"Unjust" aspects of capitalism

[phk]

What are "unjust" aspects of capitalism?

[MaC]

NOTA-they don't exist.

[opebo]

Justice is a subjective preference.  But certainly capitalism is no different practically from feudalism or slavery - the many toil to benefit the few.  One would assume that the many would subjective dislike it, therefore. 

[Gabu]

I think one of the biggest is when people no more skilled or talented than anyone else get a much richer and fuller life purely because their parents could afford more things.  The only problem is that there is no easy way to fix to this issue; the obvious solution (just disallowing them from having that money) would cause many more problems than it would solve, and the less obvious solutions (such as educational affirmative action based on economic status) are deceptively hard to get right such that they don't cause other problems.

[Bono]

NOTA-they don't exist.

^^^^^^

[A18]

NOTA-they don't exist.

^^^^^^

^^^^^^

[Gabu]

NOTA-they don't exist.

^^^^^^

^^^^^^

I'm not 100% sure how this can be asserted, unless you have a very different definition of "just" than I do.  To give another example aside from what I stated above, in pure capitalism, lying for the purposes of getting others' money would be a perfectly legitimate exercise.  In other words, a scam artist who cons, say, 50 people out of $50,000 each, would get off completely scot free.  The only way that the conned people could get their money back would be to either con the scam artist back, to somehow get the scam artist to give the money back in exchange for something else, or to murder the scam artist and forcefully take the money back.  Either way, even though 99% of people are obviously not scam artists, one can imagine how distrustful people would be of everyone else in this atmosphere, given how suspicious people are even now, when scam artists run an illegal business that can be punished when discovered.  I can't imagine how any of this could be perceived as "just".

If you want another example, in pure capitalism, there would be no such thing as the thirteenth amendment - the buying and selling of people as property would be perfectly fine.  Now, of course, it could be argued that the free market would sort this out because people would recognize that it's not in their best financial interest to keep these people in captivity, but the issue is that, as I have argued before, the free market is not some magical entity: it is the combination of the interests and of the minds of the people within it.  If enough people act in a obliviously irrational manner within a free market, then to say that the free market will fix the problem is akin to saying that a crazy person will recognize his own insanity and will then pursue methods to cure it - something that might happen, but something that most people would not exactly like to place most of their bets on.  Either way, it did happen for quite a while in a capitalistic setting until regulations were put into place, and I don't see how this could be perceived as "just", either.

I suppose all of it could be explained away by simply making the definition of "just" coincide with the definition of what is to occur in a capitalistic setting (namely, in the most general terms, that people are able to trade something to get something else), but that would be an awfully strange definition of "just".

Note that none of this is arguing against capitalism or trying to say that its alternatives would be better.  I just don't deify capitalism as some people seem to do.

[A18]

I'm not 100% sure how this can be asserted, unless you have a very different definition of "just" than I do. To give another example aside from what I stated above, in pure capitalism, lying for the purposes of getting others' money would be a perfectly legitimate exercise.

Pure capitalism is economic activity free from coersion. I suppose lying isn't necessarily 'coercive' by strict definition, but its effect is the same. You're essentially taking someone's property without his consent.

[Speed of Sound]

capitalism ignores the poor and helps the rich. Without at least basic needs being ensured for almost everyone guarunteed, your country is not succeeding in treating its citizens right. I envy you Britain. You have a fantastic government.

[A18]

In capitalism, no exchange takes place unless both parties believe they benefit.

A country does not treat its citizens right by making them slaves to each other.

[Speed of Sound]

In capitalism, no exchange takes place unless both parties believe they benefit.

A country does not treat its citizens right by making them slaves to each other.

i agree. Thats the beauty of Democratic Socialism. Its socialism AND fairness all in one!

[A18]

What does that have to do with what I said? Democratic or not, socialism makes slaves out of citizens.

Of course, all taxation is involuntary servitude, and undesirable for that reason alone. But it can at least be justified if it goes toward the prevention of greater coercion.

[Speed of Sound]

What does that have to do with what I said? Democratic or not, socialism makes slaves out of citizens.

Of course, all taxation is involuntary servitude, and undesirable for that reason alone. But it can at least be justified if it goes toward the prevention of greater coercion.

Socialism makes slaves of its citizens? Ha! Capitalism makes people slaves of the corporations and the rich!

[A18]

How old are you? Three?

Socialism forces citizens to work for other people. Capitalism is based on voluntary cooperation. This isn't some kind of debatable point; it's fact.

[Speed of Sound]

How old are you? Three?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Socialism has people work for the Government. And again, the kind of Socialism I am talking about is not a pure 100% socialism. Its a very loose style in which the government makes only the basic needs, while everything else is made by private enterprises. But the government does have to regulate companies. The amount of power they have shouldnt be anywhere near what power the government has. Unforunately in a capitalism, they often tie or surpass the government;s power. Corporations cheat when the government sits idle and lets it happen. Thats unfair to the people.

[A18]

I'm just kidding. It's for effect.

Anyway, socialism has people work for others. In your brand of socialism, people work for the 'basic needs' of others. It is, in either case, a philosophy based on coercion.

How do corporations "cheat" exactly?

[Bono]

NOTA-they don't exist.

^^^^^^

^^^^^^

I'm not 100% sure how this can be asserted, unless you have a very different definition of "just" than I do.  To give another example aside from what I stated above, in pure capitalism, lying for the purposes of getting others' money would be a perfectly legitimate exercise.  In other words, a scam artist who cons, say, 50 people out of $50,000 each, would get off completely scot free.  The only way that the conned people could get their money back would be to either con the scam artist back, to somehow get the scam artist to give the money back in exchange for something else, or to murder the scam artist and forcefully take the money back.  Either way, even though 99% of people are obviously not scam artists, one can imagine how distrustful people would be of everyone else in this atmosphere, given how suspicious people are even now, when scam artists run an illegal business that can be punished when discovered.  I can't imagine how any of this could be perceived as "just".

If you want another example, in pure capitalism, there would be no such thing as the thirteenth amendment - the buying and selling of people as property would be perfectly fine.  Now, of course, it could be argued that the free market would sort this out because people would recognize that it's not in their best financial interest to keep these people in captivity, but the issue is that, as I have argued before, the free market is not some magical entity: it is the combination of the interests and of the minds of the people within it.  If enough people act in a obliviously irrational manner within a free market, then to say that the free market will fix the problem is akin to saying that a crazy person will recognize his own insanity and will then pursue methods to cure it - something that might happen, but something that most people would not exactly like to place most of their bets on.  Either way, it did happen for quite a while in a capitalistic setting until regulations were put into place, and I don't see how this could be perceived as "just", either.

I suppose all of it could be explained away by simply making the definition of "just" coincide with the definition of what is to occur in a capitalistic setting (namely, in the most general terms, that people are able to trade something to get something else), but that would be an awfully strange definition of "just".

Note that none of this is arguing against capitalism or trying to say that its alternatives would be better.  I just don't deify capitalism as some people seem to do.

Capitalism is based on contract. If I contract with you to get something and then you lie to be and deliver something completely different, I have the right to sue you.

[MaC]

How old are you? Three?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Socialism has people work for the Government. And again, the kind of Socialism I am talking about is not a pure 100% socialism. Its a very loose style in which the government makes only the basic needs, while everything else is made by private enterprises. But the government does have to regulate companies. The amount of power they have shouldnt be anywhere near what power the government has. Unforunately in a capitalism, they often tie or surpass the government;s power. Corporations cheat when the government sits idle and lets it happen. Thats unfair to the people.

Thing is when corporations cheat people, they loose business.  When the government cheats people (and they do far more than corporations do) the government cannot be faulted because they're an almightly force.  Ultimately, the people have control when things are done by corporations and private individuals-or at least they have a greater amount of control than when the government does them.

[opebo]

Capitalism is based on contract. If I contract with you to get something and then you lie to be and deliver something completely different, I have the right to sue you.

So in other words capitalism is a State-imposed system, no different from any other.

[Bono]

Capitalism is based on contract. If I contract with you to get something and then you lie to be and deliver something completely different, I have the right to sue you.

So in other words capitalism is a State-imposed system, no different from any other.

No. I can sue you in an arbitration court.

[opebo]

Capitalism is based on contract. If I contract with you to get something and then you lie to be and deliver something completely different, I have the right to sue you.

So in other words capitalism is a State-imposed system, no different from any other.

No. I can sue you in an arbitration court.

Cool, I'll ignore that.  I only pay attention to the man with the gun.

[Bono]

Capitalism is based on contract. If I contract with you to get something and then you lie to be and deliver something completely different, I have the right to sue you.

So in other words capitalism is a State-imposed system, no different from any other.

No. I can sue you in an arbitration court.

Cool, I'll ignore that.  I only pay attention to the man with the gun.

That's practiclly an admission of guilt.

[John Dibble]

capitalism ignores the poor and helps the rich.

Wrong. Nobody ever gets rich by producing for the rich - products are most often produced for consumption by the masses, not a select few. Electric lighting is of little benefit to someone who has enough money to afford sufficient candles and servants to light them.