Reply With Quote
Thought this needed repeating.
There is no moral case for capitalism, esp not for the the social/economic Darwinism of US capitalism.
Thought this needed repeating.
lol.
Yeah, self reliance by voluntary exchange free of state coercion is worse than state coercion and authoritarianism.
scoff!
morality if we mean a code of ethics by which man should live, that is not subjective. There is a standard and that standard is life.
Now ofcourse we are all seperate individuals, and what is required for life varies. But morality should be based on the metaphsyical attributes of man. Which is, that if he is a moral agent, he is so because he can choose his ethics, and because he's able to by reason and not by instinct.
A libertarian I presume?
It's about balance. The free market is the best foundation for building an economy but there are controls that need to be in place to preserve it and to protect buyers. That's why a completely laissez faire capitalist free market has never been done on a national scale and you need the state in order to properly enforce that.
The corporatism that's taking place in the US (which is what we were talking about) doesn't have the same moral high ground because it is using state coercion and authoritarianism to get the results it wants. State force really isn't the problem so much as how it's used.
markets allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. undisputed fact. There is your morality.
People complain about how that money is distributed in society. That disparity arises because of government granted monopolies.
IP laws are bull because there are other ways of making money than having a government granted monopoly.
"That disparity arises because of government granted monopolies."
which monopolies?
You don't need controls, you just need ethics regulations that prevent force or fraud. Govt has no more industry knowledge of what's right or wrong more than the private market.
I think it depends on the industry but it does seem like there's a lot of laws and regulations in place that are written to favour larger businesses.
Ethics regulations and law enforcement is a type of control. :/ Like I said earlier, direct government interference is what needs to be avoided if it can be helped.
All you are going is supporting corporate coercion and authoritarianism. You need to study 1850-1910 a bit.
Bull . Ethic is not enforcable unless you join various associations like the bar. Thats contractual.
Morality is arbitrary nonsense. The only thing binding in this country is the law.
As for the 'metaphysical attributes' of man, there is still no definitive distinction of a priori. Given that there is no rational standard but what we invent ourselves which makes it by definition subjective.
Yeah because self monitoring and regulation by industry without oversight has such a good track record.
There is no empirical basis for that whatsoever.
Just thought I'd fix that before the example came up.
Fair enough. Small scale communism has worked as well for all that is worth.Just thought I'd fix that before the example came up.
Morality is not arbitrary in the sense that you can't escape the consequences of what ethics you choose. Ultimately morality has to be based on an objective standard.
And as far as there is no standard definition of the nature of man, that's the most ridiculous. First man is a concept and concrete that exist within the metaphysical universe and is bound by his nature. A man can't fly with his arms, a man can't instinctively know where north or south is without using his reason. there is much more.
To claim that man's nature is socially constructed is to imply that that consciousness precedes existence. Well you can believe what you want to believe, that's fine. And a man who is 400 lbs and eats cheeseburger daily might think he's eating morally but he will suffer the consequences of his actions. So yes morality is subjective in the sense that man has "free will" to choose and shape his morality, but ultimately it has to be based on an objective standard if man wishes to live, because the single purpose of morality is to show man how to live on earth. Or else, why would someone who doesn't want to live, or wants to commit suicide need a code of ethics? why would animals need a code of ethics if they are wired for survival and their will is constricted to non existent. A beaver doesn't wake up and decide, "I'm not going to build a damn, my nature". but many of us do decide to evade reality, our nature, and we do face consequences which do lead to death.
On to the question of govt..
Since i've already explained the need for govt to be based on the nature of man as being a "free willed" "rationally capable" human being, then the task is for govt, if it chooses to be moral must be constructed to allow for the men in that society to operate freely, and to choose their way of survival through reason as rational beings so long as they don't infringe on others.
As far as controls. Having govt agencies that regulate industry is a recipe not for consumer freedom but for monopoly privelege. Just look at how many Monsanto, Haliburton, X sundry business has had the privelege to sit in influential areas in govt in order to influence govt to write regulation for their favor.
If you want to talk about track record, look at the regulation of education, healthcare, and other areas. The record shows decline, not progress.
Facts, and morality are not on your side.
if that's the case, govt can only show force when coercion or fraud is present, but it can't manage, or decide what is right between a voluntary transaction, that is a recipe for a descent into dictatorship.
You completely avoid the salient point in the issue: the notion of good and bad. You can create you own ethic as can any other man. Thus the term subjective. The issue is when you apply your subjective basis of morality to others. Its bull .
Some people like being fat. Some beavers don't build dams. That does not make that person or beaver immoral. It just means they made a choice. Just becuase a bunch of people agree that its 'immoral' does not make that an inherent virtue.
There is zero basis for external rational construct that is irrefutable or absolutely certain. That should be obvious with the use of correlation coefficients. Modern physics just adds more fuel to that fire from a different frame of reference.
No one is going to argue that elite privilege in this country is a major issue. The solution is not to give them free reign. Again there is zero evidence empirically that it works.
Quite the contrary. When it comes down to it. Given free reign elites worm their way into government anyway. Thats the entire point of this article and really what history should have taught you. Look at the behavior of the food, mining, railroad, steel and banking industries of the 19th century.
I have long held that the Cons ution of the country is fundamentally flawed as it does not even consider the oh so fundamental reality of corporate culture. The solution is not to do the same that we have tried before. Neither the status quo or the 19th century.
Yeah people can choose their morality, that's called free will, thanks for agreeing with me that man's nature involves free will. We can agree on that.
As far as consequences, yeah, people can choose ethical positions, but they will suffer the consequences. Good and bad in the context of life is pretty simple, if it advances your life then it's good, if it destroy's it is bad.
Morality is not a set of rules that determine a be all end all "good" and "bad" as floating platonic abstractions outside of context.
Being fat for someone in with good geans might be desirable if it helps him achieve a certain goal that enhances his life.
But if you have a history of diabetes, cancer, and high bp, then being fat is utterly irrational, it's going to kill you, and it's bad.
Bad in the sense that it is a choice that leads to death.
If you were to say, well, what if they really want to die. Well to that I say, then you don't need morality to achieve death. You can choose nothing, you could sit on a beach shore waiting, doing nothing and ultimately you either will die of hunger or dehydration.
Good and Bad is contextual to individual moral agents, time, and space. But there is an objective standard. If you say there isn't you're simply wrong.
Morality is a set of values.
Without life, you can't have values. What is of value to a dead man?
Life is the basis of all values and is the ultimate end. Therefore, there is an objective measure by which man should choose to live on earth. This is called (ethics), Ethics involves metaphysics. But before you answer the question of ethics you must first figure out the metaphysical ie Nature.
The muslim, the christian, the jew, athiest, spur, laker, etc all these have one value in common...LIFE.
None of these en ies could achieve or need values, ethics and so forth if it wasn't for LIFE.
What are we dealing with here?
Well, all these en ies are MAN.
And they all live in a UNIVERSE which requires them to achieve values in order to live.
Well what should be the basis of their ethics?
as far as the need for govt.
This is your logic.
Govt+business (crony corporate capitalism) = bad.
therefore we need more govt.
excuse me but that is unreasonable.
What is the objective standard for morality and why?
Consequences implies the notion of bad. As I said some people want to be fat. Some people wnat to be dead. The only basis for the good or bad are human cultural constructs. The elites of the 19th century found beauty in fatties. Feudal Japan saw suicide as honorable as do people in severe pain.
Another way of looking at it is there are subsequent events. You can view them as good or bad. That does not make for an objective reality
Bull . i said that government needs to be fundamentally changed how it operates. You know like changing the Cons ution. I never said more, I said different.
Try again.
Also the jury is still out in terms of free will. If our understanding of brain chemistry evolves to the point where you can reduce behaviors and activity down to brain functions and response to external stimuli exclusively then what then?
Einstein's approach was that 'god doesn't play dice.' Essentially that cuase and effect are reality within a rational contruct. if that is the case then events as they unfold follow particular patterns and as such the uncertainties we assume are reality are in fact not.
We don't know. thats the entire point. All you do is bluster at certainties and there is no justification for that.
Have you read Sam Harris' Free Will? I'd be interested to hear your take on it.
Yes and no. Generally speaking the state shouldn't be reallocating resources and interfering with various transactions. That said the government does have to balance that against what's good for society as a whole. To a large extent the government does manage and decide what's right through laws.
For example, it's illegal for you or I to buy certain types of weapons. Even if there's no coercion involved and we find a willing dealer, the government has already decided that we can't have them. It's another form of control that works to keep harmful goods out of people's hands.
Also, government interference in the market is sometimes beneficial (usually if there's insightful economists around) and is absolutely necessary at other times.
What it comes down to is making sure that conditions are equitable as a general rule and making moves to stabilize the currency/economy when the need comes up. The problem is that many governments don't consider the unintended consequences of their actions because they don't always understand how seemingly unrelated policies can impact things on a micro-level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions