In Defense of Capitalism & Free Markets

[orogenicman]

There's no doubt at all that the founders believed in rights originating from God.

From the Declaration of Independence:



It's not mentioned in the Constitution because it was dealt with in the Declaration. The Constitution, as viewed by the founders, was a business-like document written to sort out the practicalities of government organization and operation, not to address philosophical issues.

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The Constitution, and the laws and treaties which have arisen from them are. One of those treaties, the Treaty of Tripoli, states in no uncertain terms that we are not a Christian nation.

 

[Rick]

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The Constitution, and the laws and treaties which have arisen from them are. One of those treaties, the Treaty of Tripoli, states in no uncertain terms that we are not a Christian nation.

I jumped into the thread late, but I thought the issue was one of the founders' perception of the origin of rights. Such a perception has no relevence to law per se, nor even which rights exist.

 

[GenSeneca]

The idea that rights come from God is an unsupportable position, unless you can have God personally explain how he created our rights.

The idea that rights come from man is equally unsupportable because Rights cannot be given or taken away, they simply exist and are either recognized or ignored.

Positive law is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which bestow or remove specific privileges upon an individual or group. Contrast this with natural law which are inherent rights, not conferred by act of legislation.​

Before you venture further in an attempt to answer the question of the origin of rights, it would be wise to first answer the question of, "What is a Right"?

As for the claim that Thomas Paine was an Atheist...

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." - Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

It is true that Paine was no fan of organized religion but to claim that the man was an Atheist is simply untrue.

 

[Rick]

The idea that rights come from God is an unsupportable position, unless you can have God personally explain how he created our rights.

I made no comment on whether rights actually coming from God is a supportable position, but rather that the the notion that they do was the assertion of the people who founded the US.

 

[Supposn]

Start discussions upon a specific examples and or a specific remedys.

Originally Posted by GenSeneca:
......... The single greatest act Congress could pass to improve the nations economy would be a separation of economy and state.

Posted response by Supposn to GenSeneca:
………. If you’re serious about “separation of economy and state”, start a discussion upon a specific example and or a specific remedy. I’ll post to your topic.
///////////////
GenSeneca, this thread seems to be a general defense of capitalism.

You may believe you’re more committed than I am to the concept of free enterprise. I’m a strong proponent of free enterprise and individual freedom. But I also recognize that within human endeavors and conditions, situations arise where the profit motive is not as effective as other motives.

There are situations where appealing to individuals profit motives would be contrary to what we wish to achieve. When our goals are economic goals, the study of employing all manner of motives is described as the study of economic behavior.

This is a wordy declaration of my belief that although we should consider the ramifications of the creating or ignoring precedences, each existing or proposed regulation must be judged upon its own merits.

I’m not running for public office and I there’s no need for me to be intimidated by political labels.

GenSeneca, if you’ll describe and explain your objections to specific laws and regulations, we may concur or have some issues to further discuss. You may wish to consider separate threads for differing classifications of regulations; (global trade, taxes, criminal law, civil law, ………. my views may or may not be as consistent as yours with regard to each classification.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Start discussions upon a specific examples and or a specific remedys.

Originally Posted by GenSeneca:
......... The single greatest act Congress could pass to improve the nations economy would be a separation of economy and state.

Posted response by Supposn to GenSeneca:
………. If you’re serious about “separation of economy and state”, start a discussion upon a specific example and or a specific remedy. I’ll post to your topic.
///////////////
GenSeneca, this thread seems to be a general defense of capitalism.

You may believe you’re more committed than I am to the concept of free enterprise. I’m a strong proponent of free enterprise and individual freedom. But I also recognize that within human endeavors and conditions, situations arise where the profit motive is not as effective as other motives.

There are situations where appealing to individuals profit motives would be contrary to what we wish to achieve. When our goals are economic goals, the study of employing all manner of motives is described as the study of economic behavior.

This is a wordy declaration of my belief that although we should consider the ramifications of the creating or ignoring precedences, each existing or proposed regulation must be judged upon its own merits.

I’m not running for public office and I there’s no need for me to be intimidated by political labels.

GenSeneca, if you’ll describe and explain your objections to specific laws and regulations, we may concur or have some issues to further discuss. You may wish to consider separate threads for differing classifications of regulations; (global trade, taxes, criminal law, civil law, ………. my views may or may not be as consistent as yours with regard to each classification.

Respectfully, Supposn

HI, and welcome.

I agree that the profit motive is not the only motive that motivates people. I disagree that free enterprise relies solely on the profit motive.

The desire to be moral is a legitimate part of free enterprise.

As a matter of expediency I like that governments regulate capitalism. But given the choice of an economic system with no regulation or one that is 100% regulated I would choose the first as being closer to just. Market forces, such as people boycotting unscrupulous merchants would be a factor in an unregulated capitalism. But a government that regulated 100% of activity would be an evil.

I also wonder about your ability to show that there are situations in which a profit motive is not sufficient? Show us an example and I suspect that someone could show how profit motives would encourage people to act justly in that situation.

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

Re: Start discussions upon a specific examples and or a specific remedys.

HI, and welcome.

I agree that the profit motive is not the only motive that motivates people. I disagree that free enterprise relies solely on the profit motive.

The desire to be moral is a legitimate part of free enterprise.

As a matter of expediency I like that governments regulate capitalism. But given the choice of an economic system with no regulation or one that is 100% regulated I would choose the first as being closer to just. Market forces, such as people boycotting unscrupulous merchants would be a factor in an unregulated capitalism. But a government that regulated 100% of activity would be an evil.

I also wonder about your ability to show that there are situations in which a profit motive is not sufficient? Show us an example and I suspect that someone could show how profit motives would encourage people to act justly in that situation.

You say that governments regulate capitalism - okay it does ... not a limited extent.

So long as people are fully aware that the Federal Reserve pulls the strings. and ... the original Constitution was written in a way where the Federal Reserve was an illegal concept until President Wilson and his cronies took care of that in the winter break of 1913

 

[Supposn]

Re: Start discussions upon a specific examples and or a specific remedys.

GenSeneca, you may have noticed the new discussion of behavioral economics. Your requested example’s in there.

It seems to me that our opinions do not differ to any large extent but that does not necessarily mean that we can (or cannot) reconcile the differences between us.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[clarkatticus]

I believe in capitalism, I owned a business at age 23. The problem with capitalism now is that a world economy exists, and not all nations practice free trade, most, including our own, have gov. subsidized industries. We are taught that business is self leveling, bad business practices will cause a business to fail and good ones will prevail, a premis I reject. Not because it isn't true, it just isn't true fast enough. In the time it took the Financial industry to ruin themselves in the US, they had grown so large that to let them fail would have caused 10X the misery we feel now. Also, new levels of fraud have descended on our financial scene, most of it legal. Investment banks have securities trading branches, insurance companies have reinsurance branches, and rating companies have sweetheart deals with investment banks. Trading rules allow products so vague or untraceable to be traded unregulated with huge gambling aspects. Right now, Goldman Sachs is lobbying millions to prevent regulations that will restrict the transactions that they used to get us in this mess, if the Volker rules do not get passed, we will be in the same boat as 2007-8. In a perfect world, free trade is the best idea. In our world, regulation is necessary-individual greed will overcome business sense.

 

[Supposn]

Re: Start discussions upon a specific examples and or a specific remedys.

GenSeneca, you may have noticed the new discussion of behavioral economics. Your requested example’s in there.

It seems to me that our opinions do not differ to any large extent but that does not necessarily mean that we can (or cannot) reconcile the differences between us.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Start discussions upon a specific examples and or a specific remedys.

GenSeneca, this thread seems to be a general defense of capitalism.

That it is... But I highly recommend reading the Original Post (OP) that began this thread. If you're bored enough, you might also read through the entire thread to see if topics you wish to discuss have already been addressed and ask any follow up questions you think people may have missed.

You may believe you’re more committed than I am to the concept of free enterprise.

There's no doubt.

Free Enterprise: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy. also called free market.​

You are a self admitted proponent of government interference and regulation. I don't yet know your position on subsidies, so perhaps you could address that now.

I’m a strong proponent of free enterprise and individual freedom.

Based on your statements so far, I'm more inclined to believe you support a Mixed Economy and Legal Rights (which I refer to as privileges).

Mixed Economy: (or balanced economy) is an economy that includes a variety of private and public control, reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to having a variety of government sponsored aspects.

There is not one single definition for a mixed economy, but the definitions always involve a degree of private economic freedom mixed with a degree of government regulation of markets.​

Legal rights: also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.
​

Now contrast those with my statements in the OP about Capitalism, Individual Rights, and the Free Market economy. Just for clarification, I use the term Individual Rights in reference to Natural Rights.

Natural rights: also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.​

I use the term Individual Rights mainly to differentiate my view of Rights from those who believe in group rights, collective rights, and legal/statutory rights (all of which I refer to as privileges).

But I also recognize that within human endeavors and conditions, situations arise where the profit motive is not as effective as other motives.

Capitalism encourages individuals to make decisions based on rational self interest. Our ideal is a society based upon mutually beneficial exchange and volitional consent. When two individuals come together for a mutually beneficial exchange, they both profit (It's important here to recognize that the definition of the word "profit" is not limited to a concept of monetary gain). In cases of an exchange that is not mutually beneficial, it must be voluntary, there can be no force or fraud involved. So the concept of the profit motive is widely misunderstood and thought of only in monetary terms but that is a narrow and ill conceived view of the profit motive.

The profit motive can be applied to cases where there is no monetary gain. For example, teaching my nephew how to fish. The satisfaction gained from the experience is not monetary in value but it is nevertheless of great value to me. Therefore I consider myself to have profited as a result of taking my nephew fishing.

There are situations where appealing to individuals profit motives would be contrary to what we wish to achieve.

Such as?

When our goals are economic goals, the study of employing all manner of motives is described as the study of economic behavior.

There is an old axiom, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Well, government only has one tool, the use of force. So governments only means for altering economic behavior is the use of force, and that is strictly verboten under a Capitalist system.

This is a wordy declaration of my belief that although we should consider the ramifications of the creating or ignoring precedences, each existing or proposed regulation must be judged upon its own merits.

Regulations that do not protect the individual from force or fraud are instead exerting force or allowing fraud, and therefore have no merit.

I’m not running for public office and I there’s no need for me to be intimidated by political labels.

An excerpt from my thread, What is your political ideology?:

Every individual fits into one (or more) ideological category, its just a matter of taking an honest, introspective view of your beliefs to figure out which ideologies best reflect your beliefs. While some run from the idea of being tagged with a political label, such fears are completely irrational.

Why would anyone want to label themselves with an ideology? If you want to participate in political discussions, it is in your own best interest to identify your political beliefs. Declaring your ideology aids in identifying friends and allies, people with whom you share similar beliefs, it also helps where you might not expect, dealing with people who disagree.

If both parties understand where the other is coming from, they are much more likely to have an amicable disagreement. When one party doesn't understand where the other is coming from, they most often resort to ad hominem character attacks and the conversation devolves accordingly.​

I try to be as objective as possible when formulating an individuals ideological assessment and the participants have all been pleased with the results... Even people with whom I ardently disagree were pleasantly surprised by my evaluation of them.

Feel free to participate in that thread as well but be aware that it may take several days after you have answered a handful of questions for me to go through the information and create an assessment.

GenSeneca, if you’ll describe and explain your objections to specific laws and regulations, we may concur or have some issues to further discuss. You may wish to consider separate threads for differing classifications of regulations; (global trade, taxes, criminal law, civil law, ………. my views may or may not be as consistent as yours with regard to each classification.

I believe I have... Laws and regulations that do not protect the individual from force or fraud are themselves exerting force or allowing fraud. Test this yourself by considering any law or regulation that is not protecting the individual from force or fraud. Take for example the CAFE standards. These laws do not protect the individual from force or fraud but instead exert unnecessary force.

Give it a shot, try to think of a law or regulation that doesn't protect the individual from force or fraud and also doesn't exert force or allow fraud. You might be surprised at the results.

 

[GenSeneca]

In a perfect world, free trade is the best idea. In our world, regulation is necessary-individual greed will overcome business sense.

How much of what you are complaining about is a result of government exerting force or allowing fraud? From what I can see, all of it.

Consider for a moment what it might look like if there were a separation of economy and state and the government were strictly limited in it's role to that of protecting you from force and fraud.

There would be no more corporate welfare or subsidies, corporations would lose their social safety net known as "Too big to fail" putting an end to all bailouts, the fraudulent trading currently being done with the protection and blessing of government would become illegal.

It's precisely because the world is not perfect that we must reign in the power of government and limit the scope of it's activity to it's only legitimate function, protecting the individual from force and fraud. Using the excuse of an imperfect world to allow government carte blanche in creating laws and regulations outside of it's legitimate function is the reason we have so many problems today.

 

[clarkatticus]

How much of what you are complaining about is a result of government exerting force or allowing fraud? From what I can see, all of it.

Consider for a moment what it might look like if there were a separation of economy and state and the government were strictly limited in it's role to that of protecting you from force and fraud.

There would be no more corporate welfare or subsidies, corporations would lose their social safety net known as "Too big to fail" putting an end to all bailouts, the fraudulent trading currently being done with the protection and blessing of government would become illegal.

It's precisely because the world is not perfect that we must reign in the power of government and limit the scope of it's activity to it's only legitimate function, protecting the individual from force and fraud. Using the excuse of an imperfect world to allow government carte blanche in creating laws and regulations outside of it's legitimate function is the reason we have so many problems today.

Forgive me if I don't understand, how could non regulation make fraud illegal? Or is Wall Street going to have it's own court system? Last I looked the Judicial branch was part of government. Your obviously talking about getting rid of the SEC and the Federal Trade Commission along with Fannie May and Fredi mac. The Federal Reserve is your greatest windmill. All these institutions were started for a reason, good ones at the time. Should they be ended?--your out of your mind. They might be modernized, but leaving the course of the nation in the hands of immoral unethical people such as this would be the end of American liberty. Even Jefferson knew this and I'm no fan of him. Striking the right balance between opportunity and regulation is what we should strive for, Libertarianism is a bankrupt theory, believe me, I was registered as one for 25 years.

 

[GenSeneca]

Forgive me if I don't understand, how could non regulation make fraud illegal?

It is a popular misconception that "unregulated Capitalism" is the economic equivalent of Anarchy but that's simply not the case and economic Anarchy is NOT what I'm advocating.

How is fraud made illegal in an "unregulated" market? Laws. The only laws and regulations that should be tossed out are the ones that do not protect the individual from force and fraud. Only in an economic system of total Anarchy would ALL laws and regulations be eliminated.

Capitalism requires a Free Market. Unfortunately, the Free Market has been falsely labeled as an "unregulated" market when it is far more accurate to describe it as being a market with strictly limited regulations, those that protect the individual from force and fraud.

Or is Wall Street going to have it's own court system? Last I looked the Judicial branch was part of government.

Again, I'm not advocating for Anarchy here, I didn't say we should eliminate the government, or the judiciary.

I believe the government, including the judiciary, has a vital role to play in the protection of individual rights. Which is why government should be strictly limited to that one specific job and barred from all other activities. If government were limited to doing just one thing, protecting our individual rights, it could do it very well.

Your obviously talking about getting rid of the SEC and the Federal Trade Commission along with Fannie May and Fredi mac.

Fannie and Freddie, yes, they should be privately owned or disbanded. Government should not be operating businesses of any kind, either in whole or partial ownership roles.

As for the SEC and FTC, they could still function as the enforcement arm of the federal government to investigate companies, enforce laws and prosecute fraud in their respective fields but they wouldn't be referred to as regulatory bodies.

Law enforcement agencies (FBI, ICE, US Marshall's etc.) aren't considered regulatory bodies but the law enforcement agencies in charge of the financial sector (SEC, FTC, FDIC etc.) are considered regulatory bodies. So what's the difference?

Law enforcement agencies are tasked with protecting the public from the use of force. Thanks to the presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty), there are strict limits in place to ensure law enforcement doesn't run roughshod over the rights of citizens. The police cannot simply go door to door searching homes and looking for evidence of crimes, but the financial regulatory authorities can.

The law enforcement agencies of the financial sector (SEC, FTC, FDIC etc.) are are tasked with protecting the public from fraud. Unlike law enforcement agencies outside the financial sector, these law enforcement agencies operate on the presumption of guilt. Every publicly traded company is automatically considered to be engaged in fraudulent activity and summarily subjected to a perpetual investigation.

Even if you do not consider this a violation of rights, it is unquestionably a gigantic waste of time and resources. Some proof of this reality can be found in the regulatory agencies abysmal record of actually preventing fraud, which includes Enron, WorldComm, Tyco, Global Crossing and Bernie Madoff, just to name a few.

So while regulatory agencies are given carte blanche to operate under the stated mission of protecting the public from fraud, I couldn't cite a single example of them actually accomplishing that mission. Meanwhile other law enforcement agencies, who are strictly limited in their scope of operation, not only have a long public record of solving crimes but somehow manage to actually prevent many crimes from ever occurring.

The Federal Reserve is your greatest windmill.

Yes, it is. I would radically reform the Federal Reserve.

All these institutions were started for a reason, good ones at the time. Should they be ended?--your out of your mind. They might be modernized

If by "modernize" you mean radically reformed to operate under the concept of innocent until proven guilty, then we are on the same page.

leaving the course of the nation in the hands of immoral unethical people such as this would be the end of American liberty.

You're talking about politicians, right?

Oh.. you're talking about corporations. So we shouldn't trust these immoral, unethical people but government should be allowed to climb in bed with these people because politicians are so moral and ethical they will balance it all out.

Striking the right balance between opportunity and regulation is what we should strive for

Would you support law enforcement agencies outside the financial sector acting on the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence?

You could refer to the local police department as a "crime regulatory agency" while they rummage through your home without a warrant or probable cause, looking for evidence of a crime, and be content in knowing you've finally struck the right balance between opportunity and regulation.

 

[Dr.Who]

I believe in capitalism, I owned a business at age 23. The problem with capitalism now is that a world economy exists, and not all nations practice free trade, most, including our own, have gov. subsidized industries. We are taught that business is self leveling, bad business practices will cause a business to fail and good ones will prevail, a premis I reject. Not because it isn't true, it just isn't true fast enough. In the time it took the Financial industry to ruin themselves in the US, they had grown so large that to let them fail would have caused 10X the misery we feel now. Also, new levels of fraud have descended on our financial scene, most of it legal. Investment banks have securities trading branches, insurance companies have reinsurance branches, and rating companies have sweetheart deals with investment banks. Trading rules allow products so vague or untraceable to be traded unregulated with huge gambling aspects. Right now, Goldman Sachs is lobbying millions to prevent regulations that will restrict the transactions that they used to get us in this mess, if the Volker rules do not get passed, we will be in the same boat as 2007-8. In a perfect world, free trade is the best idea. In our world, regulation is necessary-individual greed will overcome business sense.

I like you general thinking but see some details differently.

Countries that restrict free trade ultimately hurt themselves so we really find ourselves at an advantage when they do that.

Government subsides likewise hurt a countries economy so again we would find ourselves at an advantage if we were the only country not to practice subsidizing certain companies.

If the leveling of companies were to occur more slowly perhaps there would be less upheaval in the markets.

I reject the notion that without subsides and special legal privilige that any industry would grow so large or was so large it was too large to fail.

I agree that legal fraud is a problem.

Congressmen who allow themselves to be influenced by lobbyists and then do things they should not should be prosecuted using laws that they have not passed but should.

Regulation to make economies run smoothly or better are not needed. Laws to punish people who harm others is.