what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver) - Page 39

kladner · 2015-11-06, 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

..... The power corrupts, and the absolute power corrupts absolutely (well.. this doesn't sound very well in English, or it may not have the meaning I want to give to it, sorry).

You have it right.

Quote:

John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

chappy · 2015-11-06, 17:55

I've never bought into the power corrupts line. Say rather, power attracts the corruptible. Or the corruptible are attracted to power.

davar55 · 2015-11-07, 02:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

I've never bought into the power corrupts line. Say rather, power attracts the corruptible. Or the corruptible are attracted to power.

I thought it was: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

kladner · 2015-11-07, 06:20

You could check out the link, unless Wikipedia is an anti-capitalist plot, which cannot be credited.

davar55 · 2015-11-07, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

You could check out the link, unless Wikipedia is an anti-capitalist plot, which cannot be credited.

I love wikipedia and Google. But I can't double-check absolutely EVERYTHING.

chalsall · 2015-11-07, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

I thought it was: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

I can't immediately remember who said this, but someone did: "Absolute power is kinda cool....

davar55 · 2015-11-07, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

I can't immediately remember who said this, but someone did: "Absolute power is kinda cool....

Any petty dictator.

davar55 · 2015-11-08, 16:55

I've moved some statements of mine from another thread to here.
I've edited them in retrospect.

(1) There are rules, even (I would say only) under capitalism.

By this I mean that the belief that free markets are anarchic is false.

(2) ONLY under capitalism are the rules rational and understandable.

By this I mean that government, whose main purpose is to protect our rights,
protects the right to freedom only under a capitalist system;
that socialism is the attempt to alleviate ills caused by imperfect rules by
violating the rights of some in favor of others;
and that this is wrong and ultimately irrational, since the poor or weak are
best served by the rich or strong or smart when these are allowed to'
prosper -- when the rules are such that all are free, most become benevolent.

(3) So YES to "if people ... right?" ... that would, barring accidents, get you your truly veggie hot dogs.

Fraud, incompetence, and malevolence, while they certainly occur, are far less apt
to occur when people are free to do right than when they are forced not to do wrong.

(4) We can only HEAD TOWARDS perfect capitalism if (a) we regard it as a goal, and (b) we can clearly define it.

Freedom is a positive, necessary value.

(5) THEREFORE: Before you knock capitalism, we mustn't just decry the faults in our current imperfect version of it,
we must suggest solutions IN THE CONTEXT of capitalism as it could be.

Here I overstated my point. It is proper to criticize the way things are. But capitalism,
true capitalism, is not the problem but the solution.

S485122 · 2015-11-08, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

But capitalism, true capitalism, is not the problem but the solution.

You also speak about perfect capitalism... But wouldn't PERFECT socialism, communism or whatever be PERFECT ?
Real world systems are never and can never be perfect or "true".

Economy is the science of explaining after an event why what happened is an exception to the model espoused by the practitioner.

Jacob

kladner · 2015-11-08, 22:17

Why are the imperfections of capitalism, whatever they might be, acceptable, when other systems, hybrid or otherwise, are considered fatally flawed for alleged, but unspecified faults? Why are we to suppose that other systems are incapable of being improved, but that capitalism is so endowed?

Merely asserting that 'freedom' can only exist under capitalism, because other systems are 'bad', or 'failed' by arbitrary definition, is another of your tail-biting arguments. Though you may not care to accept it, there are notable social<>democratic systems which have operated successfully for a very long time. The name Otto von Bismarck is significant in this regard. Autocrat though he was, he set up a welfare state to forestall socialist advances.

EDIT: There does seem to be a functioning capitalist German state, complete with a variety of structure which might commonly called "socialist." Perhaps it is moribund, by your definitions.

davar55 · 2015-11-09, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

You also speak about perfect capitalism... But wouldn't PERFECT socialism, communism or whatever be PERFECT ?
Real world systems are never and can never be perfect or "true".
Economy is the science of explaining after an event why what happened is an exception to the model espoused by the practitioner.

By the Ontological argument, which is flawed, there would be a God.
Perfect socialism would be perfect slavery for humanity.
Perfect communism would be ultimate death for humanity.
Real world systems can always improve toward perfect capitalism,
so long as humanity is free.
Your last sentence is of course a joke that should be smilied.

2015-11-08, 22:17	#428
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 10158₁₀ Posts	Why are the imperfections of capitalism, whatever they might be, acceptable, when other systems, hybrid or otherwise, are considered fatally flawed for alleged, but unspecified faults? Why are we to suppose that other systems are incapable of being improved, but that capitalism is so endowed? Merely asserting that 'freedom' can only exist under capitalism, because other systems are 'bad', or 'failed' by arbitrary definition, is another of your tail-biting arguments. Though you may not care to accept it, there are notable social<>democratic systems which have operated successfully for a very long time. The name Otto von Bismarck is significant in this regard. Autocrat though he was, he set up a welfare state to forestall socialist advances. EDIT: There does seem to be a functioning capitalist German state, complete with a variety of structure which might commonly called "socialist." Perhaps it is moribund, by your definitions. Last fiddled with by kladner on 2015-11-08 at 22:20

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vehicles that talk amongst themselves	retina	Science & Technology	74	2020-01-06 08:26
Let's talk about the weather	gd_barnes	No Prime Left Behind	30	2011-07-28 22:41
Talk on gpuLucas at GPGPU-4 Workshop in March	Andrew Thall	GPU Computing	6	2011-02-03 14:46
Non-Prime95 clients talking to PrimeNet... can it be done?	GP2	PrimeNet	12	2003-11-30 17:34

2015-11-06, 17:55	#420
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	I've never bought into the power corrupts line. Say rather, power attracts the corruptible. Or the corruptible are attracted to power.

2015-11-07, 06:20	#422
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2×3×1,693 Posts	You could check out the link, unless Wikipedia is an anti-capitalist plot, which cannot be credited.

2015-11-08, 16:55	#426
davar55 May 2004 New York City 4235₁₀ Posts	I've moved some statements of mine from another thread to here. I've edited them in retrospect. (1) There are rules, even (I would say only) under capitalism. By this I mean that the belief that free markets are anarchic is false. (2) ONLY under capitalism are the rules rational and understandable. By this I mean that government, whose main purpose is to protect our rights, protects the right to freedom only under a capitalist system; that socialism is the attempt to alleviate ills caused by imperfect rules by violating the rights of some in favor of others; and that this is wrong and ultimately irrational, since the poor or weak are best served by the rich or strong or smart when these are allowed to' prosper -- when the rules are such that all are free, most become benevolent. (3) So YES to "if people ... right?" ... that would, barring accidents, get you your truly veggie hot dogs. Fraud, incompetence, and malevolence, while they certainly occur, are far less apt to occur when people are free to do right than when they are forced not to do wrong. (4) We can only HEAD TOWARDS perfect capitalism if (a) we regard it as a goal, and (b) we can clearly define it. Freedom is a positive, necessary value. (5) THEREFORE: Before you knock capitalism, we mustn't just decry the faults in our current imperfect version of it, we must suggest solutions IN THE CONTEXT of capitalism as it could be. Here I overstated my point. It is proper to criticize the way things are. But capitalism, true capitalism, is not the problem but the solution.