Ayn Rand makes a strong case for the morality of capitalism. People who are interested can read her. I largely agree with her case. So, good for the OP. Fun fact: Rand hated libertarians.
The basis of most libertarian moral judgements go back to the NAP (non-aggression principle). Since taxes are clearly collected under threat of punishment, taxation can be seen as an initiation of aggression. So taxation can be seen as morally incompatible with the NAP.
I also find anti-capitalism propaganda annoying, but the important thing is that it's informative. When someone starts talking about people paying their "fair share" and so on, it informs me their morality is not based on the NAP. In fact, they clearly think it is moral to steal my property, as long as its done via governments. A great thing about bitcoin is that they can want to steal it all they want, but they still can't actually steal it. In fact, I'm so against them taking my bitcoins that I purposefully lost all my private keys in a tragic boating accident.
Even if I get annoyed, I certainly don't want to put anti-capitalists in prison for having a different lifestyle from me. It's a shame they want to put libertarians in prison for refusing to conform to their lifestyle.
Note that the morality of capitalism is independent of whether or not capitalism is an efficient, productive economic system. There is a lot of evidence for defending capitalism in that way as well. It's simply a different question.
Topic: Capitalism and immorality - page 8. (Read 10633 times)
full member
Activity: 136
Merit: 100
Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.
Keep blaming greed and human nature and see how far you get. It's like complaining about the density of air for why we don't have flying cars.
Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.
Any system that unshackles restraints on how much a person can acquire in this life promotes greed. As it would turn out, capitalism so far has been best at it.
This is the core issue where morality, economics, and politics meet. How does a country balance out that "greed" vs need for the betterment of as many of its people as it can? Communism and fascism tried and were found to be very lacking.
and technical as well, I would add to the list ... This, reflect somehow the way bitcoin protocol works ... take a look about "Selfish Mining"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/selfish-mining-simulation-326559
Google Image "tesla bloodline" ... this is how things should of turned out
Quote
"When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else." The answer is you will get a job and earn some bitcoin and buy it from somebody who wishes to sell it. You may inherit it as well. There is nothing wrong with inherited wealth. I don't fret that men like BIll Gates and Warren Buffet have loads of money. They have made our lives infinitely better through their innovations and skill. Their massive wealth was well earned and I admire them for it. But wait a few generations and see how much wealth the heirs of Bill Gates will have. I predict very little. It will get spread out through the population because few men create that kind of wealth and even fewer can keep it. Have many Kennedys and Rockefellers have the same power and money their ancestors had? None that I know of.
Sadly it doesn't work out that way, it would be great if it would. But the rich are usually getting richer or at least stay rich. They have the wealth to give their children good education, they have the connections to lead them to a good job. Most of the poor never have a real chance no matter how hard they try.
Of course there are execptions where someone makes it from zero to hero or falls down from wealth, but it isn't the norm.
Quote
man's natural rights
There are no natural rights, only rights we make up ourselves as humanity.
Freedom is greedy, and statism is moral. 
Well, anything is an improvement form the status quo, but i don't think capitalism is the best way forward.
I personally believe in ubuntu, however i doubt it will gain enough traction.
I personally believe in ubuntu, however i doubt it will gain enough traction.
Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.
Any system that unshackles restraints on how much a person can acquire in this life promotes greed. As it would turn out, capitalism so far has been best at it.
This is the core issue where morality, economics, and politics meet. How does a country balance out that "greed" vs need for the betterment of as many of its people as it can? Communism and fascism tried.
Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.
Any system that unshackles restraints on how much a person can acquire in this life promotes greed. As it would turn out, capitalism so far has been best at it.
This is the core issue where morality, economics, and politics meet. How does a country balance out that "greed" vs need for the betterment of as many of its people as it can? Communism and fascism tried and were found to be very lacking.
Need to have balance approach. Stalin and Mao run a fascist regime, people are mistaking it for Communism.
Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.
Any system that unshackles restraints on how much a person can acquire in this life promotes greed. As it would turn out, capitalism so far has been best at it.
This is the core issue where morality, economics, and politics meet. How does a country balance out that "greed" vs need for the betterment of as many of its people as it can? Communism and fascism tried and were found to be very lacking.
Agree with above poster, but capitalism encourages greed.
There is no economic system or political power structure on earth that will mitigate the effects of greed.
We have only our own nature to blame for that one.
We have only our own nature to blame for that one.
Where resources are not unlimited, capitalism is the only way to efficiently allocate resources over a large population. It's not about capital, but about decentralization. The size and complexity anything is inversely proportional to the degree that centralization works. Capitalism is the decentralization of allocation.
Only? Capitalism is a way to aggregate resources (capital) through private means. Private != decentralized.
Where resources are not unlimited, capitalism is the only way to efficiently allocate resources over a large population. It's not about capital, but about decentralization. The size and complexity anything is inversely proportional to the degree that centralization works. Capitalism is the decentralization of allocation.
When the US was formed, capitalism flourished briefly.
The economy of the colonies flourished because of the support of merchant princes. These new breed of economic barons became wealthy as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The revolution, in turn, was financed by the taxes generated from the Jamaican sugar industry. Post independence, the American socioeconomic model is extremely socialist - especially for entrepreneurs. Capitalism, as we know it today, only emerged in the mid-19th century when more businesses began to emerge independent of the arms of the aristocracy and its proxies. However, its incredible success was achieved on the back of low-to-zero labor cost of slave laborers and an enormous amount of natural resources and land.
The issue is a complex one.
So, American success has nothing to do with capitalism?
When the US was formed, capitalism flourished briefly.
The economy of the colonies flourished because of the support of merchant princes. These new breed of economic barons became wealthy as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The revolution, in turn, was financed by the taxes generated from the Jamaican sugar industry. Post independence, the American socioeconomic model is extremely socialist - especially for entrepreneurs. Capitalism, as we know it today, only emerged in the mid-19th century when more businesses began to emerge independent of the arms of the aristocracy and its proxies. However, its incredible success was achieved on the back of low-to-zero labor cost of slave laborers and an enormous amount of natural resources and land.
The issue is a complex one.
So, American success has nothing to do with capitalism?
When the US was formed, capitalism flourished briefly.
The economy of the colonies flourished because of the support of merchant princes. These new breed of economic barons became wealthy as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The revolution, in turn, was financed by the taxes generated from the Jamaican sugar industry. Post independence, the American socioeconomic model is extremely socialist - especially for entrepreneurs. Capitalism, as we know it today, only emerged in the mid-19th century when more businesses began to emerge independent of the arms of the aristocracy and its proxies. However, its incredible success was achieved on the back of low-to-zero labor cost of slave laborers and an enormous amount of natural resources and land.
The issue is a complex one.
Captaism have many problems ... and I'm against the bankers bonus scheme (if they make profit they pocket as bonus, if they have losses then is their clients money and in the last instance the tax payers will pay the bill, because they're too big to fail ... is complete unfair game ) I still beleive in satoshi's message on genesis block though thats the reason idealists still on this communite, isn't it ? ...
Jump to: