Formal proof of Capitalism's prosperity?

[CrowEpistemologist]

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."

 

Let me take that apart.

 

First, I don't disagree with Rand's conclusions on economics since as far as I know she didn't have any.

 

Second, I don't tend to "disagree" with something when there is simply insufficient evidence to prove the case.

 

Third, I certainly do recommend a market economy, generally defined, but that general definition can have any number of implementation details.

 

 

I'm still not getting the non-economic, politics-level question.

 

This becomes a politics-level question when you judge the entire science of economics as a whole to be thus far insufficient to prove the prosperity of capitalism as a whole. I'm not here to discuss how economics proves this, but rather whether it does or not, which has political and social implications.

 

So it's not quite a theoretical politics question, and for what it's worth I struggled with placing this thread in Economics, Current US Politics, or here. There's a case to be made for all three classifications I suppose...

[2046]

I'm not sure why you say you don't disagree with a proposition for which you think there is insufficient proof, but okay we can set that aside for now.

 

But yeah okay, you "judge the entire science of economics as a whole to be thus far insufficient to prove the prosperity of capitalism as a whole." Okay, all good and well. But then what's the problem? Again Rand 1. doesn't agree with that, 2. doesn't think the propositions of economic science are inconclusive, 3. thinks economics shows that the free market economy has the best consequences, and 4. given her view of the likely effects of these policies, derives certain ethical judgments about how best to arrange society. So... yeah?

[Hairnet]

Yes, I met George and his wife a long time ago :-).

 

Here again this follows the line of reasoning we're all used to: that capitalism is the only moral system. What I would like to find is why the moral system necessarily means it's the most prosperous system in aggregate, and will always lead to the social mobility that the spirit of capitalism seems to embody.

 

People had already made the utilitarian case for capitalism. There wasn't really any point arguing for what  Herbert Spencer,  John Stuart Mills and Mises had already proven. A lot of Marxists and Anarchists in the early 20th century would assert that Capitalism was alienating and bad for human individuals, and that utilitarian and economic justifications for capitalism were weak because they were based on misguided and unjustified values. 

 

Anarchists and Marxists object to capitalism because it turns labor into a commodity (and everything else according to them).  

 

Erich Fromm argued that if a person perceives himself as being what he owns, then when that person loses (or even thinks of losing) what he "owns" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allow him to sell his labor for high wages), then, a fear of loss may create anxiety and authoritarian tendencies because that person's sense of identity is threatened. In contrast, when a person's sense of self is based on what he experiences in a state of being (creativity, love, sadness, taste, sight etc.) with a less materialistic regard for what he once had and lost, or may lose, then less authoritarian tendencies prevail. The state of being, in his view, flourishes under a worker-managed workplace and economy, whereas self-ownership entails a materialistic notion of self, created to rationalize the lack of worker control that would allow for a state of being.^[75]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#Opinions_on_psychological_effects

 

This reminds me of that part in the Fountainhead where the Communists were talking about Roark being a victim of Capitalism .Some socialists argue that capitalism forces men to turn their creativity into something to be sold, and therefor takes away the artist from their true intention.  

 

In "The Soul of Man", Wilde argues that, under capitalism, "the majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism—are forced, indeed, so to spoil them": instead of realising their true talents, they waste their time solving the social problems caused by capitalism, without taking their common cause away. Thus, caring people "seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see in poverty but their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it" because, as Wilde puts it, "the proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_under_Socialism

 

 

Rand was describing the link between individual human flourishing and prosperity. What people hadn't done though was point out why Capitalism was good for the individual.  Rand was showing why private property rights are necessary for individual reason and therefor are necessary for individual flourishing. Prosperity is just flourishing aggregated. 

 

This doesn't on its own end the discussion but it sets the tone. Democracy and Staitsm are going to be both looked at with suspicion once one accepts that the market and capitalism are fundamentally moral in nature. 

 

[StrictlyLogical]

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.

 

Observe the consequentialist test in respect of "good economic consequences", as connected to morality, is only in respect of or from the perspective of the proper beneficiary, the individual.  Insofar as the individual IS moral and takes voluntary action consonant with reality the economic consequences in capitalism are maximised.

 

We here know that taking morality, consciousness and other concepts applicable to individuals and trying to apply them to aggregates, communes, collectives... is generally not effective, proper, or perhaps not even rational.  If "goodness or  "goodness for" and equally "consciousness in" is defined for an individual does it make sense to even try to think of a collective having "more goodness"  or "more consciousness" simply because there are more individuals? 

 

The proper moral evaluation is on an individual basis.. on an individual level,,, as a noneconomist I ask is this the level of economical analysis?

[thenelli01]

Observe the consequentialist test in respect of "good economic consequences", as connected to morality, is only in respect of or from the perspective of the proper beneficiary, the individual.  Insofar as the individual IS moral and takes voluntary action consonant with reality the economic consequences in capitalism are maximised.

 

We here know that taking morality, consciousness and other concepts applicable to individuals and trying to apply them to aggregates, communes, collectives... is generally not effective, proper, or perhaps not even rational.  If "goodness or  "goodness for" and equally "consciousness in" is defined for an individual does it make sense to even try to think of a collective having "more goodness"  or "more consciousness" simply because there are more individuals? 

 

The proper moral evaluation is on an individual basis.. on an individual level,,, as a noneconomist I ask is this the level of economical analysis?

 

Good point - What is good for the individual is necessarily good for the collective.

Edited August 31, 2013 by thenelli01

[StrictlyLogical]

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.

Emphasis Added

 

Eioul the above in bold is the single most SCARIEST  thing I have seen written by an Objectivist on this forum... please tell me you er... misstated something here?

The stuff underlined is counter to my understanding of her entire philosophy.

 

Capitalism's status as the most proper system FLOWS from the moral requirement of benefiting the individual.  If any system fails to be the most proper and moral system, it does not change morality for the individual, it only means the individual needs to find/form a different society/system. 

 

That said the identity of what morality is and what Capitalism is, happens to be such that Capitalism IS the most proper/moral system for the individual. 

 

[StrictlyLogical]

 

 

Good point - What is good for the individual is necessarily good for the collective.

 

 

That does not flow logically from anything I said.

 

I was trying to say "good for the collective" is in some sense an incoherent concept and in fact is morally irrelevant.

[StrictlyLogical]

CrowEpistemologist:

 

 

After thinking about what everyone has said here I think practically AND morally speaking the best approach to advocating Capitalism is to approach it from both an economic and moral viewpoint focused on the individual.

 

See if you can show, and I think you can (or Rand already did) that Capitalism leads to the greatest prosperity possible to an individual in the context of that individual's capacity and their choices.  No system can make a person be what they are not, or provide a person escape from the consequences of the choices they make, or force them to make particular choices, if reality and justice are respected.  As such the individual in conjunction with reality and justice determines the potential prosperity of that individual.  A capitalist system, by not interfering with the individual, allows maximization and encourages the reaching of this potential prosperity.  It is this allowing of maximal prosperity of an individual, consonant with his/her abilities and the choices he/she makes that can be proved and is the most persuasive (and moral) reason for Capitalism. 

 

 

Some people will NOT choose to be prosperous, this is not a reflection on a system which in no way forces that choice upon them.  But for those who choose to live, choose reality and justice, independence, honesty etc. capitalism is the system which allows them the greatest possible benefit, the most they can achieve, which is exactly what each person morally deserves.

 

 

Note: the above is ONLY a sketch.  Also, and unfortunately, one cannot persuade a collectivist or a statist of the goodness of something which is solely based on and whose sole benefit is for the individual.  One also cannot appeal to justice and reality when dealing with an altruist or a mystic.  This sort of limits the argument's effectiveness, but then again you cannot persuade the morally bereft or the morally corrupt of what is proper on the basis of actual moral principles and virtues. 

Edited August 31, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Nicky]

I agree with StrictlyLogical that Capitalism is not aimed at maximizing aggregate economic production (or prosperity). Nor does it do that. Far from it. Aggregate economic production is irrelevant to whether Capitalism is good or bad. What matters is individual achievements. When Rand said that the industrial revolution made her think Capitalism was a great thing, it was the achievements of great individuals that made her think that, not aggregate production. 

 

Ayn Rand rightfully defines the good relative to an individual's best interests. Furthermore, she rightfully allows for individuals' best interests and value judgments to differ from each other. Even more importantly, she rightfully states that individuals CHOOSE their values.  There is therefor no way to add all the value everyone creates together, in an aggregate.Who's value judgments would you be using?

 

That's not what aggregate prosperity is. Aggregate prosperity instead measures the amount of money changing hands between people. There's a big difference. The latter says nothing about a person's work's value to himself, and it doesn't even account for ALL his value to others (it doesn't account for his value to friends or family, or whoever else he chooses to be of value to without money being exchanged). 

 

Let me give an example of the difference: Justin Bieber has generated many millions in revenue, over the years. Meanwhile, people far more talented than him, have sold very little. In Capitalism, Justin Bieber is free to peddle his crap to millions of people who work to pay him millions of dollars for it, and talented musicians are free to be brilliant and satisfy a few thousand people's love of music, making barely enough money to support themselves. To me, someone belonging to the latter category is worth infinitely more than Justin Bieber. To me, someone in the latter category is more productive. To me, the fact that Bieber converted something that I choose to assign no value to into millions, while someone who creates something of great value to me has not, is irrelevant as to which of the two is the better, more productive, more valuable individual. 

 

To me therefor a good political system is one which allows individuals to be as productive and accomplished as they can be, irrelevant of whether the value they create is of value to millions, to just a few or to no one except themselves. Irrelevant of whether the value they create is converted into a lot of money or none at all.

 

Just to sum it up: the value of a person, or his work, is chosen by him. It is not a political matter. It's a personal matter. The right political system is the one which keeps it a personal matter, not the one which attempts to make it a political matter by ignoring the fact that proper values are relative and subject to each individual's rational choices. (they're not subjective, they're objective, because of that word I underlined - but that's an aside)

 

Capitalism is good because it aims to allow people to be of value to themselves first. Deriving Capitalism's worth by aggregate prosperity (how much value people are to OTHERS) makes no sense. Yes, money is an accurate measure of how much value a person's work has to participants in the marketplace. But that's all it is. It says nothing about his total value, to himself or people he deals with outside the money-driven marketplace. There are many people of great, great value, who aren't billionaires. Ayn Rand was one of them. Capitalism allows them to "prosper" (if you define prosper outside the realm of economics, to mean "to produce value of any kind not just the kind that's exchangeable for money") alongside the billionaires. That's what makes Capitalism better than a system aiming to maximize economic prosperity.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Nicky

[Craig24]

Of some relation to this subject, this USA Today article on the fast food worker walkout/strike has a few lines worth examing:

 

From the body of the article:

"The bottom line is we are doing this to let the corporations know we want $15 an hour, better working conditions — and we want to be treated fairly, " said the Rev. W.J. Rideout III of Detroit's All God's People Church.

"Most people here have a family to support, and most people here barely make enough to make ends meet,'' McDonald's employee Dwight Murray said. "We're here today because we feel like McDonald's is a $6 billion entity and it's not unfeasible for them to pay $15 an hour."

 

The claim is that the fast food industry is highly profitable which means they can afford to pay much more to the workers then they are without operating at a loss.  The claim is that it is NOT fair to workers to deprive them of a wage that permits them to afford basic necessities.  Guess what social system gets blamed for this?

 

??

 

We know the answer: Capitalism.

 

Here's where the debate over the morality of capitalism begins and ends from the perspective of a "liberal" (welfare statist).  We can debate amongst ourselves about what actually justifies capitalism as the right system but what good does that do when the people you have to deal with (the ones who are actually in charge to a large extent: voters, politicians, the media, the schools) are not buying it?   Capitalism is good for preserving freedom but the people want to be able to pay their bills.  How do you explain to the people that it's more important to be free than to be fed when you are hungry or starving?

 

 

 

[CrowEpistemologist]

Okay, so the consensus answer to my question seems to be, "no".

 

Nobody has proven that capitalism (i.e. "pure" protection of individual rights) leads to aggregate prosperity and/or consistent upward mobility. Everybody here reiterates what I said in my first post, which is that Ayn Rand not only never addressed this, but would object to the question as such.

 

This is important, because statements like this...

 

Capitalism allows them to "prosper" (if you define prosper outside the realm of economics, to mean "to produce value of any kind not just the kind that's exchangeable for money") alongside the billionaires. That's what makes Capitalism better than a system aiming to maximize economic prosperity.

 

...are not supported by any necessary logical chain, but rather are just educated guesses based on evidence we have so far. We can guess that Ayn Rand would have been allowed to publish books in a pure capitalist world, but there's no logical proof of this compared to the logical proof we do have that capitalism is the only moral system.

 

Again, this sort of logical proof and analysis of the drivers of capitalism are not necessary to advocate it, and are not necessary to arrive at conclusions based on very broad thresholds ("a mixed economy is more prosperous than totalitarianism", etc.). It is not sufficient, however, when you get into fine-grained distinctions such as higher taxes or lower taxes (or no taxes), etc.

[thenelli01]

 

That does not flow logically from anything I said.

 

I was trying to say "good for the collective" is in some sense an incoherent concept and in fact is morally irrelevant.

 

I sort of read your post while I was about to fall asleep last night. My point by saying "what is good for the individual is necessarily good for the collective" was that the collective breaks down to the individual (i.e. "collection of individuals"). After re-reading your post, I still think you made a good point.

Edited August 31, 2013 by thenelli01

[2046]

Okay, so the consensus answer to my question seems to be, "no".

 

Nobody has proven that capitalism (i.e. "pure" protection of individual rights) leads to aggregate prosperity and/or consistent upward mobility. Everybody here reiterates what I said in my first post, which is that Ayn Rand not only never addressed this, but would object to the question as such.

 

This is important, because statements like this...

 

 

...are not supported by any necessary logical chain, but rather are just educated guesses based on evidence we have so far. We can guess that Ayn Rand would have been allowed to publish books in a pure capitalist world, but there's no logical proof of this compared to the logical proof we do have that capitalism is the only moral system.

 

Again, this sort of logical proof and analysis of the drivers of capitalism are not necessary to advocate it, and are not necessary to arrive at conclusions based on very broad thresholds ("a mixed economy is more prosperous than totalitarianism", etc.). It is not sufficient, however, when you get into fine-grained distinctions such as higher taxes or lower taxes (or no taxes), etc.

What? I don't really get what you're talking about. Only the science of economics is going to give you descriptive propositions of which you are asking for. Ayn Rand wasn't an economist and didn't write any books on economic theory, she was a philosopher and so made normative theories. She didn't write a book on child psychology or biology either and yet opined on these things in her epistemology and ethics. I'm not sure why you're disappointed that someone who thought capitalism lead to general prosperity didn't write a book on economics. If you are interested in economic proofs derived from first principles, then I highly suggest Mises' book Human Action, it has exactly that, and moreover, he is the author that informed Rand's views on economics on which her normative political judgments are based. It's free online, but I mean it's really long, as you might expect. Maybe you would be interested in this paper from the neo-Aristotelian philosopher Roderick Long Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences?

 

Btw I think people's objecting to the question as such was more of objecting to the specific terms of "aggregate prosperity" since it's unclear what that may mean, especially if defined in terms of monetary aggregates. If you want to more technically describe what you mean by that, we can of course, but I'm content with something like general prosperity.

Edited September 1, 2013 by 2046

[2046]

Emphasis Added

 

Eioul the above in bold is the single most SCARIEST  thing I have seen written by an Objectivist on this forum... please tell me you er... misstated something here?

The stuff underlined is counter to my understanding of her entire philosophy.

 

Capitalism's status as the most proper system FLOWS from the moral requirement of benefiting the individual.  If any system fails to be the most proper and moral system, it does not change morality for the individual, it only means the individual needs to find/form a different society/system. 

 

That said the identity of what morality is and what Capitalism is, happens to be such that Capitalism IS the most proper/moral system for the individual. 

 

Why is that scary? Again, it seems like the OP wants a proof from ethics that this economic system would have these specific consequences. But there is no such proof, ethics is informed by such empirical facts about the world, that is why Rand uses facts about the world to determine what man ought to do, that is the whole point of objective ethics. If facts about man's nature and acting in the world were different, then your ethics would be different as well. If a policy of respecting libertarian rights did not ordinarily promote people's well-being, then libertarian rights would be false and some other type of justice would follow. It all depends on what consequences do, in fact, follow from a free market economic order. It makes no sense, as a Randian anyway, to say that on the one hand a free market economy is a moral system, and on the other hand, a free market economy does not ordinarily promote people's well-being. That would just be bringing in the old split between consequentialism and deontology.

[StrictlyLogical]

 

 

I sort of read your post while I was about to fall asleep last night. My point by saying "what is good for the individual is necessarily good for the collective" was that the collective breaks down to the individual (i.e. "collection of individuals"). After re-reading your post, I still think you made a good point.

 

 

Heh... thanks!!

 

I totally get the part about "sort of reading" while about to fall asleep,,, s'all good.

[Eiuol]

2046 gave a good response to elaborating on the parts you underlined. I misstated nothing: basically capitalism flowing from ethics is a logical organization of principles. How you arrive at these principles varies upon how reality works and the relationship between facts. It's in that way Rand built a system integrated facts, not a series of derivations from first principles. Consider it this way: Objectivist ethics is about what is the best for your own life, which you would have to discover from the facts of reality, including existing social systems.

"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 forcibly 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."

Okay, I'm going to rephrase this a bit.

H[rehab welfare state] = X + rehabilitation(A)
H[capitalist] = X

where H is some arbitrary measure of economic well being (happiness) of a country, rehabilitation(A) is some amount of value addicts add who will eventually be rehabilitated, and X is some amount of value added by everyone. All things being equal, S[rehab] is undoubtedly better than S[capitalist]. As an egoist, it's in your interest to be in a country of great economic well being - more value, more money, more food, etc. But is this how economics really works?

So far, it's just a purely consequentialist "greatest good for the greatest number". The greatest number may be helped, but you may be that burnt grain of rice that is so much worse than the aggregate well-being of the whole rice bowl. Most grains will be great, except for a few. That's sort of what Crow is asking. As an egoist being that one grain of rice is terrible. You would want to be in a system where you can prosper. In fact, I'd argue that some liberal-minded use that line of reasoning to make all kinds of arguments against "systems of power" oppressing the weak.  

Take it a bit further: H[capitalist] = X - hindered( B )

where hindered( B ) is value lost when some people are unable to live well because they're held back somehow. Perhaps you can say they are people who fail to get rehabilitation, just consider H[welfare] has a smaller number of untreated addicts. It would be that much worse for everyone and people in B. If you're in B, tell me, what is good for your life about capitalism? I suppose you'd say it's more moral. But what makes it more moral if your life is made worse?

Of course, equations aren't always so straightforward. Is it possible that rehabilitation(A) necessarily leeches from X? Is there a limit on A before rehabilitation is a loss? And is there really a class of people being deprived by a capitalist structure? I'll try to answer by pulling apart my variables to see if I'm m issing anything. Suppose you want to split up the parts of H. You can't really have everything but only vary a single value

H = security + technology + food + entertainment + social life + ...

This takes into some account differing values. It seems that much more unlikely you can easily raise the value of H. Fiddle with technology, food goes down. Fiddle with food, entertainment goes down. And so on. This is how totalitarian regimes work, so it's just explaining that H[capitalist] OR H[welfare] > H[totalitarian] is true. In other words, all these pieces of H have a causal impact on the rest. But H[welfare] > H[capitalist] may be true, especially if you can't make fine discriminations within H! That is, applying a function (economic policy) to one component of H applies to all other components of H, with non-uniform results. However, I'm still only answering on utilitarian grounds. A moral underpinning is necessary to figure out what we want for a social system.

At least for now, I want to stick to an individual level.
I = (H / population) +/- V                     (H / population is the average H)
I[capitalist] compared to I[welfare].

where I is individual H, and V is some individual variation from the average. Which society is better for you? Objectivism would say I[capitalist] is by nature greater than I[welfare] no matter who you are, no matter what pieces make up H. Taken as I stated it, the higher H, the higher I is. So, which ever is best in sum is necessarily better for you, only if V stays the same. Objectivism would still say I[capitalist] still will be higher than I[welfare], or in other words, V under [welfare] wouldn't decrease in a switch to [capitalist] (i.e. a person wouldn't be "marginalized" by society). Fortunately, we can observe existing societies which have changed from one social system to another. The collapse Rome, collapse of the Soviet Union, decreased war in the Balkans, Italy abandoning fascism, China a lot less communistic-looking, etc. On this basis of study, you would probably notice a trend of equal rights being important in net happiness. Yet I'm at a loss how to get right from here to establish that capitalism is best for you as an individual. To figure that out, we'd want to use some observations of different societies to establish what's required to lead a happy life. That means figuring out moral principles from observing existing prosperous countries. What are people doing? With enough time, you can figure out using reason and trading while respecting rights is part of the better, prosperous societies.

Basically, there is no formal proof in the sense described by Crow as in establishing capitalism as the most moral system from "first" principles of ethics. The issue is that you need to use observations of societies to establish first principles and what actually leads to a good life!
 

Edited September 1, 2013 by Eiuol

[secondhander]

I'll try to comment longer later on, Euiol, and I hope you forgive the short statement here. But I think you're off, and you have essentially attributed to Rand and Objectivism a sort of pragmatic ethics, which she absolutely rejected. 

 

The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards—and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day). -- “How to Read (and Not to Write),”

 

Second, I think your argument has, in parts, taken the focus off of the individual (a real thing) and put it on the collective society (an abstraction). That leaves you to accept the false view that you can achieve the highest value for all particular individuals ... by denying the highest value for some individuals -- but somehow that is better for the abstraction of "all" people generally.

 

And ultimately you are applying a stolen concept -- trying to grasp the notion of what is the highest value for "all" people, but by veering away from what grounds values in terms of being "good" or "bad." And in the final analysis, you are being "bad" to some people, in order to be "good" for most other people. But I put that "good" in quotes, because in reality, it's not good when produced goods are stolen from some to be given to others. So the claim is that survival is provided to more individuals, but don't steal the concept of moral value -- "survival" isn't a positive value in a vacuum, without context. Prisoners "survive," behind bars. If you (hypothetically) give remedial education to 1 percent of the population, it is not only they who are being denied the ability to freely use their mind (or freely not use it). It is also the 99 percent who are forced to pay for that remedial education who are in prison, too, and lose their right to use their minds (and the freedom to fully possess the what they have produced). 

 

We haven't even mentioned the fact that this causes a situation where a person who didn't get a hand up, but who worked to gain a job or produce a good to trade, is now having to compete with someone who was lazy, but received free training (and room and board for a while) and now may have an immoral advantage against the rest of everyone. Essentially, failures and lazy people fit into capitalism just fine. No one needs to be a failure or to be lazy. Everyone could produce and do well and survive and thrive if they wanted. But the fact that some don't, in no way harms those who do. What DOES harm those who do produce, is stealing what they have produced. And that is what is being advocated in this thought experiment, supposedly for the benefit of an abstracted sum of all.

 

And even if some sort of remedial education could be shown to help someone survive from starvation and contribute more to society in terms of production, I argued earlier and still hold that this "remedial education" would still be far, far worse, practically speaking, than letting reality be the educator for them. Let them starve, lest they produce. Not only will they be given the best education, it's also free, and no producer's wealth need be stolen in order to provide it. 

Edited September 1, 2013 by secondhander

[Eiuol]

I'll try to comment longer later on, Euiol, and I hope you forgive the short statement here. But I think you're off, and you have essentially attributed to Rand and Objectivism a sort of pragmatic ethics, which she absolutely rejected. 

 

Actually, I specifically say that the "greatest good" does not always mean it's good for a particular individual. I try to, at the end, talk about how to figure out if capitalism is necessarily good for all people. It's one thing to say it's "moral", but you can't avoid that determining what is moral depends on what real consequences there are to your life. Consequence doesn't need to be a scare word, Pragmatic ethics is about consequences in terms of actions, not entities. Consequence though just refers to events and actions that have an impact on you, which isn't only "what happens".

 

Your statements don't contradict what I'm getting at. I started stating some things I knew were false, wrote them out in quantifiable terms, and looked at the steps of why they're insufficient to analyze a social system. I think Rand went through a similar process of "proof" based on her statements on the industrial revolution, as I was explaining earlier. Before you respond though, read the previous post.

[2046]

2046 gave a good response to elaborating on the parts you underlined. I misstated nothing: basically capitalism flowing from ethics is a logical organization of principles. How you arrive at these principles varies upon how reality works and the relationship between facts. It's in that way Rand built a system integrated facts, not a series of derivations from first principles. Consider it this way: Objectivist ethics is about what is the best for your own life, which you would have to discover from the facts of reality, including existing social systems.

 

[...]

Basically, there is no formal proof in the sense described by Crow as in establishing capitalism as the most moral system from "first" principles of ethics. The issue is that you need to use observations of societies to establish first principles and what actually leads to a good life!

 

Wouldn't it be okay to say though, kind of like how you said capitalism is a logical organization of principles, that it is a deduction from first principles, so long as you understand those first principles to be "empirical" in the widest sense of the meaning, or founded on first-level observations? My understanding is that Crow seems to want a deduction about how reality works from ethics, which seems a bit odd.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Wouldn't it be okay to say though, kind of like how you said capitalism is a logical organization of principles, that it is a deduction from first principles, so long as you understand those first principles to be "empirical" in the widest sense of the meaning, or founded on first-level observations? My understanding is that Crow seems to want a deduction about how reality works from ethics, which seems a bit odd.

 

I want nothing of the kind. I have no Earthly idea what could have given you that impression...

 

I was asking if there exists a proof of the aggregate efficacy of capitalism based on morality in the same way we base morality on the nature of man. Everybody whose entered this thread has said, "no" in some fashion or another. That's all I wanted. If you want to discuss other things then great, but I already got what I wanted a dozen posts ago :-).

Edited September 2, 2013 by CrowEpistemologist

[Eiuol]

I was asking if there exists a proof of the aggregate efficacy of capitalism based on morality in the same way we base morality on the nature of man. Everybody whose entered this thread has said, "no" in some fashion or another. That's all I wanted. If you want to discuss other things then great, but I already got what I wanted a dozen posts ago :-).

That's kind of a loaded question. You can't base the efficacy on capitalism in the same way you base morality on the nature of man, because you don't base morality *only* from the nature of man! You take the nature of man and various other facts. So, of course there is no proof in the form you asked about, it's the wrong epistemological approach in the first place. Unless you just want a logical organization. Anyway, 2046, it is fine to explain a deduction of principles in a logical order so long as you remember that the deduction itself isn't the discovery of principles. A formal proof in that way is fine and possible, sort of like how math proofs demonstrate logical consistency but not what is true in reality necessarily.

[2046]

I want nothing of the kind. I have no Earthly idea what could have given you that impression...

 

I was asking if there exists a proof of the aggregate efficacy of capitalism based on morality in the same way we base morality on the nature of man. Everybody whose entered this thread has said, "no" in some fashion or another. That's all I wanted. If you want to discuss other things then great, but I already got what I wanted a dozen posts ago :-).

How can you have no earthly idea, it seems pretty plausible to conclude you want an explanation of how economies work from ethical principles based on what you have written, even here "exists a proof of the aggregate efficacy of capitalism based on morality in the same way we base morality on the nature of man." You want a proof of how reality works, based on morality seems like an accurate summation of that. I mean, you could be a little clearer, we're just trying to find out is all. But if you mean something like, "can we deduce economic principles from the nature of man," well then that depends, if you consider the nature of man to include the concepts of action, means, and ends, then why don't you look into Mises, as I said before, he deduces the entirety of economic theory from a few general principles about the nature of man and acting. It has nothing to do with ethics though, of course.

Edited September 2, 2013 by 2046

[Spiral Architect]

 If you are interested in economic proofs derived from first principles, then I highly suggest Mises' book Human Action, it has exactly that, and moreover, he is the author that informed

 

I'm going to add to 2046's excellent post by pointing out that Mises, in this work, demolishes any form a controlled economy through the problem of the economic calculator on pricing.  The problem of pricing in a control economy insures a drop in prosperity since wealth is distributed inefficiently through manufactured distortions.

[Spiral Architect]

I'm honestly baffled by this whole exercise to be honest. 

 

My instincts are telling me that Crow is assuming Rand's approach was a rationalistic one (my term, not his) and he is overcorrecting by asking for an empirical example.  To be more true to his wording, in his view she is basically being idealistic without ostensive proof and he is asking for that proof to support the case.  The problem is she used both in her method, not just in the method he wants. 

 

Objectivism is both, perception and reason, which Rand used (and many other's) to determine that Capitalism is moral and practical since it gives people the greatest opportunity to prosper according to their values.  It was through observation of many examples, reduced to fundamentals, differentiate and integrate the essentials, then review the whole new for contradiction on the perceptual level again.  That is the basic method of Objective thinking, which is no small thing since that is why she chose the name for her philosophy.  Hierarchy proof is important but it comes after the integrative process, and that is determined by the concretes one perceivers.   This is why the moral is the practical, which is easily demonstrated in Capitalism since my prosperity ties to my ability to be free to pursue my values. Obviously, having my money taken from me without my permission through taxation or any other confiscation does not make me wealthier. 

 

Rand based her views exactly on real world examples and integrated from there.  If you want proof of liberty's wealth generating abilities you should do the same - Write out a list of 10 examples from the real world, reduce to fundamentals, differentiate and integrate essentials, then add to the whole through non-contradictory thinking.  Then go back to the real world and fact check it.  You'll never get there at all if you demand concretes to give you the proof themselves since proof assumes a standard with which to judge them. 

[CrowEpistemologist]

I want nothing of the kind. I have no Earthly idea what could have given you that impression...

 

I was asking if there exists a proof of the aggregate efficacy of capitalism based on morality in the same way we base morality on the nature of man. Everybody whose entered this thread has said, "no" in some fashion or another. That's all I wanted. If you want to discuss other things then great, but I already got what I wanted a dozen posts ago :-).

 

I miswrote this paragraph (to catastrophic effect). It should read:

 

"I was asking if there exists a proof of the aggregate efficacy of capitalism in the same way we base morality on the nature of man. Everybody who has entered this thread has said, "no" in some fashion or another. That's all I wanted. If you want to discuss other things then great, but I already got what I wanted a dozen posts ago :-)."

 

Surely the way I wrote it before didn't make any sense--there's no way to parse my sentence logically. Then everybody jumped on it as proof that I'm a (whole bunch of irrational things).

 

Boy oh boy, this is fun. Here's another one--go ahead and critique this paragraph for philosophical errors:

 

"Ayn Rand held that axiomatic concepts where based on the science of ethics which are nonetheless based on stolen concepts in certain contexts of unit economy".

 

Like the text on a fortune cookie, people can just make that mean anything they want it to mean I guess...