Interesting...

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.
Wendell Berry

Capitalism by itself may not be considered wholly Just if its distributive mechanisms distribute the wealth unevenly. This is because when one considers Justice they often consider equality, fairness, and Sometimes Deserts, equity and some other baloney. The core principle of justice revolves around the issue of fairness, and thus in order to argue that capitalism is just... one must argue that it is fair. Thus is capitalism fair, and thus just? Do people get what they deserve?

[John Dibble]

In theory and principle I think it is fair, but then again other systems also sound fair. In practice it is imperfect, but capitalistic systems with reasonable regulations tend to produce the best results for the greatest numbers of people over the long term when compared to the other systems we've tried. Human systems will likely always have some degree of unfairness to them, so the best we can do is support the systems that do the most good and don't make us feel like we're doing something unethical. (a system could in theory be extremely good for 99% while horrifically bad for 1%) If someone managed to think of a better type of system that could be implemented in the real world, I'd support it.

Also, what the heck are "Sometimes Deserts"?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

In theory and principle I think it is fair, but then again other systems also sound fair. In practice it is imperfect, but capitalistic systems with reasonable regulations tend to produce the best results for the greatest numbers of people over the long term when compared to the other systems we've tried. Human systems will likely always have some degree of unfairness to them, so the best we can do is support the systems that do the most good and don't make us feel like we're doing something unethical. (a system could in theory be extremely good for 99% while horrifically bad for 1%) If someone managed to think of a better type of system that could be implemented in the real world, I'd support it.

Also, what the heck are "Sometimes Deserts"?

When Justice is considered in Philosophical terms one will sometimes think about Deserts. Deserts basically raise the qeustion "did he/she get what they deserved".

I agree that capitalism is a pretty good system but during the 19th century many individuals such as John Stuart Mill felt very conflicted when thinking about capitalisms ability to do good for the greatest amount of people. Obviously conditions have improved since than,but what about capitalisms effect on the Third world? If these countries never modernize than would it be considerd a fair economic system?

[John Dibble]

When Justice is considered in Philosophical terms one will sometimes think about Deserts. Deserts basically raise the qeustion "did he/she get what they deserved".

1. Don't you mean "desserts"? Spelled with a double 's'. Also, the term is "just desserts" not "sometimes desserts", fyi.
2. Either way, that and justice are not proper nouns so please stop capitalizing them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Capitalism's effect on third world nations largely depends on whether or not they accept capitalism and whether their government is capable, competent, and willing enough to do what is necessary to work with such a system. If those conditions are met, the nation in question will likely modernize. Some parts of modernization will initially produce some bad effects (take China's pollution problem for instance) but once enough wealth has been generated in the nation that country will more than likely be willing to spend a little extra to lessen those problems. The full benefits are largely something that will come to the population in time, perhaps even over many generations, but they generally will come.

Compare this to nations whose governments vehemently reject capitalist principles. Even if they attempt to modernize the mismanagement is so great that the benefits are minimal at best. Take North Korea for example.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

When Justice is considered in Philosophical terms one will sometimes think about Deserts. Deserts basically raise the qeustion "did he/she get what they deserved".

1. Don't you mean "desserts"? Spelled with a double 's'. Also, the term is "just desserts" not "sometimes desserts", fyi.
2. Either way, that and justice are not proper nouns so please stop capitalizing them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Capitalism's effect on third world nations largely depends on whether or not they accept capitalism and whether their government is capable, competent, and willing enough to do what is necessary to work with such a system. If those conditions are met, the nation in question will likely modernize. Some parts of modernization will initially produce some bad effects (take China's pollution problem for instance) but once enough wealth has been generated in the nation that country will more than likely be willing to spend a little extra to lessen those problems. The full benefits are largely something that will come to the population in time, perhaps even over many generations, but they generally will come.

Compare this to nations whose governments vehemently reject capitalist principles. Even if they attempt to modernize the mismanagement is so great that the benefits are minimal at best. Take North Korea for example.

Third World countries attempt to modernize in order to keep up with the "capitalist west", and I am sure you are familiar with such claims. The only problem I have with capitalism are its ethical values,but i can not think of economic system that is any more efficient.