Thread: Is There Morality In Profit?

Originally Posted by spockman

And here we see some of the biggest differences between libertarianism and objectivismn. That is, how or if a government exists. While the layman often sees very little difference, we know that there is. I actually agree with a lot of what you think. But while my voter's registration may be libertarian, I really am not one.

0.) Well, in a system without so much favors swapping and unearned profit reaping, the government would be encouraged to earn more. The more they produced, the more they could strengthen the economy, the more taxes they would gain, the higher their paychecks. Capitalism could still drive officials.

Firstly, two sentiments must be obtained to have capitalism, I believe you are referring to free-markets, which include but are not excluded to:
1. The trade/sale of good and services between two voluntary parties without third party interference.
2. Competition

The government can not and never will meet these two sentiments in order to pursue a course of free market capitalism because it interferes with voluntary trade and is not subject to competition. It is a monopoly. If a government were to open up the ability to provide what we call 'public services' today then it would cease to be a government and be regulated to the status of corporation.

Originally Posted by spockman

1.) I agree that monopoly laws are stupid. I do not consider anti-trust laws real monopoly laws, though. And froget the U.S. Anti-Trust laws. Other countries have them and they have them not in conjunction with monopoly laws.

Ok so we agree that 'Anti-trust laws' are a mistake.

Originally Posted by spockman

2.) No, it is not charity. While I am willing to pay my taxes, I would not pay so much if it was not compulsory. Besides, I am not willing for purely altruistic means. I want taxes payed for my own benefit. How is this charity?

Well every action is a act of self-interest. Every action is the application of means to ends and all action is aimed at removing a felt unease. If you think the definition of charity is pure altruism then charity can never exist. Also, I don't see how you not paying as much is some sort of argument. You are basically admitting that you are being coerced against your will to give more then you normally would. How is that just?

Originally Posted by spockman

3.) I would love to do it as well were it feasible. But I consider it somewhat naive to think that another group, (corporations are not limited in their goals in an anarchy,) would not then become the power through force of guns or para-military and essentially become the government. It would eventually happen. Someone would assert themselves and become, if not the official establishment, an unofficial one. I would prefer an official one with a constitution and a legal process.

Well two arguments against that. One we already reside in an environment of psuedo-legitimacy in the claims of the government. It has been establish through generations of intellectual 'validation' of government interference in our lives. If you think that is silly then I would ask why the government thinks it can tell us what is and isn't good for us to eat. If we are to establish a society in which anarchism is reigning, why assume that the whole of society will suddenly change its mind and go back to having a government? And even if some did, what legitimate claim would they have against people who don't want a government? And even if people all suddenly wanted to have a government, how is that any different then just going back to what we have today?

Originally Posted by spockman

4.) Then forget border security as far as immigration goes. Consider border security for other nations wanting your crap.

They can trade and do commerce with the people who reside here. Now if you have security concerns, please realize that a we know a priori that free markets product better goods and services that better meet consumer demand compared to a monopoly market which produces bloated prices and inefficient goods. A free market on defense would naturally be better then a monopolized one.

Originally Posted by spockman

5.) Because right now, we only pay for highways through our taxes, other than that most of them are completely free. The government is able to keep them free largely because they know that highways increase overall revenue and so increase taxes. The roads pay for themselves by the virtue of a strong market. If another group were to build them,this would not be a motivation. Pure and immediate profit would be. So you will now be paying for those roads whenever you ride them. Otherwise, no-one will build them.

Well you admit that we pay for roads. If we didn't have taxation, then I would only be paying for roads that I utilized in the first place. I would not be paying for the roads of other states. Therefore, right off the bat the price for transportation would be cheaper and this isn't even taking into account what prices would do during competition between companies. Not all business venture aim at short term profit. In fact I know of several service industries which during the first years are either breaking even or at a lose.

Originally Posted by spockman

6.) Well, there is no establishment, so you can have your philosophy schools and universalistic approach. It counts for nothing. Whoever has the biggest guns chooses all that. And until you can reconcile this- I won't blink twice at anarchy of any kind.

Well you already propound a system in which the biggest gun is what chooses all [ the government ]. I'm always confused as to why people who propound liberty, who always want more liberty and less government interference, suddenly go bonkers over the full realization of what they believe. If you believe that things get worse when more liberty is opened...why do you advocate liberty? Society is not some jungle boy which can only be held back by government. Even if it were, why assume that the government, which I'm guessing you want through popular sovereignty, is not vulnerable to this sentiment? Does government, which is full of people like us, have an immunity to barbarism? If not, why have people in such power?

Originally Posted by spockman

7.) No one will hike up The police institution is not one designed for profit in teh status quote. It upholds profit, and so makes itself worthwhile to the government. But just as I said earlier, no company will perform a service to increase market strength in general. They will do it to make a profit. So cops will enforce payment of all their services much greater than right now. That is obvious. AND how can you privatize a police force? How could you possibly do that? At least, do it and not have some arbitrary psuedo government.

Sorry but you have to be clearer in what you mean by the police institution comment. Also, realize that profit is a sign of strength in the market. That is what coordinates supply/demand. Let us presume that frizbee profit reaches a new high. What does that mean? Obviously that consumers are buying frizbees. However, this signals other companies that there is a profit to be made if they are so inclined to pursue it. If they do, they enter the market trying to get there share, naturally lowering the price margin in the process or increasing the quality, which brings in competition over the profit. The higher the profit, the more inclined a corporation is likely to get involved, the greater the strength of the market place. Now how can you privatize the police force is by viewing them like any other service based market. Say you are apart of the neighborhood home owners association and you are worried about crime. Why not hire a police officer to walk the streets during the day? Or have a patrol car do its round by night. Perhaps you want serious protection from a criminal gang, why not hire police as personal bodyguards? I define government as an institution which pursues and sometimes maintains a territorial monopoly on legal and protection services. So if the government today allowed for the privatization of courts and cops, there would cease to be a government in this country.

Originally Posted by spockman

8.) Then ignore anti-trust laws. There are far worse problems.

I just want to be holistic, unlike conservatives who want to cut spending to social programs yet want to increase spending on one of the biggest welfare systems [ the military ] in our country.

Originally Posted by spockman

9.) Sure. But money also has to be backed up by someone the market universally trusts.

True and it could be anything. It could be metals, livestock, plants etc. History has chosen gold and silver. I don't see anything right now to change that status quo.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

1.) Firstly, two sentiments must be obtained to have capitalism, I believe you are referring to free-markets, which include but are not excluded to:
1. The trade/sale of good and services between two voluntary parties without third party interference.
2. Competition

The government can not and never will meet these two sentiments in order to pursue a course of free market capitalism because it interferes with voluntary trade and is not subject to competition. It is a monopoly. If a government were to open up the ability to provide what we call 'public services' today then it would cease to be a government and be regulated to the status of corporation.


2.) Ok so we agree that 'Anti-trust laws' are a mistake.


3.) Well every action is a act of self-interest. Every action is the application of means to ends and all action is aimed at removing a felt unease. If you think the definition of charity is pure altruism then charity can never exist. Also, I don't see how you not paying as much is some sort of argument. You are basically admitting that you are being coerced against your will to give more then you normally would. How is that just?



4.) Well two arguments against that. One we already reside in an environment of psuedo-legitimacy in the claims of the government. It has been establish through generations of intellectual 'validation' of government interference in our lives. If you think that is silly then I would ask why the government thinks it can tell us what is and isn't good for us to eat. If we are to establish a society in which anarchism is reigning, why assume that the whole of society will suddenly change its mind and go back to having a government? And even if some did, what legitimate claim would they have against people who don't want a government? And even if people all suddenly wanted to have a government, how is that any different then just going back to what we have today?



5.) They can trade and do commerce with the people who reside here. Now if you have security concerns, please realize that a we know a priori that free markets product better goods and services that better meet consumer demand compared to a monopoly market which produces bloated prices and inefficient goods. A free market on defense would naturally be better then a monopolized one.



6.) Well you admit that we pay for roads. If we didn't have taxation, then I would only be paying for roads that I utilized in the first place. I would not be paying for the roads of other states. Therefore, right off the bat the price for transportation would be cheaper and this isn't even taking into account what prices would do during competition between companies. Not all business venture aim at short term profit. In fact I know of several service industries which during the first years are either breaking even or at a lose.



7.) Well you already propound a system in which the biggest gun is what chooses all [ the government ]. I'm always confused as to why people who propound liberty, who always want more liberty and less government interference, suddenly go bonkers over the full realization of what they believe. If you believe that things get worse when more liberty is opened...why do you advocate liberty? Society is not some jungle boy which can only be held back by government. Even if it were, why assume that the government, which I'm guessing you want through popular sovereignty, is not vulnerable to this sentiment? Does government, which is full of people like us, have an immunity to barbarism? If not, why have people in such power?



8.) Sorry but you have to be clearer in what you mean by the police institution comment. Also, realize that profit is a sign of strength in the market. That is what coordinates supply/demand. Let us presume that frizbee profit reaches a new high. What does that mean? Obviously that consumers are buying frizbees. However, this signals other companies that there is a profit to be made if they are so inclined to pursue it. If they do, they enter the market trying to get there share, naturally lowering the price margin in the process or increasing the quality, which brings in competition over the profit. The higher the profit, the more inclined a corporation is likely to get involved, the greater the strength of the market place. Now how can you privatize the police force is by viewing them like any other service based market. Say you are apart of the neighborhood home owners association and you are worried about crime. Why not hire a police officer to walk the streets during the day? Or have a patrol car do its round by night. Perhaps you want serious protection from a criminal gang, why not hire police as personal bodyguards? I define government as an institution which pursues and sometimes maintains a territorial monopoly on legal and protection services. So if the government today allowed for the privatization of courts and cops, there would cease to be a government in this country.



9.) I just want to be holistic, unlike conservatives who want to cut spending to social programs yet want to increase spending on one of the biggest welfare systems [ the military ] in our country.



10.) True and it could be anything. It could be metals, livestock, plants etc. History has chosen gold and silver. I don't see anything right now to change that status quo.

1.)

2.) Perhaps American anti-trust laws. But they can be implemented without advocating a ban on all monopoly. And although not too long ago Canada was a terrible country as far as it's economic policies go, it's current anti-trust laws and it's general attitude towards monopoly is better than the U.S. I like Canada.

3.) You are right. It is not just that I have to pay taxes which go to politicians who use my effort and work to trade favors and pull. However, I am fine paying certain taxes. So it is not the general concept that I am against.

4.) Well, for one, a single group with the most power could be the government that rules the people. And if we were willing to go back to a government, we would lose much of the progress and rights and systems of checks and balance that many nations have now. In many ways, these nations advocate indirect thievery. But the risk of some establishment employing a more direct kind of thievery is too high.

5.) I agree with the first half of this point. But please, tell me how a free market could ever come about on defence unless imperialism was employed or unless they mandated a form of taxation from everyone that they protected? How else could a military profit?

6.) That's a good point. And like I said earlier, I do not believe something can bbe bought for more than it is worth. That is impossible, so road prices would balance out to what they are worth.

7.) First, I think today's government is better than most governments. So, I don't want to play a 'who's in charge' russian roulette. I prefer to stay with the status qoute than have a crap-shoot. So yeah, today's government is based on who has the most guns and is not immune to corruption, but it is less corrupt than it could be. To address your point on liberty and how some proupounders of it become hypocrites... I never said all liberty is good. To quote a hero of mine,

Somebody said let's go out and fight for liberty and so they went and got killed without ever once thinking about liberty. And what kind of liberty were they fighting for anyway? How much liberty and whose idea of liberty? Were they fighting for the liberty of eating free ice cream cones all their lives or for the liberty of robbing anybody they pleased whenever they wanted to or what? You tell a man he can't rob and you take away some of his liberty. You've got to. What the hell does liberty mean anyhow? It's just a word like house or table or any other word. Only it's a special kind of word. A guy says house and he can point to a house to prove it. But a guy says come on let's fight for liberty and he can't show you liberty. He can't prove the thing he's talking about so how in the hell can he be telling you to fight for it?

Of course this is talking about war but the point still stands. A certain amount of liberty has to be restricted or else the rights of others are violated. That's a big difference between libertarians and objectivists. Most libertarians, they will propound a form of anarchism. Whereas an objectivist will likely propound a minarchism.

8.) Eck, I did not proofread this paragraph. Sorry, yeah, I'll be more clear. A privatized police force would have to have it's own regulations and force them on others or else it could do nothing. Who writes these laws? If I am hiring a police officer to be my body guard, where is the line drawn on what I can ask him to do if I pay him enough to do it? Isn't he basically a hired goon? And a privatized court?!? I would, for one, just refuse to acknowledge that it had any hold over my personal liberty. It could be highly immoral, who is to say? There is no due process. And if it still forced it's personal values on me and the way I live my life, than I would say that this is not an anarchy. Because it wouldn't be. Besides, in this case the function of the court would be to make a profit. What, would people pay the courts to punish a criminal they wanted punished? How would anything but killing the poor bastard each and every time someone is convicted be anything but the most profitable?

As far as the point on how a freee market produces the best service, you are preaching to the choir. A privatized military/police force would be more efficient. It just wouldn't be moral.

9.) Agreed, and spending is ludicrous. There is no reason why we should spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. Military spending should be significantly cut.

10.) Sure, why not?

Originally Posted by spockman

2.) Perhaps American anti-trust laws. But they can be implemented without advocating a ban on all monopoly. And although not too long ago Canada was a terrible country as far as it's economic policies go, it's current anti-trust laws and it's general attitude towards monopoly is better than the U.S. I like Canada.

Honestly, I do not know the Canadian anti-trust laws but the principle of my complaints still stands against any government institution. It retains no right to interfere with the transactions between two voluntary parties. Governments themselves are monopoly so if you really believe in the harm of monopolies upon the general public then I suggest turning your disgust at the government itself. If there is such a thing as a 'positive' monopoly then pray tell why not advocate compassionate monopolies is all sectors of life?

Originally Posted by spockman

3.) You are right. It is not just that I have to pay taxes which go to politicians who use my effort and work to trade favors and pull. However, I am fine paying certain taxes. So it is not the general concept that I am against.

Very well but you seem to think that you win the argument by appealing to your personal tastes on the matter. Pay whatever you wish to whomever you wish. The fact that taxation is coercive does not change.

Originally Posted by spockman

4.) Well, for one, a single group with the most power could be the government that rules the people. And if we were willing to go back to a government, we would lose much of the progress and rights and systems of checks and balance that many nations have now. In many ways, these nations advocate indirect thievery. But the risk of some establishment employing a more direct kind of thievery is too high.

Well if that is your criteria of government then your definition of it is ambiguous at best. What kind of power? A certain love interest may have power over you, are they to be considered a government? Also why assume that if one were to go back to a government then all human rights would be void?

Originally Posted by spockman

5.) I agree with the first half of this point. But please, tell me how a free market could ever come about on defence unless imperialism was employed or unless they mandated a form of taxation from everyone that they protected? How else could a military profit?

Like I have explained many times on this forum, defense is just like any other service in the economy. It can vary depending on supply/demand. Let us theorize that I am apart of neighborhood A and we want to have safe streets for our children to play it. Perhaps the home owner's associate would have a monthly 'security' fee in which the neighborhood would hire a private police officer to walk to the streets ensuring safety. Notice no imperialism and individuals who do not agree to this monthly fee can either be bared from entry into the neighborhood or have to pay a certain fee to call upon the police officer of the neighborhood. It could be from a simple cop to a team of high class security soldiers if one so desired.

Originally Posted by spockman

6.) That's a good point. And like I said earlier, I do not believe something can bbe bought for more than it is worth. That is impossible, so road prices would balance out to what they are worth.

And what they are worth is a result of subjectivity in consumers.

Originally Posted by spockman

7.) First, I think today's government is better than most governments.

And which government are we discussing?

Originally Posted by spockman

So, I don't want to play a 'who's in charge' russian roulette. I prefer to stay with the status qoute than have a crap-shoot. So yeah, today's government is based on who has the most guns and is not immune to corruption, but it is less corrupt than it could be. To address your point on liberty and how some proupounders of it become hypocrites... I never said all liberty is good. To quote a hero of mine,

Of course this is talking about war but the point still stands. A certain amount of liberty has to be restricted or else the rights of others are violated. That's a big difference between libertarians and objectivists. Most libertarians, they will propound a form of anarchism. Whereas an objectivist will likely propound a minarchism.

And I call that jibberish. It is counter-intuitive to claim that in order for liberty to be expanded it must be constricted and to claim that things could be a lot worse isn't justification for what is transpiring now. It is petty apologia for the injustice of the day. To quote someone I hold in regard:

'So I hear that liberty without brakes is menacing. Who is she menacing? Who shall fear the untamed horse, but one who would tame it? Who shall fear an avalanche, but one who would stop it? Who trembles in front of liberty, but tyranny? A menacing liberty... one ought to say it's the opposite. What is frightening in her is the sound of her irons. Once those are shattered, she is no more tumultuous; but calm and wise.'

Originally Posted by spockman

8.) Eck, I did not proofread this paragraph. Sorry, yeah, I'll be more clear. A privatized police force would have to have it's own regulations and force them on others or else it could do nothing.

Not at all. Privatized police forces would only operate on property that they have been allowed upon.

Originally Posted by spockman

Who writes these laws? If I am hiring a police officer to be my body guard, where is the line drawn on what I can ask him to do if I pay him enough to do it? Isn't he basically a hired goon? And a privatized court?!?

Well with free will you could ask him to do anything. Whether he is likely to or not is the case. You cannot stop the most base desires that lead to crime in some individuals. I present no utopia in which crime stops. There will continue to be crime. However, what is the usage of a police officer? To protect your rights ( not allowing murder, theft, robbery, rape, etc. ) That is why they are hired. If this officer oversteps their bounds then they can obviously be tried in a private court system. If you are keen to hear how such a system could work then I will explain it. However, if you are just going to brush it off as rubbish then I shall not waste our time here.

Originally Posted by spockman

I would, for one, just refuse to acknowledge that it had any hold over my personal liberty. It could be highly immoral, who is to say? There is no due process. And if it still forced it's personal values on me and the way I live my life, than I would say that this is not an anarchy.

I must say I find it curious that you are so staunch in your belief that a private court, which would have nothing to do with you unless you were being tried as a criminal, have no control over your liberty but an institution of strangers elected by a majority of strangers be allowed to dictate what is acceptable personal liberty. We must define what is an actual crime in a libertarian society before we continue. Consenting acts of the voluntary nature are not crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drunkness, drug usage etc. What is a crime is that which bring about coercion to an individual or his property, coercion being define as the threat or act of physical violence against an individual. Your personal tastes are your own as long as you do not harm others or threaten to harm them. However, do realize that you can enter into contractual agreements in which you may not be allowed to say streak through your neighborhood. As long as these contracts are entered into voluntary, then there is no crime.

Originally Posted by spockman

Because it wouldn't be. Besides, in this case the function of the court would be to make a profit. What, would people pay the courts to punish a criminal they wanted punished? How would anything but killing the poor bastard each and every time someone is convicted be anything but the most profitable?

Your asking why there wouldn't be capital punishment every case? Well how would that be more profitable then having a chain gang or a inmate worker program?

Originally Posted by spockman

As far as the point on how a freee market produces the best service, you are preaching to the choir. A privatized military/police force would be more efficient. It just wouldn't be moral.

Well I have retorted to your comments.

Originally Posted by spockman

9.) Agreed, and spending is ludicrous. There is no reason why we should spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. Military spending should be significantly cut.

I say it should be completely abolished. The demilitarization of the US would be a great step toward world peace. Perhaps naive a goal but a noble one.

Originally Posted by spockman

10.) Sure, why not?

Well all these products have been used as money in the past but they are generally lacking in some regard when it comes to using them as money. Crops are fickle, cigarettes too abundant, livestock too bulky etc. Gold and silver can be made portable, they are durable, they have a high value per unit and they are not easily reproducible.