Which 'one True God?'

[Elder]

I mostly agree with both of you on this (a little more to Hugo's side, but that's just me). This said, I think the solution to this issue is far more a religious one. Capitalism has changed, but to change it back, we need to change the people. I believe that this is more of a job for a preacher than a politician. We could still have a capitalist society with charitable people, but first we need to convince the people of charity. Capitalism ensures ones right to life liberty and property, and those should not be taken away. Let's try to change people's minds instead, something that religion does quite well.

[August1991]

Where do I begin?

Elder: Capitalism has changed, but to change it back, we need to change the people. I believe that this is more of a job for a preacher than a politician.

What gives you - or a preacher - the right to believe people should be changed? In your mind, what is freedom ?

Black Dog: Rather the qualities you speak of have been systematically undermined by the growth of consumer capitalism, which relegates individuals to the dual role of worker/consumer, where personal fulfillment is said to be reached through the aquisition of material goods, where family time is sacrificed to 80 hour work weeks in order to pay for the new SUV, where greed and self-interest are the new religion.

What gives you the moral authority to judge how other people choose to spend their time or conduct their lives? No one forces anyone to work 80 hour weeks or drive SUVs. When you say 'freedom', what do you mean?

Hugo: People no longer subscribe to the values that were popular when democratic capitalism was young, such as Christian ethics, a communal spirit, family values, and so forth.

When was democratic capitalism young? In the 18th century of Adam Smith and Ben Franklin? Sorry, I don't fall for that Marxist 'stages' claptrap of 'feudalism, capitalism, socialism'.

What you all call 'democratic capitalism', I would simply call market relations. By a market, I mean people voluntarily trading using prices to find the best terms of trade (deal). [i sometimes think that we in Western countries are so familiar with this that we can barely imagine a world without it. Adam Smith did not invent it. He was simply the first to observe something that had been happening for several thousand years.]

So, what is a world without markets? A world of competition and co-operation. Co-operation is always better for the collective but competition is sometimes best for the individual. (Example: Let's work together to hunt an animal. Now that we've killed the animal, I fight you to get the whole animal.)

People fighting over the prize of a dead animal is not good for any society (but it is dramatic to watch!). It is better to encourage people to renounce greed and share (boring but honourable). A good example of co-operation is marriage, family and belonging to a clan.

Now, into this world, we introduce a market with prices. We tell people to be greedy: Seek the best deal for yourself. The buyers go looking for the lowest price, the sellers for the highest price - they are all competing - but the result is good! They co-operate perfectly! This radical change to human relations is still confusing people.

With this said, I really enjoy reading your comments. Don't stop this thread! I too prefer co-operation to competition, charity to wilful harm - and I would be the first to admit I am often wrong. I enjoy thoughtful discussions because I have learned too many times that I should change my opinion!

[Hugo]

I would mostly agree, but beg to differ on the causes of this moral decay. I believe the problems in society don't arise from some assault on traditional values by the forces of secularism or the bugbear of "political correctness"

I don't think market forces are to blame, really. The mentality of the citizen has changed. If you look at the typical New England colonist, founding-stone of democratic capitalism, he was hard-working, community-spirited, politically active and had a firm moral fibre based upon religious belief. We have swapped that for increasing laziness, disenchantment with the community, political disinterest and a near-complete lack of ethics.

Greed, self-interest are part of human nature. When you have a system that touts greed as a value, it may work for a time, but it's bound to break down as it makes the natural progression from promoting benign self-interest to complete disinterest in anyone else. So the problem isn't outside the system: it's the system itself.

The democratic capitalist system is the best system for obtaining freedom and prosperity. All other systems have failed in this regard. Theory is irrelevant if that theory cannot be successfully put into practice, and in practice, mercantilism, feudalism, and socialism are all utter failures at obtaining liberty and prosperity for all when compared to democratic capitalism.

The problem is that, although the obligations of the citizenry are less under capitalism than under other systems, they are still there, but they are being neglected. Take voter turn-out as an example. How can democracy function properly when 40% of the electorate just doesn't bother voting? People have neglected their political obligations as citizens, just as they are neglecting their moral and social obligations to stick to the family and to be ethical rather than just follow what the most popular lobby group is saying right now, and as they are neglecting their economic obligations to exercise a little good judgement as consumers and stop rewarding companies that don't deliver a good product.

These obligations aren't hard to meet. They are certainly more within the grasp of the average man than socialist obligations, and they are certainly more fair than feudal obligations. The problem is that socialism encourages apathy and laziness. The lack of freedom discourages involvement in anything, after all, why bother when you have no choice anyway? So, as you can see, as socialist values begin to creep into our society they have an effect. People become lazier and cease to care about important things. University professors and teachers are overwhelmingly left-leaning these days and the children they educate grow up to become adults exhibiting typical left-leaning tendencies: apathy, laziness, lack of responsibility and ignorance.

Canada is a great example of this. A nation that once consisted of hard-working, moral people, a nation that fought two world wars, has been replaced by a nation of whiners afraid to take a stand on anything, cowed by politicians so much that they continue to support a party that steals from them, expecting a big public sector, welfare, free healthcare, and not caring that these agendas cannot be sustained or supported, not caring that the government taxes them to death and runs up massive debts in order to give them the hand-outs they claim are their right. They do not think about tomorrow. They have given up personal responsibility, running up mountains of private debt, and how can a government be fiscally responsible when citizens don't demand it and don't respect it themselves?

When was democratic capitalism young? In the 18th century of Adam Smith and Ben Franklin? Sorry, I don't fall for that Marxist 'stages' claptrap of 'feudalism, capitalism, socialism'.

Yes, that is when democratic capitalism was young. You don't have to believe in Marxist stages since they are incorrect anyway. Russia went straight from mercantilism to socialism, as did China.

Adam Smith did not invent it. He was simply the first to observe something that had been happening for several thousand years.

This is wrong. Adam Smith observed a new phenomenon that was beginning in the 18th Century. He explored it and hypothesised upon where it might lead us. Capitalism dates back only to the 18th Century, before that, you have mercantilism, feudalism and so forth.

It's easy to tell. Democratic capitalism produces rapid growth and progress, other systems do not. The life and welfare of a medieval peasant was no different from that of a Sumerian peasant who preceded him by four millenia. The life of a medieval king was no different from a Sumerian king, either. There wasn't that much in the way of technological progress, or in ideas of liberty, equality, equal racial and gender rights, and so forth.

Once capitalism is introduced, things suddenly start moving forward at a very rapid pace, technologically, socially, economically. We are far wealthier than our grandparents were. Our grandchildren will be far wealthier than we are. Our great-grandmothers couldn't vote or work, but our women can. Compare this to four and a half thousand years of stagnation and you can clearly see where democratic capitalism begins.

What you all call 'democratic capitalism', I would simply call market relations.

Then you would be wrong. It's important to keep definitions clear. I can't decide that I will call an apple an orange, it isn't, and it will confuse people I talk to. Market relations is a whole different concept. Please don't confuse the debate.

[Black Dog]

I don't think market forces are to blame, really. The mentality of the citizen has changed. If you look at the typical New England colonist, founding-stone of democratic capitalism, he was hard-working, community-spirited, politically active and had a firm moral fibre based upon religious belief. We have swapped that for increasing laziness, disenchantment with the community, political disinterest and a near-complete lack of ethics.

If one accepts your premise, it still doesn't answer the question of what happened to change this mindset. I would suggest that the growth of the mass-media, and in particular, television (something Marx nor Smith could have ever dreamed of), as the primary means of disemenating information and providing analysis in western society has made citizens, ignorant, self-absorbed and apathetic. Which raises another question: who benefits from this state of affairs? It's clearly not individuals or society as a whole. Subquestion: who owns the mass media and is therefore responsible for the messages it passes on?

[August1991]

Capitalism dates back only to the 18th Century, before that, you have mercantilism, feudalism and so forth.

This approach to history is precisely Marxist (or Hegelian) and it is based on the idea that society has 'progressed' through various stages culminating in capitalism. (Marx thought the next stage was communism or socialism or something.) IMHO, he and Hegel were dead wrong. There are no stages to history. History just happens.

At most, over time, we have developed new technology based on a better understanding of the universe around us. In my view, one of the most significant social developments was the invention of numbers because it meant we could use prices to trade. This was done perhaps as long ago as 10,000 years or so. Humans as a species really began to dominate then because we could co-operate anonymously.

But Hugo, I really don't see this 'Idea of Progress' as a major difference between you and me. Instead, I think we have a bigger bone of contention. Let me show you one of the most famous quotes of Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.  We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

The idea is plain. Market relations work because people are encouraged to be greedy (self-love) and act in their own self-interest (their advantages), yet in doing so, they produce co-operation for all. IOW, Smith identified how prices in a market accomplish co-operation by encouraging private greed. Unfortunately, many still find this confusing. (Perhaps because it's contrary to Christian dogma. The film 'A Beautiful Mind', following Hollywood dogma, misrepresented the idea too.)

(BTW, bakers and butchers have existed for thousands of years but the Scot Smith -aided by the Enlightenment- was the first to examine anything so mundane as why butchers do what they do.)

'Capitalism'? To me, this is merely the idea that if I own something, I can trade it temporarily (lend it) and receive compensation while I manage without the thing I'm lending. (Today, this is 'leasing' which still confuses some people.) IOW, capitalism is one obvious extension of market relations. More modern examples are contingency markets such as options (insurance and reservation schemes) and futures markets. In all these examples, a market relation, with a price, is the key idea. I'm sure the future will find more applications.

Now then, 'democratic capitalism'? To me, democracy is a way of organising a political entity in society. Protected property rights are a critical feature to have functioning market relations (capitalism if you prefer). Democracy tends best to protect property rights. Other forms of government seem to allow too easily arbitrary seizure, and insecure property definition.

Hugo, you seem to be from eastern Europe. If this is true, you should understand well the importance of secure property rights for a society to benefit from market relations. If what I own can be taken at any moment, then I only trade with people I trust absolutely.

I think you and I are saying the same thing using different words. (But geez, you make me think!) We seem to disagree most about 'morality' and the role of self-interest in markets (capitalism). Sorry for this long post, but you are wordy too.

[Hugo]

I would suggest that the growth of the mass-media, and in particular, television (something Marx nor Smith could have ever dreamed of), as the primary means of disemenating information and providing analysis in western society has made citizens, ignorant, self-absorbed and apathetic.

I can certainly see that point. The problem is that popular culture is inevitably dumbed down because the masses are, at the risk of sounding arrogant, dumb, and really, they always were and always will be. Pre-capitalist societies seemed to have better artistic output because the commoner was unable to patronise the arts, that patronage being reserved for the aristocracy who tended to have better taste. That better taste is still present now, but it becomes somewhat drowned in the sea of popular culture. There isn't much to be done about it since you can't force people to see the Bolshoi instead of the Toronto Maple Leafs, or to discard their J.K. Rowling in favour of Les Murray. Or rather, you can, but you can't make them like it. All you can do is exercise your rights as an individual that capitalist democracy has given you, and patronise the arts you see fit to.

Which raises another question: who benefits from this state of affairs? It's clearly not individuals or society as a whole.

No, it is, really. This state of affairs is responsible for giving you the greatest freedoms and best standard of living yet enjoyed in the history of mankind. If you genuinely feel that dumbed-down pop culture and advertising is too great a price to pay, well, there's plenty of mud huts available in Africa for you.

Subquestion: who owns the mass media and is therefore responsible for the messages it passes on?

Anyone. I believe AOL-Time Warner shares are at $17.15 right now, they trade under the ticker symbol "TWX" on the NYSE. Or you could get some shares in Fox Entertainment, which are a lot pricer at $28.99 per share. Take your pick.

This approach to history is precisely Marxist (or Hegelian) and it is based on the idea that society has 'progressed' through various stages culminating in capitalism.

No, August, I already went over this. I shall attempt to clarify again. When I said that capitalism was preceded by feudalism and mercantilism, these were just examples of the kinds of systems that preceded them. A culture need not pass through systems in a certain order, nor need it pass through every system or even change systems at all. It really depends upon how the culture progresses.

In my view, one of the most significant social developments was the invention of numbers because it meant we could use prices to trade. This was done perhaps as long ago as 10,000 years or so.

Not to split hairs but it was about 5,000-5,500 years ago (the Sumerian shell-ring is the first currency known to archaeologists).

The idea is plain. Market relations work because people are encouraged to be greedy (self-love) and act in their own self-interest (their advantages), yet in doing so, they produce co-operation for all.

Yes, this is what I have said. Harnessing sin to produce virtue. Moreover, Smith goes on to say that "self-love" is a harsh description. He adds that most people, given a choice, would work the bare minimum possible to the lowest standards they could get away with. The drive to work harder is usually the drive to help one's family, which is not selfish, so in this way capitalism harnesses selfless virtues and encourages them by giving people the means to accumulate wealth and prosperity for their families.

Hugo, you seem to be from eastern Europe.

No, I'm British.

[August1991]

The problem is that popular culture is inevitably dumbed down because the masses are, at the risk of sounding arrogant, dumb, and really, they always were and always will be. Pre-capitalist societies seemed to have better artistic output because the commoner was unable to patronise the arts, that patronage being reserved for the aristocracy who tended to have better taste.

That does sound arrogant, and also purely arbitrary and subjective. Are you sure that you have the good taste to recognize good taste?

A minor point: art, like knowledge itself, become common goods available to all. We have a much vaster choice of art to choose from than people alive 500 years ago, and think how much more people alive in 500 years will have. Moreover, art is a luxury. People in the future will be wealthier and hence will consume more art.

who owns the mass media and is therefore responsible for the messages it passes on?

Anyone. I believe AOL-Time Warner shares are at $17.15 right now, they trade under the ticker symbol "TWX" on the NYSE. Or you could get some shares in Fox Entertainment, which are a lot pricer at $28.99 per share. Take your pick.

Delightful response!

When I said that capitalism was preceded by feudalism and mercantilism, these were just examples of the kinds of systems that preceded them. A culture need not pass through systems in a certain order, nor need it pass through every system or even change systems at all.

To avoid a semantic argument, I'll accept your point but I cringe at the word "system" and any -ism. Too often, these words mask the actions of individuals and represent lazy thinking by generalization.

Not to split hairs but it was about 5,000-5,500 years ago (the Sumerian shell-ring is the first currency known to archaeologists).

I read recently about a small counting device found in Belgium (of all places) that dates from 8000 BC. This would have been an extremely simple abacus. Incidentally, the earliest writing (in the 3000 BC era as you note) concerned primarily accounts and inventories.

The drive to work harder is usually the drive to help one's family, which is not selfish, so in this way capitalism harnesses selfless virtues and encourages them by giving people the means to accumulate wealth and prosperity for their families.

I don't think there is any doubt that co-operation achieves much more than competition. Unfortunately, co-operation suffers from the fatal flaw of cheating (self-interested behaviour). One can easily see that families and clans exist to overcome this problem. Moreover, if someone helps their family, this is tantamount to selfish behaviour.

But Hugo, Smith did not argue that private greed led to public virtue because people wanted to help their families by working hard and accumulating wealth. Smith's key insight was that society benefits most when a family (or individual) chooses the best trade on offer. In other words, the collective good is greatest (and individuals co-operate completely) when individuals choose the best for themselves - surely a cheat-proof objective. To be able to make this choice, market prices are critical.

I find remarkable that several thousand years ago - 5000 years ago according to you - people discovered a way to obtain co-operation that withstood cheating. That is, they discovered market relations. If we consider that humans have existed for several million years, then 5000 years is a mere instant.

[Hugo]

Are you sure that you have the good taste to recognize good taste?

Art has certain criteria to be defined by. It should be timeless, it should touch the viewer or reader on an emotional level and preferably on other levels too. It can be very strongly argued that reality TV and other such "art' does not meet the criteria to be art. Further to this point, I don't think you could even find a single Survivor viewer who believes that what they watch is art, or believes that the "art" of Survivor is within a million miles of Guernica, or Endymion.

But Hugo, Smith did not argue that private greed led to public virtue because people wanted to help their families by working hard and accumulating wealth.

Not in so many words, but is implied because Smith shows that "self-love" actually transcends the self to include the interests of one's family, and also a wish to sacrifice present wealth for future wealth and to take a risk today for a gain tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it remains that capitalism, economically, can only result in a win for society. If one is selfish, society benefits because the capitalist system means that the benefit of one is, by and by, transformed into the benefit of all. If one is selfless, then one is free to be charitable and giving because of the freedoms that capitalism allows.

I'll accept your point but I cringe at the word "system" and any -ism. Too often, these words mask the actions of individuals and represent lazy thinking by generalization.

They can be used to describe a general political-economic modus. They cannot pick up on all the subtleties, but nevertheless, you can identify a mercantilist culture and distinguish it from a capitalist one easily enough.

If you want an analogy, think of computers. You can call a computer "x86-based" which will tell you what sort of computer it is, what hardware principles it is based on, what instruction set it uses, and what software it is able to run. You cannot tell the details of this computer system from that simple description, but nevertheless, you can lump x86-based systems together and distinguish them from, say, MIPS-based systems or Alpha-based systems, without needing to abandon all those definitions simply because they cannot be very detailed.

[Pellaken]

a question to you religious folk

the bible tells us that greed is bad.

yet

the free market we live in and under is based on greed.

I understand this is the only system that humans have devopled to create wealth, so please dont give me the "you want to destroy our economey" line, or call me a socialist/communist/stalinst, etc..

I just have a simple question

if greed is evil, how can you feel right in beleiving in your religion and living in a greed-based economey?

[willy]

This is my understanding of Christian theology and how it has played out in my life.

Christians believe the world is fallen.

One capitalism and socialism are benign. The problem comes from the people that run the systems. Each is about power and who gets the power. As the old saying goes power corrupts. One the worker gets the money and the other is the capitalist. Christians believe it is all about God, and we behave like it is all about us.

The third way would be to serve others, be it your boss or employee, and do so to honor God.

You asked for the biblical view: We are called to be in the world and not of the world.

Christianity is about the need for redemption, the need for God’s grace and the salvation found in that grace.

The gospel summarized would be something like this, ”We are all worse than we could possibly imaging and deserving of God judgment, but God loved us so much he gave his Son for us so we would not have to pay that price.” The death of Christ was so brutal and in the end it was him dieing and being separated from God at death that set all people free. It is then open to all who are called by God to accept his displeasure and his grace.

When Christ left after the resurrection he said he left his sprit to guide us. It is the sprit that transforms Christians and not the effort or deeds.

In political terms, laws are needed to keep evil at bay as it is a reality.

[Hugo]

Pellaken,

We already have a thread on this subject. This new one is redundant. I'd suggest you post in "Which 'one true God?'" which has already begun to explore this topic. In fact, I already answered the very question you asked there.

[d4dev]

Why is it that almost every thread deviates from the topic after a few replies to a debate about capitalism/communism?

[August1991]

Why is it that almost every thread deviates from the topic after a few replies to a debate about capitalism/communism?

If you look back through this thread, you'll realize this one doesn't.

This thread's question is stated simply by this quote:

a question to you religious folk.  the bible tells us that greed is bad.  yet  the free market we live in and under is based on greed.

I understand this is the only system that humans have devopled to create wealth, so please dont give me the "you want to destroy our economey" line, or call me a socialist/communist/stalinst, etc..

I just have a simple question

if greed is evil, how can you feel right in beleiving in your religion and living in a greed-based economey?

Greed is NOT evil when it's combined with prices in a market. I can explain this simply enough. When you buy meat in a store, the benefit of the food is greater than what you have to give up (your money) to get it - and you probably shop for the best price too. You are acting in your own best interest. You are being selfish or greedy. (Call it what you will, but in effect that's what it is.)

This works because the people who have farms with cattle do the same thing: they too are greedy. The benefit of the money they get is greater than what they have to give up (their time and effort to produce the meat).

Adam Smith referred to this as "the invisible hand" which guides individuals to do collective good even though the individuals are being "greedy".

All of this falls apart if there is no market and no prices. In such a world, being greedy is probably harmful to society but it may help the individual. This world existed several thousand years ago. (An interesting film that depicts such a world is 'Quest for Fire'.)

Western religions (eg. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are, in my view, closely related to these ideas. For example, to trade using markets and prices requires the clear idea of ownership so that trading makes sense. The Old Testament (Judaism) deals with this question (along with much else). The New Testament (Christianity) seems more concerned with sharing. Early Christians forbid earning interest by lending, as does the Koran. (I'm no biblical scholar. Perhaps others will correct me.)

I think Christianity was the first reaction of perplexity to a system (markets and prices) in which private greed led to so much (relative) public wealth. This perplexity lives on.

It should be timeless, it should touch the viewer or reader on an emotional level and preferably on other levels too.

"Timeless" is an objective measure that I'd accept. But by that measure, the pyramids are art simply because they're monolithic.

But "emotional level"? Purely subjective. Your definition is as good as mine. Would you call the film 'Titanic' art? Many people were moved by the story.

If one is selfish, society benefits because the capitalist system means that the benefit of one is, by and by, transformed into the benefit of all.

"By and by"? For heaven's sake! In those three little words, there's a whole story that took a hundred years or more after Smith to unravel. But even Smith said more than "by and by".

If you want an analogy, think of computers.

Precisely the reason I prefer to avoid the word system and all the -isms. Comparing a society or a social organization to a computer misses the whole point. A society is composed of living people who make choices, learn, change. Each person has a story to tell and each defies generalization - surely, a generalization as lame as being a part in a computer.

This does not mean that it is impossible to develop theories about society. It just means that it should never be done without careful regard for individuals (or the 'masses', as you wrote in another post.) The past two centuries are ample evidence of what happens when gross generalizations are made about societies.

In building a theory of society, the key starting point is to assume that individuals are self-interested (or greedy, if you will).

[Hugo]

"Timeless" is an objective measure that I'd accept. But by that measure, the pyramids are art simply because they're monolithic.

Yes, but was there artistic intent in their creation?

But "emotional level"? Purely subjective. Your definition is as good as mine. Would you call the film 'Titanic' art? Many people were moved by the story.

Why not? There is no real reason why a film cannot be art. A lot of films meet the criteria: they were made with artistic intent, they are timeless, they affect people on multiple levels including the emotional. But this pretty much rules out most films including the explosion-a-minute summer blockbuster and the teen movies with the trailers that promise many scantily clad girls and absolutely no plot. These films have clearly been crafted without artistic intent in order to make money. You can make money from good art, but you can't usually make money from bad art, so if you know you can't make good art just make a product that will sell. And if you ask me why I'm able to make these judgements, it's because I have a brain, as does everyone else.

Does anyone disagree? Anyone here think that Tomcats or The Bachelor is high art?

Precisely the reason I prefer to avoid the word system and all the -isms.

Then you are denying yourself a valuable tool for thought and discussion for poor reasons. How much time and bandwidth would it waste to go back through this thread and replace every instance of "capitalism", "socialism", "mercantilism" and "feudalism" with a precise description of each of those systems? And what would be the point, since we all know what is meant by those words anyway?

Avoiding the word "system" is ridiculous. These concepts are systems, economic and political systems. A system is a group of interrelated or interacting elements that form a whole (in our case, an economy, a polity or both), in the case of our discussion. Why would you deny the obvious? I believe that this whole line of discussion is obtuse in the extreme and smacks of an attempt to be a "radical thinker" or to be seen as one unbound by conventional thought. Sadly, it takes more than denial of the obvious to be considered a great thinker. I suggest you stop it.

[willy]

"I just have a simple question if greed is evil, how can you feel right in believing in your religion and living in a greed-based economy?"

First: August1991

Your reasoning is flawed. By demonstrating self interest as an example of why greed is good you are circular reasoning. Self interest and greed are the same thing and therefore can not prove each other.

You are using your reasoning to deny the state we live, our human nature.

That being said.

To simply answer the first question. (Christian Perspective, some might assume all religions are the same and they are not)

We are by our very nature and choice sinful. This is why the capitalist system works so well. By our very nature self interest is very important to us. Gods revelation to us the Bible would say this is very bad and deserving his displeasure.

Jesus calls us to serve one another. You might say that you know many Christians that don't do that. Ergo we are sinners and need Gods grace.

[August1991]

Your reasoning is flawed. By demonstrating self interest as an example of why greed is good you are circular reasoning. Self interest and greed are the same thing and therefore can not prove each other.

The argument is that private greed (or private self-interest) leads to collective good. In other words, if people are greedy (and act in their own self-interest), then they will encourage the public good. This is what a free market with prices achieves.

This is not obvious and Christianity strikes me as evidence of the confusion. For example:

Jesus calls us to serve one another. You might say that you know many Christians that don't do that. Ergo we are sinners and need Gods grace.

Sinners? I'd say they (even the truly non-Christians) are all doing us a favour by acting in their own interest - if they deal in markets with prices. God's grace is not required.

[August1991]

Then you are denying yourself a valuable tool for thought and discussion for poor reasons. How much time and bandwidth would it waste to go back through this thread and replace every instance of "capitalism", "socialism", "mercantilism" and "feudalism" with a precise description of each of those systems? And what would be the point, since we all know what is meant by those words anyway?

"valuable tool" I enjoy analyzing social phenomena for fun and profit. I develop theories to do it. I'm just extremely careful to ensure my theories explicitly consider that they concern individuals who differ, change, communicate and are often quick to figure out what's going on.

"we all know what is meant by those words" Do we? Or are these simply lazy generalizations?

[Hugo]

"we all know what is meant by those words" Do we? Or are these simply lazy generalizations?

We all should do. If we don't, it's time for some remedial learning. Regardless, this whole line of debate is highly pedantic. If you want to refuse to use words ending in "ism", go ahead. As for me, and for people who make a living writing about and discussing these issues, we'll continue, because these words are useful for concisely expressing complex concepts.

I've also noticed that everyone who was attempting to defend socialism in this thread has dropped out with nothing more to say. It certainly speaks volumes as to the invalidity and indefensibility of the socialist theory.

[willy]

Self interest is for the collective good, and you say people pay you for this. Would that be an example of their self interest?

Enron was self interest.

Tyco was self interest.

Nortel was self interest.

Tax fraud, money laundering, inflated prices, weapons builders, and tobacco and alcohol producers. (and I do drink and have smoked)

All great capitalists and all were not good for the collective. I right and lecture on ethics. You should take my course and I hope you would enjoy it.

I do believe that honest ethical business can produce profits but I do realize that bad can not be good. I do not argue that exchanging value for goods is not bad. A mutual exchange, for mutual benefit. We can do this for our community, our employers, and our family and hopefully for God. Not because it is in our self interest but the opposite, it is to learn how to be selfless by the spirit. Note I said by the spirit as by our very nature we can not do this ourselves. In my religion we are called to be good stewards. I know this is a very religious statement, but this is a Religion and Politics board.

We need laws to govern business because of self interest but we must live with it because the world is fallen.

The original question is how we reconcile that with our religion. I don’t have to reconcile it because Gods revelation in the Bible gives me the context to live in this world. I don’t think a logical argument will bring you to Christ but it does explain how I think the world works.

A second thread should be started on what is Public Good. Do education, health care and jobs bring some kind of self actualization that gives life purpose? Politics, economics, and science do not answerer a very important question. What is our purpose? Is it in the Public Good to ask that question? Say the law of scarcity did not exist, would we be happy.

[Hugo]

I do believe that honest ethical business can produce profits but I do realize that bad can not be good.

I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that bad actions cannot produce good results and that good actions cannot produce bad results you are very much mistaken.

[August1991]

I've also noticed that everyone who was attempting to defend socialism in this thread has dropped out with nothing more to say. It certainly speaks volumes as to the invalidity and indefensibility of the socialist theory.

At first, I was rather upset that we may have frightened them off. I don't view life as a competitive game nor an argument as something to be won. In fact, I generally consider myself a "socialist" (left wing is a better description, maybe) with a tremendous respect for the role of market prices in human relations.

We need laws to govern business because of self interest but we must live with it because the world is fallen.

I don't think I have ever read anything so typical of modern ignorance of Enlightenment thinking. Fortunately, in Buddhist-style, we don't need to understand how society operates to benefit from the way society operates.

Laws are not like the rules of a sports match because, ultimately, if you think about it, life is not a sports match.

Is it good to cheat, really? Is that what life is all about? You'd probably say no to both questions. And I'd agree with you.

Now, a sports match is all about competing to win. But is it good to cheat in sports, really? Is that what sports is really all about? Well, let's admit it. Sports is often about competition. People often play to win. In fact, people sometimes cheat because they are so competitive they really want to win.

Now you say, "true, that's why we must have rules in sports." I agree. And then you say, "and that's why we must have laws in society and the rule of law." Here I disagree. Very, very strongly. Why?

Because life is not a sports match. Rather, life is like a sports team. It's about getting people to work together - to co-operate. Now then, how does that happen?

A second thread should be started on what is Public Good. Do education, health care and jobs bring some kind of self actualization that gives life purpose? Politics, economics, and science do not answerer a very important question. What is our purpose? Is it in the Public Good to ask that question? Say the law of scarcity did not exist, would we be happy.

What do you mean by the term "Public Good"?

I like your idea of "self actualization that gives life purpose". What is it? I can't say for others. At most, I can talk of what it means to me, and I'm willing to assume that others seek it their own way. I suspect it has something to do with enjoying this thing called life, existence, conciousness that by chance we have.

Enron was self interest.

Tyco was self interest.

Nortel was self interest.

Tax fraud, money laundering, inflated prices, weapons builders, and tobacco and alcohol producers. (and I do drink and have smoked)

All great capitalists and all were not good for the collective. I right and lecture on ethics. You should take my course and I hope you would enjoy it.

Well, here's an ethical question for you.

In a shop, the clerk by mistake gives you too much change so that you have $10 extra. Should you return and tell the clerk about the mistake and give back the $10? Or should you keep the $10 and walk on.

Well, the clerk made a mistake - and one possibility is that the clerk is not good at counting. (It happens in life.) If you return the money, you are just delaying the inevitable when the clerk gets fired or the business goes bankrupt. The sooner this happens the better. So, the ethical thing to do is keep the $10. (Or would it be more ethical to tell the shopowner to fire the clerk? Move the clerk to a different position? Tell the clerk to take a math course? - These are all variations on the same theme.)

IMV, the ethics of Enron are no different.

In other words, I think ethics should not be about justice. Ethics should be about avoiding waste. For example, should a person waste time doing something the person is not good at doing. IOW, should anyone waste this precious thing we all call "life".

[Pellaken]

I think your comments on the efficiency of ethics is interesting. the problem, IMHO, is that efficiency is not ethical. It would be very "good" to take all the money in the world, and distribute it equally. Pure socalisim. Unfortunatly, socalisim does not work, not in its pure form anyways. Personally, I'd like one huge socalist state that acts like one huge company, always doing the most efficient thing.

Either way, I'd say keeping the $10 is wrong. it's not yours. regardless of the "bigger picture". ethics is not about the "bigger picture" IMHO.

[Hugo]

I'd like one huge socalist state that acts like one huge company, always doing the most efficient thing.

That's a contradiction in terms. The bigger and more dominant a thing becomes the more inefficient it becomes. Efficiency is increased when power has a broad base and individuals make more decisions. That's why free market economies invariably pull far ahead of planned economies. Furthermore, you forgot the iron law of human history: power kills.

I don't view life as a competitive game nor an argument as something to be won.

Nor do I, but socialism is a theory full of holes based on flawed thinking, that never works in practice. It's as wrong as "2+2=5" and I think that the fact that it cannot be defended in debate reflects that. On many subjective issues there are two sides to an argument that will never be won because a good defence can be mounted in favour of each viewpoint. The fallacy of socialism is not a matter of opinion but of fact and therefore the theory is indefensible.

[August1991]

I think your comments on the efficiency of ethics is interesting. the problem, IMHO, is that efficiency is not ethical.

What is worse? To waste a whole life doing something that one is not good at doing, or, to cause this waste in the name of something you call "equality", and that others will inevitably call unfair.

[KrustyKidd]

if greed is evi

I like to make money so I can help people as well as myself and family. I work harder and faster so I can accumulate the tools necessary to do this. If I lived on a patato commune I would bring in enugh to feed me and a couple of other families, no doctors, no parks or nice stuff liek that. The government (which of course would be completely honest) would take a few things from me. In return they would not provide for our defence as they don't now with lots of money, and, they would send a lowly motivated doctor to my commune every now and then to check us out. To get better treatmen I would probably have to give him something of value, yet what would I have? Ah! My good wishes, we all work on that right?