realitycheck44 Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Please explain to me what it is you don't agree with. If a government's function is to protect the rights of individual citizens, and rights don't contradict, what do you think is wrong with laissez-faire capitalism? Btw, I'm going to bed b/c I got like four hours of sleep last night and the night before. Zak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I shall look further into the topic. Yet, I will say that the wokrers do need to be protected. Laws are made for a reason and since the industrial revolution, various laws have been placed on business to help protect workers. Minimum wage laws, regulations of hours, child-labor laws, laws regarding fraud and other such things. I believe and a wide range of freedoms within business but of course there has to be limits. I agree with stating limits clearly in law and punishing offenders. In that sense, I am a bit socialist. As far as socialism goes in regard to the distribution of wealth, I simply believe that people have every right to be rich and do what they want with their wealth but I also so not see why one person would need like 20 cars and all of this excessive material possessions when someone just down the street could have just as much ambition and intellect but could be starving because of other circumstances. This is a bit digressive I know, but it paints the picture of how I view such matters regarding wealth. You uttered something epistemological that got my attention. You made a comment about "extremism". And you sounded like the "Wet Nurse" in Atlas Shrugged. He is a character that must be classed among the beautiful in that novel ... all because of one late act. It is one of the most touching scenes I have ever read or imagined. You'll have to get "Atlas" to find out exactly what I'm talking about. Americo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 no, no, no... i meant i disagree with full capitalism. my apologies for the not being clear with that last post. Since you seem to want to discuss it, what the heck: Why do you disagree with full capitalism? If you agree that the function of government is to protect the rights of the individual, then the government cannot *limit* businesses any more than it can tell workers where to work or what to do. Like Zak has said, government limits *force* businesses, while businesses have no power to *force* employees, the employees can always quit. If you would like to understand this argument for capitalism, the books that Ratonal One suggested should be very helpful. Money has the ability to corrupt individuals I really, really suggest reading Atlas Shrugged next. In particular, Francisco's money speech addresses this comment. Anyway, I think you are going in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnargtharst Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Although I certainly recommend All Ayn Rand's works, I think xOraclex would benefit from reading Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Guys, let her finish The Fountainhead before you try to tackle her on political-economical systems! Sara, welcome to the forum. You are heading for the ride of your life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Yeah, I got a bit aggressive. Sorry Sara. I really just wanted to know why you side more with socialism than capitalism. I will continue (or discontinue) this discussion of politics at your will. Zak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Let me preface this by saying that I am a rather cynical individual. People abuse their freedoms. There's no doubt in my mind that in a purely capitalist state we would dive into a world of mass, open corruption. The moral choices that individuals in power make and would make would lead to a multitude of problems for the workers. Lifting government restrictions and laws would allow for these things to acceptably occur. Government intervention (not control)- as far as basic laws that protect worker's rights from being violated- is important to ensure a better balance among classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Not to worry if you feel a bit aggressive in stating your points or questioning mine. It's all in the spirit of debate. As long as we maintain respect for one another I have no issue with these discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 ... Government intervention (not control)- as far as basic laws that protect worker's rights from being violated- is important to ensure a better balance among classes. I agree with this statement, and I will add that government intervention is needed to protect *everyone's* rights from being violated. What do you mean by workers' rights though? We seem to agree that the necessary function of a government is to protect people's rights. So what do you believe a person's rights are, and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Let me preface this by saying that I am a rather cynical individual. People abuse their freedoms. There's no doubt in my mind that in a purely capitalist state we would dive into a world of mass, open corruption. The moral choices that individuals in power make and would make would lead to a multitude of problems for the workers. Would these choices that effect others in a negative way really be "moral" choice as you claim or immoral choices? How could a system that has as its only general rule that one person can NOT violate the rights of others possibly lead to "mass, oper corruption"? You do know that is a violation of the forum rules to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism, don't you? I also know that there is a new rule limiting the number of links in your signature line to just one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xOraclex Posted March 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 ^I'm sensing some personal hostility. Calm yourself. As with all philosophies, each individual can take a different perspective on them. I'm not attempting to spread ideas, I am stating my own. I do not feel that it violates any sort of rule here. Actually, it allows for others to counter my views with objecitivist philosophy that they feel opposes my statements. Total freedom for the sake of no one's rights being infringed upon allows for people to do things that infringe upon others' rights. I feel total capitalism would allow for this. Moral questions can be answered in a moral or immoral way. I shall check up on the rule about the number of sites I am allowed in my signature and I will act accordingly. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 (edited) ... Total freedom for the sake of no one's rights being infringed upon allows for people to do things that infringe upon others' rights. I feel total capitalism would allow for this. ... Again, that depends on what you believe people's rights are. The easiest example would be that people have the right to their own lives, meaning that they have the control over what they do. Therefore, even though you have the right to do as you please (to an extent, read on) it would be illeagal for you to put a gun to someone's head and force them to do something. Really, I don't think there is very much to our disagreement, and I think we could get to the bottom of it if you would state what you belive an individual has the right to. I will go first Rights: own property own one's own life freedom to think what one wants freedom to act upon one's own choices I will post more as I think of them, and Objectivists please point it out if I miss something. EDIT: PS-The thread about links in signatures is here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2921 It has been changed to two links. Edited March 7, 2005 by non-contradictor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.