Capitalism. Good or Bad?

[narouz]

It's a pretty abstract discussion.
Maybe if we added some specific versions of, say, libertarianism.
Here's an Ayn Rand interview with Mike Wallace.
At about the 8:00 minute mark there is some pithy stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

 

[narouz]

I remembered we have the new-fangled "media" button.
I give it a whirl.
At about the 8:00 minute point there is some interesting debate:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k[/media]

 

[narouz]

j.-
If you go to "Part 2" of the same interview above,
would you say that Rand reflects your views about politics at about the 20 second point?

 

[gummybear]

Rand which was a heroin addict all her life and lived off welfare in her last years...

 

[narouz]

Rand which was a heroin addict all her life and lived off welfare in her last years...

I was thinking it was amphetamines...?

 

[j.]

j.-
If you go to "Part 2" of the same interview above,
would you say that Rand reflects your views about politics at about the 20 second point?

My views on politics are so simple that you can figure out anything about them if I just tell you: the only thing governments should do is protect people from from physical aggression and their property, and enforce contracts, that's it.

EDIT: I just listened to it. Ayn Rand sounded more optimistic than I am.

 

[narouz]

EDIT: I just listened to it. Ayn Rand sounded more optimistic than I am.

 

[narouz]

So both of you guys--j. and Dean--think we're headed to hell in a handbasket.
But for different reasons.
Right?

 

[burtlancast]

It all comes down to the difference between individualism and collectivism; all else is just diversion...

From THE MAN itself...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yNTOEVoGQ[/media]

 

[narouz]

Rand says that the altruistic motive is destructive and evil.

When Wallace observes that very few people would be deserving of love within her system,
she agrees.
But she says people have free choice and can correct themselves and make themselves more deserving of love.

The clear implication, in terms of imagining a Randian-style libertarian society,
would be survival of the fittest:
those who find a way to accrue money
are the fit ones;
those who can't figure out how to accrue money
should be left to die--
it's better for society.

 

[narouz]

It all comes down to the difference between individualism and collectivism; all else is just diversion...

From THE MAN itself...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yNTOEVoGQ[/media]

It would seem that in Mr. Griffin's view
Nazis, Communists, Fascists, American-style Capitalists, European-style Capitalists...
all these are just variants of what he calls Collectivists.

Would he say any form of government, past or present,
represents his ideals of Individualism?

 

[j.]

The clear implication, in terms of imagining a Randian-style libertarian society,
would be survival of the fittest:
those who find a way to accrue money
are the fit ones;
those who can't figure out how to accrue money
should be left to die--
it's better for society.

I think there is no doubt a free society would be more productive. Whether poor people die is a matter of what individuals, churches in their communities do. narouz, if you make a lot of money, taxes are very, very low, say 2% or 3% and your income is not taken by the government, and you see a poor person in your neighborhood, would you help them, or donate to an organization, church or charity that does so? Probably. A lot of people are generous, so I don't think having the government confiscating people's income in the name of helping the poor would make things better.

If there is a charity, and you give them money, but later you find that they're squandering it somehow, you can just stop giving them money, and redirect it to better use. But if you see people abusing the welfare system, can you just stop paying your taxes? Haha. So the mechanism of a free society, because is voluntary and not compulsory, is more efficient at helping people.

Another problem is that a lot of people who get the help don't need it. I think charities, churches, and communities would do a better job at protecting themselves from this type of abuse. With government help, if you live in California, you just have to satisfy a set of criteria made in distant Washington to get aid, which allows a lot of people who don't really need it to use it.

Once you reach a relatively high number of dependent people, whether they have the skills to live without government help or not, politicians might continue to keep the program intact because it would get them votes.

So I disagree that a free society would be the type of society you're envisioning. I think without so many government barriers to entrepreneurs there would be more businesses and more jobs, and those who can't get a job will likely be helped by their communities. The help however, will not be compulsory, so the individual receiving it won't be able to take it for granted.

Short version: Ayn Rand isn't the only person in the world, or the first, who advocated for limited government. Even if she doesn't give money to charity, other people will. Also, she said many don't deserve love, in the context of talking about romantic love. Assuming that someone doesn't deserve love doesn't imply that one shouldn't help them. It's not in your self-interest to be surrounded by poor people, at least for safety reasons.

 

[narouz]

Short version: Ayn Rand isn't the only person in the world, or the first, who advocated for limited government. Even if she doesn't give money to charity, other people will. Also, she said many don't deserve love, in the context of talking about romantic love. Assuming that someone doesn't deserve love doesn't imply that one shouldn't help them. It's not in your self-interest to be surrounded by poor people, at least for safety reasons.

"It's not in your self-interest to be surrounded by poor people..."

Well, you could just let them die. :)

I jest. But I'm not at all sure that Rand wouldn't think death would be those folks just desert,
and also best for society.

Actually, I think your argument for self-interest, provides a more realistic starting point
from which to imagine a good political system.
Rich people need other people to become rich.
They need people to work in their factories and provide their services.
And they need people to buy their products.
And they need people to provide the fun things and services they can enjoy with their wealth.

So rich people need other people
and they need them not to be dead,
and moreover they need them to have some bucks so they can be of use to them.
They also probably figure it's better for people to have some bucks
so they won't be so desperate that they'll be waiting at the rich folks' gates
to murder them so they get some bucks so they can eat.

In short: rich people need other people to become rich and stay rich and to enjoy being rich.
This provides one starting point from which to argue that there is a natural "collectivist" rationale for a good society.

 

[gummybear]

It all comes down to the difference between individualism and collectivism; all else is just diversion...

From THE MAN itself...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yNTOEVoGQ[/media]

THE MAN that also copied his most "famous" book from another man?

 

[gretchen]

Well, this may or may not add anything to the discussion, but there was a thinker named Max Weber who said the "spirit of capitalism" was linked to the Protestant reformation:
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/weberrelbk01.htm

Many say the economic changes were well under way before the reformation so there's no connection.

As for whether the Protestants are really individualistic, author Barry Shain says this is a myth. Protestants settlers like the Puritans actually believed life could only be lived correctly if people lived in tight knit communities that were loyal to their church and to the government:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-American-Ind ... ividualism

 

[narouz]

From Wikipedia on G. Edward Griffin:

"When George Wallace ran for President of the United States in the election of 1968, winning five states for the paleoconservative third-party American Independent Party, Griffin served as a writer for Wallace's vice presidential candidate, Curtis LeMay..."

"Griffin has been a member and officer of the John Birch Society for much of his life[9][10] and a contributing editor to its magazine, The New American."

"Griffin says that the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the World Bank are working to destroy American sovereignty through a system of world military and financial control, and he advocates for United States withdrawal from the United Nations."

I kinda think Griffin could fill us in on the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission too!

When one scratches beneath the surface with many purist Libertarians
this is the sort of weird stuff one often finds attached.
j., I'm sure you do not fall into this category!

 

[j.]

j., I'm sure you do not fall into this category!

Of course I do. Obviously. I follow the advice of Raymond Peat. I'm trying to increase my biological energy through food selection and incandescent lights.

I don't get though why advocating withdrawal from the U.N. is controversial. The foreign policy should just be to trade with as many countries as possible, not get involved in the internal affairs of another nation, and respond appropriately when attacked. The U.N. is just a stupid waste of money.

 

[narouz]

j., I'm sure you do not fall into this category!

Of course I do. Obviously. I follow the advice of Raymond Peat. I'm trying to increase my biological energy through food selection and incandescent lights.

I don't get though why advocating withdrawal from the U.N. is controversial. The foreign policy should just be to trade with as many countries as possible, not get involved in the internal affairs of another nation, and respond appropriately when attacked. The U.N. is just a stupid waste of money.

I don't agree but I don't think it's a crazy view.

But...John Birch Society?
The vast, creeping threat of the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group?

 

[j.]

But...John Birch Society?
The vast, creeping threat of the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group?

No idea advocated by the John Birch Society that I'm aware of (*) is more ridiculous than advocating for the existence of a minimum wage.

(*) I might not know all of them

 

[burtlancast]

It all comes down to the difference between individualism and collectivism; all else is just diversion...

From THE MAN itself...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yNTOEVoGQ[/media]

THE MAN that also copied his most "famous" book from another man?

Really ?

Did you read them ?