post #21 of 76
2/12/08 at 5:21pm
|I believe in the inherent generosity and communal spirit of humans|
|I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life.|
|WuWei, can you speak to the apparent contradiction between these two statements?
I believe in the inherent generosity and communal spirit of humans
I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life.
one thing I'd like to point out about ststement 2 is that the idea that posessions are essentially lifeblood (as in, without them you are being 'martyred') is a very capitalist notion.
But what I see as an apparent contradiction leaves me rather nonplussed. What am I missing there?
Give away your money. I do too. But, I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I believe in a martyred life. Forced handing over of funds earned, is stealing.
Brigianna, I could not disagree with you more!
The only issue is the governmental "favors" afforded corporations. The whole tax benefits and loopholes, and directed funding (ie paying tobacco growers not to grow, etc.). The corporation is as moral or amoral as the shareholders allow. And there is no restriction on the consumer's decision making power.
When a company is allowed preferred access to the market through government restricting competition, therein lies the imbalance of power. The market will always rebalance itself with free entry.
The pursuit of money is no evil.
But corporations are not naturally occurring competition; they are an artificially created legal fiction designed specifically to shield business owners from liability for their own actions. How can that be free or balanced?
|Also, accumulated wealth allows one to give from a place of generosity. One can not give from a place of lack.|
|I also embrace the Objectivist philosophy of full laissez-faire capitalism — i.e., a society in which individual rights are consistently respected and in which all property is (therefore) privately owned.|
I am not speaking of individuals though but rather the fundamentals of both schools of thought. Certainly people can find personal variations of each in order to justify their lifestyles yet still purport to live by contradictory value systems.
|This statement contradicts the parables in many religions. Most notably, the story of the poor woman who gave a meager sum to the church and was looked down upon by the wealthy people who were able to give much more. But who is actually giving more? Who is more generous, mother Theresa (for a ready example) or Bill Gates? Surely Bill Gates has given more of material value. Does this make him more generous?|
|You speak of this consensual exchange of value but I don't understand exactly what you mean because it certainly isn't capitalism but then you say you are a capitalist. I think that capitalism is so accepted partly because of its masterful manufactured consent. Propaganda and the mantra: money=freedom=abundance=the ability to give=virtue etc. is simply the way that capitalism is indoctrinated. This does not make the mantra true.|
|If you do not attach any virtue to the accumulation of material goods then how exactly are you a capitalist?
How exactly does capitalism work without competition?
|I can imagine it simple for someone to see virtue and moral worth in capitalism if they are essentially (somehow) managing to either sidestep or benefit from the capitalist structure that threatens to swallow the world these days. Most don't have that luxury.|
|ETA: Is it possible that we have completely different definitions of capitalism?|