Objectivist Voting

[VECT]

Capitalism enables more abuse (immoral and illegal behaviors) of the system which is exactly what liberals criticize.

That is what liberals often criticize about Capitalism. But ask yourself, is that true?

First, on the point that Capitalism enables illegal/criminal behaviors:

The foundation of Capitalism rests upon the recognition and absolute protection of individual rights by the government. If a government do its proper job and does this, then Capitalism automatically blossoms.

Criminal behavior is that which violates individual rights (stealing, robbery, murder..etc.), that which violates the the very foundation of Capitalism. So how exactly does Capitalism promote criminal behavior when its very foundation lies in the absence of them?

Second, on the point that Capitalism enables or promotes immorality.

To start off, if your moral code is altruism, then I'll say it right out that yes, to you or anyone else with altruism as their moral standard, then Capitalism does enable and promote immorality in your eyes, and it's good that it does.

But if your moral standard is your own life and happiness, then Capitalism is the only moral system there is.

And while the purpose of Govt. is to protect our rights and prevent such abuse, it is unfortunately far easier for Govt. to place more controls on people than it is to monitor their actions for abuse.

So, the justification for government to use methods that violate individual rights in order to protect individual rights is that it's...easier?

I think I just lost a few points of my sanity there from just trying to conceptualize what you just said.

[TLD]

'VECT'

That is what liberals often criticize about Capitalism. But ask yourself, is that true?

Nothing you said says that my statement was false. "Enables" is the key word: it leaves people freer....

One's specific morality has nothing to do with what others will do.

So, the justification for government to use methods that violate individual rights in order to protect individual rights is that it's...easier?

No one said that. Just think about what politicians find easiest. And think about an Objectivist making these points vs. a socialist.

I will add, however, that the more a system is truly capitalistic, the less likely people will find the need or desire to achieve their goals immorally.

[VECT]

Nothing you said says that my statement was false. "Enables" is the key word: it leaves people freer....

It leaves people free to exercise their individual rights, It doesn't leave them free to rob, murder, or enslave others.

(and just in case on the off chance you didn't know, individual rights does not include to the right to rob, murder, and enslave other individuals)

What you are thinking by "it leaves people freer...." is Anarchy, that's a completely different story.

One's specific morality has nothing to do with what others will do.

I don't see how this fact have any logic connection to what I said.

If your adopted ethical code is altruism, then a political system that builds on individual rights will seem immoral to you.

If your adopted ethical code is self-interest, then a political system that builds on individual rights will seem moral to you.

That is the reason why I say Liberals, who are altruistic, will regard Capitalism as enabling immorality; because in a Capitalistic society, people will be free to not practice altruism and share their profit.

But between altruism and self-interest, which code of ethics is actually the moral one, that is the question answered in Objectivist Ethics. And the conclusion is self-interest. So with this answer, a political system that builds on individual rights is the moral system. And since this is the case, the Liberals are wrong in saying Capitalism enables more immorality than compared to a socialist system. The right answer is Capitalism enables more morality than compared to a socialist system

Just think about what politicians find easiest. And think about an Objectivist making these points vs. a socialist.

Oh, the argument is simple. If they want to reach their goals probably, easy does not make right.

Edited December 12, 2009 by VECT

[TLD]

'VECT'

It leaves people free to exercise their individual rights, It doesn't leave them free to rob, murder, or enslave others.

What you are thinking by "it leaves people freer...." is Anarchy, that's a completely different story.

Back to your original statement: "The difference between Capitalism and other altruistic based political system (and why it is superior) is that Capitalism doesn't do anything, while all other system acts artificially to drag men down."

I was merely noting that that was not an appropriate distinction.

Liberals criticize Capitalism for leaving people freer - because of what people can do in a freer system when Govt. cannot protect rights appropriately. E.g. "Madoff is the product of Capitalism."

The right answer is Capitalism enables more morality than compared to a socialist system

One can always be moral, but one can't always get away with being immoral. So I would not say Capitalism "enables" more morality, it simply rewards it. It does enable more immorality where one chooses it. E.g. try to commit a crime in Singapore and see where you get!

Edited December 12, 2009 by TLD

[philosopher]

Even in a society with an iron-clad constitution that fully protects individual rights, voting is still important. This is because the laws, no matter how correct, still have to be implemented by someone, and people can be corrupt or non-corrupt.

This is where voting comes in. Yes, the laws should be decided objectively, though reason and thought, not majority rule. But the implementers of those laws should be chosen by majority because people are best at judging other people's character. There's no way a document can perceive a man and judge him, it's just a piece of paper.

[VECT]

Back to your original statement: "The difference between Capitalism and other altruistic based political system (and why it is superior) is that Capitalism doesn't do anything, while all other system acts artificially to drag men down."

I was merely noting that that was not an appropriate distinction.

Liberals criticize Capitalism for leaving people freer - because of what people can do in a freer system when Govt. cannot protect rights appropriately. E.g. "Madoff is the product of Capitalism."

To clarify, when I said Capitalism doesn't do anything I meant it doesn't do anything economically, not that it doesn't do anything, at all.

As for the freer a system is the harder it is for government to protect individual right, that makes absolutely no sense. The system has to be free in the first place to even have individual rights for the government to protect. As for why Liberals will think this nonsense, that is because the "rights" they are talking about aren't individual rights, but invalid collective rights which if implemented, will violate every single individual rights. So yeah, for them in that context, the freer (ie the more protected individual rights are), the harder it is for them to carry out and implement their ideas of the oppressive collective rights.

And Madoff, or any criminals for that matter, is not a product of any system. They become criminals by their own choice. As for which system is easier for criminals to raise, I'd say the system where stealing is legalized as long as you have the right slogan, numbers, and friends as compared to the system where stealing is just not legal, at all.

One can always be moral, but one can't always get away with being immoral. So I would not say Capitalism "enables" more morality, it simply rewards it. It does enable more immorality where one chooses it. E.g. try to commit a crime in Singapore and see where you get!

Capitalism does not reward moral actions, it encourages moral actions by not punishing them as compared to socialist state which do.

As for your statement that Capitalism somehow enables/encourages/whatever_positive_verb..etc. more immorality as compared to socialist state, let's hear that argument.

Edited December 12, 2009 by VECT

[John McVey]

The right to vote doesn't exist because it is a check on government - that sort of attitude posits the existence of government inherently independent of a people in search of a means to bridle it!

Governments exist because they are agencies engaged by individuals, and whose tasks consists of wielding retaliatory force in an objective manner on behalf of those individuals. The right to vote exists because individuals have the right to pick and choose who will be their agents. The departure from unanimity in selecting one's agents is a practical necessity that only makes sense in the context of acceptance of higher principles that are morally outside the realm of what is subject to majority opinion. The departure from unanimity in those agents' own decision-making (chiefly in the legislative branches) is also a practical necessity, and note here that the more important decisions can, should, and frequently do have tighter requirements as to how many votes are necessary for something to go ahead.

Unanimity in a jury is practical, and should be expected, because their deliberations are limited to a matter of concretes and are considerably less likely to be rambling bull-sessions, which is a different ball game from votors making decisions based on candidate policies or legislators nutting out principles to be enshrined in law. In a society composed chiefly of reasonable men, and when jurors are agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defence, it is reasonable to act on the premise that men judging the same facts reasonably will come to the same conclusion. Under that presumption, if one honest juror has doubts then the other jurors should hear him out and continue to examine the arguments put forth until agreement is reached because the reason for reasonable disagreement is the belief that others have made a mistake in judgement and where the mistake could be on the part of the one doubter or the other eleven. An agreement reached when no juror has remaining doubts signifies the end, not because of truth being a matter of group consensus, but because the jurors each individually believe there's nothing left to consider and so in sum physically marks the end of the deliberations for the jury as a unit.

JJM

[TLD]

'VECT' To clarify, when I said Capitalism doesn't do anything I meant it doesn't do anything economically, not that it doesn't do anything, at all.

Important clarification!

As for the freer a system is the harder it is for government to protect individual right, that makes absolutely no sense. The system has to be free in the first place to even have individual rights for the government to protect. As for why Liberals will think this nonsense, that is because the "rights" they are talking about aren't individual rights, but invalid collective rights which if implemented, will violate every single individual rights. So yeah, for them in that context, the freer (ie the more protected individual rights are), the harder it is for them to carry out and implement their ideas of the oppressive collective rights.

I never said "harder"...because "Freer." Because Govt. does a poor job of protecting rights (where it does recognize them), it is then easier for people to "abuse." Rights are inalienable - people have them whether or not Govt. chooses to recognize them. Where Govt. does not recognize them - where greater control over the individual, one is less free to "abuse."

That has nothing to do with how rights are defined. And that says nothing about the merits of Capitalism.

And Madoff, or any criminals for that matter, is not a product of any system.

I never said he was; I was quoting liberals. Careful how you read others.

As for your statement that Capitalism somehow enables/encourages/whatever_positive_verb..etc. more immorality as compared to socialist state, let's hear that argument.

It is not "whatever" - words are important. I said "enable" because people are more able to "abuse" in a freer system (as above).

As always, discussion goes way beyond the original questions/thoughts. So I will end my part here.

[TuringAI]

Kenneth Arrow, the economist and social choice theorist proved that no system of voting is fair if there are more than two choices.

Please refer to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

His theorem is very counter-intuitive but if you read the proof you will see it has no holes.

Bob Kolker

Sure, if you limit this discussion to a mathematical definition of what is fair.

But this is the real world and math is restricted to using the axioms given forth. Something more abstract and based on actual values must be used if we are people who value our own lives.

Most important to the model is that it only models one election. It does not take into account human psychological motivations for propping up and keeping two false choices for candidates. So the model, even given that it correctly identifies one election, does not take into account multiple elections. When somebody comes up with a theory that deals with relations between past and future elections, then you can tell me about it. Until then, just stick to claims that are put in the correct context.