Rational Self Interest

[Apoi_Viitor]

I have some questions for those of you who are moderately well-adversed in capitalist economics. First off, what is the empirical evidence for declaring that man fundamentally acts in his own self-interest? Secondly, why can man only act rationally under a free market system? Why does the introduction of government regulation obscure his ability to act rationally? If he acts in rational self-interest, why isn't he able to take into account the influence of the government on his financial decisions? Similarly, why is he able to understand capitalisms effect on his financial decisions? And finally, if man can fundamentally understand the capitalist system, enough to make rational investments, why can't the government understand it enough to influence its economic policies? Likewise, if man isn't able to understand capitalism's effects on his financial prospects, then why is it that capitalist proponents allege that man is only able to act in his own rational self-interest under a free market system?

[Widerstand]

There is little to no evidence that "homo economicus" is a correct model for human behavior, the most painstakingly obvious being the factual impossibility for all humans to make rational economic decisions all of the time because most humans simply don't know enough about economy to do so, let alone reflect their choices every time they make a decision. There's a lot of criticism of h.e., even from capitalist economists, and as far as I'm aware h.e. isn't really used in models anymore (though it may be used to justify Free Market blabber, idk).
I think the assumption itself is usually based on a mix of enlightenment "humans are rational!" blabber mixed with Social Darwinism (which was contested for example by Kroptkin's Mutual Aid). There are plenty, read: almost all of traditional Game Theory, models that can be used to somehow show that a Free Market would be the best system, if indeed h.e. were factually correct.

[Havet]

First off, what is the empirical evidence for declaring that man fundamentally acts in his own self-interest?

None/very few (http://www.revleft.com/vb/crushing-rational-actor-t146613/index.html?t=146613)

[Palingenisis]

which was contested for example by Kroptkin's Mutual Aid[/B]). There are plenty, read: almost all of traditional Game Theory, models that can be used to somehow show that a Free Market would be the best system, if indeed h.e. were factually correct.

Kropotkin was of course also a leading biologist of his day.

That is a brillant book however dated.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4341/pg4341.html

[Revolution starts with U]

Here's the thing, to anyone looking at it rationally, they don't. Rational man is a paradox, or at least contradictory.
But these free marketeers who still hold to this value do so because they have defined certain terms in certain ways;
1) By rational they mean made a decision with a certain goal in mind. They like to act as if this seperates us from animals... but I fail to see how. If that's the definition of rationality, than every living thing is rational.
I always thought reason involved logic, imagination, and studiousness.. but hey, what do I know. I guess it's just doing shit. It was quite rational for that friend of yours to take their own life :rolleyes::crying:
2)By capitalism they mean a totally free market which has yet to exist. THe last 300 years of western economics is not capitalism, it's socialism :rolleyes:. Capitalism existed for maybe 10 years following the american revolution, and probably would have made a glorious empire under the Confederacy if northern aggression hadn't stopped them :rolleyes::lol:.
So of course, you see all kinds of arguments saying "in a free market blah blah blah."
3) By libertarian they mean the only authority they are against are the ones who question their authority. Freedom means my ability to make decisions regarding your life, but you staying the fuck out of mine.

Idk, how can argue against ones so willing to fool themselves?

[Lt. Ferret]

libertarians dont believe in authority. you dont have to work for them or with them, you can wander away and do your own thing. if you dont like your libertarian boss, then quit. your socialist boss is more likely to kill you or imprison your family.

[Amphictyonis]

Ayn Rand is dead. God save the queen! As a previous poster pointed out Kropotkins Mutual Aid was a good response to Darwin and Adam Smiths bunkum about humans acting only in self interest (I think Darwin's work was actually warped to fit this view). Smith thought self interest to be the number one motivation behind all human action and inferred only a capitalist system could fit "human nature". Ayn Rand took it to the next level. She was, in my opinion, a social Darwinist. She gained much of her views from Nietzsche as well. Nietzsche and Max Striner.

I don't deny self interest is and should be a motivator behind human action but to deny altruism exists is absurd. Also, societies set up with competition as the foundation are going to breed isolation, distrust and down right vile behavior as we see under capitalism. It can be argued self interest could be a motivator behind cooperation as it would be in our interest to cooperate in lieu of compete for resources. The thing is, only through competition can hierarchical society be held together- with cooperation things would tend to me more equal and people such as Ayn Rand aren't supporters of equality, they think so called 'superior' humans should hold power over the 'weak'. This is the capitalist mind frame. Thomas Malthus was also one of the bastards responsible for setting the foundations of this elitist bourgeois mind frame.

[Lt. Ferret]

altruism is helping someone else with no gain to you. almost all social interactions provide some gain.

[Revolution starts with U]

^ redefining terms to suit your argument. That's what I'm talkin about.
Almost any person, on any normal part of the day would define altruism as helping someone little to no material gain. In other words, whatever gains made, even if material, tho mostly spiritual/immaterial, are outweighed by the losses one took.
Helping the old lady next door bears great physical cost to one's self, but one feels better about themselves; altruism.
Define it under your terms, Lt., and it doesn't exist... but then... from whence did the word come? :rolleyes:

Here's the rub. It is in the self-interest of the majority of people to place decisions under democratic power. :sneaky:

[trivas7]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) is a link re Randian rational self-interest. Don't get caught up in the labels; you're asking for an explanation of nonsense.



Here's the rub. It is in the self-interest of the majority of people to place decisions under democratic power. :sneaky:
So we are all self-interested.

[RGacky3]

altruism is helping someone else with no gain to you. almost all social interactions provide some gain.


Thats not what altruism is, its helping someone with a selfless motivation, such as a guy hiring someone to do work that they don't really need to hire someone to do so as to give the guy a step up, most people would consider that altruistic.



libertarians dont believe in authority. you dont have to work for them or with them, you can wander away and do your own thing. if you dont like your libertarian boss, then quit. your socialist boss is more likely to kill you or imprison your family.


They absolutely believe in authority in practice, they just call it something else. THey'd have no problem with a Pullman style private dicatorship, but they just call it someting else.

As for your last sentance ... a bunch of shit, strawman.

[Revolution starts with U]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) is a link re Randian rational self-interest. Don't get caught up in the labels; you're asking for an explanation of nonsense.


So we are all self-interested.

No, I'm saying the same thing as you; it's nonsense. We're guided by both self-interest and altruism... shit many times altruism is done in self-interest (Extreme Home Makeover for example). But many times it's not (taking a bullet for someone).

It's all "human nature" irrational nonsense.

[Svoboda]

First off, what is the empirical evidence for declaring that man fundamentally acts in his own self-interest

For your first question of man acting in their own self interest, I can't think of any exact scientific evidence attesting to it(as I doubt you have evidence disproving it). But Aristotelian ethics show that man tries to ultimately pursue some sort of good, and all actions are attempted in order to achieve this sort of good. The purpose of pursuing the good, is of achieving happiness, for is not everything driven by a want of happiness? Therefore even a staunch communist is pursuing their self interest of creating a more just society due to them being unhappy with the current structure of society which they believe is oppressive and exploitative, and they believe the end achievement of communism would ultimately be the good and would therefore bring them happiness. Therefore all actions are pursued by self interest based on such reasoning(the reasoning isn't fully Aristotelian but the basis of it is).


Secondly, why can man only act rationally under a free market system? Why does the introduction of government regulation obscure his ability to act rationally? If he acts in rational self-interest, why isn't he able to take into account the influence of the government on his financial decisions?
In a market society a consumer has a choice, and they sway the market into meeting their demands and ensuring products of high quality and low price(or whichever the consumer prefers). If a new product enters the market itsreplaces the inefficiency of an old one, i.e. the car replacing the horse the consumer will jump on it and help to eliminate the growing uselessness of the old product. In the example provided the initial cost of the car was extremely high, but due to high demand the production of it would increase from people seeking profits, this would increase competition and lead to price decreasing and quality increasing.

While government regulation often tends to be highly counterproductive, for how is the government supposed to know how to run a business? It acts as an expert on all issues and often only helps certain big business interests and certain pressing consumer groups. So in example if a company is engaging in some sort of environmental degradation the government often creates random regulations which actually dosen't do anything and often are counterproductive. While in a market system, through the rationality of the consumers, they could organize a boycott against the product the product and go to competitor products. While other forms of regulation and interference into the market economy like Obama's recent health care bill(and national health care too) or investment into R&D and subsides(specifically agricultural) only end up helping big business.

In the case of health care government control or regulation of health care aims to give high quality health care at an affordable price essentially to everyone. But in reality they only miss the overall problem of the lack of competition in the health care industry which drives up costs to enormous levels, and drains government coffers and basic people's pockets. While direct government funding of R&D only seems to be helping the big business interests, as instead of worrying about them having to spend large amounts of money in order to order to stay competitive they can rely on the government. While agricultural subsides encourage careless unproductivity and create artificially low prices and which make farmers in undeveloped nations unable to compete. Also don't forget about straight out government bailouts(which of course are only given to those "too big to fail"), if you fail don't worry the government will be right there to save you, this essentially encourages irresponsibility.


And finally, if man can fundamentally understand the capitalist system, enough to make rational investments, why can't the government understand it enough to influence its economic policies? Likewise, if man isn't able to understand capitalism's effects on his financial prospects, then why is it that capitalist proponents allege that man is only able to act in his own rational self-interest under a free market system?
The government is not a rational interest, it is a monopolistic force which seeks to serve its own interests. And I assume man can't fully understand the free market's effect on his financial prospects, but then again what can we fully understand? Trial and error for me is the basis of individualism, in a simplistic manner if I take cocaine and I find it gives me a negative reaction I won't take it again, or if I do continue taking it out of the case of addiction then I should individually seek action under my own accord understanding that my life is going in the wrong direction. The government dosen't need to tell us what's right and wrong, we can figure that out ourselves.

[Svoboda]

I was meaning to open a thread on this, but it seems to apply in this discussion. Is communism, or overall state control of economic forces really economically viable? I really want to want to see what the justification is and would like to legitimate proof.

[RGacky3]

as I doubt you have evidence disproving it

Actually there have been studies, and they show that "human nature" is not a static thing and is not predominantly selfish, and leans toward being more social. If you honestly don't believe me I'll look it up for you.


Therefore all actions are pursued by self interest based on such reasoning(the reasoning isn't fully Aristotelian but the basis of it is).


Thats getting into philosophy, i.e. trying to define reality, not science, i.e. figuring out what the reality IS.


In a market society a consumer has a choice, and they sway the market into meeting their demands and ensuring products of high quality and low price(or whichever the consumer prefers).

Right from the bat your wrong, there is no Consumer class, there is no choice in a market, the choices are dependant on your disposable income. Its money that controls the market, meaning those with more control more, those with just enough to survive don't have any sway on the market nor do they have any control.

THats why low income housing needs to be subsidised, as does food for hte poor, because the market won't take care of it, because it only cares about those with money.


If a new product enters the market itsreplaces the inefficiency of an old one, i.e. the car replacing the horse the consumer will jump on it and help to eliminate the growing uselessness of the old product. In the example provided the initial cost of the car was extremely high, but due to high demand the production of it would increase from people seeking profits, this would increase competition and lead to price decreasing and quality increasing.


ONLY if that new product benefits the ruling class, if it benefits monied interests, thats why new weapons are being built all the time, thats why we have a new iphone all the time, but cheap medicine for curable deseases takes forever.

Again, your missing the elephant in the room, i.e. monied interests.


While government regulation often tends to be highly counterproductive, for how is the government supposed to know how to run a business? It acts as an expert on all issues and often only helps certain big business interests and certain pressing consumer groups.

THe difference is while big buisiness is ONLY responsible to the people that run the buisiness and own it, the government is responsible to the public, thast the difference.

THe government will run a buisiness paratially for hte benefit of society, a buisiness will run it ONLY for profit, if you want to know the difference look at different healthcare systems.


While in a market system, through the rationality of the consumers, they could organize a boycott against the product the product and go to competitor products.

Or the company could just lie about it, because there are no laws preventing it, so no problem, also most likely competitors are also doing the same, because they'd save more money if they both agree to do it, also most likely people are not financially powerful enough to have an effective boycott.

That pipedream of how markets work is cartoonish and has nothing to do with reality.


In the case of health care government control or regulation of health care aims to give high quality health care at an affordable price essentially to everyone. But in reality they only miss the overall problem of the lack of competition in the health care industry which drives up costs to enormous levels, and drains government coffers and basic people's pockets. While direct government funding of R&D only seems to be helping the big business interests, as instead of worrying about them having to spend large amounts of money in order to order to stay competitive they can rely on the government. While agricultural subsides encourage careless unproductivity and create artificially low prices and which make farmers in undeveloped nations unable to compete. Also don't forget about straight out government bailouts(which of course are only given to those "too big to fail"), if you fail don't worry the government will be right there to save you, this essentially encourages irresponsibility.


As far as healthcare, if they had a PUBLIC option, then things would have been different, cost would have been driven down, don't believe me? Look at the rest of the world.

As for your other examples I agree, but thats not governments fault, thats because the Capitalist class has become SO powerful that they now hae a strangle hold an the government. In other countries where the Capitalist class did'nt develop so powerful, the government actually functions as a democracy.

This is not a question of more government or less, its government for who? For Us or for the corporations? Power for who, for big buisiness or for the people?

Your libertarian ideologies are ones that are adored by big buisiness, because it gives them an excuse to cut every resembelance of public control of the economy possible, and give it all to themselves, people like you are the darlings of big buisiness, (its not about government, btw, its about a hatred of democracy, as is seen by their hatred of unions.)

[Revolution starts with U]

As for your other examples I agree, but thats not governments fault, thats because the Capitalist class has become SO powerful that they now hae a strangle hold an the government.
As long as a monied class exists with general political power above the common people their class always will strangle the government.


In other countries where the Capitalist class did'nt develop so powerful, the government actually functions as a democracy.


you may want to put that as "democracy." Switzerland is cool and all, but it's certainly no worker's paradise. And it still benefits from capitalist exploitation of 3rd world countries and rent seeking.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Billions across the globe... the great majority are suffering from unequal distribution of the wealth. Whenever I see the self interest argument, even if I dont agree with it, I ask what is in the best interests of the worlds vast majority.

[RGacky3]

As long as a monied class exists with general political power above the common people their class always will strangle the government.


Not really, there are countries where the economic powers that be are not powerfully enough to totally destroy the democratic power, some countries have more democracy some have less, and generally it has to do with the economic power dynamic.


you may want to put that as "democracy." Switzerland is cool and all, but it's certainly no worker's paradise. And it still benefits from capitalist exploitation of 3rd world countries and rent seeking.

I understand that, and I'm not trying to deminish capitalism in the more democratic countries, nor the fact that global capitalism is a whole other dynamic. However, some countries have much more democracy than a country like the United States.

[Revolution starts with U]

I was meaning to open a thread on this, but it seems to apply in this discussion. Is communism, or overall state control of economic forces really economically viable? I really want to want to see what the justification is and would like to legitimate proof.
:lol: You should take what people tell you with a grain of salt. Verify claims for yourself. Are you sure this is the definition of communism? :thumbup1:



For your first question of man acting in their own self interest, I can't think of any exact scientific evidence attesting to it(as I doubt you have evidence disproving it).
And that's why it's pointless semantics. It is clearly redefinition of terms. If I have described RSI theorists definition of said terms incorrectly in my previous post, please let me know.

But Aristotelian ethics show that man tries to ultimately pursue some sort of good, and all actions are attempted in order to achieve this sort of good.
Semantics. ALso, as Gacky said, philosophy, not science. We're dealing with "truth" here. What we want to deal with is "fact."

The purpose of pursuing the good, is of achieving happiness, for is not everything driven by a want of happiness?
Semantics. Idk... maybe. Not always. At the very least, not always directly.

Therefore even a staunch communist is pursuing their self interest of creating a more just society due to them being unhappy with the current structure of society which they believe is oppressive and exploitative, and they believe the end achievement of communism would ultimately be the good and would therefore bring them happiness.
Pretty much :thumbup1:


Therefore all actions are pursued by self interest based on such reasoning(the reasoning isn't fully Aristotelian but the basis of it is).

Once again, taking a bullet for someone can only semantically be described as self-interest, and not at all if the person we're talking about doesn't believe in the after life.


In a market society a consumer has a choice,
Yes. Much like the american voter has a choice in the presidency :lol:



While government regulation often tends to be highly counterproductive, for how is the government supposed to know how to run a business? It acts as an expert on all issues and often only helps certain big business interests and certain pressing consumer groups.
I know right :mad: Capitalist governments are notoriously corrupt.

So in example if a company is engaging in some sort of environmental degradation the government often creates random regulations which actually dosen't do anything and often are counterproductive.
Well... that you'll have to provide evidence for. And what do you consider "many?" Market regulations have a pretty good track record, wealthy capitalst whining aside.

While in a market system, through the rationality of the consumers, they could organize a boycott against the product the product and go to competitor products.
In the laissez faire society you imagine that boycott would forcibly be beaten down by the monied class. I should say "probably would." But history makes me just go ahead and say "would."


While other forms of regulation and interference into the market economy like Obama's recent health care bill(and national health care too) or investment into R&D and subsides(specifically agricultural) only end up helping big business.

I kno, right :mad:
Well... not "only" but ya... i agree

In the case of health care government control or regulation of health care aims to give high quality health care at an affordable price essentially to everyone. But in reality they only miss the overall problem of the lack of competition in the health care industry which drives up costs to enormous levels, and drains government coffers and basic people's pockets.
Hmmm... Crusoe's island type theorizing, or actual verifiable evidence....
I'm going w door number 2 Chuck :thumbup1:

While direct government funding of R&D only seems to be helping the big business interests, as instead of worrying about them having to spend large amounts of money in order to order to stay competitive they can rely on the government.
:lol: It's rare for a capitalist to be against technological progress. They usually just deny the government's role in it. Well done :thumbup1:
Now think about what would happen to progress if you remove the aspect of ownership's expropriation of surplus value.

While agricultural subsides encourage careless unproductivity and create artificially low prices and which make farmers in undeveloped nations unable to compete. Also don't forget about straight out government bailouts(which of course are only given to those "too big to fail"), if you fail don't worry the government will be right there to save you, this essentially encourages irresponsibility.
I kno, right :thumbup1:
You're more of a socialist than you know friend. You just have to start critically examining that profit motive from a historical point of view.




The government is not a rational interest, it is a monopolistic force which seeks to serve its own interests. And I assume man can't fully understand the free market's effect on his financial prospects, but then again what can we fully understand? Trial and error for me is the basis of individualism, in a simplistic manner if I take cocaine and I find it gives me a negative reaction I won't take it again, or if I do continue taking it out of the case of addiction then I should individually seek action under my own accord understanding that my life is going in the wrong direction. The government dosen't need to tell us what's right and wrong, we can figure that out ourselves.

I would have to write paragraphs to express my disagreements here, but suffice it to say, I basically agree with this. The thing is, and it always is w center-leftist anarchist/minarchist capitalists... why do you stop at government? Why is Dick Clarke afforded the power you wouldn't dare put in the hands of Bill Clinton?

[Svoboda]

Actually there have been studies, and they show that "human nature" is not a static thing and is not predominantly selfish, and leans toward being more social. If you honestly don't believe me I'll look it up for you.
No you don't have definitive prove, in the past I have looked at sociological and physiological studies to answer the question, and they don't answer much, they seem to say that individuals certainly are willing to willing to enter into a group and perhaps sacrifice some of their interests but they ultimate want something. Look at an experiment of the prisoner's dilemma, and here are three examples which also test individuals working in collectives which test self interest:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.7.17.html (http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Egrpproc/crisp/crisp.7.17.html)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.3.1.htm (http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Egrpproc/crisp/crisp.3.1.htm)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.6.12.htm (http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Egrpproc/crisp/crisp.6.12.htm)


Thats getting into philosophy, i.e. trying to define reality, not science, i.e. figuring out what the reality IS.
Well science can't solve everything, and the social sciences all too often end up contradicting themselves.



Right from the bat your wrong, there is no Consumer class, there is no choice in a market, the choices are dependant on your disposable income. Its money that controls the market, meaning those with more control more, those with just enough to survive don't have any sway on the market nor do they have any control.

They do sway the market, if there is demand for a product from any income level the market will meet it. The problem is the creation of artificial scarcity or caused either by government regulation or the cartelistaion of business(the problem of Capitalism).


THats why low income housing needs to be subsidised, as does food for hte poor, because the market won't take care of it, because it only cares about those with money.
You use the word market too loosely, and you have look at why prices are at the outrageous levels for the poor. Competition is allowed to exist under subsides, inefficiency is widespread, in example American, European and Japanese have massive agricultural subsides which protect their farmers and blood developing markets, eliminate competition and the income for the majority of those in the developing world.

And yes the Capitalist market dosen't care about the poor, and Capitalism will lead to the exploitation of the poor, therefore creating the need for individuals to create cooperative associations with each other to ensure their interest, where THEY HAVE CONTROL. In the state they have no real control. In the late nineteenth century and early 20th such associations were widespread in Europe and America, one example being health care associations where individuals basically paid a modest fee every month(or whenever) and would agree for all to be cared. The health care industry of course didn't like this and would get the state to stamp it out.

ONLY if that new product benefits the ruling class, if it benefits monied interests, thats why new weapons are being built all the time, thats why we have a new iphone all the time, but cheap medicine for curable deseases takes forever.
??? Profits are Profits entrepreneurs will invest in anything as long as it makes them money, be it weapons or cheap housing.

Again, your missing the elephant in the room, i.e. monied interests.
And your missing the interference of the state in the market.


THe difference is while big buisiness is ONLY responsible to the people that run the buisiness and own it, the government is responsible to the public, thast the difference.
Wrong business is nothing without people buying. You may say the workers may have no choice but to buy, what then what do you say of workers who went on strike in the late 19th and 20th century who had nothing, but still attempted to gain a living wage and a reasonable working conditions. Capital is nothing without workers just as it is nothing without consumers.


Or the company could just lie about it, because there are no laws preventing it, so no problem, also most likely competitors are also doing the same, because they'd save more money if they both agree to do it, also most likely people are not financially powerful enough to have an effective boycott.
Competitors would not ultimately make more money if they they hide their wrong doing, and form a cartel as you're alluding to, one company would naturally break the hold as they would see an opportunity to attain greater profit from showing the exploitation of their competitors. Cartels and Monopoly's can't exist without some outside enforcement like the state which will ensure it's existence.


That pipedream of how markets work is cartoonish and has nothing to do with reality.
And communism has had reality?


As far as healthcare, if they had a PUBLIC option, then things would have been different, cost would have been driven down, don't believe me? Look at the rest of the world.

Do you see how enormous the costs for health care are throughout the world? And why it's (partly) bankrupting Europe.

As for your other examples I agree, but thats not governments fault, thats because the Capitalist class has become SO powerful that they now hae a strangle hold an the government. In other countries where the Capitalist class did'nt develop so powerful, the government actually functions as a democracy.
Democracy is a dream.

Your libertarian ideologies are ones that are adored by big buisiness, because it gives them an excuse to cut every resembelance of public control of the economy possible, and give it all to themselves, people like you are the darlings of big buisiness, (its not about government, btw, its about a hatred of democracy, as is seen by their hatred of unions.)
No business fears such rhetoric they love having protection from the state.

[Svoboda]

:lol: You should take what people tell you with a grain of salt. Verify claims for yourself. Are you sure this is the definition of communism? :thumbup1:

I know communism is not state control of the means of production, it means workers control of the means of production, I apologize if it seemed like I meant the opposite(although today's "socialist" or "communist" states have the state controlling the means of production). But none the less defend economic legitimacy in either case.

[RGacky3]

No you don't have definitive prove, in the past I have looked at sociological and physiological studies to answer the question, and they don't answer much, they seem to say that individuals certainly are willing to willing to enter into a group and perhaps sacrifice some of their interests but they ultimate want something. Look at an experiment of the prisoner's dilemma, and here are three examples which also test individuals working in collectives which test self interest:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.7.17.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Egrpproc/crisp/crisp.7.17.html)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.3.1.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Egrpproc/crisp/crisp.3.1.htm)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.6.12.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Egrpproc/crisp/crisp.6.12.htm)

No there IS no definative proof, thats what I mean, most scientists regect the idea of a static "human nature."


Well science can't solve everything, and the social sciences all too often end up contradicting themselves.


Nope but its the best we have to analyse the world.


They do sway the market, if there is demand for a product from any income level the market will meet it. The problem is the creation of artificial scarcity or caused either by government regulation or the cartelistaion of business(the problem of Capitalism).


Your demand is ONLY worth as much as your pocket book.

1% has more sway than the 90%, infact its probably even more than that because of tof hte wealth ofh te bottom 90% is not liquid, its not diposable wealth. So your wrong, demand is not per person its per dollar.


You use the word market too loosely, and you have look at why prices are at the outrageous levels for the poor. Competition is allowed to exist under subsides, inefficiency is widespread, in example American, European and Japanese have massive agricultural subsides which protect their farmers and blood developing markets, eliminate competition and the income for the majority of those in the developing world.


I agree, but remember, all of that is part of the market.


And yes the Capitalist market dosen't care about the poor, and Capitalism will lead to the exploitation of the poor, therefore creating the need for individuals to create cooperative associations with each other to ensure their interest, where THEY HAVE CONTROL. In the state they have no real control. In the late nineteenth century and early 20th such associations were widespread in Europe and America, one example being health care associations where individuals basically paid a modest fee every month(or whenever) and would agree for all to be cared. The health care industry of course didn't like this and would get the state to stamp it out.


Sure, I agree, but there is no reason that the people should'nt use the state as one of its tools to fight Capitalism.


??? Profits are Profits entrepreneurs will invest in anything as long as it makes them money, be it weapons or cheap housing.


Except cheap housing is'nt profitable because the cost is high and the return is low because poor people don't have alot of money. Thats the point.


And your missing the interference of the state in the market.


Which has never been shown to be the cause of the problems of the markets.


Wrong business is nothing without people buying. You may say the workers may have no choice but to buy, what then what do you say of workers who went on strike in the late 19th and 20th century who had nothing, but still attempted to gain a living wage and a reasonable working conditions. Capital is nothing without workers just as it is nothing without consumers.


People with money are the people buying, which is why serving the rich is much better, and the rich will always get a better deal and the poor will always get screwed, because hte rich have more options.

About the people who went on strike, I say, yeah, good, do it more often and take your workplace.

BTW, when you say consumers, keep in mind markets are run by people with money, run by money, not people equally (not even close).


Competitors would not ultimately make more money if they they hide their wrong doing, and form a cartel as you're alluding to, one company would naturally break the hold as they would see an opportunity to attain greater profit from showing the exploitation of their competitors. Cartels and Monopoly's can't exist without some outside enforcement like the state which will ensure it's existence.


Now they would'nt brake the hold because most larger compantes can out price smaller companies, they can corner the resources market, you can buy out smaller companies, there are MANY things they can do to make monoploies and Cartels. They can block entry to the industry through many terms. They can keep class systems the way they want them so as to stop threats from comming up.

BTW, remember before the anti-trust laws?

As far as your last sentance, Capitalist Property and thus markets cannot exist without outside enforcement like a state.

Capitalist Property and Markets ARE state institutions.


And communism has had reality?


Everytime an economy has been democratized (be it in the form of the CNT in spain, the factory takeovers in Argentina, the Zapatistas, or even social-democratic reforms such as in Norway), the reality has been what socialists have promised.

Everytime an economy has been privatized more, the promises capitalists make don't happen, nothing trickles down, competition does'nt happen, and economies collapse.

Thats the reality.


Do you see how enormous the costs for health care are throughout the world? And why it's (partly) bankrupting Europe.


Which are MUCH MUCH less than American healthcare costs, and thats not at all whats bankrupting Europe, do you want me to pull out numbers and embarass you? Because if your tyring to make the argument that capitalist healthcare system is more efficient and better than the socialist healthcare system, your gonna be embarrased, because the numbers are there.


Democracy is a dream.


Thanks for that insight .... Based on ..... Something you found deep in your ass I presume.


No business fears such rhetoric they love having protection from the state.

Really? You wanna know who funds libertarian think tanks, and libertarian organizations? I'll give you a hint, its not unions or the sierra club.

[Svoboda]

Your demand is ONLY worth as much as your pocket book.

Yes so?


Sure, I agree, but there is no reason that the people should'nt use the state as one of its tools to fight Capitalism.
I don't understand how you could call yourself an anarchist under such reasoning, you should know well enough how when a centralized order has been attempted the true revolution has been crushed, look at Russia and Spain.

Except cheap housing is'nt profitable because the cost is high and the return is low because poor people don't have alot of money. Thats the point.

Perhaps the over regulation from the government over how and where houses can be built artificially inflates the actual production cost. Again if there is a market the Capitalist will tackle it, how will a Capitalist profit from making houses no one can buy or rent? Under the state today that does often exist and this leads to call for state housing and other such measures.

About the people who went on strike, I say, yeah, good, do it more often and take your workplace.
Agreed, but unfortunately the state would never allow that.

Now they would'nt brake the hold because most larger compantes can out price smaller companies, they can corner the resources market, you can buy out smaller companies, there are MANY things they can do to make monoploies and Cartels. They can block entry to the industry through many terms. They can keep class systems the way they want them so as to stop threats from comming up.
This is BS the only reason monopoly's last is cause of state intervention. John D. Rockefeller tried to create a complete monopoly in the early 20th century and to an extent he was successful. But his business was enormously inefficient, in fact he saw so obsessed with getting a monopoly he would buy any little competitor. Eventually individuals started creating fake refineries where they spent little money to make just so Rockefeller could buy them and they could make a profit. The only reason he lasted so long was cause of the state, he would have naturally collapsed under a free market due to his enormous inefficiency and mishandling of resources. And even when the state did break him company up what emerged arguably just as bad, as it formed today's Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco(now part of BP) and others. Give me one real example of a monopoly being formed and maintained without state involvement.

BTW, remember before the anti-trust laws?
Sure, who do you think propped up the trusts in the late 19th and early 20th century in America? They couldn't do it themselves.



As far as your last sentance, Capitalist Property and thus markets cannot exist without outside enforcement like a state.


Capitalist Property and Markets ARE state institutions.
What?

Everytime an economy has been privatized more, the promises capitalists make don't happen, nothing trickles down, competition does'nt happen, and economies collapse.
Privatization under the state just means giving up property to the highest bidder without thinking of the workers. But regardless privatization has arguably done very well for China, India and Chile as millions of people have been brought out of poverty from the massive privatization which has led to enormous growth. In China half a billion people have risen out of property from globalization, and in China and India over 70% of the people that markets have improved their lives, yet interestingly in the west the number is much lower.

Which are MUCH MUCH less than American healthcare costs, and thats not at all whats bankrupting Europe, do you want me to pull out numbers and embarass you? Because if your tyring to make the argument that capitalist healthcare system is more efficient and better than the socialist healthcare system, your gonna be embarrased, because the numbers are there.
Man embarrass me then, cause as far as I can tell state employees with ridiculous wages and pension funds are bankrupting the state in Europe. The welfare utopia of Europe is beginning to collapse. And no I'm not in any way arguing that the "capitalist" American system is more efficient because it is not in any way capitalistic.

Thanks for that insight .... Based on ..... Something you found deep in your ass I presume.

What's that all about?


Really? You wanna know who funds libertarian think tanks, and libertarian organizations? I'll give you a hint, its not unions or the sierra club.
Yeah I'm sure corporations love C4SS and The Freeman. And conservatives love to quote Mises but they don't know shit about him. Also if you look at America in the late 18th and early 19th century the poor supported the libertarian Jeffersonian ideal as opposed to the statistic Federalist ideal. The progressives in the late 19th and early 20th though would flip that upside down when they called for the state.

[Dean]

I have some questions for those of you who are moderately well-adversed in capitalist economics. First off, what is the empirical evidence for declaring that man fundamentally acts in his own self-interest?
Inductive logic - we see it every day. But that doesn't necessarily exclude the interests of others, or mean that they can't overlap. Cappies forget this.


Secondly, why can man only act rationally under a free market system? Why does the introduction of government regulation obscure his ability to act rationally? If he acts in rational self-interest, why isn't he able to take into account the influence of the government on his financial decisions? Similarly, why is he able to understand capitalisms effect on his financial decisions? And finally, if man can fundamentally understand the capitalist system, enough to make rational investments, why can't the government understand it enough to influence its economic policies? Likewise, if man isn't able to understand capitalism's effects on his financial prospects, then why is it that capitalist proponents allege that man is only able to act in his own rational self-interest under a free market system?

You've hit on some pertinent issues that cappies consistently miss. This is why communists are keen to point out that the state acts in its self-interest (or more accurately, in the interests of those who manage it).

The simple fact is that there is no real basis for their polemics against the state and admonishment of capitalist crimes when they do the same shit. Free market activity is economic leverage and manipulation, like anything else, and it doesn't even serve to encourage production or innovation anymore on its own. It's a destructive dinosaur.

[RGacky3]

Yes so?


So Capitalism is a tyranny of the rich ... Which was my point and aparently you agree with and have no problem with.


I don't understand how you could call yourself an anarchist under such reasoning, you should know well enough how when a centralized order has been attempted the true revolution has been crushed, look at Russia and Spain.


Spain? BTW, not all governments are made equal, the USSR state or Francos state is of a MUCH different nature than social democracies.

Anarchists are against power, no matter where it comes from, and we are interested in giving power to the people, no matter how it happens.


Perhaps the over regulation from the government over how and where houses can be built artificially inflates the actual production cost.

No, its simply that its not profitable, but what your saying is that poor people should get such shitty houses that its still profitable, I doubt you could make houses that shitty, but ever seen shanty towns in Africa? Even those are not profitable, the market does'nt take care of them.


Again if there is a market the Capitalist will tackle it, how will a Capitalist profit from making houses no one can buy or rent? Under the state today that does often exist and this leads to call for state housing and other such measures.


In the Market the Capitalist will tackle it by just ignoring the poor, and letting them be homeless, why would they do something thats not profitable?

There IS no market because poor people are poor.


Agreed, but unfortunately the state would never allow that.


The capitalist won't allow it and they'll use the state, the state is'nt the central problem its the capitalist, if the state worked for us, the capitalist would be screwed.


This is BS the only reason monopoly's last is cause of state intervention. John D. Rockefeller tried to create a complete monopoly in the early 20th century and to an extent he was successful. But his business was enormously inefficient, in fact he saw so obsessed with getting a monopoly he would buy any little competitor. Eventually individuals started creating fake refineries where they spent little money to make just so Rockefeller could buy them and they could make a profit. The only reason he lasted so long was cause of the state, he would have naturally collapsed under a free market due to his enormous inefficiency and mishandling of resources. And even when the state did break him company up what emerged arguably just as bad, as it formed today's Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco(now part of BP) and others. Give me one real example of a monopoly being formed and maintained without state involvement.


I've heard that argument before, and its such a crappy agument because its one lone example, and you don'nt need an ABSOLUTE monopoly to have an effective monopoly.


Sure, who do you think propped up the trusts in the late 19th and early 20th century in America? They couldn't do it themselves.


The State ... How by selling land to them? Of coarse they could do it themselves.


What?


The only reason Capitalism exists is because of the state, which enforces Capitalist property laws, also by working for the capitalist rather than the electorate. Capitalism could not exist without state protection.


Privatization under the state just means giving up property to the highest bidder without thinking of the workers. But regardless privatization has arguably done very well for China, India and Chile as millions of people have been brought out of poverty from the massive privatization which has led to enormous growth. In China half a billion people have risen out of property from globalization, and in China and India over 70% of the people that markets have improved their lives, yet interestingly in the west the number is much lower.


That has NOTHING to do with privitization, first of all China still controls all the major industries, they allow foreign investment but not control, so thats not Capitalism at all, the same with much of india.

Also those countries saw HUGE foriegn investment, that has nothing to do with Capitalism but an influx of money, Capitalism is global btw, so you can't just judge it country by country.

the US is still much more Market based than both China and India, and Europe.


Man embarrass me then, cause as far as I can tell state employees with ridiculous wages and pension funds are bankrupting the state in Europe. The welfare utopia of Europe is beginning to collapse. And no I'm not in any way arguing that the "capitalist" American system is more efficient because it is not in any way capitalistic.


The welfare states that are collapsing are the ones that tried to do it with their major industries in the market system, not the ones that socialized their major industries.

(Btw, its funny you have a problem with workers getting decent wages and pensions, but have no problem with GIANT CEO bonuses).

But here you go numbnuts.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/89.abstract (the use spends more than any other country on healthcare, yet gets below median actual care, GO CAPITALISM), are you embarrased? YOU should be, because thits is a pretty well known fact. The US system is probably THE MOST Capitalistic there is.

As for Europe being collapsing economically, do you konw what derivatives are? Credit default swaps? What crashed Ireland was privatizing a national bank, and that bank now making the same short term mistakes (which were good choices for executives) that US banks made which crashed the system. Your talking out of total ignorance.


What's that all about?


Its all about you saying Democracy is just a dream, which is meaningless shit you pulled out of your ass.


Yeah I'm sure corporations love C4SS and The Freeman. And conservatives love to quote Mises but they don't know shit about him. Also if you look at America in the late 18th and early 19th century the poor supported the libertarian Jeffersonian ideal as opposed to the statistic Federalist ideal. The progressives in the late 19th and early 20th though would flip that upside down when they called for the state.

Jefferson was a progressive for his time, don't make me get quotes, YOUR equivilent at that time would me more like John Adams, elitism, disdain of the poor, admiration of the rich and powerful, defense of their power and so on (Back then it was an entirely different economic situation).

Again, Corporations love libertarians because they fight for stuff that helps them.

[Svoboda]

Spain? BTW, not all governments are made equal, the USSR state or Francos state is of a MUCH different nature than social democracies.

Anarchists are against power, no matter where it comes from, and we are interested in giving power to the people, no matter how it happens.
No I think as an anarchist I'm against any legitimate central government, the idea of giving the government to the people has been the problem in history as its always failed. I don't understand where you're getting this idea from, Bakunin wanted to end the state period, he called for a true bottom up revolution as opposed to Marx's top down revolution with the state.

No, its simply that its not profitable, but what your saying is that poor people should get such shitty houses that its still profitable, I doubt you could make houses that shitty, but ever seen shanty towns in Africa? Even those are not profitable, the market does'nt take care of them.

Why do you think the people in Africa are poor? You know they can't just suddenly turn around in a couple of years and everyone will suddenly get living wages.

In the Market the Capitalist will tackle it by just ignoring the poor, and letting them be homeless, why would they do something thats not profitable?
Theoretically even if the Capitalist could not make a profitable home it should be the job of the workers to organize and create there own reasonable housing.


There IS no market because poor people are poor.
Why are the poor poor?


The capitalist won't allow it and they'll use the state, the state is'nt the central problem its the capitalist, if the state worked for us, the capitalist would be screwed.
When has the state worked for us? Here I think its the people's fault, people don't care enough about government, as long as conditions are manageable enough they're not going to do anything they're fine if the state abuses its power as long as their interests are not hurt too badly.

I've heard that argument before, and its such a crappy agument because its one lone example, and you don'nt need an ABSOLUTE monopoly to have an effective monopoly.
There are numerous examples of this, a recent one being how everyone thought Microsoft had a monopoly in computing, but how what's happening? Apple is emerging and actually taking over their market. Now give a real example of a monopoly.


The State ... How by selling land to them? Of coarse they could do it themselves.

As Austrian economist Steven Horwitz said "No one hates capitalism more than capitalists." The Capitalist needs protection, without the protection of the courts and of police they are nothing. Think of Nigeria today and of how the oil corporations are paying the government to stamp out the rebels, without the government to protect them they would not exist.

The only reason Capitalism exists is because of the state, which enforces Capitalist property laws, also by working for the capitalist rather than the electorate. Capitalism could not exist without state protection.

In a way I agree, I think the fatal flaw of anarcho-capitalist thinkers is thinking that a free market with honest capitalists could actually exist(just like communist think a society with honest workers can exist). But I see nothing that would stop the corporate interests from recreating a state. But I don't argue for Capitalism I argue for the free market.


That has NOTHING to do with privitization, first of all China still controls all the major industries, they allow foreign investment but not control, so thats not Capitalism at all, the same with much of india.

Also those countries saw HUGE foriegn investment, that has nothing to do with Capitalism but an influx of money, Capitalism is global btw, so you can't just judge it country by country.

the US is still much more Market based than both China and India, and Europe.
I don't think its fair to say the US is more market based than China or India. Plus you never answered how globalization hasn't helped millions of people in China, India, Chile and other places.

The welfare states that are collapsing are the ones that tried to do it with their major industries in the market system, not the ones that socialized their major industries.

(Btw, its funny you have a problem with workers getting decent wages and pensions, but have no problem with GIANT CEO bonuses).

But here you go numbnuts.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/89.abstract (the use spends more than any other country on healthcare, yet gets below median actual care, GO CAPITALISM), are you embarrased? YOU should be, because thits is a pretty well known fact. The US system is probably THE MOST Capitalistic there is.
Did you read what I wrote? I know the US is terms of GDP spends way in terms of health care, but I'm saying that Europe isn't great either. And stop throwing that word Capitalist around so loosely, the US is NOT capitalist. Also when did I say I was against workers having decent wages and pensions and for CEO bonuses? And why are you trying to "embarrass" me, man I'm just trying to have a nice dialectic discussion, I respect your views, in fact I think we can agree on a lot, you seem to fail to see that, I really think our end goal is very similar if not the same.

As for Europe being collapsing economically, do you konw what derivatives are? Credit default swaps? What crashed Ireland was privatizing a national bank, and that bank now making the same short term mistakes (which were good choices for executives) that US banks made which crashed the system. Your talking out of total ignorance.

No I think federal control of the money, particularly in the US really screwed things up, as the gov tried to maintain low interest rates which they could help everyone. The corporations were happy cause they could invest cheaply , and the people were happy (particularity the lower middle class) cause they could finally afford homes, everyone lived in a dream.

Jefferson was a progressive for his time, don't make me get quotes, YOUR equivilent at that time would me more like John Adams, elitism, disdain of the poor, admiration of the rich and powerful, defense of their power and so on (Back then it was an entirely different economic situation).

Again, Corporations love libertarians because they fight for stuff that helps them.
First, again did you read what I wrote? I was talking about how I was against the Federalists i.e. Adams and for Jefferson, why would need to get quotes to prove something I was already proving? Also have you even looked at the resources I referenced? If you look at some of the things from C4SS you'll see Marx quoted side by side with Rothbard. There is a lot more common ground between anarcho-capitalists and socialists than you might think.

[RGacky3]

No I think as an anarchist I'm against any legitimate central government, the idea of giving the government to the people has been the problem in history as its always failed. I don't understand where you're getting this idea from, Bakunin wanted to end the state period, he called for a true bottom up revolution as opposed to Marx's top down revolution with the state.

I want to get rid of the state too, but getting rid of Capitalist power is more important. A democratic government is publically accountable, Capitalists are not.

As far as it always failing? Like when?


Why do you think the people in Africa are poor? You know they can't just suddenly turn around in a couple of years and everyone will suddenly get living wages.


I think they are poor for various reasons, one being imperialism. But things are not getting better under Capitalism.

Eitherway my point stands, poor people are not considered in Capitalism.


Theoretically even if the Capitalist could not make a profitable home it should be the job of the workers to organize and create there own reasonable housing.


Yeah, after working an 8 hour day to eat, they should go home and make their own house, but don't revolt against a system that is rigged against you, no, suck it up and take it. And I guess they'd have to cut down their own tree's assuming those are not taken up by capitalist property rights.

I love that reasoning, yeah, it sucks for the poor, but .... screw it.


Why are the poor poor?


Because they get exploited because their labor is not rewarded, they are being stolen from everyday and can't do anything about it unless they fight against it, and because everything they need they have to get from Capitalists who also profit from that.

They are stolen from systematically.


When has the state worked for us? Here I think its the people's fault, people don't care enough about government, as long as conditions are manageable enough they're not going to do anything they're fine if the state abuses its power as long as their interests are not hurt too badly.


Its works more for people in more socailist countries. Its not the peoples fault, what are Americans just simply more lazy and stupid than the rest of the world? NO, Capitalism ruins democracy.

Capitalists abuse their power AND the states power, you got it backwords buddy.

In Sociali-democratic countries with a strong working class and weak Capitalists, guess who the government works for?


There are numerous examples of this, a recent one being how everyone thought Microsoft had a monopoly in computing, but how what's happening? Apple is emerging and actually taking over their market. Now give a real example of a monopoly.


Microsoft was broken up by the state ... yawwwwn, first of all there are anti-trust laws, there are ologarchies that are as good as monopolies.


As Austrian economist Steven Horwitz said "No one hates capitalism more than capitalists."

And that economics is obviously blind, deaf and has never read the Wallstreet journal.


The Capitalist needs protection, without the protection of the courts and of police they are nothing. Think of Nigeria today and of how the oil corporations are paying the government to stamp out the rebels, without the government to protect them they would not exist.


Capitalism would'nt last without state protection .... That was my point, Capitalism is a state insitution.


In a way I agree, I think the fatal flaw of anarcho-capitalist thinkers is thinking that a free market with honest capitalists could actually exist(just like communist think a society with honest workers can exist). But I see nothing that would stop the corporate interests from recreating a state. But I don't argue for Capitalism I argue for the free market.


One in the same, a capitalist market requires capitalism (private capitalist land/property, profit motive and markets). Thats what Capitalism is.


I don't think its fair to say the US is more market based than China or India. Plus you never answered how globalization hasn't helped millions of people in China, India, Chile and other places.


It is fair, both places have much more state controlled economies.

As far as Chile .... really? Ask a Chilean.

ITS NOT GLOBALIZATION, its the huge influx of Capital, plus that huge influx has only gone to a select few, most live still in extreme poverty, and some are MORE poor because their only option is Capitalism.

but a fast influx of capital will always have some initial benefits, but look at Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Iceland and so on, that followed actual market based models (not the state managed markets of China and India) ..... They collapsed and/or turned left.


but I'm saying that Europe isn't great either.

its much much much better.


the US is NOT capitalist. Also when did I say I was against workers having decent wages and pensions and for CEO bonuses? And why are you trying to "embarrass" me, man I'm just trying to have a nice dialectic discussion, I respect your views, in fact I think we can agree on a lot, you seem to fail to see that, I really think our end goal is very similar if not the same.


THe US is the closest we have to real Capitalism.

You said that its the workers pensions and wages that bankrupted some countries in europe, which is outright idiotic.

I'm trying to embarrass you because you thought that the US had a better healthcare system than europe, a more efficient one with better care, which is a position you should be embarrased about (if you want me to get your quote I will, but if I were you I'd give it up).

Our end goal is not the same, you want to pursue policies that end up helping the rich and powerful and hurt the poor and oppressed, your attitude is clearly pro-Capitalist and anti-worker.


No I think federal control of the money, particularly in the US really screwed things up, as the gov tried to maintain low interest rates which they could help everyone. The corporations were happy cause they could invest cheaply , and the people were happy (particularity the lower middle class) cause they could finally afford homes, everyone lived in a dream.


And before 1918 things were great, and capitalism worked right? The same before the gold standard, Capitalism was working juts fine then.

The 50s-70s middle class boom was mostly due to FDRs reforms plus a strong working class movement.


If you look at some of the things from C4SS you'll see Marx quoted side by side with Rothbard. There is a lot more common ground between anarcho-capitalists and socialists than you might think.

I'm not a Marxist.

But look, ultimately I would have no problems with libertarians if they focused on the real state problems, ending military spending, ending corporate subsidies, supporting independant unions, ending corporate personhood, ending property protectoin laws and so on, in that case they could actually be an ally of socialists (kind of like how Bernie and Ron Paul were in a wierd way).

But almost all libertarians I encounter are vihamently anti-worker, they focus on the government that helps the poor and the workers, they focus on deregulation, getting rid of entitlement, all that stuff, the other things when pressed on it, they'll say the are for getting rid of military spending and so on, but when push comes to shove they ultimately work as tools for the rich, getting rid of the government they don't like, and the government workers need.

A clear example of this is how most libertarians anti-syndicalist, which is'nt really consistant, and shows their true colors, they are just the ones that coddle power and spit on the poor.