CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is wrong with Capitalism?
Those who are for some economic structure other than capitalism have various arguments against capitalism. What are these arguments and how does another economic structure solve the presented problem?
Henry Ford got incredibly wealthy off of his cars. Everyone is better off. Bill Gates got incredibly wealthy off his computer systems. Everyone is better off.
Wealth isn't created for these few, it is created by these few. They made it, and they keep what's theirs. And everyone is still better off.
Henry Ford is credited for starting mass production, this line of thinking brought robots into the work place and outsourcing. Everyone sure is better off without job.
Bill Gates created the Internet, now you have access to vast amount of mis-information and propaganda. I'd rather be uneducated, then mis-informed.
Bill Gates created Microsoft. Not the internet. The World Wide Web was created by Tim-Berners Lee, a CERN employee. If you search Wikipedia's history of the internet article, Bill Gates is all of nowhere to be found.
Compare the very capitalistic economy of the USA and the more socialist economies of Europe, I think you'll find that the standard of living for the masses in Europe is better due to there being a lot less inequality.
Capitalism isn't the solution to all dilemmas in the world though. The kind of system capitalism is applied to is very important. For instance, the kind of system capitalism is applied to day is destroying the global ecosystem, destroying our resources while catastrophically heating the world up.
That doesn't mean that capitalism is essentially bad though. It just means that we can't say that everything capitalism is applied will result in betterment of the world.
Capitalism provided with free markets, sound money and personal freedom is the solution to all dilemmas in the world. The kind of capitalist markets today are not free, they are controlled and interfered by government causing cronyism.
Despite what kind of capitalism, resources are not destroyed, they are conserved. Capitalism only looks to use resources in the most efficient matter, so any destroying of resources is the result of government interference.
How do we prevent organizations exploiting things like planned obsolescence? As far as I can tell the only thing the market is capable of is optimizing time efficiency, i.e. production gets faster and faster all the time. There's almost no consideration for 'extranalities' like whether one's bread is based on GMOs, whether monoculture destroys soil or whether 'modern' meat production requires intensive use of antibacterials which eventually will result in multi resistant super bacteria.
If we want to be truly effective we should have disassembly lines, and we shouldn't mix biological resources with technical resources. But most importantly, we should strive for local solutions, which will take local circumstances into consideration. We should use soaps of varying chemical constitutions depending on the environment they are supposed to be used in. This seems to go against the "one size fits all" aspect of realized capitalism, so regardless of whether that aspect is a necesary or merely contingent consequence of capitalism, the difference needs to be reconciled.
I'm afraid you might have it the other way around. I do not deny that "cronyism" is a serious problem in the U.S. but it is the members of our governing bodies that are the crony's. we've seen evidence of our government being manipulated at every level by the leaders of our economic society for their own benefit, and to the detriment of all others.
There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. But capitalism requires a sort of referee in order for it to work well for everyone, work efficiently, and keep abuses to a minimum. A well regulated capitalism is a great thing. I don't mean to say that capitalism should be over-regulated (there should be some freedom), but there should be a balance to the system.
The problem is it allows people to be greedy, in fact every economic system has some problem, if any didn't we'd be using it.
I can't think of a solution to greed, because if someone as meager as myself could come up with a solution that would actually make an effect it surely would have been thought of before I was born, for as old as Capitalism is.
How can greedy even be defined? There is no quantifiable method to determine greed. If so, politicians are then just as greedy as businessmen. They want to steal to redistribute based on what they think is moral, yet they can't even see redistributing as immoral.
Correct, every economic system has problems, and all are rooted by government intervention whether it is autistic, binary or triangular.
Well it's not an official definition, but it could be defined as taking more than you need, while others lack what they need. The others lacking is important, because without the other's lacking you just have ambition.
Correct, every economic system has problems, and all are rooted by government intervention whether it is autistic, binary or triangular.
This is the main reason I'm on this side. To say nothing is wrong with capitalism is just biased.
I can't even think of how to make it any simpler. You only need one bottle of water to survive a day, but you take two. That's more than you need.
Who determines what is need?
Individuals.
Everyone has different value scales thus different needs.
Very true, but if someone needs two bottles of water a day, and they know that's all they need, but they take three, while somebody that needs only one goes without that extra one, then that is greed.
How it is biased?
When you only look at the positive aspects and completely neglect the flaws.
Who determined that one bottle of water is needed opposed to two being too much.
If individuals determine need, then why did you just suggest that all individuals need one bottle of water rather than two?
It is impossible to acknowledge that value scales determine need, yet you quantify need based on bottles of water per day. Suggesting that one or two is required is defining need objectivity rather than subjectivity. Drinkingtwo bottles of drinking water to three isn't greed, it is changing their value scale of needs. Their marginal utility of water increased.
Right, yet my body is different than yours. Bodies do determine what is needed, but everyone is different, so suggesting that one bottle is suffice for all is wrong.
THIS STATEMENT: "I can't even think of how to make it any simpler. You only need one bottle of water to survive a day, but you take two. That's more than you need.
is taking more than you need defined?"
Not an rough example, it was you quantifying needs because you used if this, then that, but if that, not this.
Actually, it does address issues of those who are not on top.
Bodies do determine what is needed, but everyone is different, so suggesting that one bottle is suffice for all is wrong.
Who said that one bottle is sufficient enough for everyone? Are you mental? The British are supposed to be better with English am I right? You're supposed to see metaphors, and say something like 'smashing'? Or is that a stereotype?
"I can't even think of how to make it any simpler. You only need one bottle of water to survive a day, but you take two. That's more than you need.
that was the metaphor, an example if you will.
is taking more than you need defined?"
Is the word need defined? Is the word more defined? Then yes, taking more than you need is defined. If you only need so much (example: 1), and you take more (example: 2) (you know what these words mean) then you are taking more than you need. Taking more isn't necessarily bad anyway, yet it is greedy if you are taking more than you need while another who also needs, goes without.
It is impossible to know what any individual needs on a daily basis because humans wants and desires change everyday, so there is no way to quantify needs even if it is a metaphor or example. Greed is just some made up term with no real meaning. It is just used for rhetoric and political reasons.
Alright, analogies aren't working. Let's give this a try.
Famous celebrities with millions of dollars don't need all of it, yet since they made it on their own they have every right to keep it in a capitalist society. While starving people who either can't work, or can't get a job because places can't afford to higher them, don't have what they need.
The famous celebrities with their millions (regardless of earning it all on their own) are greedy for holding on to so much, while business that would have it and pay employees with it, go without.
And before you reply telling me "How is it wrong if they earned it on their own?" I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's a flaw. It's a flaw that some people have to starve and or die while capitalism allows greed to flourish. So if you don't think greed is a flaw, then sure, I guess (to you) Capitalism is flawless.
Capitalism isn't flawed for starving people and successful entrepreneurs. Capitalism rewards those who work the hardest, and indigent always have charity. Granted, external factors can affect both sides all caused by government intervention into the marketplace.
It rewards those who works, that's a great aspect of it, and it does not help those who don't work, that's the flawed aspect. It is our government's policy, government that supposed to help it's people, yet because it's leaving the people who don't work to rot, it's not being as helpful as it could be. That is a flaw, in my opinion.
What exactly is the problem with greed? I don't believe you mean being self-interested when you say greed. What do you mean by greed, and what is the problem with it?
When one group or person has too much, while other groups or people have little or none. People always say Judge a country not by how rich the rich are but by how rich the poor are. Well America's poor aren't very rich because capitalism allows the rich to keep getting richer and the rest to fade into poverty.
No it isn't. Let's put it this way. Hypothetically, what if the bottom 10% of Americans are wealthier than how about 80% of the planet. But, these 10% are worth .001% of the wealthiest people. If that was the case, would it still be a problem?
What is wrong with capitalism the choices are 'Nothing' or 'Greed' well greed is certainly a problem. It's not a problem that's cause for uprooting the economical system that's been working for us for ages, but it is a problem none the less, and it's definitely worth noting that it's a problem, so that if a solution can ever be reached the problem will already be out in the open.
So no matter how well you treat the poor, the only thing that matters is that they are as wealthy as the richest people. So, you don't think that it matters how good they have it, you lied.
This is interesting. Laissez faire translates to "let to", but means "leave alone". To be free one must be left alone or neglected. To not be neglected in the context of this debate is to be beholden to or to rely on.
Your issue seems to be not with Capitalism per say, but with freedom. You even said that the only supposed solution to the greed problem is unacceptable because it would trample rights.
Freedom allows people to die. Freedom holds people responsible for themselves, but not for others. The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't effectively shackle the able to the un-able.
Then why is it that the government already babies us, telling us what we can and can not do, not because it will affect anyone else, but because it will affect ourselves?
I said what because I didn't know what you mean. My answer was strictly to the debate, people are neglected in capitalism thus they die, it's a problem. You may be content with it, and it may be working for you, but that doesn't make it perfect, it takes an unbiased eye to see the flaws, and their are some.
Well America's poor aren't very rich because capitalism allows the rich to keep getting richer and the rest to fade into poverty.
What if the poor in America have it better than the regular people in other countries? What if being poor is equivalent to being successful somewhere else? If that was the case would you still think capitalism was bad because the poor in America live so much worse than the rich?
Everyone dies. I don't know how much capitalism plays a role in that.
It doesn't matter if they have it better, they're still suffering compared to the wealthy in their country.
But not according to you. You said the only criteria was how rich they are, not how rich they are compared to the wealthy: People always say Judge a country not by how rich the rich are but by how rich the poor are.
The poor people in America are rich compared to other countries.
You're considering poor to be middle class. I'm considering actual poor. As in food stamps and no iPhone.
You have to have an iPhone? Why is that a requirement? Everyone should have an iPhone if one person has one? How come having a loaf of bread means you are rich in one country, but not in another?
You said the only criteria was how rich they are, not how rich they are compared to the wealthy:
I never said only.
The poor people in America are rich compared to other countries.
Even so, some poor Americans can't afford food. Does it still matter if they are rich to other countries? Other countries aren't up for debate here, if they were, the poor Americans who are rich elsewhere, could just move else where. Since staying here is the issue, they are still poor and suffering, so it doesn't matter that they are millionaires in Istanbul or wherever.
You have to have an iPhone?
You completely missed what I was saying. Poor, meaning actually in poverty. The people who are actually in poverty, are not living with lavish things, they are living day to day on whatever they have and scraping by as the system that's supposed to help them get wealthy neglects them.
That's what your statement means, if you actually read it. If it is not actual suffering, but you move to a place where everyone is doing much better than you, it shouldn't all of a sudden be considered suffering.
What does it matter if your suffering is less that my suffering, suffering is suffering. Their are starving people here in this country. I'm sure no one in Africa has ever said "Gee, I wish I was a starving American" Starving is starving. Suffering is still suffering.
That's not what you are saying. You are saying that if someone is not starving in America, but is poor, they are just as bad off as someone who has no food in Africa because the richest people in Africa don't have an excess amount of food.
I'm sure no one in Africa has ever said "Gee, I wish I was a starving American"
I am sure they said I wish I was starving in America, though.
You are saying that if someone is not starving in America, but is poor, they are just as bad off as someone who has no food in Africa because the richest people in Africa don't have an excess amount of food
When did I say that? I have, from the start, been saying "starving is starving" you've been saying if they are poor but still better off than more poor countries that it's okay.
I am sure they said I wish I was starving in America, though.
Why would they say that, if starving is still starving? You won't die any slower because the wealthy people in your country have more than the wealthy people in another country.
I have, from the start, been saying "starving is starving"
You misrepresented yourself and said that starving compared to the rich people of the country. You made it sound like if there are rich people in America who can always find 3 meals a day, and really really nice meals, then poor people are the ones who can only get 1 or 2 crappy meals a day. It's not enough food, so they are still starving. But, in Africa, the rich people can barely get 3 meals a day, and sometimes only 2 meals, then starving in Africa means some days you go without eating. In this scenario wouldn't even you have to admit that the American poor person has the better deal?
Why would they say that, if starving is still starving? You won't die any slower because the wealthy people in your country have more than the wealthy people in another country.
You can't even admit that it would be way easier to get some kind of food in America where there is a fast food restaurant on every corner?
I truly don't remember ever saying that starving is comparative. ... I would, but I don't see how I gave that impression.
When you say how the country treats its poor, then you say with respect to the rich. You added the with respect to the rich, so you are making it comparative. That's how I got that impression.
That wouldn't exactly be starving. That'd be getting access to cruddy quality food, rarely.
Capitalism isn't based on taking but rather on trading. Additionally, most people have more than they need. What one needs is not much at all. In the U.S. it has historically been the case that the rich get richer and so do the poor (though it's never portrayed that way). Most poor people in the U.S. also have more than they need.
I doubt most poor people have what they need. When their's the bare minimum, the homeless, and even those who aren't as desperate but still struggling, the minimum wage.
They are scraping by, but some do die, and those who don't wait to die of natural causes go out the way most people relate to cowardice, suicide. If even one person commits suicide for lack of basic necessities, that is a problem.
Those who die or commit suicide based on lack of necessities are usually dealing with our broken health care system, which is not based on capitalism. Regardless, what do you see as the appropriate solution to someone having more than what they need when someone else needs it?
In an ideal Capitalist system, wealth isn't given or distributed, it is produced and earned. Someone having more than others isn't wrong all by itself.
Relative poverty isn't necessarily a measure of real poverty.
When someone base plenty and others have nothing, sometimes they both fully earned it. Context determines how just the situation is.
The issue isn't that some have more than others, the issue is that some can have more than others, in this system that isn't about protecting people, it's about earning your on and paving your own way.
The only appropriate regulation should be based on how people interact according to civil law. This means enforcement of contacts, laws against knowingly selling poisonous food etc.
Regulation tends to be laws that treat business as separate from people. Regulation also tends to be a simple money grab. If regulation was restricted to being based on civil laws already in place, we would have a lot less regulation in general.
I think it depends on the type of regulation. I do not believe in anarchy, but statism sucks too. I quote Joseph H. Pilates when I say: Neither too much, nor too little, but just enough.
Anarchists fail to see the importance that objectively defined unbiased, laws play in the functioning of Capitalism. They point to the many flaws of government as a reason to throw it out, rather than correct it.
Capitalism requires the rule of enforceable law. The key is understanding and codifying proper laws, which are relatively few.
Anarchists fail to see the importance that objectively defined unbiased, laws play in the functioning of Capitalism. They point to the many flaws of government as a reason to throw it out, rather than correct it.
Many self-proclaimed 'anarchists' that I am aware of have no use for so-called 'laws' because they are subjective and biased. Much of what people see as a problem with capitalism is more a symptom of monopolists gaining an advantage by paying certain politicians to pass a 'law' or regulation that destroys their competitors because they are using up any funds they have to stay in compliance with some 'law' or regulation.
These 'anarchists' identify themselves as 'anarcho-capitalists' and see voluntary interaction as the only way capitalism can work smoothly.
They point to the many flaws of government as a reason to throw it out, rather than correct it.
Those who cling to the belief that there is such a thing as 'government' may talk of overthrow but, such talk and/or actions to do such a thing is more in line with symptoms of larger problems rather than any sort of solution; it also, gives others a mis-perception towards what 'Anarchy' actually is.
The 'anarcho-capitalists', or as some prefer 'voluntaryists', discard any belief in 'government' at all. The claim is that there is no such thing and the flaws that are being pointed is shown as proof; in their book there is nothing to correct, except Individuals' taking responsibility for their actions.
Capitalism requires the rule of enforceable law. The key is understanding and codifying proper laws, which are relatively few.
Whose 'law' and who gets to decide for everyone else? You mentioned earlier that capitalism is simply trade. That requires willingness on two Individuals, at least, to haggle back and forth until they can come to an agreement. A third party can be useful in settling particularly difficult disputes and people will tend towards this more so than all out violence. Any sort of real Law is naturally enforces itself, through Individuals using their own judgment on how to interact and find peaceful resolutions, but this takes an understanding on a personal level and knowing that their is nothing a person can do to change a real Law.
If I understand what you are saying about "codifying proper laws" do you mean recognizing why certain actions are flat out wrong to do and laying out ways in which restitution and/or retribution will be made? Like for example, murder is understood to be wrong, so, folks have no real issue with a 'law' or written words on paper that state murder is wrong; it seems a bit pointless but, few really take issue.
Okay, I do not want distract away from what your debate topic is, but I do have an issue with placing 'anarchists' into a broad category and making claims such as yours. I have nothing against Capitalism and I would likely be considered 'anarchist'. The way I see it, anyone who is attempting to buy, sell, or trade with others is capitalizing on some opportunity that would end with mutual benefit to all involved; this is 'capitalism'. It does not have much sympathy for those who act as parasites upon others.
Whose 'law' and who gets to decide for everyone else?
Are there laws that shouldn't apply to everyone?
Any sort of real Law is naturally enforces itself
How do laws against murder naturally enforce? Same question for laws against rape, theft, slander, breach of contract, and simple traffic regulations.
written words on paper that state murder is wrong; it seems a bit pointless
Not pointless in the slightest. Codified laws law out what will happen when said law is broken. Law don't simply say "don't do it" they say "don't do it, or else".
I do have an issue with placing 'anarchists' into a broad category
I was considering anarchists in the broadest of terms, those who don't believe in authority. Your brand of anarchy (anarcho-capitalist) still falls under this definition and I stand by my statements.
All out Capitalism is where the government is NOT involved in business. This was a wake up call in the early 1900's as you can see from workers rights and etc.
Fostering a self centered nature, capitalism has survived by elevating a select few to a state of financial independence while simultaneously securing support from the majority with the promise of the potential for each individual to achieve the same level of "success". This simply isn't possibly because individuals in our society gauge their own success only in relation to the success of others. If everyone were on equal footing, nobody would feel superior, or comparatively successful. The idea that capitalism will ever result in a completely equitable society is a popular mass delusion and it is this delusion that will ensure its continued use well into the future.
Capitalism itself possesses no flaws, it is simply an elegant, efficient, self maintaining, and viscous cycle which promotes and encourages only the worst natural tendencies of the human race.
Capitalism is a Meritocracy (though I don't like the word). There is no delusion that everyone will be equally wealthy, only that successful people will deserve what they have.
The idea that productive people are successful and that poor people can be productive and become more successful in no implies that wealth will equalize. This isn't what keeps Capitalism going. The idea that I can build a better future for myself is what keeps it going. Not better compared to the Jones's, just better compared to today.
viscous cycle which promotes and encourages only the worst natural tendencies of the human race.
This is not a flaw to you? is there something better that isn't the above mentioned things?
Capitalism and meritocracy are two very distinct things. The meritocratic party for instance believes in equal opportunity, which must be enforced, because otherwise people who're born into rich families will have an advantage over others through no decision or action of their own.
I can't stress enough how wrong you are on this. I think F. A. Hayek got it right on one subject. Capitalism emerges because people blame their apparent "inferiority" on luck. For instance: "my neighbor was lucky to get that job". The injustice of the system works to it's advantage. Thus, the more rotten the system is, the better it functions.
I understand your point about Meritocracy. I have never heard of a meritocratic party but the idea of placing everyone at the very same starting line is impossible. Some people will always have various benefits that others won't (ie looks, strength, intelligence). I'm afraid your second paragraph is clear enough to me to be able to respond appropriately.
Some people will always have various benefits that others won't (ie looks, strength, intelligence).
That is almost exactly what meritocrats would call merit. The point of a meritocratic system is to pick out the important advantages, like intelligence, and apply people with those advantages, or merits, into important positions where they would have more power and influence.
placing everyone at the very same starting line is impossible.
Because I don't believe that strength or intelligence are immoral advantages to be abolished, I don't see any reason why an equal starting line would be unfeasible. I do believe however, unlike meritocrats, that these advantages are morally irrelevant.
People are responsible for their decisions and nothing more. Because people haven't chosen their parents or genetic advantages, we can't hold anyone morally accountable for lacking a rich father, a full set of hair or an X amount of IQ points. Therefore, a just society ought to do best by it's weakest members, even at an expense to those who're better off.
People are responsible for their decisions and nothing more. Because people haven't chosen their parents or genetic advantages, we can't hold anyone morally accountable for lacking a rich father, a full set of hair or an X amount of IQ points. Therefore, a just society ought to do best by it's weakest members, even at an expense to those who're better off.
I agree that people are responsible for their decisions and nothing more. Therefore, we can't hold anyone morally accountable for being born rich or having more opportunities. If doing best by the weakest is at the expense of the better off, this isn't justice. The better off have not necessarily made immoral decisions. Who would put the expense at their feet and for what crime? Just because I have what someone else does not, does not mean it should be taken from me, nor am I morally bound to share.
Just because I have what someone else does not, does not mean it should be taken from me, nor am I morally bound to share.
If you're capable of putting yourself in another person's shoes, and realize that sharing something is of benefit, then you are in fact morally bound to do so. If you instead choose to act in an unproductive way, you are fully morally accountable for that decision.
The better off have not necessarily made immoral decisions.
I only hold the rich morally accountable for deciding not to share what resources may be used more productively elsewhere, or even deciding not to find out how their resources could best benefit everyone in society.
Since my answer to your question would be an affirmative, I will conclude that your answer to my question is an affirmative as well. Which is a big problem with your position as far as I am concerned. Stopping the wrong is not the same as compelling the good.
Stopping the wrong is how rights are protected. Your right to life is protected when we stop murder. Compelling the good (what you say is good) is how slaves are made. You don't have the right to make me share what is mine. If you make me share, you are infringing on my property rights which are protected when someone stops you from stealing. Which is what forced sharing is.
If you refer to rights, you run into the problem of what rights do people exactly have. Therefore "stopping the wrong" is how rights are created, not how they're protected.
If you make me share, you are infringing on my property rights which are protected when someone stops you from stealing.
If rights exist without society or law, isn't the same entity that protects your property stealing from you through forced taxation?
If you refer to rights, you run into the problem of what rights do people exactly have. Therefore "stopping the wrong" is how rights are created, not how they're protected.
I take the classical liberal approach on rights. They are a moral concept meaning you are morally wrong to infringe on my moral rights. Your moral right to something cannot require the action of another, because that infringes their rights. Therefore, you have the right to life, liberty, and your property but not a house a meal or healthcare. The first 3 require only the stopping of someone infringing on them, the latter 3 requires someone to produce those things which is why they are not rights. If meals are a right then cooks can be made slaves.
If rights exist without society or law, isn't the same entity that protects your property stealing from you through forced taxation?
Taxation is a difficult subject. I am certain that a system of non-coercive taxation is possible but never thought about. When the only role of government was the protection of the individual rights of its citizenry, taxation had a semblance of morality. The broadened scope of government has removed the morality out of taxation.
The problem with capitalism is not the concept, but people in general. Capitalism is basically legalized theft, because the amount of markup, ways to get out of getting paid, loopholes in the law that keeps one from making honest deals, etc.
Dominion Homes here in Ohio built and sold houses to people they knew couldn't afford to make the payments and had several other tricks up their sleeve as well. One thing that they did was sell homes for zero down and then overinflated the value of the house that they financed, the homes weren't worth what the loan was. Normal home loans in this state are maximum 80% of the estimated value. Dominion made loans for 150% (example) of the value of the home. They had zero down for like a year then the payments were extremely high compared to the actual value of the house.
Value is a tricky thing. If someone is willing to pay a given price, that's the value. Bubbles over-inflate prices, not companies.
The conditions that encouraged the kind of predatory lending you describe were not created by capitalism. There is no room in capitalism for a "risk free" loan, which is what Fanny and Freddie promised with tax dollars. No one would make loans to high risk borrowers if they had to cover the cost of default themselves. This would mean that a lot of people would not be able to buy a home (in actuality they couldn't anyway).
On a side note, Capitalism has no room for "too big to fail" either.
But again, how is unforced mutual trade at an agreed to price (capitalism) equivalent to legalized theft?
I find it interesting that no problem presented is followed by any solution. The statement that "everything" is wrong with capitalism isn't even helpful to the debate. With is the solution offered to the "everything" that is wrong with capitalism?
The innate issue with capitalism is that otherwise peaceful and seemingly productive activity may have a negative impact on third parties: other people, the environment and animals. Because there's no simple and thorough way of dealing with this, economic activity must be regulated, because it can do more harm than good.
I may need an example. Negative effects on third parties can be mitigated through laws that protect rights, including the right of the third party to sue for damage. Extra regulation is not necessarily required. Again, an example would be helpful because I know that there are situations where it is required.
Negative effects on third parties can be mitigated through laws that protect rights, including the right of the third party to sue for damage.
There are third parties which are not capable of going through a legal process. Mentally incapacitated people, children, "potential persons" and animals fit into such a category. A law protecting these beings from harm and exploitation is, in my books, regulation, because it involves making estimations and judgements for otherwise legally passive entities.
Defining terms like externality, regulation or rights is a troubling direction for this debate, but if you do choose to go down that path, please provide concrete examples and distinctions.
There are third parties which are not capable of going through a legal process. Mentally incapacitated people, children, "potential persons" and animals fit into such a category.
There are third parties that can go through legal channels and are still being exploited. The people of Bhopal whose land has been polluted for near 40 years from one of DOWs chemical factories have tried legal channels to settle the dispute to no avail.
In 2004 there was a hoax involving the incident above where someone posing as a DOW employee stated on the BBC that they would liquidate the plant in Bhopal and use the money from that to clean up the site. The world applauded DOW's actions however DOW's stocks dropped immediately. The market was punishing DOW for doing what everyone agreed was right. Lucky for DOW shareholders the company rectified the situation and exposed the hoax, there was and still is no intention of cleaning up the plant.
More tests in 2009 were conducted showing a 3 mile radius around DOW's plant being affected by their leaking chemicals. DOW still remains silent.
I expect our understanding of "rights" differs from one another. But other than that, what's wrong with defining our terms?
The third parties you mentioned, other than animals, would have to have a competent care taker to survive. This caretaker would correctly be a legal advocate. Even so, laws that protect individual rights would protect the rights of these people as well. When certain laws fail to accomplish their purpose, it does not follow that more laws will solve the problem.
I think there are far too many regulations, though I haven't said that all regulations should be dropped, some of them are important (standardized contract law and contract language for example).
The third parties you mentioned, other than animals, would have to have a competent care taker to survive.
Is that your way of saying children and the mentally incapacitated can be left for dead, if they don't enjoy the company of such a caretaker?
Even so, laws that protect individual rights would protect the rights of these people as well.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but rest assured I have done the best I can. If you rape a mentally challenged kid, you get to enjoy a minimal standard of life behind bars (or possibly a painless death and a proper funeral) as provided by the state. However, if you commit the crime of being a mentally challenged kid, the state grants you absolutely nothing.
In the end, this is all a form of bureaucracy. In order to enjoy a stay behind bars with free meals, you have to commit a crime. Why couldn't you just go in and out as you please? In order to enjoy a guaranteed meal for the day, you must stay behind bars, where you're unproductive. Why not just grant everyone a minimal standard of living?
When certain laws fail to accomplish their purpose, it does not follow that more laws will solve the problem.
Judaism stated out with with just half of Deuteronomy, but eventually grew into the Jewish bible and Talmud. Isn't it arrogant to assume that a capitalist state will avoid growing into a complex system of law?
Is that your way of saying children and the mentally incapacitated can be left for dead, if they don't enjoy the company of such a caretaker?
It's my way of saying that if they don't have one, they will die. That same caretaker or legal guardian is also their legal advocate.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but rest assured I have done the best I can
If someone destroys your property, they are subject to a lawsuit. If they destroy it with chemical pollution they are still subject to lawsuit. If we say it is illegal to rape people, but people keep doing it, a new law that restates it in a different way won't solve the problem. I don't know how Deuteronomy did things, but a more complex world must still adhere to fundemental principles, the principles that drove the growth and complexity. New principles need not be adopted. Reduntancy is always reduncy regardless of complexity.
Why not just grant everyone a minimal standard of living?
We should find ways to keep people from committing crimes, not provide the world with whatever criminals get. There is no such thing as a free lunch, all lunches must be made by someone. To say "Why don't we grant" is simply saying why "don't we make someone produce this. "
That's an interesting phrasing for a tautology. It's like saying. Capitalism is the best that there is. Once there is something better, things will be better.
Note the usage of the word 'is,' which is the present tense of the infinitive 'to be.'
So your simplification "Capitalism is the best that there is. Once there is something better, things will be better" is consistent even if you don't agree with it; 'Capitalism is the best that there [currently] is, with the possibility of something better being discovered.'
It's not even a tautology. It's a statement with nothing to back it up, but it's also one that you haven't disputed in the slightest; you really should have picked clarify if you weren't offering an actual dispute.
Yeah, I wasn't really trying to dispute it. The underlying tautology is just that when things are better, things will be better. I guess I might have picked dispute because he was on the opposing side to capitalism while stating that it's the best there is.
