Is Capitalism an Immoral Economic Principle?

[MagnetMan]

Are we gambling with stocks and bonds and commodities on the temple floor of the global estate?

Can one make a profit without doing so at the expense of another?

Is capitalism not simply an artificial extension of jungle law, with the biggest and strongest ending up with all the bananas?

Will capitalism not eventually have enough power to over-ride state controls on monopolies and end up channeling all the money into a single coffer and put us back to where we started when we sacked the king?

Is it right for one to privately capitalize on the combined genuis of Ages of ancestral effort, make use of our vast infrastructure to enrich one's self a thousand fold more than the minions who work to support it?

Can we sustain the viability of capitalism's basic tenet of private ownership, when all the laws that define and register it, and the vast bureauccracy required to oversee and police its boundaries have already bankrupted the state treasuries and filled our prisons ot overflowing?

What happens when the gap between rich and poor reaches the breaking point?

Is "It aint' perfect but it is the best there is" the correct response to growing concerns over global inequality and rising resistence by poorer nations to America's over-powering economic hegemony.?

If the answer as to whether capitalism is unethical is in the affirmative, then what can replace it as a viable ethical alternative?

I am not advocating Marxist economic rationalism here. These are ligitimate ethical questions that are concerned with the sustainability of our current economic system and not simply a venue to attack others.

[MagnetMan]

Bump due to error

[wil]

Is capitalism not simply an artificial extension of jungle law, with the biggest and strongest ending up with all the bananas?

I think it can be....but again free will enters the picture.

I'm thinking Bill Gates....envisioning a computer on every desk and then parlaying that vision into a fortune and then giving a big chunk of the fortune away.

Do all do that, no, the wallmart inheritance created five people amongst the wealthiest in the world who feel a 1% tithe for being of the lucky sperm club is sufficient.

Many churches have created vast fortunes...are they using capitalism?

Is it right for one to privately capitalize on the combined genuis of Ages of ancestral effort, make use of our vast infrastructure to enrich one's self a thousand fold more than the minions who work to support it?

I often think yes, as they are the ones that stuck their neck out, and they are the ones virtually paying the mortgages for all the minions. Now do they have the opportunity to do better, and should they spend the money by giving it back to those who make up their workforce, or put it back into the company so they can pay more mortgages, and put food on more tables? I sure wouldn't want to see this legislated, often seems the more the gov't trys to fix something it is the little guys that suffer.

[suanni]

I don't think capitalism is an immoral economic priniciple
If you've worked for it, took the chances and succeeded using a moral approach then good for you. It only becomes immoral when immoral values are used to build up business

[Guard]

Are we gambling with stocks and bonds and commodities on the temple floor of the global estate?

Sorry Magnetman, I'm not sure I understand your question.

Can one make a profit without doing so at the expense of another?

Yes, and if you don't do it someone else will, this applies to all levels of trade from the individual to the corporates. It works for me. If no one made a profit, who in their right mind would go to work.

Is capitalism not simply an artificial extension of jungle law, with the biggest and strongest ending up with all the bananas?

There's nothing at all artificial about capitalism, it's simply an economic system, we all know how it works and why it sometimes doesn't. It's real enough to prompt you to ask these questions.

Will capitalism not eventually have enough power to over-ride state controls on monopolies and end up channeling all the money into a single coffer and put us back to where we started when we sacked the king?

Capitalism won't, but corporations might !

Is it right for one to privately capitalize on the combined genuis of Ages of ancestral effort, make use of our vast infrastructure to enrich one's self a thousand fold more than the minions who work to support it?

Yes, that's why the effort was made, so that future generations could benefit by it. same for the infrastructure.

Can we sustain the viability of capitalism's basic tenet of private ownership, when all the laws that define and register it, and the vast bureauccracy required to oversee and police its boundaries have already bankrupted the state treasuries and filled our prisons ot overflowing?

Can we possibly sustain the economic damage which would undoubtedly ensue by switching to an alternative economy ?.

What happens when the gap between rich and poor reaches the breaking point?

When the breaking point is reached, our perception of breaking point will be altered, by rich spin doctors of course.

Is "It aint' perfect but it is the best there is" the correct response to growing concerns over global inequality and rising resistence by poorer nations to America's over-powering economic hegemony.?

Yes, it's the only considered response.

If the answer as to whether capitalism is unethical is in the affirmative, then what can replace it as a viable ethical alternative?

The simple answer to that is, there isn't a viable alternative, but I suspect you already know that. In this case, affirmative or negative is irrelevant.

All just my own opinions of course.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by wil

I think it can be....but again free will enters the picture.

I'm thinking Bill Gates....envisioning a computer on every desk and then parlaying that vision into a fortune and then giving a big chunk of the fortune away.

There is free will for kids who want it all /and free will for adults who see the value in giving it all. Big difference here. It's your choice.

I think Steve Jobs was the man who envisioned the PC in every home.

If we are talking about access to the internet via Windows - the vision of instant information freely available to all, predated Bill Gates by decades if not centuries. I know as a documentary film maker thirty years ago, I was wondering how to get everything from a recipe for aunt Jamima's fruit cake, to how nuclear fission works, beyond book encyclopedias onto a world-wide projection system. Leaving thirty billion still tucked away when just one thousandth of that is more than enough for a life-time of personal security, makes no big deal out of giving away twenty billion. Besides, if he did not, somebody would probably do more than mash a cream pie in his face and I certainly would not use Windows.

The point I was trying to make is that nothing can be manufactured or marketed if generations before had not built the infrastructure that allows us to do so. If Bill Gates had to pay for every step of the way, he would not get past his desk plan, let alone be rolling in billions Billionairs use all that hard effort virtually for free - even hire tax lawers to seek every loophole. The basic fact is that we all stand on the shoulders of the giants that preceeeded us. From this moral standpoiunt, everything belongs equally to all. The money he is giving to heal the sick is not getting to the root of the problem of what ails us. As humane and necessary as it is for us to care for the ill, the problem is growing exponentially, so all we are doing is applying a bandaid to a patient that is rapidly hemmoraging to death.

I made a lot of other important points about the underlying moral implications of a fixed capitalistic mind-set as well - especially the over-riding problem about the sustainability of an inefficient economic system that has left more than half the world not only unemployed, but starving to death as well. The idea that what happens abroad has nothing to do with us is hogwash. We make big bucks out there. The buck stops where-ever the buck makes a profit. People are starving in Africa not because they are lazy or stupid - but because agri-business has put their small-holdings out of business, leaving then without collateral to make loans and start up anew.

I would be intersted to see how you and anybody else answers each and every question I posed, not just a selected few. I think when you look at the economic problem from a global perspective, and take a little more time thinking it out, you might be in for a shake up and your current indoctrinated view might well undergo a drastic change.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Guard

Are we gambling with stocks and bonds and commodities on the temple floor of the global estate?

Sorry Magnetman, I'm not sure I understand your question.

Investment is a gamble. There was a time when we invested purely to advance a necessary technology. We knew and trusted the men who asked us for it. Now it is mainly a numbers racket for millions who simply do it for a quick turn-over, and could careless what the product is - even if the profit might be devastating for somebody on the other side of the globe. So the question is, is the gamble still moral? As far as I am concerned, the globe is a temple floor and I am concerned and angry enough to throw the traders out.

Can one make a profit without doing so at the expense of another?

Yes, and if you don't do it someone else will, this applies to all levels of trade from the individual to the corporates. It works for me. If no one made a profit, who in their right mind would go to work.

Yes and that is what was said about the Abomb too - and via that logic initiated an insane arms race. You have not stated what you feel about the expense incurred by your neighbor who lost out on the deal. In a fair trade both should profit.

Man is not innately lazy. We are several millions years removed from the ape. Most of that time was spent working without the idea of the profit motive. 600 generations of toiling in the soil during the Bronze Age has has imprinted a sound work-ethic in our genes. Try and loll around the house and let the rest of the family do the work and see how your conscience pricks you - or should. I personally do not need a carrot dangled in front of my nose in order to get up and do something that ensures my survival and that of my family. Nor should anybody else.

Is capitalism not simply an artificial extension of jungle law, with the biggest and strongest ending up with all the bananas?

There's nothing at all artificial about capitalism, it's simply an economic system, we all know how it works and why it sometimes doesn't. It's real enough to prompt you to ask these questions.

Nobody suggested it was not real. If it is not artificial,(ie. man-made) why was it not around during the Stone, Bronze and half the Iron Ages?

Will capitalism not eventually have enough power to over-ride state controls on monopolies and end up channeling all the money into a single coffer and put us back to where we started when we sacked the king?

Capitalism won't, but corporations might !

We're splitting hairs here.

Is it right for one to privately capitalize on the combined genuis of Ages of ancestral effort, make use of our vast infrastructure to enrich one's self a thousand fold more than the minions who work to support it?

Yes, that's why the effort was made, so that future generations could benefit by it. same for the infrastructure.

The effort was made to ensure equality. Our ancestors both worked and fought for it. They would turn over in their graves if they saw the paychecks corporate execs are taking home today.

Can we sustain the viability of capitalism's basic tenet of private ownership, when all the laws that define and register it, and the vast bureauccracy required to oversee and police its boundaries have already bankrupted the state treasuries and filled our prisons ot overflowing?

Can we possibly sustain the economic damage which would undoubtedly ensue by switching to an alternative economy ?.

You ducked the question by asking another. There is another alternative. Show me that you are serious and answer the question honestly then we'll talk.

What happens when the gap between rich and poor reaches the breaking point?

When the breaking point is reached, our perception of breaking point will be altered, by rich spin doctors of course.

Too flip for my taste.

Is "It aint' perfect but it is the best there is" the correct response to growing concerns over global inequality and rising resistence by poorer nations to America's over-powering economic hegemony.?

Yes, it's the only considered response.

Hmm. dare I answer that? Don't you believe everything can be improved upon?

If the answer as to whether capitalism is unethical is in the affirmative, then what can replace it as a viable ethical alternative?

The simple answer to that is, there isn't a viable alternative, but I suspect you already know that. In this case, affirmative or negative is irrelevant.

Has it not struck you that I did not pose all these very serious questions without having pondered on all the answers myself? I believe that there is a viable alternative, and am willing to post it - but as the old adage goes, never cast pearls......

[quote[ All just my own opinions of course.[/quote]

I am afraid I have found all your opinions to be off the mark. If you are truly interested you might try again

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Investment is a gamble. There was a time when we invested purely to advance a necessary technology. We knew and trusted the men who asked us for it. Now it is mainly a numbers racket for millions who simply do it for a quick turn-over, and could careless what the product is - even if the profit might be devastating for somebody on the other side of the globe. So the question is, is the gamble still moral? As far as I am concerned, the globe is a temple floor and I am concerned and angry enough to throw the traders out.




Yes and that is what was said about the Abomb too - and via that logic initiated an insane arms race. You have not stated what you feel about the expense incurred by your neighbor who lost out on the deal. In a fair trade both should profit.

Man is not innately lazy. We are several millions years removed from the ape. Most of that time was spent working without the idea of the profit motive. 600 generations of toiling in the soil during the Bronze Age has has imprinted a sound work-ethic in our genes. Try and loll around the house and let the rest of the family do the work and see how your conscience pricks you - or should. I personally do not need a carrot dangled in front of my nose in order to get up and do something that ensures my survival and that of my family. Nor should anybody else.



Nobody suggested it was not real. If it is not artificial,(ie. man-made) why was it not around during the Stone, Bronze and half the Iron Ages?



We're splitting hairs here.



The effort was made to ensure equality. Our ancestors both worked and fought for it. They would turn over in their graves if they saw the paychecks corporate execs are taking home today.



You ducked the question by asking another. There is another alternative. Show me that you are serious and answer the question honestly then we'll talk.



Too flip for my taste.



Hmm. dare I answer that? Don't you believe everything can be improved upon?



Has it not struck you that I did not pose all these very serious questions without having pondered on all the answers myself? I believe that there is a viable alternative, and am willing to post it - but as the old adage goes, never cast pearls......



I am afraid I have found all your opinions to be off the mark. If you are truly interested you might try again

Investing in a family is a gamble. However the potential payoff well outweighs potential losses.

Investing in one's eduction and health is a gamble, however the same applies as above.

Capitalism is neither good nor bad. It just is a means by which to run business. How it is used is a different matter.

Communism is neither good nor bad. It just is a means by which to run a society. How it is used is a different matter.

Socialism, I take exception to. The propensity for losing sight of the original goal of equalizing all citizens, for the darker robotisizing society to the conformity of the select few, is high, and very tempting as history shows.

There is a town in Michigan called Dearborn. Prior to 1900 it was called Springfield and Springwells (just a farm community outside of Detroit). Then an entrepeneur from the community named Henry, met up with a buddy of his named Thomas, and another one named Alexander. With the three of them tossing ideas together and wanting to give something to America (a dream), Henry finally came up with his plan. He wanted to build something every American could afford, that would last, and he believed in paying his employees a decent wage, and insisted that they live in decent housing, have decent schools for the children, and provide a product to society that each employee could be proud of, and each American would respect and want. It was the Model-T. And from 1905 to 1917, Henry Ford's Model-Ts mobilized America. Ford employees earned an unprecidented $5.00 a day, and lived in sturdy brick and stone and western framed houses. Underneath the Rotunda/Rouge plant Thomas Edison created a DC powerplant to act as the city's backup in case General Electric's power grid failed. And Alexander Bell outfitted Detroit with instant communication.

Henry Ford did not manage the finances (he was the dreamer), but had one hell of an accountant who understood capital investment both in the company and the community. Sure, there were issues (with unions, and the Pinkertons), but the original concept and design worked nearly flawlessly, and Detroit and Dearborn blossomed.

Detroit became Motor Capital of the World, and Ford Motor Company put the US on wheels.

Ford Motor Company built Fordson HighSchool in 1927 (top rated Technical High school until the 1990s), Later, Edsel Ford and Dearborn High were built (for accelerated Academics). Colleges and Univerty were built, Hospitals were built, and small businesses bloomed until Detroit itself reached 2,000,000 strong in population. Before Eisenhower ever came up with his Interstate freeway system, Michigan had intricate paved highway roads and traffic signals. Michigan Avenue (which runs from Detroit to Chicago) was nothing but a mud rut and wood planks. By 1920, it was a 525 mile concrete ribbon that linked the two cities.

A family could by a Ford Model-T for $500.00 (half a year's wage), on a loan through Ford, with 1/4 % interest.

The Dodge Brothers, Chrysler, Cadillac, Studebaker, AMC, Nash, and other car companies came along later, but Ford paved the way, not only for a reliable and quality product, but for giving back to society in ways the other companies never achieved. And Ford never told the governments how to run their offices. He was opinionated, but emphasized that point.

He did not put up with Unions, however. He hated them. He considered them a blight. He wanted his employees loyal to him and his/their company. In return, his company was to be loyal to the people, the society and the community.

And for awhile, his dream was realized...

No, capitalism in not an immoral economic principle. But Pariahs must be watched out for by society, and dreamers and entrepeneurs.

I will point out a crudety but a truism Magnetman. One drop of pure water cannot clear a cesspool, however one drop of excrement can ruin a pool of pure water...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[MagnetMan]

No, capitalism in not an immoral economic principle. But Pariahs must be watched out for by society, and dreamers and entrepeneurs.

I will point out a crudety but a truism Magnetman. One drop of pure water cannot clear a cesspool, however one drop of excrement can ruin a pool of pure water...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

I appreciate your respect for ancestral effort. Capitalism, like colonialism certainly served its purpose in establishing a New World Order in the American wilderness - as it did in all other European colonies. And men like Henry Ford were pioneer entrepreneurs to be admired. Without them and the exploitative economic system that financed their efforts, none of us would be enjoying the technological advantages that we do today. But there has been a huge destructive price to pay for it. There is a massive clean-up job waiting to be done - together with a doubling of the mouths to feed, educate, clothe, house and motivate, during each succeeding twenty five years of the 21st Century.

In this thread I am exploring the massive global realities that are facing us in the "New Age" (the one that so many seem seem to think is simply a hippie fad) I am asking you and others whether or not it is time for massive social and spiritual change. In order to do so, many sacred cows will have to be sacrificed. Change never comes easy and it is natural for people to dig their heels in and refuse to budge on past principle, no matter how obvious or urgent the need to move on may be. We have lost scores of civilizations in the past because of that all-to-human reluctance to let go of old tried and true customs and face the unknown dangers of an entirely new paradigm.

Our ancestors in all past Ages had to burn their totems, guillotine their kings, let go of animism and shamanism, challenge their sacred scriptures and so on, and go through the trauma of of four distinct past Ages of mass change. We are facing a 5th such mass shift today. I spent 35 years in Africa. Seven years in the Middle and Far East. Two years in Europe and 20 years here in America. That has given me a global perspective. There is no more room left for making a profit in it. Its resources are finite, while the population keeps doubling.

Globalism is not just a buzz word. It is a reality that is already upon us. The world has become a single business - a family business. The 21st Century will require an entire new global philosophy to make all our cultures work together to steward the family estate harmoniously. In order to find common ground I have taken another look at basic family values - which are common the world over. The central ethic in family values revolves around meticulous sharing. I have come to believe that unless we return to that basic human value, nothing but increasing resistence and terrorism faces us.

I am asking some very serious questions here, which require some very thoughtful answers. Money is the root of all our evils. That old adage has never been more true than it is right now. Every single social contract today, even just saying Good morning to your boss, is tainted by thoughts and dreams about money. We have lost our essential humanity to it. Our kids are raised on it - their dreams are focused on it. The artificial boundaries of ownership make us suspicious of our neighbors. We call them names like greaser and nigger. The money we are paying to police and protect our accumulated hordes of cash, and sending our armies out to grab the last reserves of fuel, has already bankrupted the next generation. Poorer nations wish us dead. These are the realities I am trying to address.

I have seen your posts and I respect the way you are moderating our discourses. But do us both a favor - try and look at each question I have put before you from a global perspective and not from narrow nationalism, and see if you can give some original and constructive feed back. Though I was born in Africa, my kids are Americans, born and raised in this country. It took courage for me to stand up and publically question our national values. I am asking the same from you. Quoting the same old platitudes that I was brought up with together with you, is not helpful and leaves me trying to figure out the way into the future alone.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I appreciate your respect for ancestral effort. Capitalism, like colonialism certainly served its purpose in establishing a New World Order in the American wilderness - as it did in all other European colonies. And men like Henry Ford were pioneer entrepreneurs to be admired. Without them and the exploitative economic system that financed their efforts, none of us would be enjoying the technological advantages that we do today. But there has been a huge destructive price to pay for it. There is a massive clean-up job waiting to be done - together with a doubling of the mouths to feed, educate, clothe, house and motivate, during each succeeding twenty five years of the 21st Century.

In this thread I am exploring the massive global realities that are facing us in the "New Age" (the one that so many seem seem to think is simply a hippie fad) I am asking you and others whether or not it is time for massive social and spiritual change. In order to do so, many sacred cows will have to be sacrificed. Change never comes easy and it is natural for people to dig their heels in and refuse to budge on past principle, no matter how obvious or urgent the need to move on may be. We have lost scores of civilizations in the past because of that all-to-human reluctance to let go of old tried and true customs and face the unknown dangers of an entirely new paradigm.

Our ancestors in all past Ages had to burn their totems, guillotine their kings, let go of animism and shamanism, challenge their sacred scriptures and so on, and go through the trauma of of four distinct past Ages of mass change. We are facing a 5th such mass shift today. I spent 35 years in Africa. Seven years in the Middle and Far East. Two years in Europe and 20 years here in America. That has given me a global perspective. There is no more room left for making a profit in it. Its resources are finite, while the population keeps doubling.

Globalism is not just a buzz word. It is a reality that is already upon us. The world has become a single business - a family business. The 21st Century will require an entire new global philosophy to make all our cultures work together to steward the family estate harmoniously. In order to find common ground I have taken another look at basic family values - which are common the world over. The central ethic in family values revolves around meticulous sharing. I have come to believe that unless we return to that basic human value, nothing but increasing resistence and terrorism faces us.

I am asking some very serious questions here, which require some very thoughtful answers. Money is the root of all our evils. That old adage has never been more true than it is right now. Every single social contract today, even just saying Good morning to your boss, is tainted by thoughts and dreams about money. We have lost our essential humanity to it. Our kids are raised on it - their dreams are focused on it. The artificial boundaries of ownership make us suspicious of our neighbors. We call them names like greaser and nigger. The money we are paying to police and protect our accumulated hordes of cash, and sending our armies out to grab the last reserves of fuel, has already bankrupted the next generation. Poorer nations wish us dead. These are the realities I am trying to address.

I have seen your posts and I respect the way you are moderating our discourses. But do us both a favor - try and look at each question I have put before you from a global perspective and not from narrow nationalism, and see if you can give some original and constructive feed back. Though I was born in Africa, my kids are Americans, born and raised in this country. It took courage for me to stand up and publically question our national values. I am asking the same from you. Quoting the same old platitudes that I was brought up with together with you, is not helpful and leaves me trying to figure out the way into the future alone.

Thank you for your kindness, however you did miss my point. Three men, with dreams, from literally the same location on earth, in less than a decade, changed the world (most think for the better). Without those three, you and I would not be debating and discussing from such great distances intantaneously. Others would not be able to view our discussions/debates, while they transpire.

And I will ask you the same thing. Look at my point of view, instead of trying to answer it before I present it. You may be older and "wiser", but I've been around the "world block" a time or six as well in my "young" life.

Capitalism for example, is my back yard. I strongly suspect it is not yours.

No one takes kindly to being told to shut up (no matter how intelligently and politely it is presented), especially those who have lived "intensely" in this life...

Perhaps, you would do well to remember that, yourself, sir.

v/r

Q

[MagnetMan]

Excuse me if I sounded rude or patronizing. That was not my intent. It would be pointless of me to chase away anybody interested enough to engage in this conversation. In fact I was ratrher looking forward to a more comprehensive reply from you. I have read over what I said and can't quite see what upset you. However I have always said the the written word is a two edged sword and suffers badly from interpretation. I, Brian also accused me of being rude. A point of view that I again did not share. Perhaps it is my in-bred English abruptness. I have found that at times to be misread us unkindness, when it is nothing of the sort.

But you are wrong about me being unfamilair with capitalism. The colonial histories of South Africa, Australia. New Zealand and Canada are all linked to the same economic principles that America is. My family went through fourteen generations of capitalism in South Africa. In fact I was a businessman chasing millions for twenty years and made and lost same several times. I only listed my global experience in order to give some credence as to why I am so concerned, not to put you down in any way. How would I know where you have travelled? I heard all you had to say about Henry Ford and agreed with all of it. So too with Edison, the Wright Brothers and an endless list of other much-admired American pioneers who made the modern world the marvel it is today. All of that business was ethically conducted at the time, with the wellfare of the nation at heart. I never disagreed with that. It is the future of Capitalism and the damage that it is now doing elsewhere that bothers me.

As an American citizen with eight kids born and bred here, I believe I am as much a part of our economic system as you are, and have the same constitutional right to express my opinion and question our ethics if I think they are on the wrong track. Especially if I feel it puts my children's future in jeopardy. If you could be a little more specific as to exactly what I said that offended you, perhaps we can patch that up and go forward from there.

[didymus]

I think capitalism is a good thing if not taken to the extreme. Unfortuanately in this country I think it is. We live in a society so engrossed and saturated with marketing schemes and advertising that we can't see the forest for the trees. A good example is the billions of dollars spent on advertising to the public utilizing psychology that we aren't aware of. I do feel that I am above these tactics and that they don't affect me greatly, they're more of an annoyance than anything. I mute commercials and thank God for DVR's. I tape shows and fast foward through advertisements. Just because I'm not vulnerable doesn't mean that the other millions of viewers aren't. Therefore tThey actually think that they need to drink Coke to be cool and get a girl or they have to have a certain tv etc.

And how about credit card company's, this is the grossest violation towards a nation so deep in debt that it could be the ultimate downfall for everyone. I think that the average american is $9,000 in debt to credit card companies. This doesn't inclue other debt either.These companies could care less about you or your financial situation. The government doesn't do diddley to stop it either and they really should because it is completely out of control. I receive 7-10 solicitations a week filled with blank checks. On the other side of the offer lies the reality, APR 25% .

[MagnetMan]

[quote=didymus]I think capitalism is a good thing if not taken to the extreme.[quote]

Thats the whole point of this post. Power corrupts and in the extreme corrupts completely. You are grasping at a straw. I have stated the old adage, money is the root of all our evils. And not one American so far has the courage to admit it. Why? Because the dollar is our national symbol. It is the currency by which each one of us evaluates our inter-relationships. Without it we are invisible to each other and know not who we are or where we are. One cannot serve mammon and God at the same time. It is in Cash we trust. Not God.

Adieu

[Silverbackman]

Capitalism has been run down a lot. It is easy to take a shallow view of it and blame it for the troubles of the world. But I see no other system that is as fair as it is. There are problems with everything- most of which goes back to human nature.

But what other system has as it's fundemental core the idea that one man does not own another?

Yes, cultures that have called themselves capitalist have had slaves. That is a let down of the principal and capitalist countries are not the only one that have had slavery.

You can have a society that is capitalist without slavery. Indeed I would say that it is not a true capitalist society unless all men are free. But no other system other than capitalism preaches that no one should have control over another's wealth or the product of his mind and/or labor.

I am not against doing good for your fellow man. In fact I encourage it. I am against forcing people to do "good" for their "fellow man." Capitalism does not prevent anyone from giving their wealth to another. It merely states that no person can come along and take it with some self- rightous excuse. You want to help people- great! We will not stop you. But if you want someone else to be forced to help others, then you do not respect their right to make decisions and are treating them like a slave.

Some people have taken the task that there are some great threats to us all that force us to limit the freedoms of capitalism. That scare tactic has been used by every tyranny since they started recording those types of things. The same people I see protesting (rightly) any move to limit our freedom of speech in the name of fighting terrorism will then turn around and say that we all must be forced to sacrifice what we have to save humanity.

Part of the problem is that when people really do have a threat like that, some parts are sacrificed to save the group. Who does the choosing? I admire people who would sacrifice for others. But when a mob comes to my door saying that I have been choosen as the sacrifice.....

Again, others can sacrifice themselves for the greater good. They can't morally force others to sacrifice for them.

So, can anyone else point out any other system that treats people as anything other than as a slave to be sacrificed if needed with the excuse of it being "for the greater good"?

Don't get me wrong though. As with social issues there needs to be fundamental regulation to ensure equal opportunity. I also think the government should pay for the expanses of children because they cannot use the capitalistic system (public school, group homes, ect.). But after the fundamentals it becomes like an authorian regime on economic issues. Liberty works the best.

[suanni]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Thats the whole point of this post. Power corrupts and in the extreme corrupts completely. You are grasping at a straw. I have stated the old adage, money is the root of all our evils. And not one American so far has the courage to admit it. Why? Because the dollar is our national symbol. It is the currency by which each one of us evaluates our inter-relationships. Without it we are invisible to each other and know not who we are or where we are. One cannot serve mammon and God at the same time. It is in Cash we trust. Not God.

Adieu

Money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil. I don't know what kind of society you live in MagnetMan but the company I keep don't value each other by what is in their bank balance, they are evaluated by the person they are and grasping, greedy money servers aren't liked. We can't live without some currency. And currency is currency whether its £s, $s or 2 goats for a horse. Its still the same thing, a value.
And the type of capitalism you describe combines 2 of the 7 deadly sins, greed and avarice. It is the avarice driving the greed, envy of another's riches and greed because you don't really need it.
I'm in agreement with didymus that much of the greed/avarice is created by the hidden psychology in advertising. Much of the produce/products that people buy they don't really want but they are convinced by clever marketting campaigns that they really need them.
If you speak of the big corporations like Walmart, it is the consumer that is in the driving seat. Big corporations rise and fall at the will of the consumer and it isn't just poorer country farmers that are feeling the pinch. The farmers in my country, the UK are feeling the pinch as massive supermarkets underprice their produce on a daily basis.