- Capitalism and Alternatives -

You just said that 'social distinctions' are unfair if not founded 'on the general good'.

Posted by: Nikhil Jaikumar ( DSA, MA, USA ) on January 25, 19100 at 17:27:52:

In Reply to: You can never read too much Locke! posted by David on January 25, 19100 at 00:23:26:

: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.


: Now, if I have the right to work, then couldn't I accuse anyone of not giving me a job as violating my rights? Do I have protection from unemployment even if I do not work to satisfaction of my employer? What if I am habitually late? Am I still protected? Or are these rights subject to certain conditions....

EVERY right is 'subject to conditions'- in other words, you lose your right to life if you commit heinous crimes.

And no, I don't believe 'laziness' is an adequate reason for you to be deprived a job. How sanctimonious you sound tehre. Do you think that the millions of hard workers who are ladi off every year are 'lazy'? Do you think that a job sweeping up grease at McD's is the best that these people deserve, just because they're poor, African american, and grew up in the inner city? Good God, man deserves better than that!

: : : 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

: : Absolutely. The best summation of socialism I could think off. Communists like Barry go even further and say that teh 'free and equal' bit is so important it overrides even teh general good, so you can't have social distinctions of any kind, even for efficiency's sake.

: : It really makes me wonder how you can keep arguing. Doesn't that one line destroy your entire pro-capitalist stance? Can anyone say that distinctions between people in capitalism are based on 'the general good'? of course not. It's obvious such distinctions are based on WEALTH.

: In a perfectly free society, where wealth is made by the sweat of one's brow and their ingenuity, I would say that allowing people to amass wealth is not an issue.

'Not an issue'????!

What a fucking dodge!

You just said that 'social distinctions' are unfair if not founded 'on the general good'.

What the hell are social distinctions cause by, if not by wealth?

Wealth is ALL ABOUT making social distinctions.

Wealth 'distincguishes' the type of shelter, food, medicine, justice, education, etc. that everyone receives.

Wealth is teh most diabolically effective method of inventing social disticntion that man ever though up.

Talk about avoiding the question!

:I would also argue that any social distinctions made by wealth would not matter either. However, we do not live in such a society.

You just SAID social distinctions are wrong, if not founded on the general good.

How come you defend the social distinctions caused by wealth?

You just contradicted yourself.

: : : 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

: : Dangerous ground here- you speak of 'liberty, security, and property'. I thought that conception went out with John Locke, poster boy of aristorcracy and slavery.

: You cam never read too much Locke. I think that property is a sacred right and should be protected.

Sacred according to whom?

Where in the Bible does it say you have an absolute right to property?

Incidentally, Locke wasn't too big a fan of freedom and property for teh Native Americans. Or for Africans, for that matter. He also supported the LTV, as do most people when they stop deluding themselves. Maybe you should read some socialist or communist thinkers once in a while. I read Locke (and disagreed with everything he said); why don't you read Marx? (I'm not a Marxist either, but that's not relevant....)

: : : 4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

: : Doesn't capitalism 'injure someone else', namely the poor?

: No. Capitalism has produced more wealth to be spread around than any other system,

Not true. The poorest of the poor are generally better off in socialist countries, regardless of how the 'average' citizen may fare; (the average is often higher as well). Anyway, the last time I proved that socialist Nicaragua did a better job of generating wealth than market-capitalist countries in Latin America, you neatly dodged by saying 'wealth creation wasn't the issue." What's it gonna be? You can't eat your cake and have it too.

: it has raised the standard of living in ways that people could have never imagined.

Which would explain the formation of slums throughout capitaliszing countries in LAtin America; the lack of decent living standards for teh poor in any capitalist counrty; etcetera....

:I believe that capitalism is what makes this world great. It is capitalism that allows us to enjoy all the freedoms that we do.

Blatant falsehood. The freest counrty in the ear;ly '90s, using a narrow definition (only civil and political freedoms) was social democratic Sweden, not capitalist America (we were #33 on the list). Socialist Nicaragua was in many ways freere and more democratic than Reagan's US. There have been PLENTY of socialist states that were both free and democratic, often freer and more democratic than the US- Kerala, Bengal, Nicaragua, Burkina Faso, Chile, Zimbabwe, the Seychelles, Guyana, &c. Do you deny the existence of these counterexamples? BEcause your argument is that capitalism is what leads to freedom, not anything else; tehrefore the presence of freedom logically implies the presence of capitalism. Unfortunatly, these counterxamples disprove your point. So which is it going to be?

: : : 5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

: : Isn't the existence of social disparities caused by capitalism "hurtful to society"?

: I do not think so. However, you are entitled to your opinion. I think that social disparaties are neither harmful nor helpful/

Well, gee, thanks; in a real capitalist society like Guatemala, Id' be up against the wall right now, so thanks for your socialist tolerance. Can you really argue, though, that social disparities are not 'harmful' to our sense of justice and to human dignity? It's perfectly OK, according to you, if the poor are living in absolute misery? Undeserved suffering isn't bad for society?

: : : 7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

: : I would disagree with taht last clause., Civil disobedience is an important and time-tested tool.
: : Skipping over the rest, mostly truisms taht I agree with....

: I agree completely, civil disobediance is very important. Keep in mind though that if a government does only what it is supposed to do and does not overstep its boundaries, than there is no reason to be disobediant. However, if a government ignores those limitations and acts coercively than the social contract has been broken and you are not held to it.

You have it backward. In a socialist democracy there is not reaosn not to cooperate with teh government- YOU ARE THE GOVERNMWENT. Ina libertarian capitalist society (read: rule by an elite) there is every reason to protest and try to shut down teh functioning of such an unjust society with every breath in your body.

: : : 17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

: : Dangerous. Who defines 'public necessity', and on what basis is this 'right to property' granted- dpoes that make it unjust, for exampole, to own land collectively?

: This is actually where I disagree with the Declaration of the Rights of Man. I think that property should NEVER be taken away for any reason.

But those people stole their land from society (and the workers) in the first place. They aren't entitled to it, and as such, tehy should give it back.

: Owning land collectively is a non-issue because you will collectively be the private owners of the land.

"Collective' and "private" are contradictory.
: Alright, I need to clear something up. Capitalism is a form of economic system, it is when you use capital to produce more capital which is then reinvested. That is the economic system that I support.
: The political system that I support, however, is one of a constitutionally limited democracy. Basically, people are insured certain rights and it is the governments duty to protect those rights. Essentially a social contract. In this political system, the government has a monopoly on retaliatory force, that is using force in response to other force. The government has no power to initiate force. Thus, the above scenario would never happen as the government would not have the power to initiate the use of force against another country.

My point is that capitalism thrives well udner dictatorship, in fact better than it does under democracy. Capitalism and democracy are essentially incompatible; capitalism stands for economic oligarchy.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup