Question for particular capitalists [Archive]

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders

18th May 2008, 15:15

What does the term 'corporation' mean in America?

Here, corporation (of which the most common type is a company) is an artificial entity, typically with limited liability - around 99% of them not listed on the stock market.

Well, limited liability, whilst it is an 'intervention' of the state, is pro-market because it encourages investment and diverseness of share portfolios.

And once you see that corporations are a legal fiction created by governments, you are one step closer to realizing that private property is a legal fiction created by governments.

This is true. :D

The English case which solidified the principle of limited liability involved a man whom was a former sole trader, then sold created a company consisting of family members as shareholders, then sold the business to the company, where the company was in debt to the man. That debt had precedent over all other debts.

So when the company went bankrupt, he, the owner, was paid first, and the creditors went without. Of course, now banks require security or personal guarantees which over-ride this.

Self-Owner

18th May 2008, 16:33

I absolutely agree with the OP, interestingly enough. What reaction did you expect?

Schrödinger's Cat

18th May 2008, 18:09

I actually agree with you. The entire idea of a legal fiction that a corporation's owner's (stockholders) can't be sued for the misdeeds of the corporation while still getting profits from the money made by the corporation really let's businesses off the hook for a lot of bad things they do in society.

Even more close to home--a board of directors of a corporation should ALWAYS be responsible for what a corporation does and should never be indemnified.

I do think that the people behind companies should be responsible for what the company does.

What solution would you like to pursue? Holding all the stockholders responsible could be devastating to growth. Should the CEO(s) and Board responsible for any lawsuit? Most lawsuits?

Bud Struggle

18th May 2008, 18:19

What solution would you like to pursue? Holding all the stockholders responsible could be devastating to growth. Should the CEO(s) and Board responsible for any lawsuit? Most lawsuits?

None of that has to be a problem for growth. Every business I've owned, I've taken personal responsibility for. I'm pretty serious about the Christian thing of "Thou Shalt Not Steal," so I make sure everything always gets paid and everyone's satisfied. It's a good way to do business and it saves a fortune in legal costs.

As far as CEOs and Boards being responsible for lawsuits--they should take a portion of the burden. There are always worthless cases being brought up to be sure, but most law cases against companies are because the companines did something wrong or didn't do something correctly. If indeed the corporation is at fault--then it was the leadership of the company that actually DID the wrong--they should take the hit, or at least part of the hit.

Now, courts would have to take a harder stand against frivolous lawsuits--but so what, it would be beneficial for society as a whole anyway.

Bud Struggle

19th May 2008, 00:12

And once you see that corporations are a legal fiction created by governments, you are one step closer to realizing that private property is a legal fiction created by governments.

Here's where we run into problems. I really don't care about corporations, I have them, but they are just convienent "machines" that do a particular job to make money. They are really no different than a forklift or a hammer--they do a particular job. BUT they seem to be misused by certain people, and that should be fixed.

MY private property isn't a tool--IT'S MY SHIT. And while I don't "love" things of this world (as opposed to people) I do like the things I own and since I purchased them with my money I should be allowed to keep them.

My interest in fairness is purely from my Christian beliefs. I think we all deserve (in that --it would be nice, but not manditory,) an equal playing field to begin on--BUT everybody has different talents and some will suceed better than others--nothing wrong with that.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th May 2008, 13:10

MY private property isn't a tool--IT'S MY SHIT.
So your property should be yours BECAUSE IT'S YOURS? That's not even logical, let alone a good reason.

And while I don't "love" things of this world (as opposed to people) I do like the things I own and since I purchased them with my money I should be allowed to keep them.
Only if the money you used to purchase them was earned through your own labour.

Besides, I don't believe you for one second when you say that you are not attached to material things but you want to keep all your stuff. I have a number of objects with sentimental value that I really could not part with - as for everything else I own, who cares? I'm not attached to it. I would voluntarily donate it to a socialist state (in exchange, of course, for the same living standard that socialism would give to everyone else).

My interest in fairness is purely from my Christian beliefs. I think we all deserve (in that --it would be nice, but not manditory,) an equal playing field to begin on--BUT everybody has different talents and some will suceed better than others--nothing wrong with that.
Yes, there is something wrong with that, unless you can come up with a reason why two people who work equally hard should get different rewards.

Bud Struggle

19th May 2008, 14:01

So your property should be yours BECAUSE IT'S YOURS? That's not even logical, let alone a good reason.

It's mine because I earned it.

Only if the money you used to purchase them was earned through your own labour.

Why so? That's just an arbitrary Marxist rule. If I own it, I own it. And FWIW--I did earn everything I have (no rich daddy) on the other hand, people do work for me in businesses I CREATED. So that does put me outside the pale.

Besides, I don't believe you for one second when you say that you are not attached to material things but you want to keep all your stuff. I have a number of objects with sentimental value that I really could not part with - as for everything else I own, who cares? I'm not attached to it. I would voluntarily donate it to a socialist state (in exchange, of course, for the same living standard that socialism would give to everyone else).

Yes, I understand that you are happy with that trade--I'm not. I created a lifestyle for meyself and my family that fits MY purposes, I rather not give it away. So, if you are content with the trade--make it where you can--but don't force your trade on me.

Yes, there is something wrong with that, unless you can come up with a reason why two people who work equally hard should get different rewards.

No two people work the same. No two people are the same--everyone have different abilities and different talents. To think everyone is the same or works the same is a fiction the same as saying a corporation is a legal entity. Besides it's long ago been proven that there is a diffenence between working hard and working smart--it's that latter that's rewarded.

And a final point--my interest in some sort of fairness as I said Comes from my Christian faith--a big problem I have with Communism is its desire to abolish faith. Without an ultimate just and fair God for me to model my actions after--I really so no reason why I should even CONSIDER being fair to anyone. With God--all men are my brothers and I have some relationship to them and some obligation to them for their welfare. Without God--their lives are simply none of my business and what I do or have is really none of their business.

Schrödinger's Cat

19th May 2008, 21:37

Kwisatz Haderach

19th May 2008, 23:37

It's mine because I earned it.
No you didn't. You acquired it. Certainly you made some effort to acquire it. But a thief also makes some effort to acquire stolen goods. Does that mean he rightfully earned those goods?

Why so? That's just an arbitrary Marxist rule. If I own it, I own it.
You have property. That doesn't necessarily mean you deserve it. The idea that you deserve whatever you currently happen to have is the single most basic, fundamental idea at the heart of every tyranny, every system of oppression and slavery ever created. The kings, masters and emperors of the world always think they deserve what they have. And, in more modern times, they always defend themselves with the kind of idea you just used: The idea that justice does not exist, that it's "just an arbitrary Marxist rule."

Our mission as communists is to fight such people vigorously, unrelentingly, to the end.

Wealth is created by labour. People deserve things based on how much they work. They do not deserve things based on how much capital they own.

And if you do not believe in justice, you are no Christian.

And FWIW--I did earn everything I have (no rich daddy) on the other hand, people do work for me in businesses I CREATED. So that does put me outside the pale.
If people work for you, if they create the things your business sells - then they created the business, not you.

Yes, I understand that you are happy with that trade--I'm not. I created a lifestyle for meyself and my family that fits MY purposes, I rather not give it away.
Avarice and gluttony. Possibly also pride. And I thought you were a Catholic. Of course, you cannot be expected to be sinless - none of us are - but you are expected to try.

So, if you are content with the trade--make it where you can--but don't force your trade on me.
We will force that trade on you for the same reason why slave owners were forced to give up their property and the same reason why kings were forced to give up their power. There is nothing wrong with force.

No two people work the same. No two people are the same--everyone have different abilities and different talents. To think everyone is the same or works the same is a fiction the same as saying a corporation is a legal entity.
I didn't say they are the same. I said they deserve the same; they have equal value as human beings, so one person's day of work should be rewarded the same as another person's day of work.

Besides it's long ago been proven that there is a diffenence between working hard and working smart--it's that latter that's rewarded.
Let me guess: "Smart" work is defined as whatever gets you more money; and you deserve that extra money because the work is "smart," right? Circular reasoning - the work is smart because it's smart.

Define "working smart" in a non-circular way, if you can.

And a final point--my interest in some sort of fairness as I said Comes from my Christian faith--a big problem I have with Communism is its desire to abolish faith. Without an ultimate just and fair God for me to model my actions after--I really so no reason why I should even CONSIDER being fair to anyone. With God--all men are my brothers and I have some relationship to them and some obligation to them for their welfare. Without God--their lives are simply none of my business and what I do or have is really none of their business.
I am a Christian as well. I am also a communist, and I have absolutely no desire to abolish faith - quite the contrary, socialism and communism are the only systems compatible with Christian principles. Other than that I agree with your observations above.

Bud Struggle

19th May 2008, 23:39

Chances are the sources of your wealth (land, resources) once "belonged" to a Native American tribe before the white man came in and declared his system superior. "Property rights" are frivolous constructs. Property doesn't have rights; in this way Madison was wrong.

Nothing so exotic in my background. I'm the son of Polish immigrants. I quite understand that a lot of unpleasent things have been done in the past that developed into the economic system we have now. And that's too bad, but those days are over and what we have now is all that we have. The land I own is that land i own, maybe someone in the past was a bit dishonest about it appropriation, but we can't go back now. and no there aren't any "property right" people have rights--and one of them is to own property.

This is a reiteration of a past comment you made awhile ago, but it makes no sense. People enter the market with greatly disproportional wealth hurdles. You can't claim to be in favor of an equal playing field and then support capitalism. We socialists are actually the advocates of such a system, by calling for labor to be the source of wealth.

Well labor is ONE OF THE Sources of wealth, but not the only source. Invention, creativity and investment are also sources of wealth. All should share in profits. Saying that labor is the only source of wealth is just as rediculous as saying investment is the only source of wealth.

As far as the flat playing field--it really cannot ever be perfectly fair, true. to say that every person is "equal" to every other person is a fiction. Everyone and every situation is different than all others. What we can do as a society is to work to give every person an opportunity to succeed. After that their success of failure is entirely up to them.

Phalanx

20th May 2008, 00:26

No you didn't. You acquired it. Certainly you made some effort to acquire it. But a thief also makes some effort to acquire stolen goods. Does that mean he rightfully earned those goods?

The meritocracy we have in the US allows anybody with enough gumption to become reasonably successful. A worker *****ing about how crappy his work is but makes no effort to rise above his situation deserves what he gets, more or less.

You have property. That doesn't necessarily mean you deserve it. The idea that you deserve whatever you currently happen to have is the single most basic, fundamental idea at the heart of every tyranny, every system of oppression and slavery ever created. The kings, masters and emperors of the world always think they deserve what they have. And, in more modern times, they always defend themselves with the kind of idea you just used: The idea that justice does not exist, that it's "just an arbitrary Marxist rule."

That's why the US is so wonderfully different from past powers. Sure, people like Paris Hilton exist, but there's also the John Edwards of this country, born into the working class (in his case a millworker), but worked hard enough that eventually he became a successful businessman and even ran for president.

If people work for you, if they create the things your business sells - then they created the business, not you.

And you know what? They can start a business of their own, all they need is a risk taking attitude and a decent amount of intelligence.

Avarice and gluttony. Possibly also pride. And I thought you were a Catholic. Of course, you cannot be expected to be sinless - none of us are - but you are expected to try.

You can't blame anyone for becoming successful. It's kind of like the stoner kids in high school making fun of anyone who actually tried and became successful. They're just bitter and they realize they made grave errors.

Kwisatz Haderach

20th May 2008, 00:46

The meritocracy we have in the US allows anybody with enough gumption to become reasonably successful.
How do you know that? Specifically, how do you know that the people who become successful are the people who deserved to become successful?

The fact is, you don't. You just see some successful people and assume they deserved that success more than anyone else. That's bullshit, not to mention being the exact same kind of circular reasoning I talked about earlier:

You: We live in a meritocracy.
Me: How do you know that?
You: Because anyone who wants to become successful, can become successful.
Me: How do you know that?
You: Because we live in a meritocracy.

In reality, you have absolutely no evidence that successful people actually work any harder - or are in any way better - than the rest of us.

That's why the US is so wonderfully different from past powers. Sure, people like Paris Hilton exist, but there's also the John Edwards of this country, born into the working class (in his case a millworker), but worked hard enough that eventually he became a successful businessman and even ran for president.
Yes, and in the Roman Empire slaves could sometimes earn their freedom and go on to become rich, successful people. Does that mean slavery is ok?

And you know what? They can start a business of their own, all they need is a risk taking attitude and a decent amount of intelligence.
And a lot of start-up capital. And sheer, dumb luck.

But in any case, the fact that it is possible for poor people to become rich does not justify poverty, just like the fact that it was possible for slaves to become free in the Roman Empire does not justify slavery. A prison is still a prison even if some people can escape. Exploitation is still exploitation even if some people can escape.

You can't blame anyone for becoming successful. It's kind of like the stoner kids in high school making fun of anyone who actually tried and became successful. They're just bitter and they realize they made grave errors.
Yeah, and you should stop blaming people like Kim Jong-Il for becoming successful. It's not their fault you were a stoner in high school instead of leading a military coup to take over a small country. If you work hard enough, you too can become a dictator. Therefore you should stop criticising dictators. Anyone who speaks out against dictators is just bitter and envious and they realize they made grave errors.

Bud Struggle

20th May 2008, 02:14

How do you know that? Specifically, how do you know that the people who become successful are the people who deserved to become successful?

One could easily say not in every case--but the question is ultimaely unprovable either way. And it doesn't really matter--who is to say who "deserves" what?

The fact is, you don't. You just see some successful people and assume they deserved that success more than anyone else. That's bullshit, not to mention being the exact same kind of circular reasoning I talked about earlier:

It's a moot point that's why. Why should you say that anyone deserves one thing or another? What we can say is that there are standard
trajectories that one follows there is a greater likelyhood of being a successful person. Study hard and get into Harvard Business School and chances are better than if you quit school at 16. Start businesses, some will fail, but there's a good chance that one will finally work out. There's a thousand things you can do to be successful--and thousands of books written telling you exactly how to do it.

In reality, you have absolutely no evidence that successful people actually work any harder - or are in any way better - than the rest of us. True--they don't work harder--they work smarter.

But in any case, the fact that it is possible for poor people to become rich does not justify poverty, just like the fact that it was possible for slaves to become free in the Roman Empire does not justify slavery. A prison is still a prison even if some people can escape. Exploitation is still exploitation even if some people can escape.

And just because some people are poor it doesn't justify taking away the opportunity to become rich for other people. The problem is--there just may not be such a thing as "fair." It may just be a fiction of our imagenation here on earth. I believe in Justice all right, just not here in this mortal vail.

And from above:
Avarice and gluttony. Possibly also pride. And I thought you were a Catholic. Of course, you cannot be expected to be sinless - none of us are - but you are expected to try.

As far as avarice, I enjoy my work and my lifestyle, I don't go out of my way to aquire wealth--I do enjoy building and running businesses. It's really kind of fun. Gluttany's not that big of an issue with me. And as far as humility goes, as I've said before--I over play the part of a Capitalist a bit around here. In real life, I'm a rather unassuming, mild mannered kind of guy. But that's not to say that I don't have sins. :)

Schrödinger's Cat

20th May 2008, 04:40

The meritocracy we have in the US allows anybody with enough gumption to become reasonably successful. A worker *****ing about how crappy his work is but makes no effort to rise above his situation deserves what he gets, more or less.

Your logic is irritable at best. It is impossible from a mathematical standpoint for every worker wanting to emancipate themselves from a boss figure to create their own business. Private property markets necessitate a working class. If even five million laborers decided to leave their jobs for private contract work and entrepreneurship, the financial side of our economy would collapse. The markets cannot sustain over saturation. The video game market was hit hard in the '80s due to the abundance of technology in small suppliers. The market didn't recover for another four years.

Marxists are fickle with pointing to similarities between capitalist arguments and feudalist arguments. In this case I would like to point out that peasants could have easily moved to the cities in the 1600s and set up shop with small products from their cottage industry, but the market would have culled most poor souls back onto the farms at an even bigger loss than when they first entered the market. More than two-thirds of small businesses fail, and of the remaining percentage, few - very few - are actually alleviated from hard labor. Most small business owners exchange a boss with intolerable working hours. Franchisees get both. :laugh:

Sure, people like Paris Hilton exist, but there's also the John Edwards of this country, born into the working class (in his case a millworker), but worked hard enough that eventually he became a successful businessman and even ran for president.

Edwards was also the son of a shop owner (http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=11158797). He conveniently leaves that little bit of information out.

all they need is a risk taking attitude and a decent amount of intelligence.

[...] and the willingness to send someone else back into the proletariat class. How wonderful. Although you are overemphasizing the ability to succeed, I thought I should bring it up.

You can't blame anyone for becoming successful.

I can't blame Bill Gates for using his legal and economic might to destroy competitors - competitors who contributed more to computing technology than he could ever imagine? I suppose I can't blame kings then, either? :laugh:

Dean

20th May 2008, 05:43

As far as the flat playing field--it really cannot ever be perfectly fair, true. to say that every person is "equal" to every other person is a fiction. Everyone and every situation is different than all others. What we can do as a society is to work to give every person an opportunity to succeed. After that their success of failure is entirely up to them.

I think you can accept that there is something to the correlation between higher chances of social mobility and heightened socialization of the economy. If the economy is affected by controls we put on it, then we have to look at the results in context. Here, if we want to talk about what positive freedom people have, it is clear that there is much more of that in socialized countries, contrary to the myths espoused by the Friedman followers.

I think it follows from that that anybody who believes substantially in freedom ought also to believe in following methods which achieve it, which are in this case tighter regulations and more socialization of economic structures.

Schrödinger's Cat

20th May 2008, 06:31

I believe the proper term is "straw man," although capitalist apologists use it so sparingly against revolutionaries that we may have to find something other than straw. :laugh:

RGacky3

20th May 2008, 06:44

You can't blame anyone for becoming successful.

That is absolutely true, you can't, because why should'nt they. That is why I don't judge Capitalists as an individual (as long as they are honest about it, i.e. not saying "oh well its fair, I worked for this, I earn what I get." and say "Well yeah I exploit, but hell, I'm getting rich, and if I was'nt I'd either be working my ass off, or being exploited myself.") I judge the system.

I can't say that if I had the opportunity laid before me to make a lot of money without working very hard I would'nt take it, I don't strive for it, but I can't say I would'nt take it, and I don't think any leftist can (other than the super ethical).

But that does'nt take away the injustice of the system, where one is put into those categories, even if TomK were right (which he's not), and all it takes is working smarter, the world would still be devided into exploiters and exploited.

As far as avarice, I enjoy my work and my lifestyle, I don't go out of my way to aquire wealth--I do enjoy building and running businesses. It's really kind of fun. Gluttany's not that big of an issue with me. And as far as humility goes, as I've said before--I over play the part of a Capitalist a bit around here. In real life, I'm a rather unassuming, mild mannered kind of guy. But that's not to say that I don't have sins.

Good for you, as far as I know, no ones attacking you personally, we are attacking the system that allows you enjoyable work that you do on your own terms that gives you a good living, and not others, not for the vast majority. I'm sure it is fun running a business, you know whats not fun though? Being run.

And just because some people are poor it doesn't justify taking away the opportunity to become rich for other people. The problem is--there just may not be such a thing as "fair." It may just be a fiction of our imagenation here on earth. I believe in Justice all right, just not here in this mortal vail.

There is such a thing as fair, just as there is such a thing as freedom, and as long as there is lack of either/both, we fight for it.

Taking away Capitalism is NOT taking away individual opportunity, its taking away the ability to oppress and exploit.

Kwisatz Haderach

20th May 2008, 12:03

One could easily say not in every case--but the question is ultimaely unprovable either way. And it doesn't really matter--who is to say who "deserves" what?

[...]

It's a moot point that's why. Why should you say that anyone deserves one thing or another?
Consider the implications of what you just said. If, ultimately, no one deserves anything, then you are correct that the workers do not deserve to own the means of production. But neither do the capitalists. If no one deserves anything, then you admit that you don't deserve any of your wealth. If no one deserves anything, no distribution of wealth is better than any other. We have no justification to confiscate your property, but you have no justification to keep it either. If no one deserves anything, there can be no moral discussion and comparison of different economic systems at all. There can be only brute force.

If no one deserves anything, then you must agree that there is no morality in politics, and it's all only a matter of who can impose his particular vision for society on others. You have a vision, I have a vision; neither of them can claim any moral high ground, so arguments are moot. We'll just have to fight it out and the winner gets to impose his vision on the loser.

True--they don't work harder--they work smarter.
I thought we established that there is no such thing as "working smarter." You have not come up with any non-circular definition of it.

And just because some people are poor it doesn't justify taking away the opportunity to become rich for other people. The problem is--there just may not be such a thing as "fair." It may just be a fiction of our imagenation here on earth. I believe in Justice all right, just not here in this mortal vail.
Ok, well, if there is no such thing as "fair," then why do you demand that people be given opportunities to become rich? You make it sound as if it's a matter of fairness - people should have the opportunity to become rich. Why? If there is no fairness, that goes both ways, for capitalism as well as socialism. If there is no fairness, then capitalism cannot be unfair and does not need any justification. But then socialism also cannot be unfair and also does not need any justification.

As far as avarice, I enjoy my work and my lifestyle, I don't go out of my way to aquire wealth--I do enjoy building and running businesses. It's really kind of fun. Gluttany's not that big of an issue with me. And as far as humility goes, as I've said before--I over play the part of a Capitalist a bit around here. In real life, I'm a rather unassuming, mild mannered kind of guy. But that's not to say that I don't have sins. :)
There is no way I could judge you, even if I wanted to - I don't really know you. I'm not asking you to justify yourself to me; I am only asking you to consider if your lifestyle is compatible with Christian morality (I, of course, have no way of knowing). The capitalist system is built in such a way that an individual capitalist could not stop exploiting his workers even if he wanted to (at least not without turning the business into a cooperative and acting as a sort of CEO with the workers playing the role of stockholders). Personally, I would never start a business, even if I had the opportunity to do so.

Phalanx

21st May 2008, 01:32

I can't blame Bill Gates for using his legal and economic might to destroy competitors - competitors who contributed more to computing technology than he could ever imagine? I suppose I can't blame kings then, either? :laugh:

No you can't. The business world is an aggressive place and it's not about playing fair or nice. The thing about Communism is that it works against the natural aggressiveness of humans. Killing that desire by making sure everyone 'plays fair' is somewhat laughable but also sadly detached from reality.

Bud Struggle

21st May 2008, 03:15

Consider the implications of what you just said. If, ultimately, no one deserves anything, then you are correct that the workers do not deserve to own the means of production. But neither do the capitalists. If no one deserves anything, then you admit that you don't deserve any of your wealth. If no one deserves anything, no distribution of wealth is better than any other. We have no justification to confiscate your property, but you have no justification to keep it either. If no one deserves anything, there can be no moral discussion and comparison of different economic systems at all. There can be only brute force.

I didn't day that no one deserves anything. I said that there is not impartial judge (except for God) of what is fair and what is not, who deserves this and who deserves that. All we have are some rather imperfect laws that match our imperfect understandings of fairness. To be honest, I see as the best arbitrer of fairness as the will of the people. If Americans (or British or whomever) decide on Capitalism--that'sfine with me. Same with Communism. At this time, the country where I reside (the US) seems to favor capitalism. I'll abide with that decision.

ne deserves anything, then you must agree that there is no morality in politics, and it's all only a matter of who can impose his particular vision for society on others. You have a vision, I have a vision; neither of them can claim any moral high ground, so arguments are moot. We'll just have to fight it out and the winner gets to impose his vision on the loser.

But there is always the DIALECTC! That's what advances Western civilization. You have your thesis, I my antithesis and then we arive at the synthesis--and that is how we move forward. In reality by using the dialectic we can never get to a pure state of Communism--the antithesis would always hold a bit back from the synthesis.

I thought we established that there is no such thing as "working smarter." You have not come up with any non-circular definition of it.
I never agreed that all work is the same or that all work is equally valuable. There is an endless diversity of jobs and an endless diversity of pay for those jobs.

Ok, well, if there is no such thing as "fair," then why do you demand that people be given opportunities to become rich? You make it sound as if it's a matter of fairness - people should have the opportunity to become rich. Why? If there is no fairness, that goes both ways, for capitalism as well as socialism. If there is no fairness, then capitalism cannot be unfair and does not need any justification. But then socialism also cannot be unfair and also does not need any justification.

I don't demand that people be given the opportunity just to be rich--I demand that people be left alone to do whatever they want to fufill their lives. If part of it is being rich--fine. If people are interested in other things--fine. Capitalism needs no justification--neither does any other economic system that promotes a general welfare of its people.

There is no way I could judge you, even if I wanted to - I don't really know you. I'm not asking you to justify yourself to me; I am only asking you to consider if your lifestyle is compatible with Christian morality (I, of course, have no way of knowing). The capitalist system is built in such a way that an individual capitalist could not stop exploiting his workers even if he wanted to (at least not without turning the business into a cooperative and acting as a sort of CEO with the workers playing the role of stockholders). Personally, I would never start a business, even if I had the opportunity to do so.

You know Edric, you are arguing that the glass is half full and I am arguing that it's half empty. The same people you say I am exploiting I say I am giving an opportunity and a job to, as a matter of fact THEY would say that I'm giving them an opportunity before they would ever say that I'm exploiting them.

And I know you're not judging me--I just take every opportunity presented to me to say that in real life I'm not quite the pompus ass that I sometimes appear to be on RevLeft. :)

Kwisatz Haderach

21st May 2008, 03:16

The business world is an aggressive place and it's not about playing fair or nice. The thing about Communism is that it works against the natural aggressiveness of humans. Killing that desire by making sure everyone 'plays fair' is somewhat laughable but also sadly detached from reality.
The political world is an aggressive place and it's not about playing fair or nice. The thing about law and government is that it works against the natural aggressiveness of humans. Killing that desire by making sure everyone 'plays fair' is somewhat laughable but also sadly detached from reality.

Let's play "spot the fallacy".

Schrödinger's Cat

21st May 2008, 04:08

No you can't.

You just answered "No you can't" to my question "can you blame kings for holding power?" Seriously, what is wrong with capitalist apologists? I would imagine feudal relations don't strike capitalists as particularly enlightening. Then again we do have nonsense about "anarcho-capitalism," or neo-feudalism.:confused:

The business world is an aggressive place and it's not about playing fair or nice.

You're stating the obvious.

The thing about Communism is that it works against the natural aggressiveness of humans.

Not at all. Competition still exists under communism. However, instead of driving people to ground zero, it is used as a simple measure stick over what society wants. Furthermore, humans are no more "aggressive" than they are sentimental. You've been misinformed. ;)

Killing that desire by making sure everyone 'plays fair' is somewhat laughable but also sadly detached from reality.

Right. You just reiterated Tom's mistake. If fairness does not deserve effort, then your pretty capitalist property rights don't matter and I can do whatever I want - including take over your small business and tax you 95%. Fairness doesn't matter, after all.

pusher robot

22nd May 2008, 16:04

You just answered "No you can't" to my question "can you blame kings for holding power?" Seriously, what is wrong with capitalist apologists? I would imagine feudal relations don't strike capitalists as particularly enlightening.

Well, you'd be right, but you're just engaging in presentism. A more sophisticated consideration would recognize that feudal relations were for most of their existence obviously sub-optimal but the best organization feasible. Kings were in their own historical context a progressive force until better alternatives were possible.

[QUOTE]
Not at all. Competition still exists under communism. However, instead of driving people to ground zero, it is used as a simple measure stick over what society wants. Furthermore, humans are no more "aggressive" than they are sentimental. You've been misinformed. ;)

So you say. You can't pretend there is anything like concensus on this issue even among your own comrades. Simply put, why should we believe you? This has not ever worked on a societal scale.

Right. You just reiterated Tom's mistake. If fairness does not deserve effort, then your pretty capitalist property rights don't matter and I can do whatever I want - including take over your small business and tax you 95%. Fairness doesn't matter, after all.

You misunderstand. It's saying that it's detached from the reality that your vision of "fairness" evidently does not match the widely accepted popular definition of "fairness." Your argument is essentially:
1. Redistribution is fair.
2. Everyone like fairness.
3. Therefore, everyone likes redistribution.
You are acting as though the first premise is self-evidently true, which, while it may be to you is in reality not to most people.

Baconator

25th May 2008, 16:06

How do you approach corporations? They provide for the cheapest and most widely available products merely with size and investment opportunities, but the protection they're given through charters and law makes them essentially extensions of the government. Without state protection shareholders wouldn't invest in corporations out of fear for having their own money tapped - and they could each be taken to jail. It seems contradicatory to uphold free market principles and then excuse the biggest providers of goods and services for their reliance on the government.

I agree 100%. The Corporation is a legal fiction instituted by the state at the behest of some capitalists that did not want to assume personal responsibility for potential losses. The concept of the corporation is completely invalid therefore, granting special rights to this made up entity is complete nonsense. This is probably your best post Gene.

Yours truly,
Dejavu;)

pusher robot

27th May 2008, 18:28

I agree 100%. The Corporation is a legal fiction instituted by the state at the behest of some capitalists that did not want to assume personal responsibility for potential losses. The concept of the corporation is completely invalid therefore, granting special rights to this made up entity is complete nonsense. This is probably your best post Gene.

Yours truly,
Dejavu;)

Actually, corporations pre-date capitalism. They were the primary movers and shakers during the mercanitilist period and evolved out of feudal land-grant transactions.

Also, I don't understand the argument "x is a legal fiction, therefore x is wrong." If I understand "legal fiction" to mean "a legal construct that does not exist in reality," then virtually all laws are legal fiction.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th May 2008, 18:48

Also, I don't understand the argument "x is a legal fiction, therefore x is wrong." If I understand "legal fiction" to mean "a legal construct that does not exist in reality," then virtually all laws are legal fiction.
I believe the argument is "x is a legal fiction, therefore x cannot be defended based on notions of natural rights or indeed any kind of deontological ethics." If corporations are legal fictions, there can be no inherent right for corporations to exist. If private property is a legal fiction, there can be no inherent right to private property.

Since most liberal arguments are built on notions of natural rights, this is an effective way to tear them down.

pusher robot

27th May 2008, 20:21

I believe the argument is "x is a legal fiction, therefore x cannot be defended based on notions of natural rights or indeed any kind of deontological ethics." If corporations are legal fictions, there can be no inherent right for corporations to exist. If private property is a legal fiction, there can be no inherent right to private property.

Since most liberal arguments are built on notions of natural rights, this is an effective way to tear them down.
First let's not bring property into this. Property, after all, is not just a legal fiction. Both possession and exclusion, two of the most important aspects of property, can exist without any law at all. So to throw it in there as a "legal fiction" as though it's the same thing as corporate legal entities is a red herring.

Liberal moral arguments are built on such notions, but whether or not coporations are moral is irrelevant. Corporations are amoral - they are not entities capable of exercising moral judgment. Only people can do that. So pointing out that there is no "inherent right" to corporations is hardly a revealing insight into modern political economy. Who argues this anyways?

On issues of law and policy, I think you will find that liberals are essentially utilitarian: does policy x help further the actual moral imperatives of liberalism or not? To the extent that it does, than x is good policy, and to the extent it does not, it is bad policy. The law of coporations is just that: policy. Overall, having corporations has been more beneficial than not, so that is the policy of most liberal societies. If the dynamics were to change and corporations were more harmful than not, then they would be done away with. I think few liberals would argue that there is any natural-law right to limited-liability corporations.

IcarusAngel

27th May 2008, 21:00

I don't see how you're going from the concept of possession to the idea that property isn't just a legal fiction.

With possessions, there was never any clear agreement on them. People have had different ideas of what possesions mean throughout history, and the idea of property is that the government (or whoever) protects it only one concept of it through the state.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th May 2008, 21:56

First let's not bring property into this. Property, after all, is not just a legal fiction. Both possession and exclusion, two of the most important aspects of property, can exist without any law at all. So to throw it in there as a "legal fiction" as though it's the same thing as corporate legal entities is a red herring.
That depends on the size (the real physical size) of the property we're talking about. For an object small enough to carry around with you, you are correct - possession and exclusion can exist without any law at all. For a really large object, like an oil tanker, and especially a large immobile object, like a factory or a plot of land, it's a different story. In such cases the object cannot possibly be in your possession at all times, nor could you single-handedly exclude others from using it (no matter how well armed you are, you can't be in two places at once, so you cannot, by yourself, guard a really large piece of property).

Without property laws enforced by the threat of state violence, you could not maintain possession and exclusion over a large piece of property, and your property would be limited to the objects you could carry on your person at all times. Maybe the stuff you can fit in your car. But that would be it.

Liberal moral arguments are built on such notions, but whether or not coporations are moral is irrelevant. Corporations are amoral - they are not entities capable of exercising moral judgment. Only people can do that. So pointing out that there is no "inherent right" to corporations is hardly a revealing insight into modern political economy. Who argues this anyways?
Many libertarians and radical capitalists do.

On issues of law and policy, I think you will find that liberals are essentially utilitarian: does policy x help further the actual moral imperatives of liberalism or not? To the extent that it does, than x is good policy, and to the extent it does not, it is bad policy.
That is generic consequentialism, not utilitarianism. To be utilitarian, one would have to ask if policy X promotes human happiness better than the alternatives, not if policy X helps further the moral imperatives of liberalism.

Other than that, your statement above can be correct, if you replace "moral imperatives of liberalism" with "capitalist economic growth." As far as I can tell, capitalist economic growth is the only concern of liberal policymakers.

The law of coporations is just that: policy. Overall, having corporations has been more beneficial than not, so that is the policy of most liberal societies.
Beneficial to whom? Compared to what alternatives? Where is the evidence that they are more beneficial than any alternative?

Don't pretend that liberal governments carefully weigh all the alternatives and choose the most beneficial policies. You know that's not how it works.

Robert

27th May 2008, 23:36

Where is the evidence that they are more beneficial than any alternative?You mean any known alternative? I think the critic should provide the alternative. What if I were to say "what's the evidence that communism is better than any alternative." How would you prove that?

Anyway, I'll suggest that the diversity and abundance of products, in any supermarket, that the buying public seems to really want, and the diversity of life-improving pharmaceuticals that many really need, constitutes some evidence of the benefits corporations provide. The fabrication, testing, marketing, packaging, storing, and delivery of all these products is done through corporations. They employ an enormous number of people who are free to leave when they want. They offer varying degrees of employee benefits. I know, I know, they don't do enough.

I wish the mom and pops could get the job done all over the country, but for whatever reason (economies of scale I suppose?) they often cannot. Could you make good, tasty ketchup that kids want to eat and get it delivered to their homes? How about drugs like Lipitor and Heparin? Condoms? Water colors? Basketballs? HD televisions?

If the answer is "the government can do it better," the government often tries this, then routinely if not invariably enters into procurement contracts with -- guess who? -- corporations to get the drugs into V.A. hospitals, get air conditioners installed in courthouses, food delivered to the school cafeterias, and so on. The alternative is for the government to take over the air conditioning, agriculture, pharmaceutical, storage and transportation industries.

That's just a sample. You really want the government to do all that? Or is this where these worker controlled co-ops or whatever you call them come into play?

pusher robot

28th May 2008, 02:07

[quote=Edric O;1156805]That depends on the size (the real physical size) of the property we're talking about. For an object small enough to carry around with you, you are correct - possession and exclusion can exist without any law at all. For a really large object, like an oil tanker, and especially a large immobile object, like a factory or a plot of land, it's a different story. In such cases the object cannot possibly be in your possession at all times, nor could you single-handedly exclude others from using it (no matter how well armed you are, you can't be in two places at once, so you cannot, by yourself, guard a really large piece of property).

Yes, yes, semantically you are correct. You can't "possess" a tract of land, you can only exercise dominion over it.

Without property laws enforced by the threat of state violence, you could not maintain possession and exclusion over a large piece of property, and your property would be limited to the objects you could carry on your person at all times. Maybe the stuff you can fit in your car. But that would be it.
Yet even granting your semantic argument, you are clearly incorrect here. Individuals have exercised dominion over land and large works since well before the existence of organized states and property laws. Sometimes this was simply through fencing off the borders and not being challenged; other times it was through the application of organized violence. The only thing that the advent of legal systems changed was to regularize and systemize this behavior, and to subvert it to eminent domain.