Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is capitalism perfect?

Rate this topic


Rourke

Recommended Posts

You don't have to read past paragraph three to see through the premises of Prof. Domhoff's "argument:"

Well saying "argument" insinuates that you dismiss him as some kind of extremist. In fact very few social scientists would object significantly with what he is saying. Of course they all could be wrong and you right, but I think he deserves to be taken seriously. Also, his articles are value-neutral in that he does not advocate policies, only reflecting on observeable phenomena.

What follows is a statistical analysis, which, in typical socialist fashion, treats wealth as if it was a natural resource, which has been unfairly distributed between the evil rich and the virtuous poor.

He never made this value judgement about rich and poor in his essays. Your statements, ironically, imply the opposite is true.

Never is there any discussion of the source of wealth - the productive capacity of the smallest sliver of society.

This is a red herring. The topic of the essays is not the accumulation of wealth, it is what happens when that wealth has already been accumulated. Another excerpt: "Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries. Second, certain kinds of wealth, such as stock ownership, can be used to control corporations, which of course have a major impact on how the society functions." There is a ton of info on the site evaluating how that power operates, how wealth disparity translates to power disparity, and how once there is a power structure, it is very hard to change it or dislodge it. Just touching the tip of the iceberg here.

Domhoff argues that wealth is the source of a person's power, without once considering the possibility that a man's intelligence, diligence, tenacity and courage are the fountainhead from which his power and his wealth flow.

Few would dispute that man has considerable power to marshal his resources to affect his life. You might consider the fact that some people start out with substantially more resources (money/family connections/intelligence) than others. Many people start off on 3rd base and think they hit a triple. The vast majority of those with real wealth in this country came from real wealth.

As with any "humanist" he believes that the productive capacity of each man is the the common property of all men, that is, that the productive are the rightful servants of the unproductive. He would take those factories built through the process of rational vision, planning and effort, and redistribute them to the loudest, neediest savages of society, and then, we presume, demand more factories when those have been driven back into the dirt from whence they sprang, through neglect and incompetence.

Hmmm, I don't recall him saying anything to this effect in the readings. Savages?

... whose life effort consists of a line of dirt and sawdust being pushed along by a broom whose very construction is beyond his conceptual grasp?

I don't share your antipathy for working class people. For every successful CEO or businessperson there are countless folks needed to do the physical work. Demographically, not all people can be virtuous CEO's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well saying "argument" insinuates that you dismiss him as some kind of extremist. In fact very few social scientists would object significantly with what he is saying. Of course they all could be wrong and you right, but I think he deserves to be taken seriously. Also, his articles are value-neutral in that he does not advocate policies, only reflecting on observeable phenomena.

I'm comfortable with you lumping him into the mainstream of social "scientists." Here is a "value neutral" quotes from Prof. Domhoff's essay, concerning the nature of CEO's in general:

True enough, the CEOs are sometimes ousted by their generally go-along boards of directors, but they are able to make hay and throw their weight around during the time they are king of the mountain. (It's really not much different than that old children's game, except it's played out in profit-oriented bureaucratic hierarchies, with no other sector of society, like government, willing or able to restrain the winners.)

He never made this value judgement about rich and poor in his essays. Your statements, ironically, imply the opposite is true.

No, no value judgment there, just on objective, and empirically supported statement of fact.

This is a red herring. The topic of the essays is not the accumulation of wealth, it is what happens when that wealth has already been accumulated.

Of course, anything that puts the issue into a larger context of the process of wealth creation is a red herring. The wealth exists now, thank you very much, so we'll take over now and figure out how to distribute it. And don't ask how more wealth will be accumulated, once what we have is gone, because that is a red herring.

Few would dispute that man has considerable power to marshal his resources to affect his life. You might consider the fact that some people start out with substantially more resources (money/family connections/intelligence) than others. Many people start off on 3rd base and think they hit a triple. The vast majority of those with real wealth in this country came from real wealth.

Not sure how a social "scientist" defines "vast majority," but 52% seems a little low to me. That's the percentage of Americans in the top quintile of wealth in 1998 who started in the top quintile in 1988. Only 55% in the second quintile started in the first or second. 40% of those in the third quintile rose, with 12% rising to the top quintile. 47% in the bottom quintile rose, 22% to the fourth, 12% to the third, 7% to the second and 5% to the top quintile. But let's not let mere facts get in the way of our ideology. (source: New York Times)

Hmmm, I don't recall him saying anything to this effect in the readings. Savages?

A "savage" in this context is a person who is not able to provide for himself, who lives day by day, consuming what he produces, finds, or is given by those with the wherewithal to produce. It is pejorative, and I'll take the hit on that, but the truth is that most people in our society would not survive long without the productive expertise of a relative few. And no, he doesn't say, explicitly, that we should take the productive wealth of those who produced it, and give it to those who didn't. But what then is the purpose of this essay, merely to "reflect on observable phenomena," with no goal further than the general edification of the populace?

This quote is telling:

It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power.

Tough to "get organized" and "exercise power," huh? Sounds like a challenge to me. Can't exercise power if you don't have it, and, according to Domhoff, you don't have power if you don't have wealth. Is he advocating the bottom 80% organize to get their fair share of the wealth of the top 20%? And if so, by what means? Governmental action, i.e., by the point of a gun? Of course, Prof. Domhoff would never openly say something to this effect.

I don't share your antipathy for working class people. For every successful CEO or businessperson there are countless folks needed to do the physical work. Demographically, not all people can be virtuous CEO's.

I don't have an antipathy for working class people, I am simply stating a fact. The janitor in a factory has productive capacity, by virtue of his factory job, far beyond his natural capacity.

I don't share your antipathy for the rich. Countless folks would be without jobs without the business acumen, intelligence, courage and tenacity of the CEO. A CEO can do physical work, an unskilled janitor can not run a successful business.

(edit: awkward wording, and reduced spacing; sarcasm)

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Domhoff argues that wealth is the source of a person's power, without once considering the possibility that a man's intelligence, diligence, tenacity and courage are the fountainhead from which his power and his wealth flow.

Unfortunately you seem to be committing the same error as your opponent.

There is no universal term "power" which refers to a man's efficacy in all matters. There is a stark and extremely important difference between political power and economic "power."

Political power refers to physical force - the ability to command the power of the state to use force to physically compel someone to comply with your bidding.

The latter refers to your ability to voluntarily trade the products of your labor for the goods and services of others. There is no physical force or compulsion involved. If someone does not want to purchase on the terms you are offering, no amount of "economic power" in the world can lay a finger on them.

Properly, there can be no conflation of these two, completely different, concepts. The fact that some people happen to use the same word ("power") to refer to them is highly unfortunate, but does not change the vast distinction between them.

Note also that capitalism as defined here on this board is: the political system which outlaws the use of physical force (including political power) for any purpose other than the defense against someone who initiates the use of said force. The only political power which legally exists (that is, outside of criminals and outlaws) under capitalism is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, anything that puts the issue into a larger context of the process of wealth creation is a red herring. The wealth exists now, thank you very much, so we'll take over now and figure out how to distribute it. And don't ask how more wealth will be accumulated, once what we have is gone, because that is a red herring.

So its completely inappropriate to simply analyze the causes and effects of extreme wealth concentration on society?

Not sure how a social "scientist" defines "vast majority," but 52% seems a little low to me. That's the percentage of Americans in the top quintile of wealth in 1998 who started in the top quintile in 1988. Only 55% in the second quintile started in the first or second. 40% of those in the third quintile rose, with 12% rising to the top quintile. 47% in the bottom quintile rose, 22% to the fourth, 12% to the third, 7% to the second and 5% to the top quintile. But let's not let mere facts get in the way of our ideology. (source: New York Times)

Take another look at the Times site you linked to, agrippa. The first mistake you made was assuming that it represents wealth inequality. The figures represent income inequality. Very different. But even looking at the charts, you can see there is little movement downward from the top 2 quintiles. In these two quintiles there is a high degree of stability. Do a search on the authors' other writings, and see the conclusions they come to are similar to mine.

But one has to understand that income fluctuates year to year, and is not a reliable indicator of wealth. An example is the Steve Jobs kind of setup, $1 salary and highly variable realized gains and other compensation. I don’t think many people consider him to be hurting in a year that income represented on his tax return was just $1. There are individuals with million dollar investment portfolios and zero taxable income on the tax return. An interesting aspect of this is that it’s hard to find data on wealth in the US. Treasury data.

The major asset of the middle class, generally representing the bottom 3 quintiles, is their home. The major assets of the rich are financial securities, mutual funds, and small business equity. For the last 25 or 30 years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices. Having wealth as stocks, bonds, etc, is much more valuable because of its liquidity. And the burden of mortgage debt can be heavy, particularly when interest rates rise. Its true that more people have stock ownership now, but mostly through mutual funds and pension funds, so there is little influence over corporate policies.

A "savage" in this context is a person who is not able to provide for himself, who lives day by day, consuming what he produces, finds, or is given by those with the wherewithal to produce. It is pejorative, and I'll take the hit on that, but the truth is that most people in our society would not survive long without the productive expertise of a relative few. And no, he doesn't say, explicitly, that we should take the productive wealth of those who produced it, and give it to those who didn't. But what then is the purpose of this essay, merely to "reflect on observable phenomena," with no goal further than the general edification of the populace?

Sounds like you believe there are just a few individuals pulling the rest of us up out of the morass despite ourselves. Jared Diamond in "Guns Germs and Steel" takes this "Great Man Myth" and turns it on its head. He discusses the evolution of technology and inventors throughout world history, and that it was only when society was capable of using their products (or ideas, as the case may be) that they were implented. Inventors, and CEO's, rise to positions of importance because society dictates (broadly speaking) that it be so.

I don't have an antipathy for working class people, I am simply stating a fact. The janitor in a factory has productive capacity, by virtue of his factory job, far beyond his natural capacity.

I don't share your antipathy for the rich. Countless folks would be without jobs without the business acumen, intelligence, courage and tenacity of the CEO. A CEO can do physical work, an unskilled janitor can not run a successful business.

In fact I come from a fairly wealthy family, so I can see first hand the benefits of money and social capital on the chances for success. All my cousins went to Ivy League schools or other elite colleges. Is this just a coincidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact I come from a fairly wealthy family, so I can see first hand the benefits of money and social capital on the chances for success. All my cousins went to Ivy League schools or other elite colleges. Is this just a coincidence?

I don't come from a wealthy family. My father used the GI bill after WWII to become an engineer and make a pretty good living, but there was not enough money for a college for me or my four siblings. I joined the USAF in my early twenties to get the GI bill, worked in the Air National Guard and at UPS to get myself through engineering school. I look at America and the wealthy and I see opportunity, not closed doors.

Those who point out inequality of wealth do so with one purpose: to advocate reallocation of wealth from the productive to the unproductive.

Interesting that your example of extreme wealth is Steve Jobs.

How about another: Bill Gates. And some others:

Sheldon Adelson

Larry Ellison

Paul Allen

Sergey Brin

Kirk Kerkorian

Jack Taylor

Who are they? They represent over a third of the top $1/2T of wealth in America, and none of them come from wealth. If you don't count the Walton family, they represent 7 of the 11 richest men in America. Not bad for a nation in which the vast majority of those with real wealth comes from real wealth.

Sounds like you believe there are just a few individuals pulling the rest of us up out of the morass despite ourselves. Jared Diamond in "Guns Germs and Steel" takes this "Great Man Myth" and turns it on its head. He discusses the evolution of technology and inventors throughout world history, and that it was only when society was capable of using their products (or ideas, as the case may be) that they were implented. Inventors, and CEO's, rise to positions of importance because society dictates (broadly speaking) that it be so.

Not exactly. Diamond was discussing the reasons for the success of certain societies, not the reasons for success of individuals within a society. Inventors are not commanded, they are self-made. And yes, there are just a relatively few individuals with the [you know the list] to make things better for the rest of us. Next time you're in an airport, look at the crowds of people trying to figure out how to read a departures sign, then look out the window at those shiny metal cylinders taking off and landing like clockwork, then ask yourself how many in the crowd could conceive and build the simplest mechanism that makes those things fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you believe there are just a few individuals pulling the rest of us up out of the morass despite ourselves. Jared Diamond in "Guns Germs and Steel" takes this "Great Man Myth" and turns it on its head. He discusses the evolution of technology and inventors throughout world history, and that it was only when society was capable of using their products (or ideas, as the case may be) that they were implented. Inventors, and CEO's, rise to positions of importance because society dictates (broadly speaking) that it be so.

You gotta be kidding, right? This book was a complete piece of trash, totally off base. A true Marxist account of history if I've ever seen one, full of moral and cultural relativism. He thinks the smartest guy on earth is a tribal leader in New Guinea. Geography is not the great determiner of human destiny like he states, individual ability is. His book leaves no room for human thought. But wherever you have seen some aspect of rational individual thought is where advanced society has developed. It was not because of the pure dumb luck that one group was located in Europe and one in Africa, where soil was not keen to agriculture and animals were available to help with the development of crops. There have been people in Africa longer than any other place on earth. The barbarians of Nigeria, Algeria, etc. have been sitting on oil deposits for thousands of years; the people of the Ivory Coast have been sitting on huge gold deposits for thousands of years. It was only when rational thought was applied that these resources became worth fortunes.

It figures you're from a wealthy family; you're a typical ivory tower intellectual. I suggest you read some great works of human thought, works from Aristotle and other Greeks, Aquinas, Locke, Smith, Einstein, Darwin, Hugo, Newton, Mises, Rand. Don't waste your time reading these trash novels that you hear recommended on the Thomm Hartman show like this book, or Confessions of an Economic Hitman, or The Secret History of the American Empire. They are not great achievements. After you're done with that go work in any American inner-city, where the actual poor could care less about your theories of liberalism and wealth redistribution.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding, right? This book was a complete piece of trash, totally off base. A true Marxist account of history if I've ever seen one, full of moral and cultural relativism. He thinks the smartest guy on earth is a tribal leader in New Guinea. Geography is not the great determiner of human destiny like he states, individual ability is. His book leaves no room for human thought. But wherever you have seen some aspect of rational individual thought is where advanced society has developed. It was not because of the pure dumb luck that one group was located in Europe and one in Africa, where soil was not keen to agriculture and animals were available to help with the development of crops. There have been people in Africa longer than any other place on earth. The barbarians of Nigeria, Algeria, etc. have been sitting on oil deposits for thousands of years; the people of the Ivory Coast have been sitting on huge gold deposits for thousands of years. It was only when rational thought was applied that these resources became worth fortunes.

I think however that this book does put forward an important piece of the puzzle. Certainly NOTHING would happen without human genius. But it's really hard for that genius to make something happen if he happens to be living in a resource-poor area. It's also a lot easier for that genius to make something happen if he has the benefit of a lot of other geniuses' metaphorical shoulders to stand on. What Diamond *did* show is that geography influences those two factors. He misses out on one other thing though--you need the political freedom to take advantage of these other two things. The formula is:

resources + access to previous knowlege (except for the man who first made a stone tool or tamed fire) + a genius + freedom for that genius to act (follows from a proper philosopy) => innovation.

Watt could not have built the first efficient steam engine without A) access to iron and coal, ;) prior knowlege of physics, C) his own brain, which added additional needed knowlege and knew how to apply it, and D) the freedom to act.

Diamond *definitely* errs in dropping two of those four factors from his analysis (I suppose he pays some lip service to genius but tends to assume it's everywhere people are)--but I think I did a pretty good job explicating the other two. So his work isn't completely worthless.

True, anyone relying on it for the whole story is going to end up being a Marxist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't come from a wealthy family. My father used the GI bill after WWII to become an engineer and make a pretty good living, but there was not enough money for a college for me or my four siblings. I joined the USAF in my early twenties to get the GI bill, worked in the Air National Guard and at UPS to get myself through engineering school. I look at America and the wealthy and I see opportunity, not closed doors.

Those who point out inequality of wealth do so with one purpose: to advocate reallocation of wealth from the productive to the unproductive.

The biggest predictor of success in life is your who your parents are. That's not to say people don't overcome their upbringing or underachieve in life, but if you're placing a bet, the odds are stacked that the family influence beats everything else. You sound like you worked hard and deserve what you earn, but you don't give your father enough credit. He survived the hell of WWII, then got free government money (I would say he earned it) to go to school and better himself. He became a professional engineer, which sounds like the expectations for you growing up were pretty high. Now consider people who don't even have fathers, or had deadbeat dads who beat them and called them worthless their whole life. Then add on top of that a crap inner city environment he had to survive, burned out teachers who didn't give a damn, peer pressure that says its "selling out" to be smart, etc., etc. Certainly you can see how people get a head start or get handicapped depending on their childhood circumstances.

Interesting that your example of extreme wealth is Steve Jobs.

How about another: Bill Gates. And some others:

Sheldon Adelson

Larry Ellison

Paul Allen

Sergey Brin

Kirk Kerkorian

Jack Taylor

Who are they? They represent over a third of the top $1/2T of wealth in America, and none of them come from wealth.

Bill Gates, came from a wealthy family.

Larry Ellison, father made a small fortune before losing it in the Depression. Easy to see how life skills transfered to his son.

Paul Allen, had a succesful father and attended private school.

Sergey Brin, father a professor in the department of mathematics at the University of Maryland, mother also a mathematician

Maybe not all (but Gates) came from wealth, but most had incredible advantages over the average person.

Not exactly. Diamond was discussing the reasons for the success of certain societies, not the reasons for success of individuals within a society. Inventors are not commanded, they are self-made. And yes, there are just a relatively few individuals with the [you know the list] to make things better for the rest of us.

For the most part yes, that is what the book is about, but take a look at chapter 13 where he discusses inventors. The evidence is greater that forces within society are more determinate of who the great men are, not so much the men themselves. I'm not discounting any individual man's ability to control his destiny, but just looking at the big picture and seeing where the pieces do fall.

I don't know of any indispensable men. The whole of society is like a house of cards, sure there are people at the top, but take away the people beneath and they become meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding, right? This book was a complete piece of trash, totally off base. A true Marxist account of history if I've ever seen one, full of moral and cultural relativism.

It won the Pulitzer Prize, dude. No small achievement. And considering your accusation of Marxism is leveled at anything resembling even the slightest baby step to the left of your ideology, it dilutes the impact of the criticism.

He thinks the smartest guy on earth is a tribal leader in New Guinea. Geography is not the great determiner of human destiny like he states, individual ability is. His book leaves no room for human thought. But wherever you have seen some aspect of rational individual thought is where advanced society has developed. It was not because of the pure dumb luck that one group was located in Europe and one in Africa, where soil was not keen to agriculture and animals were available to help with the development of crops. There have been people in Africa longer than any other place on earth. The barbarians of Nigeria, Algeria, etc. have been sitting on oil deposits for thousands of years; the people of the Ivory Coast have been sitting on huge gold deposits for thousands of years. It was only when rational thought was applied that these resources became worth fortunes.

It actually sounds like your familiar with many themes of the book, but how you came to the conclusions you did is quite mystifying. Exactly where do you think he went wrong in explaining why human societies developed as they have? I thought his explanations of why Africa developed much more slowly made perfect sense. You can't get rational thought to permeate a culture until it can feed itself consistantly and with abundance enough to allow specialization to develop within the society. I thought he was perfectly clear about this.

It figures you're from a wealthy family; you're a typical ivory tower intellectual. I suggest you read some great works of human thought, works from Aristotle and other Greeks, Aquinas, Locke, Smith, Einstein, Darwin, Hugo, Newton, Mises, Rand. Don't waste your time reading these trash novels that you hear recommended on the Thomm Hartman show like this book, or Confessions of an Economic Hitman, or The Secret History of the American Empire. They are not great achievements. After you're done with that go work in any American inner-city, where the actual poor could care less about your theories of liberalism and wealth redistribution.

As much as I like the classics, I tend to stick with more contemporary reading these days. The most current author you cite has been dead for 25 years. A lot has happened since then, much is to be learned. Do you challenge your own assumptions by reading a diverse collection of (modern) viewpoints?

I used to play a lot of basketball in the inner cities. Last time I checked, inner city poor vote overwhelmingly liberal (Democratic).

Edited by Rourke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, except I was ignoring political power, rather than conflating the two types of power. But the result appears the same, doesn't it?

Yes, look how the discussion is still going in a futile direction. As I said, it can't move forward without addressing that keystone point. So long as he continues to use the Marxist conflation of political power and economic "power," this will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s see if I understand this discussion.

This discussion does as far as I see come down to two fundamentals, namely the separation of ethics and economy and the separation of (political) power and the economy.

Now the idea that the economy should be ethically agnostic is impossible, since if you throw values out the window there will be nothing left to valuate economy by. Without values there is no way to say that a society consisting of a bunch of starving homeless people is any worse or better that a rich free society. The argument that an economy should be pragmatic (without ethical consideration) is therefore worthless since if it is to be pragmatic is must have some objectives (values!).

How can any system be regarded as perfect if there is no standard to measure by? That would be like saying that the hammer is the perfect tool. The question is; the perfect tool for what?

So I would like to ask Rourke ; by what standard to you measure economic systems? Wealth generation?

Now to the other issue:

If economics is separate from the state, as is advocated by Objectivism then it is not possible to get political power directly from having a lot of money. So the issue of big companies getting too powerful is void in a country in which economics and politics are separate. Essentially; there would be no conflict of interest.

Does this make any sense or am I just confused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s see if I understand this discussion.

This discussion does as far as I see come down to two fundamentals, namely the separation of ethics and economy and the separation of (political) power and the economy.

That is not quite the right way to put it, but I think one of the confusions is that we don't currently have capitalism, and so some people want to point to what is happening today and damn capitalism, when most of the evils stem from us having a mixed economy -- a mixture of capitalism and controls on the economy.

Under capitalism, the law would have nothing to say about the economy and would not have the authority to do anything about supposed grievances regarding someone earning their wealth by buying and selling products and services; one would be free to buy and sell goods and services of whatever kind, so long as force and fraud and con-games were not involved. In effect, under capitalism, the government takes a hands-off approach to economic transactions. But this is not a separation of economics and ethics, but rather the application of ethics -- the rational, man-based ethics of Objectivism -- to the political / economic system. If man by his nature must be free to use his mind to survive and to flourish, then it is moral to keep one's hands out of someone else's business -- even if you are in politics. That's why capitalism is the only moral system; it is the only political / economic system whereby a man is free to live as a man, with no force or fraud involved in his life -- if force or fraud are introduced, then the law is there to take care of those evil men who want to trade in force and fraud and con-games. To put this in a modern context, all those regulations and other initiations of force by the government onto businessmen would be illegal. So, it is a separation of economics and politics, but not a separation of ethics and politics. Under capitalism, one would be free to follow whatever morality one wants, again, so long as force, fraud, and con-games are not involved; but one would not be "free" to impose one's morality onto another.

Under our current political / economic system of pressure group warfare and government regulations -- often stemming from a corrupt morality (not man's life as the standard) -- force is introduced onto the producer, all producers, whether he be the CEO or the janitor. This even goes all the way down to "minimum wage jobs" whereby the worker is not free to work for less, if he decides to do so, because it is illegal.

With capitalism, any man would be free to work as productively as he can, and no one could stop him from earning a million dollars in the career of his choice. These days, many of the barriers to entry in a given field come about due to regulations, such as different TV cable companies or TV satellite companies not being free to operate in the same geographical area. Theses are government enforced monopolies, and they did not come about due to capitalism, but rather the corruption of capitalism.

The "widening income gap" that some people disparage would not be the government's business to do anything about. If one man can make billions of dollars, while another can only make tens of thousands of dollars, that is no one's business but his own. It is immoral and evil to want to chain down the moral producer from making his millions or billions simply because Joe Worker can only make his tens of thousands. And this statement is an illustration that Objectivism does not think there is a separation of morality from economics -- Objectivism embraces the producers, on whatever level they operate, and morally praises them for earning a living. Objectivism also morally condemns those who want to throttle the most productive members of society.

And while it is often true that if one is born into a rich family one has many more opportunities, so that such a person may well have an easier time at life, since the basics are most definitely covered and one is not starting from ground zero economically, his parents earned their income and can do with it what they will -- including sending their kids to Ivy League schools if they want to. It is evil to say that the wealthy should have no economic advantages over the poor. And I am saying this as someone who started at ground zero in a family that was dirt poor and who is now only making tens of thousands rather than millions; because I understand that it is only unfettered capitalism that can lead me to making great wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must have written my previous post in an incomprehensible way since it was my very point that separation of ethics and economics was not possible, thus concluding that the claim that economy should be handled pragmatically without any consideration to ethics is just nonsense.

Edited: typo

Edited by Animae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must have written my previous post in an incomprehensible way since it was my very point that separation of ethics and economics was not possible, thus concluding that the claim that economy should be handled pragmatically without any consideration to ethics is just nonsense.

I'm still not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Economic activity can certainly be morally evaluated, because it is ideas and actions put forth by man's volitional nature. One does not morally evaluate the earth going around the sun, because the earth has no choice in the matter. In the realm of choice, one makes moral evaluations, that by some standard a man's self-chosen actions are either moral or immoral. So, yes, one could decide, by some moral standard, if the ideas and actions that lead to a man becoming wealthy are moral or immoral. Objectivism says that the ideas and actions leading to a man becoming wealthy are moral, so long as force or fraud were not involved -- that is, so long as the economic transactions were mutually voluntary between buyer and seller, and no force or fraud was involve, then such trades are moral. Many other moralities do not have that view, and want to impose force against the producers and traders because they believe that earning money is bad or evil.

Perhaps what you are trying to convey is the idea that there ought to be a separation of economics and state for the same reason there ought to be a separation of church and state.

My primary argument against those that want a controlled economy is that they want to initiate force against the producers, which, as an Objectivist, I think is immoral. In other words, Rourke and his ilk want to take the moral high ground by claiming that some people getting rich while others remain poor is immoral or involves immoral acts. I'm saying no he is wrong, that the height of morality is to earn one's living -- that to make money is an honorable means of sustaining one's life; whether one makes billions or tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Pragmatism generally means that the ends justify the means; that, in effect, morality is thrown out the window and stealing that million dollars is as practical as earning it; that getting government hand-outs is a good as earning a living; that forcing others to be silent is as practical as speaking your mind and finding a way to make money doing it in the process. Pragmatism is short-range get-what-you-can on the immediate moment, and don't worry about what may happen to you in the future. This is certainly not the Objectivist approach.

I have already pointed out that the title of this thread -- Is capitalism perfect? -- is a moral question, which is why I have been answering it the way I have. The specific details of economics is not the primary concern --i.e. does making 10% profit make you more money in the long-run versus making a few 10,000% transactions in the same field is an economically technical question that deals with markets and how best to sell one's product; but it is not the central issue of this thread.

In other words, those of us who understand Objectivism will not let the economic controllers have the moral high ground. Objectivism, as a morality for living life on earth, morally trumps their arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder, given the absolute certainty so many Objectivists have about the viability of such a social system, and the constant complaints about the "evil" government using force on them, why Objectivists haven't started their own society, their own land of opportunity. Certainly there are enough Objectivists with money, more and more CEO's seem to be buying into it. Just get yourself an island in, say, the south Pacfic, or buy some nice coastline acreage from an impoverished African nation, and set it up. If you are so morally convicted, take action. There's isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting it going in the United States or the UK. So rather than languish in the stability of the corrupted mixed economies, don't Objectivists want to live in the pure and unfettered world of their dreams? Or is it that, deep down, you know that it isn't sustainable?

Edited by Rourke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder, given the absolute certainty so many Objectivists have about the viability of such a social system, and the constant complaints about the "evil" government using force on them, why Objectivists haven't started their own society, their own land of opportunity. Certainly there are enough Objectivists with money, more and more CEO's seem to be buying into it. Just get yourself an island in, say, the south Pacfic, or buy some nice coastline acreage from an impoverished African nation, and set it up. If you are so morally convicted, take action. There's isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting it going in the United States or the UK. So rather than languish in the stability of the corrupted mixed economies, don't Objectivists want to live in the pure and unfettered world of their dreams? Or is it that, deep down, you know that it isn't sustainable?

That's really not a realistic idea... The United States of America is the closest we've ever come to an Objectivist society, which protected individual rights and restricted the power of government. Look what a worthless, greed-driven nation it ended up being before the social scientists rescued it.

By the way, we forgive you for your wealth. You can stop feeling guilty about it if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should Objectivists leave? Why should the advocates for liberty and capitalism be banished to some "coastline acreage from an impoverished African nation?" How about if the collectivists leave the US and establish their land of 'equality' elsewhere? Gee, they could set up shop...well, just about anywhere, now couldnt they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Gates, came from a wealthy family.

Larry Ellison, father made a small fortune before losing it in the Depression. Easy to see how life skills transfered to his son.

Paul Allen, had a succesful father and attended private school.

Sergey Brin, father a professor in the department of mathematics at the University of Maryland, mother also a mathematician

Maybe not all (but Gates) came from wealth, but most had incredible advantages over the average person.

The fact that you can read Gates' early life and focus simply on the wealth of his parents speaks volumes towards your biases. Gates' advantage was a very high intelligence (his 1590 SAT was not financed), not any source of wealth to finance his achievements. (While I erred is saying he did not come from wealth, it is crystal clear that his technical skills, the source of his success, were self-developed.) So I guess the fact that both his parents were very intelligent gave him a genetically unfair advantage over the "average" person. Maybe after redistributing wealth and watching it flow back to the productive few, the social scientists can prescribe pre-frontal lobotomies or sterilization to give the "average person" a chance.

Ellison's father made a "small fortune" (oxymoron, no?) in real estate in the bubble leading up to the depression, then lived in a lower middle class neighborhood of Chicago during the post war business boom. Given the number of people who made "small fortunes" during the 20's, "life skills" is a little bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Paul Allen's father was an associate director of libraries at U Washington. "Successful?" okay, maybe, but certainly not in the context of this discussion. As for the private school angle, given the success public social "scientists" have had creating an effective education system, I think you'd better just drop that line.

Sergey Brin's parents were intelligent, too, but weren't from any great wealth. So which approach do you propose, lobotomies or sterilization?

It's clear to me you see wealth as an uncaused, unearned resource, unfairly distributed between those who hold an undefinable, arbitrary "power" and those who don't. I'm guessing you're one of those who argues (and may even believe) that "no one is better than anyone else," with absolutely no understanding that this is one of the most inherently evil concepts devised by man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won the Pulitzer Prize, dude. No small achievement.

"Achievement," huh?

Garnering the votes of a bunch of rich white guys, newspaper publishers and academics like Danielle Allen, "Professor, Departments of Classics and Political Science and the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago" (Did Ayn Rand write her job description?) is your idea of "achievement?"

One wonders at an ideology that resents the economic power held by productive members of society, but gladly pools immense political power in the hands of a very few on the basis of their "social enlightenment," or whatever floating abstraction you use to describe their "qualifications."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest predictor of success in life is your who your parents are. That's not to say people don't overcome their upbringing or underachieve in life, but if you're placing a bet, the odds are stacked that the family influence beats everything else. You sound like you worked hard and deserve what you earn, but you don't give your father enough credit. He survived the hell of WWII, then got free government money (I would say he earned it) to go to school and better himself. He became a professional engineer, which sounds like the expectations for you growing up were pretty high. Now consider people who don't even have fathers, or had deadbeat dads who beat them and called them worthless their whole life. Then add on top of that a crap inner city environment he had to survive, burned out teachers who didn't give a damn, peer pressure that says its "selling out" to be smart, etc., etc. Certainly you can see how people get a head start or get handicapped depending on their childhood circumstances.

Okay, but what's your point? And what exactly do you mean by "family influence?" No genetics, obviously, as that would blow your ideals of equality of man.

It sounds like you're backpedaling now from the specific wealth argument to the more general argument that your origins influence your success. I think you've hit on a general concept that we can all agree on, but to what purpose? America has probably the most mobile social system in the world, and it is fueled primarily by the vestiges of capitalism. My examples of the richest 7 of 11 men in America put the lie to the myth of inherited wealth as the primary source of wealth. Wealth does not become a perpetual motion machine once it reaches a certain level. It is squandered faster by the rich fool than the poor one, in a natural process of efficient resource allocation. In all cases, it is the intelligent, rational (those are two distinct characteristics, by the way) person who allocates resources in ways that optimize productivity, and it is the optimization of productivity, not the socially enlightened re-allocation of wealth, that optimizes all members of society's earning potential and standard of living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder, given the absolute certainty so many Objectivists have about the viability of such a social system, and the constant complaints about the "evil" government using force on them, why Objectivists haven't started their own society, their own land of opportunity.

What you are asking is why don't we shrug now and get it over with? That is a reference to Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged in which the most productive members of society walk off their jobs in protest to governmental force and controls gone wild. In effect, they go on strike until their rights are guaranteed via the government. And if things get a lot worse than they are now, that is certainly an option. But, even with the controls and government interference in the economy and in our lives, the United States is still the freest nation on earth, and we don't want to give up on it just yet -- there are still too many values to be had, since the government does protect individual rights for the most part. And so long as we still retain freedom of speech and freedom of the press, we can still propagate our ideas and change the country for the better in the long run. If the united States became a dictatorship -- which it did in Atlas Shrugged -- then it would be time to start over again. But even though I only make a few tens of thousands of dollars per year, I still have a very good standard of living in this country, and my individual rights are upheld by default, for the most part. So, I'd rather stand and fight ideologically, since I understand the power of ideas.

Miss Rand made the observation that one of the slogans we hear so much these days is: "Give up! Give up! Give up!" And we hear it from all quarters and from everyone who is against us. "It's never going to happen, so give up the ghost!"

No, I don't think so.

And I think those cries we hear are from the fear that our opponents have that we are right and they are wrong; that they have no rationality to back up their position, since so often we do not get a rational response. We are merely told that it is impossible. Impossible? By what standard? And it can only be said to be impossible by those who have given up on the power of ideas.

Our enemies on all sides have the upper hand -- in the short term -- because it will take an educational campaign for us to be heard. Keep in mind that Objectivism is really only about 50 years old, if one counts the publication of Atlas Shrugged as the first real complete presentation of Objectivism qua philosophy. And that novel is selling at the rate of about 100,000 per year; and it is considered second only to the Bible in terms of its influence on people's lives and ideals. Not bad for one novel and only fifty years.

So, no, it is not time for us to give up and to leave.

It is time for our opponents to recognize that we are here, and that our rational ideas will win the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...