Capitalism

[israel]

Granted, most of you are supporters of capitalism.

i understand that, and i also understand that this argument may be a bit one sided.

however,

do you feel that capitalism is the ultimate form of government?

i feel that while, at the moment it is a wonderful thing, there are many problems that cannot simply be ignored.

(im referring to a completely capitalistic, laissez-faire independent state)

for instance:

the establishment of monopolies,

the import of dangerous substances (drugs, guns, chemical weapons)

while i agree that the government needs to work for us,

i for one am aware of mans inability to handle money

[KevinDW78]

I think you need to check your premises of coming to this forum.

[israel]

i agree with most of the values and theories of objectivism,

just not all.

i simply want to discuss the points i dont agree with...

im aware that objectivism supports capitalist societies.

correct?

in essence, capitalism is the only way to go because it allows the individual to strive for himself. I get to better my life, because i have the ability to.

i agree wit this.

however, mans inability to handle money has led to so many problems in capitalist societiies.

Americans politicains are often upported by compeltly legal contributions from coperations that got as big as they were due to capitalism.

(on a side note, wich could be argued further, capitalsim can unintentionally destroy the hwoel nigth watchman government)

If you were getting paid three hudnred thousand dollars a year by lrge oil company, just prior to a vote on an act that coudl make the drilling of oil illegal in areas considered to be of scientific value, like Yosemite. However, this company knows for a fact that there are billions of dollars worth of oil in pockets underneath the forest of said park. wouldn't you use your influence to make sure that law doesn't get passed.

and maybe you personally wouldn't, but im sure there are millions of "selfish" americans out there who gladly would sacrifice their morals for 300K a year.

please argue with me!

prove me wrong!

i am yearning for knowledge and i have no problems have my ideals refuted!

[KevinDW78]

please argue with me!

prove me wrong!

i am yearning for knowledge and i have no problems have my ideals refuted!

Um... Have you tried reading Ayn Rand?

[Dr. Radiaki]

I'll try to address the idea of monopoly being "bad".

First of all, how does one create a monopoly in truly free market? By out competing and acquiring the opponents in your chosen field. You do not achieve these goals by selling an inferior product, or paying an inferior wage. Expansion requires labour, which can only be attracted by offering better pay or benefits than a competitor. Expansion requires a decent product, too. Do not expect to make enough profit to buy a lemonade stand if you sell duds.

Once a monopoly has been established, radically driving up prices or lowering wages(The only way a monopoly could "harm" anyone) will achieve little benefit for any company so doing. Prices high enough will result in the development of alternatives by any means necessary, as methods previously untenable become affordable in the wake of skyrocketing costs. Lowering wages can be combated by unionization, and where this fails, leaving the job. Skills do not disappear, and by driving off its best workers a company is, in effect, creating its own competition. After all, who better to break Company X's hold on the market than its disgruntled(and highly skilled) former employees?

[israel]

Um... Have you tried reading Ayn Rand?

maybe you've already developed a distaste me.

i am here to debate capitalism with human beings.

i will read books in my own free time

(ayn rand being on the top of my list)

[israel]

I'll try to address the idea of monopoly being "bad".

First of all, how does one create a monopoly in truly free market? By out competing and acquiring the opponents in your chosen field. You do not achieve these goals by selling an inferior product, or paying an inferior wage. Expansion requires labour, which can only be attracted by offering better pay or benefits than a competitor. Expansion requires a decent product, too. Do not expect to make enough profit to buy a lemonade stand if you sell duds.

Once a monopoly has been established, radically driving up prices or lowering wages(The only way a monopoly could "harm" anyone) will achieve little benefit for any company so doing. Prices high enough will result in the development of alternatives by any means necessary, as methods previously untenable become affordable in the wake of skyrocketing costs. Lowering wages can be combated by unionization, and where this fails, leaving the job. Skills do not disappear, and by driving off its best workers a company is, in effect, creating its own competition. After all, who better to break Company X's hold on the market than its disgruntled(and highly skilled) former employees?

Thank you!

i was ignorant, and now i am much more informed.

you've made an extremely good argument, i really do appreciate it.

But what if its not money that somebody is after? What if its power? What if the entire telecommunications sector was bought out by an individual company whose sole purpose was to remove the ability to essentially 'talk.'

absolute chaos would commence.

but that would never happen would it?

im really racking my brain to find a situation to counter your argument but i have to admit im stumped. In absolutely no reasonable situation would it be ideal for a company of any kind to become a monopoly. The only ideal situation would be a complete takeover of state, which sounds like its straight out of a movie.

eh, anyone up to try some of the others?

[Tenzing_Shaw]

But what if its not money that somebody is after? What if its power? What if the entire telecommunications sector was bought out by an individual company whose sole purpose was to remove the ability to essentially 'talk.'

That is a very unlikely scenario. If it did happen, the demand for communications would skyrocket, making it no longer profitable for companies to sell to the power-seeker. If the power-seeker used force at any point, the government would step in.

A suggestion: If you really are serious about this discussion, I recommend that you try to improve the grammatical quality of your posts. If you did that, I think people might take you more seriously.

[softwareNerd]

Israel,

You might use the term "Capitalism" to mean something different from what Objectivism means. You should read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

Here is the essence: Rand holds that when people live together as a society, if the society is to be moral. it has to respect certain individual rights. This concept of rights is also very specific (and different from the way some people use the term.)

Think of people who are coming together as a society, to benefit from trade with each other -- both social and economic. They benefit greatly from coming together, but only as long as other people do not kill them or rob from them. People can shun them -- that's no good, but not really a violation of their rights, since that's every individual's choice. The rights to life and property are the primary aspect that make a society a moral one, since they protect each individual. These rights ensure that no individual is forced to unwillingly pay for someone else's upkeep, except where he has agreed and contracted to do so.

The way Objectivism uses the term Capitalism is a political system that ensures the protection of such rights, and where the only purpose of government is to ensure that such rights are protected.

Usually, this leads to a discussion on the nature and meaning of rights.

[Chops]

I'll be very brief here, since your question about drugs and weapons have been answered and debated to great extent elsewhere on these forums.

Narcotics violate no rights and therefore should not be banned to any extent whatsoever. Individuals under the influence of narcotics can violate rights, but so can an individual not under the influence of narcotics.

Guns serve as self-defense (but, like a pencil, knife, or big stick) can also serve as an offensive, and a man has a right to defend himself.

Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, however, serve no individual defensive purpose, but instead constitute a constant threat of force to anyone within the range of the weapon itself. It's no different than pointing a gun at everyone within range, and as such should be restricted to military use only.

Other forum reading for you:

Should someone be allowed to own a tank?

Should the sale of antibiotics be restricted?

Keep in mind that Objectivism holds that the initiation of force is not only immoral, but that the sole purpose of government is the prevention and punishment of the initiation of force. Pointing a gun at someone without pulling the trigger constitutes an initiation of force.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Chops

[DavidOdden]

A further suggestion is that once you get basic familiarity with the arguments for capitalism, try making a declarative statement which asserts something, rather than giving a noun which doesn't make a specific claim. For example, "the establishment of monopolies" -- this doesn't say anything about monopolies (good? bad?) and who establishes them. It's hard to read another person's mind, so if you are worried that a free market will make it harder to establish coercive governmentally enforced monopolies on such things as phone service, then you should say that, explain why you think such monopolies will not arise in a free market, and explain why you think that it is necessary to establish coercive monopolies on certain goods and services (the latter is the most important point, I think). I mean, I assume that this is your concern over monopolies, that it will be impossible to maintain them in a free market.

[KevinDW78]

maybe you've already developed a distaste me.

Correct. I question your motives for being here as evidenced by your other posts elsewhere on this forum.

Edited July 27, 2008 by KevinDW78

[KendallJ]

Correct. I question your motives for being here as evidenced by your other posts elsewhere on this forum.

Except of course you've managed to express such concern in the one place he's allowed to come and dissent: the debate forum.

[eriatarka]

First of all, how does one create a monopoly in truly free market? By out competing and acquiring the opponents in your chosen field. You do not achieve these goals by selling an inferior product, or paying an inferior wage.

This is very idealistic. In many fields, the best selling products arent those with the highest quality - theyre the ones backed by corporations with large advertising budgets and 'clever' sales/marketing strategies. Microsoft's domination of the PC market is a good example of this, as are most electronic goods (well known companies such as Sony/Panasonic/Bose generally make poorer quality goods than smaller companies, but get better sales because of their advertising campaigns. I think Bose are the best selling brand of speakers, but noone who has a clue about hifi is going to go anywhere near them).

Once a monopoly has been established, radically driving up prices or lowering wages(The only way a monopoly could "harm" anyone) will achieve little benefit for any company so doing. Prices high enough will result in the development of alternatives by any means necessary, as methods previously untenable become affordable in the wake of skyrocketing costs

This is generally true, but not always. Once a company has control over a field, theres a lot of tactics it can use to keep sales high even when its products are grossly overpriced compared to alternatives. Microsoft is the classic example of this - theres no way that $300 for windows vista+MS office could be justified over the free alternative of ubuntu/open-office based on the quality of the products alone, but the reason Microsoft is able to sell high volumes of products is through a clever-but-dubious sales strategy which involves things like forcing vendors to sell Windows with all their computers or have their licences revoked, continually breaking compatibility so that people are forced to upgrade, and so on. Windows Vista is obviously a terrible product compared to most other modern operating systems (including XP) yet microsoft are still managing to sell millions of copies because of the way they interact with vendors and businesses.

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[KevinDW78]

Except of course you've managed to express such concern in the one place he's allowed to come and dissent: the debate forum.

True. But when one attempts to debate without even having read any Ayn Rand yet, I think that comes dangerously close to trolling.

[D'kian]

Microsoft is the classic example of this - theres no way that $300 for windows vista+MS office could be justified over the free alternative of ubuntu/open-office based on the quality of the products alone,

The question is if anyone can get a cheaper PC with a free operating system and productivity suite, why don't most people choose to?

[fletch]

True. But when one attempts to debate without even having read any Ayn Rand yet, I think that comes dangerously close to trolling.

I think you have a point there. In order for someone to come here and 'dissent', they should have at least some idea of what it is they are dissenting from. It is hard enough to grasp all of Ayn Rand's philosophy even after digesting her material. Criticising her based upon what others have said about her is meaningless. Edited July 27, 2008 by fletch

[eriatarka]

The question is if anyone can get a cheaper PC with a free operating system and productivity suite, why don't most people choose to?

Because a) many/most vendors wont give you money off a prebuilt PC if you ask to get it without Windows because of the deals they have with Microsoft, most people are more familiar with Microsoft products because theyre likely to be using them at their office due to the deals that their company has with Microsoft, and c) Windows is widely perceived as being better/more reliable/easier-to-use than other operating systems even when this is not the case, due to the large amount of money Microsoft have spent promoting their brand name.

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[agrippa1]

This is very idealistic. In many fields, the best selling products arent those with the highest quality - theyre the ones backed by corporations with large advertising budgets and 'clever' sales/marketing strategies. Microsoft's domination of the PC market is a good example of this, as are most electronic goods (well known companies such as Sony/Panasonic/Bose generally make poorer quality goods than smaller companies, but get better sales because of their advertising campaigns. I think Bose are the best selling brand of speakers, but noone who has a clue about hifi is going to go anywhere near them).

In almost no fields are the highest quality products the best selling. Sales are a function of quality and price, or in simpler terms, value offered and value asked. Microsoft has maintained domination of the PC software industry by consistently providing good quality products, with very wide value appeal, at ever lower prices, and by providing a product that people need to survive in the modern economy. Your argument is refuted by the rise of Macs in the wake of Vista's widely reported weakness.

As for Bose, most people don't value the additional quality of high-end speakers enough to pay the exorbitant prices demanded.

[eriatarka]

I meant highest selling at a particular price point.

In almost no fields are the highest quality products the best selling. Sales are a function of quality and price, or in simpler terms, value offered and value asked. Microsoft has maintained domination of the PC software industry by consistently providing good quality products, with very wide value appeal, at ever lower prices, and by providing a product that people need to survive in the modern economy. Your argument is refuted by the rise of Macs in the wake of Vista's widely reported weakness.

Microsoft products are ok but nowhere near good eough to justify what Microsoft charge then theres free alternatives. Vista is a horrible operating system for example (even compared to windows XP) and its still selling lots of units. Most people are still using internet explorer as their web-browser despite it being vastly inferior to firefox/opera. And so on. Consumers normally arent well-informed, and companies exploit this.

Macs arent really a good counterargument given that theyre the epitome of style/gimmicks over function (and very overpriced)

As for Bose, most people don't value the additional quality of high-end speakers enough to pay the exorbitant prices demanded.

For the price of any Bose speaker you could almost certainly get a better non-Bose speaker. I wasnt really talking about high-end audio

When it comes to lower priced products, when consumers dont want to spend time researching which product is best, theyll often just buy a product from a brand theyve heard of (even if its more expensive). This is why big companies often spend more money advertising the brand-name itself than any of their products.

I'm not saying there should be more regulation or anything like that, but claiming that the best products 'win' or that people generally make rational buying decisions seems a bit naive.

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[KevinDW78]

Vista is a horrible operating system for example

Because?

Most people are still using internet explorer as their web-browser despite it being vastly inferior to firefox/opera

And those inferiorities are?

[adrock3215]

In the interest of avoiding a Microsoft vs. Apple or Vista vs. Whatever conflict, we may as well reframe the issue with a primary focus on the difference between economic power and coercive power.

[D'kian]

Because a) many/most vendors wont give you money off a prebuilt PC if you ask to get it without Windows because of the deals they have with Microsoft,

So getting an MS PC is more convenient.

most people are more familiar with Microsoft products because theyre likely to be using them at their office due to the deals that their company has with Microsoft,

So Windows is easier to use.

But anyone can find a vendor to custom build a PC with whatever free variant of Linux they want, and download open office anytime they wish. This can save them hundreds of dollars, right?

Of course, then they'd have to learn to use a different OS and open office as well (I've seen it, it's similar but not identical to MS Office). Then they'd have to get a Windows emulator, or a version of Windows installed in a partition, in order to run PC games like Halo or The Sims.

So maybe lots of people who buy an HP or Dell are paying for the best system they can afford that does what they need to do.

[eriatarka]

So getting an MS PC is more convenient.

'Yes, because of Microsoft's sales strategies. Which only have a little to do with the quality of the product. Britney Speares sells more CD than Beethoven - how much does that tell you about the qualitty of the respective music, and how much does it tell you about the way that tastes are shaped by advertising?

So maybe lots of people who buy an HP or Dell are paying for the best system they can afford that does what they need to do.

Yes I dont dispute this. The point is that the construction of the current situation - where people are more familiar with Windows than with other OS's, and buying a PC with linux isnt cheaper than buying it Windows, and Linux is seen as being 'hard' and obscure - is a direct result of Microsoft's sales and marketing strategies. Within the current context, most people are better off buying a windows PC than a linux one, but this entire context has been created by Microsoft and only has a little to do with the objective quality of its products.

And its this context which constitutes Microsoft's monopoly - its not a coercive monopoly, its the fact that the whole system now ensures that people buy Microsoft products regardless of whether they are better than the alternatives, because the alternatives are 'not worth the time to learn' (since familiarity with Microsoft products is now woven into the fabric of society), or too different from what people use at work, or perceived as being 'for nerds', or not well enough advertised to let people know they even exist.

Similar things occur in other fields - once a company's name is well-known, its products will sell because people who dont have the time to research which products are better will buy something from a brand-name which they recognise. And this is perfectly rational in context. But brand name recognition is something established by advertising dollars rather than pure quality of products - a company which makes genuinelly terrible products isnt likely to become a household name, but a company which makes average products backed up by a manipulative advertising campaign will generally outsell a company which makes good products with less marketing.

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[KendallJ]

True. But when one attempts to debate without even having read any Ayn Rand yet, I think that comes dangerously close to trolling.

Close to ignorance, yes. But close to trolling? Trolling is an aspect of intent not knowledge. I think it's psychologizing to infer one from the other. He might prove to be a troll, but his posts so far indicate mostly that he has no idea what sort of board he's on, and maybe a cursory knowledge of Rand, much less Objetivism.