Formal proof of Capitalism's prosperity?

[StrictlyLogical]

You are asking about "better" results for the aggregate. But note two points.

 

1. The terms "better or worse" or "universal positive or negative" or "greater or inferior" presuppose a value system. But it is objectivism that demonstrates philosophically how values are grounded.

 

2. As it has been pointed out, there is no such thing in reality as a "society." It is an abstraction that helps us conceptualize individual people working and living together. An individual exists in reality, not a society as such.

 

These points taken together show that if you allow for an economic system that provides the objectively best values to individuals, then the debate is over -- you have, by default, provided the best system for the abstracted "society" by providing that for the real, existing individuals.

 

What you seem to be asking (or hung up on) is the idea that if Person A has a lot of money and wealth and a great means of providing for his needs, then that by itself is "good." But what if Person A got that money by stealing and killing from others? Could you say in that case that it is good for Person A to have money to provide for his needs? Not based on objective moral value. It's bad. So if you could show that the "aggregate" of people could provide for their needs, but they had to do objectively immoral things to do so, then no, it is not a "good" thing. 

 

Another way to put this issue is this way:

 

1. The best way for me to survive is to give me the freedom to do the things I need to do to survive, including gathering materials for food, shelter, warmth, protection, comfort, etc.

 

2. A natural corollary to Point 1 is  that I must be given the freedom to trade with others so that I can gain the things I need and want for survival and thriving. 

 

3. Any system that restricts my ability to gather and/or trade for materials for my own survival and thriving is objectively bad for me.

 

4. Any system that restricts others from their ability to gather and/or trade for materials is also objectively bad for me, because it limits the people I can trade with and the resources I can trade for.

 

5. Therefore, the free market economic system is by default the best economic system for the "aggregate" participating in it. Any other system, by definition, limits trading ability, and therefore limits individuals' ability to survive and thrive. 

 

This unfortunately is not completely correct.  There are those in society who are, for whatever reason, mysticism, bad philosophy, traumatic upbringing, persistent substance addiction, not fully actualized, fully functioning rational people.  These self-destructive people, are those who stay undereducated, stay lazy or in despair, and to that extent are not productive in a free society and have chosen non-prosperity.

 

To the extent they are free from force and also immune to persuasion or investment, they are lost, underutilized economic resources.

 

I posit that simply by augmenting your free market economic system with state enforced rehabilitation (forced on the person being rehabilitated) of even if only a fraction of these self-destructives, could turn much lost resources into rational, self-fulfilled producers, and actually create more prosperity.  These could pay back the investment made in them and in fact could go on to cure cancer or invent something amazing.

 

The simple fact is as long as there are some people who choose to be non-prosperous, a free society who does not force them to be otherwise is not, on a measure of prosperity alone, the maximally prosperous society, as against a society which forceably rehabilitates them.  Now, we know that such a society which forces prosperity would not be moral, perhaps even IF the rehabilitated persons were, once rehabilitated eternally grateful and had no regrets about being forced, the act of initiating force against them is wrong ab initio.

 

we have all heard about the balance between safety and freedom in society.... i.e. balance of safety and morality.  It is very possible that in the same way the most moral society is not the "safest" (imagine a silly society making all sharp objects illegal...) it is also not the most "prosperous"... certainly if we mean prosperous in absence of morality. 

[secondhander]

And if they still don't produce, what will you do then? Imprison them, thus giving them shelter and food? If so, paid for by whom and how? Kill them?

 

The best rehabilitation for them is reality -- the reality that they aren't getting any handouts forced from the hands of other people; the reality that they will starve and die if they don't produce something. If they still don't produce anything of value, then it doesn't negatively affect the producers and traders in any way economically. Traders will still have the largest possible number of other traders with which to do business with. 

 

I posit that using force to compel some segment of the population to work will only do harm to the economy and to the society at large.

 

Don't neglect one of the main points of the first part of my post, which is that you are using terms like "prosperity" that presuppose an objective moral value. How can you utilize an immoral method to produce a moral result in an individual's life? How can you treat some portion of the population immorally and another portion morally, and then think that when you consider all of the individuals together in an abstract concept called "society" that you have produced the most morality for the whole society?

 

Objectivism, and the free market, treats all individuals with morality in view. So it should be obvious that a system that treats all individuals morally produces a more moral society than a system that treats only a portion of individuals morally. 

 

And here, again, is where I think your thinking has gone wrong. You seem to think that "prosperity" is morally good in a vacuum (with no objective ethic in reference). Prosperity for an individual is not the obligation of another individual -- whether you are forcing Person A to spend money to provide for the survivability of Person B, or whether you are forcing Person B to work and produce against his will for the greater survivability of Person A. You cannot get a moral good from a moral evil, not in the real world.

 

Let reality be the corrective measure for non-producers. Trust me, if a non-producer is faced with the choice of "either produce or starve and die," they will produce something. Maybe just the bare minimum to survive, but it will be something. What more than the threat of death do you think you could do to "coerce" a person to finally produce? The threat of death is the most coercive measure to get someone to produce, and you don't even have to use that measure yourself. Reality will do it for you. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by secondhander

[StrictlyLogical]

And if they still don't produce, what will you do then? Imprison them, thus giving them shelter and food? If so, paid for by whom and how? Kill them?

 

The best rehabilitation for them is reality -- the reality that they aren't getting any handouts forced from the hands of other people; the reality that they will starve and die if they don't produce something. If they still don't produce anything of value, then it doesn't negatively affect the producers and traders in any way economically. Traders will still have the largest possible number of other traders with which to do business with. 

 

I posit that using force to compel some segment of the population to work will only do harm to the economy and to the society at large.

 

Don't neglect one of the main points of the first part of my post, which is that you are using terms like "prosperity" that presuppose an objective moral value. How can you utilize an immoral method to produce a moral result in an individual's life? How can you treat some portion of the population immorally and another portion morally, and then think that when you consider all of the individuals together in an abstract concept called "society" that you have produced the most morality for the whole society?

 

Objectivism, and the free market, treats all individuals with morality in view. So it should be obvious that a system that treats all individuals morally produces a more moral society than a system that treats only a portion of individuals morally. 

 

And here, again, is where I think your thinking has gone wrong. You seem to think that "prosperity" is morally good in a vacuum (with no objective ethic in reference). Prosperity for an individual is not the obligation of another individual -- whether you are forcing Person A to spend money to provide for the survivability of Person B, or whether you are forcing Person B to work and produce against his will for the greater survivability of Person A. You cannot get a moral good from a moral evil, not in the real world.

 

Let reality be the corrective measure for non-producers. Trust me, if a non-producer is faced with the choice of "either produce or starve and die," they will produce something. Maybe just the bare minimum to survive, but it will be something. What more than the threat of death do you think you could do to "coerce" a person to finally produce? The threat of death is the most coercive measure to get someone to produce, and you don't even have to use that measure yourself. Reality will do it for you. 

 

You totally misread my post.

 

 

The society I dreamt up was not a moral one.  I do not advocate prosperity as morally good in a vacuum.

 

I do not advocate the creation of such a society in away way.

 

I merely raised a hypothetical society to illustrate even prosperity as an end, does not justify every possible kind of means to serve it and certainly not immoral means.

 

 

I did this by way of a perturbation or tiny shift in the free society, tiny from the view of economics, remember I see this perturbation as hugely monstrous morally speaking.  Please note for accuracy the people are being forced into rehabilitation not forced to work... once rehabilitated the self-destructive person has become a rational producer who values life and is free to act voluntarily.

 

Call a capitalist society C and a modified one C+dx

 

Let me be more specific, all people in this new society C+dx are part of a free Capitalist system (this is C) except for one exception (this is the dx):  people who are 1. severely and helplessly addicted to drugs (never sober), 2. self-destructive, barely functioning mentally and barely surviving (non-prosperous), 3. completely unwilling to seek treatment and will not be persuaded to do so... these people.. and only these are forceably taken to rehab, the drugs are cut off from them, they receive counselling for drug addiction and the psychological causes of it, until such a time as they are rehabilitated.  These people once rehabilitated and rational are now free and signs a contract to pay back the efforts to rehabilitate them and a further amount as interest on the debt etc.  These people now make it in the world, and produce, trade, invent, and prosper.

 

Personally, this immorality is not the kind of price that should be paid for economic prosperity but the end result of C +dx is more goods produced, more trading, more life for society on the whole AND for the rehabilitated (certainly so).  It was wrong to force this on the self-destructive person, do not misunderstand me... but if one measures the economic prosperity in total it is greater for C+dx than for C. 

 

What I am concluding from this is that prosperity as such is not worth throwing away morality.  Capitalism is the most moral system, but it is not the most "arithmetic sum" economically prosperous.

 

Finally, if I have structured my dx incorrectly, I conjecture there is a C+dy such that given the appropriate dy (similar to dx re. rehabilitation of some suicidal or self-destructive people), C+dy will be less moral and less free than C while at the same time more "prosperous". 

 

The thing to remember is that there will be self-destructive non-prosperous people in a free society, just as there will be mystics, criminals, and bad philosophers.

 

 

I am open to discuss the merits and problems, effectiveness or defects with the dx I propose to illustrate this. 

[StrictlyLogical]

In fact take whatever system you propose as maximising aggregate prosperity M

 

I vary that system by having the government of M (assuming the society is not an anarchy but some form of minarchy) choose 1 person each decade, that person qualifying as above and perhaps also showing strong signs of imminent suicide (irreversible loss of an economic resource), and rehabilitated that person as outlined above.  In doing this the system is now M+dz

 

Even this economically infinitesimally different system would produce a measureable (possibly vast depending upon the accomplishments of the person prevented from actual suicide) increase in prosperity.

 

Again this M+dz is not the moral society, ONLY Capitalism can be the moral society and no other.

[Eiuol]

I'm not sure Ayn Rand would really put things that way, and I think we're all in agreement that she'd be the first to say that practical aggregate outcomes are irrelevant . . .

I'm talking about how she reached the conclusion. By her own admission she thought about history and the industrial revolution a lot to figure out what actually is the most prosperous, especially by talking to her friends Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. She never even said anything like discovering the roots of morality then deducing that capitalism is the most like it. I would presume that it was in reference to what would be the best for her as an individual. And from there she wanted to figure out why capitalism in even a limited sense is more prosperous than non-capitalism. I'm sure her reasoning was pretty messy, as it is for any process of inductive reasoning. And eventually, she noted what she saw as a connection between morality and the most prosperous system: individual rights. So once she concluded that the essential was respecting individual rights, the best defense to give is in moral terms, because individual rights as a moral principle are stronger than consequentialist arguments. Of course, if capitalism were not prosperous, then the whole bit about individual rights goes out the window. Or at least, you have to start all over with figuring out what is the best social system to live under.

As to whether Rand engaged in a leap of faith, that's entirely an epistemological question. Basically, I'm saying that concluding capitalism is the only moral system depends upon many other earlier discoveries, including the prosperity of capitalism and concepts of individual rights. Once the induction is made, you wouldn't need to state the important but not-essential characteristics - what matters when discussing social systems is the moral argument. Proving it though is not the same. I suppose it's an open question whether C:TUI did well enough to prove it. I don't think she proved it well enough, but I still think she got most of it right.

What you seem to be asking (or hung up on) is the idea that if Person A has a lot of money and wealth and a great means of providing for his needs, then that by itself is "good." But what if Person A got that money by stealing and killing from others? Could you say in that case that it is good for Person A to have money to provide for his needs? Not based on objective moral value.

Sure you could say that. If killing and stealing were great for building an overall greater life for yourself, then it would be good. If kindly trading were inferior to stealing and killing, then capitalism is "less good" and not "the" moral social system. The point you seem to be making is that if you did anything immoral, regardless of the consequence. I think of something like stolen concept here. You can't talk about the immorality of rights violations until establishing that a system of individual rights (i.e. capitalism) really is good for your life. Establishing capitalism as good actually requires establishing capitalism as the most prosperous social system first.

[secondhander]

I realized you were not advocating the scenario you presented. I've read enough of your posts to know that you were merely putting it forward as a thought experiment. (At least, I realized it eventually. If I have some language still stuck in my reply that seems as though I didn't, I apologize. By the time I finished my post, and re-read yours, I knew what you were trying to get at.)

 

But I am trying to make the point that you are using the concept "prosperity" (hypothetically, even) as though prosperity is a good thing. But I am asking the question, "good by what standard?" I am trying to show that people who would advocate prosperity in this way are using a stolen concept. That it would not be a better economy, or a better society, because they first have to demonstrate how they can uphold the concept of "good" to begin with, as an objective value. I also think that there is maybe even a better argument to be made that it would be impossible for a society that uses any level of force to be economically more prosperous (even with a stolen concept of the positive value of the term) than a society that is completely a free market. I think my point that the best rehabilitation will come when non-producers are faced with starvation and death if they don't produce something. In your hypothetical rehabilitation schools, are you going to feed and clothe them? If so, you might actually spur less productivity, because more people would be see the rehabilitation school as a free lunch.

 

Ultimately, however, we agree. If there is an argument that more prosperity (again, using a stolen concept) can be had by something less than a free market, it is still the moral argument, not a pragmatic argument, that is and needs to be at the forefront.

Edited August 29, 2013 by secondhander

[CrowEpistemologist]

Establishing capitalism as good actually requires establishing capitalism as the most prosperous social system first.

 

 

No it doesn't. You can say that capitalism is the only moral system based on an objective definition of morality and still have that system produce negative aggregate outcomes e.g. negative economic growth, negative growth in mobility, etc. etc.  These two ideas are not logically dependent on one another.

[Eiuol]

No it doesn't. You can say that capitalism is the only moral system based on an objective definition of morality and still have that system produce negative aggregate outcomes e.g. negative economic growth, negative growth in mobility, etc. etc.  These two ideas are not logically dependent on one another.

They are, when morality is based on positive effects to your well-being. You're talking about morality regardless of and even in outright opposition to your well-being. If capitalism is a moral system, then it will have a positive impact on you as an individual. Or are you saying that capitalism has not necessarily been proven to be a system that is good for everyone, even if it's beneficial to you (i.e. a person born to a rich family may make capitalism good for them, but bad if they are born into poverty)?

[StrictlyLogical]

They are, when morality is based on positive effects to your well-being. You're talking about morality regardless of and even in outright opposition to your well-being. If capitalism is a moral system, then it will have a positive impact on you as an individual. Or are you saying that capitalism has not necessarily been proven to be a system that is good for everyone, even if it's beneficial to you (i.e. a person born to a rich family may make capitalism good for them, but bad if they are born into poverty)?

 

If well-being in a moral system is multifaceted, i.e. freedom, safety, and economic prosperity are all linked to it, then the state of these facets in that moral system has a particular identity, i.e. a particular moral balance resulting from the laws and freedoms of that moral system.

 

I think is it clear that a non-moral system, if it is not opposed to all facets well-being, may sacrifice one facet at the cost of another, and as such one facet may be increased over and above what is properly attainable i.e. resulting in the moral society.

 

e.g If a paternalistic system sacrifices (in even limited and specific ways) freedom to safety and sacrifices freedom to economic prosperity, I would say although overall well-being is decreased, specific facets of well-being have been increased. It is easy to imagine a perfectly unfree society that is perfectly (to the limits of natural human decline and mortality) safe.

 

In this sense CrowEpistemologist is correct regarding the morality of Capitalism and specific outcomes with respect to specific facets of well-being..

[Spiral Architect]

So this demonstrates that a mixed economy is far more prosperous than a totalitarian regime. I doubt even your average mainstream Democrat would dispute that. The more finely you slice the problem, the more you run up against the old adage that "correlation does not imply causality". Comparing North/South Korea is pretty easy, but comparing Germany to France is another story. Clearly externalities start to play a decisive role closer to the margin.

 

Maybe another way to pose this whole question is, how do you defend against a mixed economy on "practical" grounds--i.e. without reference to morality, but in reference to general prosperity, upward mobility, etc.? Again, for the Nth time here, I know Ayn Rand would not do that, but we all know that virtually everybody, including influential Objectivists, else do. We all like to talk about the wondrous prosperity that pure Capitalism would bring if it were ever actually tried. We all like to say that the "moral is necessarily the practical". The problem is, I don't know how to do that with a lot of hand-waving. With this limitation, it's impossible to have much of a commentary about events within our mixed economy.

 

As you said, there is no real world example of Capitalism outside of an argument being made for early America.  Life isn’t a perfect thought experiment so you have to use examples by contrasting concrete examples then differentiate based on essentials.  Your right in that you’re typical Dem will not see that, but that is not a problem with the thought process but postmodern thinking that refuses to integrate knowledge beyond the perceptual level.   Such a mind is capable of thinking North Korea’s problems is bad leadership, not the system of Government, and a similar model would be peachy here with good people running the show. 

 

I think your right you in that case you will need to tackle this some other way then.  I'll have to chew on that one.

 

As for practical, the moral is the practical which is the whole point of Objectivism.  When people ask me for some practical reasons for capitalism I simply tell then that my life will not be enriched by someone taking my money and spending it for me, or someone forcing me to obey them.  Inevitably the argument will end up with them telling me some people need the help or that they need “a push” for their own good and the good of society, I just remind them that if I wanted to point a gun at someone and force them to do something for “the greater good” I’d go to church on Sunday.  That usually ends the practical side argument. 

[CrowEpistemologist]

They are, when morality is based on positive effects to your well-being. You're talking about morality regardless of and even in outright opposition to your well-being. If capitalism is a moral system, then it will have a positive impact on you as an individual. Or are you saying that capitalism has not necessarily been proven to be a system that is good for everyone, even if it's beneficial to you (i.e. a person born to a rich family may make capitalism good for them, but bad if they are born into poverty)?

 

If you are unfortunate, that does not give you the right to impose problem that on your fellow man. Morality does not trump reality. Plenty of moral people get the shaft from nature or things out of their control.

 

But yes, the mobility piece is a oft-referenced benefit of Capitalism that as far as I know hasn't been proved. Ditto for the aggregate growth, prosperity and technological progress.

[Eiuol]

If you are unfortunate, that does not give you the right to impose problem that on your fellow man. Morality does not trump reality. Plenty of moral people get the shaft from nature or things out of their control.

 

But yes, the mobility piece is a oft-referenced benefit of Capitalism that as far as I know hasn't been proved. Ditto for the aggregate growth, prosperity and technological progress.

If you could make your life better by say, stealing, it would be moral. But your life is not in fact made better in the long run by stealing. Indeed, morality doesn't trump reality - if "distasteful" things made your life better, then it would be moral and should be embraced. If capitalism is not the most prosperous system, then obviously the facts are different from what I thought they were, which would likely even change my idea of individual rights being good. I think you're suggesting that the best social system according to Rand only takes into account reasoning from "first principles" of ethics. But given all of Rand's beliefs of epistemology, she also uses facts about social systems to establish what is moral. If capitalism is not the most prosperous for you, then your understanding of morality would change, too.

[StrictlyLogical]

Eioul:

 

 

I respect your opinion. 

 

I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the possible economic systems M and M+dz I mention above: whether they differ in resulting prosperity and whether my assessment of one as moral and the other as not is valid?

[CrowEpistemologist]

If you could make your life better by say, stealing, it would be moral.

 

Better by what standard of good? Long story short, it doesn't work that way...

 

 

I think you're suggesting that the best social system according to Rand only takes into account reasoning from "first principles" of ethics. But given all of Rand's beliefs of epistemology, she also uses facts about social systems to establish what is moral.

 

Really? I don't see that. I see a pretty clear flow from the Nature of Man (the individual Man) to Morality to Politics in Objectivism. That's the way I've always understood it. Did I miss something? Is there a citation I can look at?

 

Epistemologically she certainly could take any number of relevant factors into account in advocating Individual Rights, but did she? If so, where?

[Eiuol]

Really? I don't see that. I see a pretty clear flow from the Nature of Man (the individual Man) to Morality to Politics in Objectivism. That's the way I've always understood it. Did I miss something? Is there a citation I can look at?

 

Epistemologically she certainly could take any number of relevant factors into account in advocating Individual Rights, but did she? If so, where?

It's mostly speculation from what I've heard about regarding discussions she had with Isabel Paterson, her decision to study history in college, and an epistemology with focus on discovery not deduction per se. Organized arguments after having already reached a conclusion is not the same as how the conclusion was reached. Writing about her inspirations would be probably incoherent in written form as it would be for anyone. I don't have a reason to think Rand reasoned from any "first principles" like the Rationalists of the Enlightenment. For the most part, it's pretty clear that Rand based so much of everything on life as the standard that results in a positive state of existence for body and mind. And you also have to take into account how her epistemology considers reality to be a "whole" meaning all knowledge is connected. To reach any objective conclusions requires knowledge from many different levels of abstraction. Indeed there is a logical hierarchy to Objectivism, but there is no primacy of principles. Principles of ethics have an impact on principles just as much as principles of politics have an impact on principles of ethics. If capitalism were not the most prosperous system for an individual, you'd have to compartmentalize morality and the structure of society you live in, much as a deontologist would do.

 

I can't possibly know which relevant factors Rand considered, but I'm confident in saying that she didn't consider politics and ethics to be divided so distinctly - it wouldn't be possible to have an immoral prosperous society or a moral unprosperous society without tremendously altering your view on ethics. I'd say that the nature of man flows to morality flows to politics as you said, it's just that various principles are intermingled. Would it be possible to conclude man's nature as a trader of value without studying structures of society, especially the industrial revolution? Not objectively, anyway.

[softwareNerd]

I think Nobel prize winner Gerard Debreu tried working toward a formal proof that free market can give rise to a general equilibrium. One of the shortest books in economics that I've seen, but it was Greek to me -- quite literally. I think the attempt as pointless as folks who propose that one should try to prove Rand's philosophy by constructing a network of syllogisms.

Steve Keen is a modern communist-leaning economist. However, I agree with his critique (see "Debunking Economics") that any such analysis must be an analysis of human-perceived, not just in terms of money-value computed at the market-rate, which is typically the result of marginal decision-makers. And, as he points out, it impossible to aggregate your values and mine: there is no basis for doing so in a strict and formal way. So, I conclude that we're left with the rough notions that are extremely convincing, if not formal.

Edited August 30, 2013 by softwareNerd

[StrictlyLogical]

I think Nobel prize winner Gerard Debreu tried working toward a formal proof that free market can give rise to a general equilibrium. One of the shortest books in economics that I've seen, but it was Greek to me -- quite literally. I think the attempt as pointless as folks who propose that one should try to prove Rand's philosophy by constructing a network of syllogisms.

Steve Keen is a modern communist-leaning economist. However, I agree with his critique (see "Debunking Economics") that any such analysis must be an analysis of human-perceived, not just in terms of money-value computed at the market-rate, which is typically the result of marginal decision-makers. And, as he points out, it impossible to aggregate your values and mine: there is no basis for doing so in a strict and formal way. So, I conclude that we're left with the rough notions that are extremely convincing, if not formal.

 

sN

 

any thoughts on the systems M versus M+dz and their comparative beneficence morality prosperity?

 

I am trying to get some rational, logical insight to what these different systems could result in?

[StrictlyLogical]

I realized you were not advocating the scenario you presented. I've read enough of your posts to know that you were merely putting it forward as a thought experiment. (At least, I realized it eventually. If I have some language still stuck in my reply that seems as though I didn't, I apologize. By the time I finished my post, and re-read yours, I knew what you were trying to get at.)

 

But I am trying to make the point that you are using the concept "prosperity" (hypothetically, even) as though prosperity is a good thing. But I am asking the question, "good by what standard?" I am trying to show that people who would advocate prosperity in this way are using a stolen concept. That it would not be a better economy, or a better society, because they first have to demonstrate how they can uphold the concept of "good" to begin with, as an objective value. I also think that there is maybe even a better argument to be made that it would be impossible for a society that uses any level of force to be economically more prosperous (even with a stolen concept of the positive value of the term) than a society that is completely a free market. I think my point that the best rehabilitation will come when non-producers are faced with starvation and death if they don't produce something. In your hypothetical rehabilitation schools, are you going to feed and clothe them? If so, you might actually spur less productivity, because more people would be see the rehabilitation school as a free lunch.

 

Ultimately, however, we agree. If there is an argument that more prosperity (again, using a stolen concept) can be had by something less than a free market, it is still the moral argument, not a pragmatic argument, that is and needs to be at the forefront.

 

I agree in this sense.  If you take prosperity as a broader concept than pure economic or fiscal prosperity, something like "moral prosperity" then certainly M (or C) is the most "prosperous".  This concept of prosperity however, depends so much on morality (for example no economic or fiscal gain can fall within it unless it is also morally achieved, or equally we label such a gain as "anti-prosperous" or as a loss if immorality were involved) that we quickly see that only insofar as that prosperity originated from Capitalist elements in a system is it truly "prosperity" and hence the most prosperous system automatically becomes Capitalism.

 

I do agree morality IS the most important argument to make for Capitalism, and appealing to pragmatist arguments only increases pragmatism which would be an immoral thing to aim to do.

 

Also Rand's stance is one firmly on the moral high ground and appealing to "end results" dilutes her moxy.

 

BTW:  Thanks for at least addressing my hypothetical C+dx and M+dz systems in comparison with perfect capitalism C or M.  I am left somewhat shocked that no one else has made any attempt at commenting, on the basis of reason, in favor or in disfavor of the validity and implications of what I have raise. 

 

All of my posts here have been met with silence... (queue crickets chirping)

 

So, in a very real sense I thank you for being courageous?

 

In any case thanks for engaging!

[Eiuol]

 

BTW:  Thanks for at least addressing my hypothetical C+dx and M+dz systems in comparison with perfect capitalism C or M.  I am left somewhat shocked that no one else has made any attempt at commenting, on the basis of reason, in favor or in disfavor of the validity and implications of what I have raise. 

 

I plan to respond to it, I've been thinking about it.

[StrictlyLogical]

I plan to respond to it, I've been thinking about it.

 

  "jumps up and down"!

[softwareNerd]

any thoughts on the systems M versus M+dz and their comparative beneficence morality prosperity?

The way I read your "M vs. M+dz" is this: if just one person improves his situation, and everyone else stays the same, does the aggregate measure of the situation improve?

If that's the right interpretation, then I'd say: yes, the aggregate does improve. Of course, it is not a true aggregate in the sense of being a sum: we're simply calling the whole set (across all people) an "aggregate".

Edited August 30, 2013 by softwareNerd

[CrowEpistemologist]

I think Nobel prize winner Gerard Debreu tried working toward a formal proof that free market can give rise to a general equilibrium. One of the shortest books in economics that I've seen, but it was Greek to me -- quite literally. I think the attempt as pointless as folks who propose that one should try to prove Rand's philosophy by constructing a network of syllogisms.

Steve Keen is a modern communist-leaning economist. However, I agree with his critique (see "Debunking Economics") that any such analysis must be an analysis of human-perceived, not just in terms of money-value computed at the market-rate, which is typically the result of marginal decision-makers. And, as he points out, it impossible to aggregate your values and mine: there is no basis for doing so in a strict and formal way. So, I conclude that we're left with the rough notions that are extremely convincing, if not formal.

 

And that's what I'm concluding too, but here's the problem with the lack of a formal analysis: details. Saying a star is a "twinkling light in the sky" is fine for parties and finger paintings, but if you want to get in a space ship and travel there, you'd better know exactly what one is and why.

 

While it's empirically obvious that a semi-free mixed economy is better then totalitarianism from the standpoint of aggregate outcomes, getting much more granular than that requires a scientific understanding of the machinery inside of the system, and that's what we're lacking. I think this is what gets Objectivists in trouble in terms of making the "mainstream" case for Capitalism. That, and somehow imagining the the morality of capitalism somehow forces it to have positive aggregate outcomes, which it doesn't.

 

It's correct to say that Capitalism is moral, and we have a proof of that from first principles. Saying that it will lead to greater general prosperity, or that it will always give people upward mobility is a matter of opinion.

[2046]

Yes, and I wondered whether this should have been posted under economics. However, to me there's a more abstract, Politics-level question here: does pure Capitalism lead to greater prosperity? How do we know?

 

Note that "pure" capitalism has never been tried, and all of our positive examples occurred within mixed economies, and that mix certainly doesn't make the case since the 1950s were arguably a much more regulated time than many eras before with a lot less growth. Etc. Etc.

 

Based on non-conclusive evidence, it's natural to look for the root cause. It seems to me, the only way we can know for sure--and indeed understand exactly how it works (for, there are a lot of "implementation details" when it comes to creating a functioning political system), is to show the logical connection between the perfectly consistent protection of individual rights and greater aggregate prosperity.

I'm still not getting the non-economic, politics-level question. Does this economy produce these kinds of results is a question of descriptive science, and the question of "how do we know" is related to the methodology of economics. The science of economics indicates the probable effects of certain policies, while ethics determines what one should do. Given certain truths of economics, ethical judgments will then suggest themselves at the level of philosophy. Someone, eg., who accepts the Austrian view of the effects of minimum wage laws will be unlikely to be a committed advocate of this measure if they wish for the opposite consequences. It is known that Rand read and was persuaded by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote a book on the methodology of economics, Human Action.

 

If I may try to interpret what you are saying, is it something like this "I disagree with Rand/Mises conclusions on economics, in fact, I think it's inconclusive, so I can't be sure the consequences of a market economy would be good, therefore I can't recommend it." In that case, I still don't understand your question, if the OP asks how can Rand advocate capitalism, then your disagreement is over the likely results of market economies, ie., is an economic disagreement, and can be settled by sufficing to say that neither Rand nor Mises believed the evidence of economics to be non-conclusive. Your quest for proof of capitalism's prosperity would still only be settled by studying economics and not by philosophy in any event.

 

If I can interpret your question as something more like this "How can Rand come to the conclusion that capitalism would have the best economic consequences if capitalism never existed?" Or something "At best, Rand can say mixed economies are better than socialist ones, but since free market economies never existed, we can't say anything about them. We cannot test them empirically, because they have never existed."

 

Not all concepts have to refer to actually existing things, of course. There are unicorns and all sorts of counterfactual concepts that we can create, these are called "ideal type" concepts and are created by differentiation and integration from actually existing referents, the same as anything else. Whilst it is true that Rand's conception of capitalism is that of not-yet-existing (hence the "unknown ideal"), Rand's concept of capitalism is created by abstracting liberal referents from historical economies, while disregarding nonliberal factors that have been internal to every state in history. The same way, economic science is not simply examining "socialist economy" as a blob, and "mixed economy" as a blob, but can abstract from the consequences of liberal policies and nonliberal ones. Mises' assessment of economics as a praxeological and not empirical science, where economic laws are not "tested" as in the physical sciences, is what distinguishes Austrians from current mainstream positivist schools. If you are interested in economic proofs derived from first principles, then you might be interested in Mises because in Human Action he attempts to derive the whole of economic theory from generally recognized propositions.

Edited August 30, 2013 by 2046

[2046]

 

It's correct to say that Capitalism is moral, and we have a proof of that from first principles. Saying that it will lead to greater general prosperity, or that it will always give people upward mobility is a matter of opinion.

But this doesn't really make sense in Randian philosophy, what turns out to be the most moral social order will have to pass a consequentialist test, since she doesn't believe in a moral-practical dichotomy, so whether or not a market economy is a moral one will depend partially on whether or not it will lead to good economic consequences.

[CrowEpistemologist]

But this doesn't really make sense in Randian philosophy, what turns out to be the most moral social order will have to pass a consequentialist test, since she doesn't believe in a moral-practical dichotomy, so whether or not a market economy is a moral one will depend partially on whether or not it will lead to good economic consequences.

 

Yes, there is no "moral/practical dichotomy" since even if you have very bad luck, it's ultimately not in your best interest to be a looter.

 

However, it's important to understand that a booming economy and technological progress are not necessarily in my best interest on the individual level. Sure, it works out that way much of the time, but the two are not logically dependent on one another.