Immorality and the Free Market

Forgotten Son wrote:   INVORD wrote: I am afraid to even mention the human cost as our casualties are horrific already. I feel compelled to mention the human costs to them, as I feel it is a little disturbing that, in conflicts involving the US (though by no means limited to that country), US casualties are known down to the nearest man and regularly cited first. Over 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the 2003 invasion, with around another 5,000,000 made refugees.

  US casualties are cited first because it hurts.

Deathrabbit wrote: Libertarian socialist, that sounds impossible. That's like a giant midget.

IVNORD wrote: Proletariat wrote: IVNORD wrote: Proletariat wrote: I tend to fall somewhere between the first and last option, but voted for the first considering the last is intended as a joke. I believe strongly that capitalism is flawed and is a huge crime against humanity. When the US was founded it was set up as a way to prevent despotism in polotics, why is it that we allow despotism to thrive in our economy with the rich feeding off the poor. If our political leaders are elected our economic ones should be as well. You're at it again... No matter what your beloved Marx said, man has always exploited man, and always will. Marx went thru the entire history of human race to state that all social formations were based on exploitation, and then he declared that the next formation will be based on equality. On what grounds? If anything, the prior experience woudl dictate the future course of history. And how do you propose we elect our economic leaders? I actually thought I toned doun my argument from last time. Before Democracy it was considered to be crazy, the strongest people with the most wepons had ruled countries for years, and there had never been any system in wich Democracy/Republics had worked (Rome tried republics and see what happened)   I find it odd that we decided to elect the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government and yet the Economic branch is the most powerfull. If the CEO had to worry about being elected by their workers and not just about pleasing their customers their would be much less problems of extortion in the work force.   If such an idea were implemented it would divert the power buisnesses have gained over the government and wrest it back into the hands of the citizens.     In actuallity this is a completely Democratic system, the only thread it shares with Marx is that it sees that there needs to be a change in the economic system Sorry, I didn't mean to reprimand you, said it jokingly...   What you propose has been around for centuries. It's called public company. THe only difference is that one has to be a shareholder to elect a CEO.  Your desire to transfer control of the means of production to workers negates the notion of private property. All experiments like this have failed.

rileydog22 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: el böthy wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well another position I've always maintained is that capitalism works best when tempered by socialism and vise versa, though this is probably just another way to say what I just said already. Probably true. I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy, something that is so against everything USA stands for that patriotism blossoms akk around... of course what I have just said isnt jarbreaking, nor is it very revealing... but I said it... I said it   "I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy"   I don't mean to go off topic but please name one war that the US instigated BESIDES the Iraqi conflict.And we really didn't have to "look" for a new enemy,we found that in Al-Queda and terrorism.And they started that,by killing almost 5,000 of my countrymen in one day.They should have taken a lesson from Japan's book and studied the chapter called "Don't Kick a Hornets Nest".   Sorry man,your post bothered me.We rarely start wars,but have a good track record on finishing them(until recently,I'm sad to say). Comparing Iraq in this war to Japan in WWII is not at all legitimate.  Pearl Harbor was an attack by a nation against another nation, and thus a legitimate cause for war.  9/11 was an attack by civilians against other civilians, and thus not a legitimate cause for war.  Going into Iraq because of 9/11 is like invading Mexico because a Hispanic person kidnapped your mother.

I do believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The fact that no proof of his involvement has ever been found does not fully convince me. No trace of chemical weapons was found either, but the entire world knows he'd had them. Even if Saddam was completely innocent, which I sincerely doubt, he could easily be the prime suspect. To prevent a repeat of 9/11, a precedent must be set. Saddam was the best candidate for it. Forget about legitimacy and political correctness. How Afghanistan is more legitimate than Iraq? We invaded an independent country under the pretext of catching a fugitive who was sheltered by the government of that independent country. Why not invade France? They shelter Roman Polansky. He's a fugitive too

"The free market is an excellent servant, but a terrible master"
I think that sums it up quite well.

IVNORD wrote: Proletariat wrote: IVNORD wrote: Proletariat wrote: IVNORD wrote: Proletariat wrote: I tend to fall somewhere between the first and last option, but voted for the first considering the last is intended as a joke. I believe strongly that capitalism is flawed and is a huge crime against humanity. When the US was founded it was set up as a way to prevent despotism in polotics, why is it that we allow despotism to thrive in our economy with the rich feeding off the poor. If our political leaders are elected our economic ones should be as well. You're at it again... No matter what your beloved Marx said, man has always exploited man, and always will. Marx went thru the entire history of human race to state that all social formations were based on exploitation, and then he declared that the next formation will be based on equality. On what grounds? If anything, the prior experience woudl dictate the future course of history. And how do you propose we elect our economic leaders? I actually thought I toned doun my argument from last time. Before Democracy it was considered to be crazy, the strongest people with the most wepons had ruled countries for years, and there had never been any system in wich Democracy/Republics had worked (Rome tried republics and see what happened)   I find it odd that we decided to elect the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government and yet the Economic branch is the most powerfull. If the CEO had to worry about being elected by their workers and not just about pleasing their customers their would be much less problems of extortion in the work force.   If such an idea were implemented it would divert the power buisnesses have gained over the government and wrest it back into the hands of the citizens.     In actuallity this is a completely Democratic system, the only thread it shares with Marx is that it sees that there needs to be a change in the economic system Sorry, I didn't mean to reprimand you, said it jokingly...   What you propose has been around for centuries. It's called public company. THe only difference is that one has to be a shareholder to elect a CEO.  Your desire to transfer control of the means of production to workers negates the notion of private property. All experiments like this have failed. name three. Democracy/Republics failed the first few times they tried it too. Do you want 3 experiments? I'll name one, but a big one - the USSR. You could find a few more in its ruins. Not a good example, the whole voting part was conspicuosly missing, not to mention too much power was placed in too few hands, a council is always more trustworthy than one person. Also I have said nothing about redistribution of wealth through forced means.   I am not talking about democratic republics, but a politico-economis system. Simply stating that not evrything works the first few times around   Proletariat wrote: I know that one company doing this is a stupid Idea that would never hold up in the economy as it is but if they all were...   The public company is the OPPOSITE of what I want, shareholders are the elite and wouldn't care for the needs of the workers Not true. Workers are given a piece of the pie thru their profit sharing plans, bonus pay, etc. If you look at the unions' pension mutual funds, it's scary how much power they have over corporations sometimes. Not what I am talking about at all, I am talking about direct power by workers over the leaders of corperations through democracy, in all companies, with no other changes to the system.

bhikkhu wrote: Morality is a subjective concept. You cannot impose your morals (or lack thereof) on someone who isn't predisposed to them. Now, there are many things that I may personally se as immoral, so I don't engage in them. But it is up to me to make that choice. There are others that may see my sense of humor as immoral. So be it. But there are no absolutes in this arena. The Free market reaps what it will bear. If the majority of consumers were only interested in the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, that's what the market would offer. All T.V. moms would be June Cleaver. If most people were Buddhist, there would be a lot of ads about peace, and low cost incense.

We use morality in a generally accepted form, not philosophical.

Gamemako wrote: A free market is inherently immoral*. It encourages people to make others suffer for self-advancement. A completely free market ultimately results in communism, miner-style.

This statement would have earned you the chairman's seat at the congress of revisionists of Marxism some 50 years ago.

bhikkhu wrote: IVNORD wrote: bhikkhu wrote: Morality is a subjective concept. You cannot impose your morals (or lack thereof) on someone who isn't predisposed to them. Now, there are many things that I may personally se as immoral, so I don't engage in them. But it is up to me to make that choice. There are others that may see my sense of humor as immoral. So be it. But there are no absolutes in this arena. The Free market reaps what it will bear. If the majority of consumers were only interested in the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, that's what the market would offer. All T.V. moms would be June Cleaver. If most people were Buddhist, there would be a lot of ads about peace, and low cost incense. We use morality in a generally accepted form, not philosophical. But what is the generally accepted form of morality? In your community it may be something quite different than mine.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is a consensus for the purposes of social science. This a sociological debate, so using the social imagination is probably the preferred mode of debate.  Having a debate on multiple levels of abstraction is kinda pointless.

I'm an engineer, so we use stuff all the time that's not the truth. Newtonian mechanics, classical e-mag, and so forth. Just because something is not the absolute truth does not mean it isn't useful.


Edited by Deathrabbit - February 14 2008 at 02:05