Is Capitalism Just?

[John Dibble]

In principle, I would say it is very just - those who work get to keep the fruits of their own labor, and those who don't work suffer the consequences of their sloth.

Now, in practice it is not perfectly just - there's just too many variables. Pure meritocricy is just not possible, there are certainly people that can't survive easily in the system without help(for instance, the physically disabled), and sometimes people get more or less than they deserve. However, I would say that among all economic systems that have been conceived, it is the most just as well as the most practical. Further, people do try to correct some of the injustices within the system through private charity.

And so, I leave you with this:

"The capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably means also production for the masses. Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them. It is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as a rule improvements that would mean much to a rich man. Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort." - Joseph A. Schumpeter

[John Dibble]

Yes capitalism is just, and the only moral economic system, as well as that which produces most results.

And the 'most results' that it produces are vast wealth for a tiny minority and servile toil for the rest.  How is that different from, say, ancient Egypt, feudal Europe, or any other social heirarchy in the history of man?

Tell me opebo, is ignorance really bliss?

[John Dibble]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

[John Dibble]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

[John Dibble]

Capitalism can not be 'oppressive,' because it is not coercive.

Of course it is.  Have you ever noticed the Police?

1. What exactly do the police have to do with theoretical discussions on the merits of an economic philosophy?

2. Conversely, have you ever noticed the police in Marxist countries?

Of course.  The police are there for the same reason in any country, to use force in order to maintain a social heirarchy in which some classes have power and material wealth, and others are controlled.

So, what, you're arguing that we shouldn't have a police force?

What would make you think that?  I was just describing the purpose of the police.

Your ignorance made me think that - it fits in with all the other crap that you come up with. You seem to have a rather negative(and ignorant) view of the police, which are a pretty important thing in any society class structure or no. The purpose of the police is to chase down criminals who break the law, no other purpose. Arguably the law could be made to preserve people's class, but in the U.S. that is not the case and you are a complete idiot for thinking it is.

I'm sure the Weaver family agrees with you.

Care to give me some background? And do keep in mind I'm not saying that the police are some perfect organization that can do no wrong, but opebo's blatant idiocy must not go unchecked.

[John Dibble]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Ok, while I don't agree with the FBI's actions here, there are two things I need to say:

1. The agents here are federal, I was only speaking of your local police force type police.

2. What does this have to do with opebo's comments about the puprose of police being protecting social hierarchy?