Fidelbrand
14th April 2004, 11:48
I am planning to write an essay to refute the legacy of capitalism with the use of legal philosophical arguments.
How can I apply Lon Fuller, Dworkin, and other philosophers of law to support my view that the legal system of capitalism is unjust or inappropriate?
This is what i have wrote/thought so far:
Essentially, Karl Marx saw that the process of capitalization of resources had allowed a small number of people to gain control of the majority of resources on the planet. Created class distinctions fuel the discontent of the workers. He believes that the workers should receive their end products fully, instead of being paid a partial worth of the value of their product. For him, this is the fundamental ground for the destruction of capitalism in the long run. The possibility of a centrally runned government can take the role of government and have the benefits redistributed to the workers in a “fair” sense. Marx believed that the class distinctions created during the industrial revolution would increase to the point that the lower classes would be liable to revolt, however they needed a catalyst to ignite the flames of class warfare.
The goal of the capitalists is simply the preservation of their assets. Clearly, a situation where the government arbitrarily seizes assets of a business is contrary to desires of the capitalist. However, if we look at situations where the Capitalist has gained control of the government, we see a different side of the story. Accross the globe, the Rule of Law that emerges from capitalism and serves the current elitist political and capitalistic class.
-------------------
nothing quite relevant to the refute of the legal system of capitalism, ah? :P
Please share with me some of your ideas. ThankS!
How can I apply Lon Fuller, Dworkin, and other philosophers of law to support my view that the legal system of capitalism is unjust or inappropriate?
This is what i have wrote/thought so far:
Essentially, Karl Marx saw that the process of capitalization of resources had allowed a small number of people to gain control of the majority of resources on the planet. Created class distinctions fuel the discontent of the workers. He believes that the workers should receive their end products fully, instead of being paid a partial worth of the value of their product. For him, this is the fundamental ground for the destruction of capitalism in the long run. The possibility of a centrally runned government can take the role of government and have the benefits redistributed to the workers in a “fair” sense. Marx believed that the class distinctions created during the industrial revolution would increase to the point that the lower classes would be liable to revolt, however they needed a catalyst to ignite the flames of class warfare.
The goal of the capitalists is simply the preservation of their assets. Clearly, a situation where the government arbitrarily seizes assets of a business is contrary to desires of the capitalist. However, if we look at situations where the Capitalist has gained control of the government, we see a different side of the story. Accross the globe, the Rule of Law that emerges from capitalism and serves the current elitist political and capitalistic class.
-------------------
nothing quite relevant to the refute of the legal system of capitalism, ah? :P
Please share with me some of your ideas. ThankS!