for (right to
property), allow him to trade as he pleases when he pleases (right to
liberty) and must not allow others to take his life in order to
compel him to do anything (right to life). This system, in which
a person owns and is allowed to trade freely and in which his rights
are protected is known as laissez-faire capitalism.
I guess I'm an Objectivist to a large extent.
