Is Capitalism Just?

[Michael Z]

That's too broad a question, really. What kind of capitalism are we speaking of? Keynesian capitalism? Anarcho-capitalism? In any case, it's impossible to say whether the concept of Capitalism itself is just or unjust; there are side-effects which result in social inequality, but that is not necessarily the fault of the ideology itself but rather the way it has been implemented.

[Giant Saguaro]

All sorts of interesting answers here - seems to me we're talking about capitalism as we know it and have it in this country now. A system not devoid of regulation, but generally not over-regulated as it once was either. That seems a good balance: fewer interventions and regulation than more, but some element nonetheless.

[Bono]

Keynesian capitalism?

Oxymoron.

[The Duke]

No, which is why America doesn't have true capitalism anymore.  We have moderated our capitalism with a social safety net, and we now have a mixed system that leans towards the capitalist side of the equation.

This system is very just and highly productive.  I should also point out that even the poorest under pure capitalism still tend to have a better life than the average person in communist systems.

[Bono]

No

Thus spoke Trotsky.

[Alcon]

No

Thus spoke Trotsky.

And thus spoke the American public, and most of the rest of the world, considering our current mixed economics system.

[opebo]

I should also point out that even the poorest under pure capitalism still tend to have a better life than the average person in communist systems.

This is obviously false. 

[MasterJedi]

Yes it's just and once again Opebo doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, but not in it's classical liberal or neo-liberal variants. I'm more of the New Liberal/Neo-classical/Keynesian school

Dave

[MODU]

I think Capitalism is "fair," but may not be "just."

[phk]

I think Capitalism is "fair," but may not be "just."

My friend is arguing that it is "just" but "unfair".

[MODU]

I think Capitalism is "fair," but may not be "just."

My friend is arguing that it is "just" but "unfair".

It's hard to argue that something is "just," especially when you consider the number of external variables involved.

[opebo]

The difference between Capitalism and all the other oppressive systems of heirarchical social organization is high exaggerated.

[A18]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

[opebo]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

[MarkDel]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Opebo, just out of curiousity, was your political move to the Left fueled by some sort of legal problem(s)?

[opebo]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.  My initial revelation was that the GOP was the party of the religious and a great threat to my sexual freedoms.  My economic views haven't actually changed - I had always felt that laissez-faire capitalism only benefited the owning class.

[John Dibble]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

[opebo]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

[John Dibble]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

[Bono]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

I'm sure the Weaver family agrees with you.

[John Dibble]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

I'm sure the Weaver family agrees with you.

Care to give me some background? And do keep in mind I'm not saying that the police are some perfect organization that can do no wrong, but opebo's blatant idiocy must not go unchecked.

[A18]

The police are not incompatible with capitalism, but they are not part of it either. In any event, they are there to minimize coercion (in theory).

[Bono]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

I'm sure the Weaver family agrees with you.

Care to give me some background? And do keep in mind I'm not saying that the police are some perfect organization that can do no wrong, but opebo's blatant idiocy must not go unchecked.

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

[opebo]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

No, the law is clearly designed - in fact almost its entire purpose in practice is - to maintain the current class status quo.