By that definition it would be greedy to hoard the money instead of using it towards something useful (investing it works, even though it results in more personal gain, in theory it helps other people more).
Banks = Investment. The bank takes inputs of money, gives you an interest percentage on it, and then invests it into the community through loans. Ergo, as long as a rich man is not actively stuffing money into a mattress or hiding it under the floorboards in his house(basically engaging in deflationary activities), he's not being greedy.
Banks = Investment. The bank takes inputs of money, gives you an interest percentage on it, and then invests it into the community through loans. Ergo, as long as a rich man is not actively stuffing money into a mattress or hiding it under the floorboards in his house(basically engaging in deflationary activities), he's not being greedy.
The money the "rich man" has is not really his money, it's a percentile of deposits he keeps on stash to keep his books balanced from other people's money. The "rich man" gets paid a wage to oversee that money and manage it and lead the company to make good decisions about how to invest that money.
The issue really is that owners (stock holders) and depositors when people make several bad loans it degrades the stock value and their ability to draw out their deposits. If the "rich man" or rather the manager of the bank cannot pay back money for deposits, since our system only keeps so much in required reserves, it falls back to the government to step in and pay the balance.
The bank manager only becomes a "rich man" when he gets paid big bucks, the issue right now is that whether the money that makes him rich could not be spent else where to bring in more profits for stock holders in dividends or increase the bank's reach through more loans and acquisitions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Banks = Investment. The bank takes inputs of money, gives you an interest percentage on it, and then invests it into the community through loans. Ergo, as long as a rich man is not actively stuffing money into a mattress or hiding it under the floorboards in his house(basically engaging in deflationary activities), he's not being greedy.
Supposing every person in the U.S. destroyed or let's say, burned a $20 bill today*, and no more currency was printed, wouldn't that benefit all money holders? In other words, isn't a deflationary activity not selfish?
* This might be illegal, so don't do it. The last thing ljoss needs is trouble with the law... can you imagine what they would do to me? LOL
greed /grid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [greed] Show IPA –noun excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.
So it seems the real arguement in defining greed is attempting to determine what's excessive, preferably in a non-anecdotal way. That's hard as that's going to be a different line for each person.
I often think of greed in relation to systems of government. I like capitolism because greed exists. I do not believe greed is good, but when considering socialism, communism, monarchy, capitolism, etc. it is my opinion that capitolism does the best job of allowing for greed.
I would say any form of governance/society is going to be better without greed than with greed. Unfortunately greed is a reality, so a good realistic form of goverance is one that allows for greed and tries to move it in as good of a direction as possible.
I'd say the fact that we think we even have to debate the question, "Is greed good." is, in and of itself, a demonstration of how well capitolism has been doing at managing greed.
Sure there's some hiccups, and more consitency might be nice, but given the relative amount of success vs failure over the last 100 or so years, I'll take it.
The money the "rich man" has is not really his money, it's a percentile of deposits he keeps on stash to keep his books balanced from other people's money. The "rich man" gets paid a wage to oversee that money and manage it and lead the company to make good decisions about how to invest that money.
The issue really is that owners (stock holders) and depositors when people make several bad loans it degrades the stock value and their ability to draw out their deposits. If the "rich man" or rather the manager of the bank cannot pay back money for deposits, since our system only keeps so much in required reserves, it falls back to the government to step in and pay the balance.
The bank manager only becomes a "rich man" when he gets paid big bucks, the issue right now is that whether the money that makes him rich could not be spent else where to bring in more profits for stock holders in dividends or increase the bank's reach through more loans and acquisitions.
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying in response to what I said: all I was saying is that if investment is considered a non-greedy activity, someone who sticks all their money in the bank and lives off the interest couldn't be considered greedy, as banks reinvest the money they hold.
Supposing every person in the U.S. destroyed or let's say, burned a $20 bill today*, and no more currency was printed, wouldn't that benefit all money holders? In other words, isn't a deflationary activity not selfish?
Yeah, but saying "basically anyone engaging in deflationary activities, quite apart from destruction of one's own cash in order to increase the monetary value of the collected mass of fiat currency holders" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Pardon me for my indiscriminate use of hyperbole. Gomen nasai.
Has anyone else here read the Satanic Bible by Aton Levay? It has nothing to do with actually worshiping Satan, it's more of a departure from traditional christian theology and tends to be relatively agnostic or even atheistic. Anyways, in it he describes a philosophy where all the of the 'seven deadly sins' in balance work to create a better individual. This would include greed of course. "Envy and greed are the motivating forces of ambition - and without ambition, very little of any importance would be accomplished" -Levay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My at-a-glance 'isms': (in no particular order)
1. Secular Humanism
2. Secular Millenarianism
a. Singularitarianism
b.Transhumanism
c. secular altruism
No. Greed isn't good. My father learned me that I should never negotiate to the bitter end, but always leave something for the other guy. That is what will bring you the most in the long term. (Or is that a greedy thought?).
Try to go for balanced gains. They last longer...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
According to the Profit Ayn Rand, yes. According to me, no. If greed is a self-interest destructive of or callously indifferent toward the legitimate interests of others, then greed is clearly a bad thing. Anything else is what we expect in the normal range of human behavior.
Self-interest in the business world seems okay to me if and only if all costs are contained within their enterprises, and no costs are externalized. However, what I see in the current economic world indicates a broad trend towards externalizing costs (making a mess others have to clean up). I speak mostly of pollution, but also conditions of third-world poverty and human suffering that results from coercive labor practices (like people getting assassinated for trying to organize unions, etc.)
It turns on precisely what we mean by "greed" and the degree to which costs can be contained in the firms that generate them.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
According to the Profit Ayn Rand, yes. According to me, no. If greed is a self-interest destructive of or callously indifferent toward the legitimate interests of others, then greed is clearly a bad thing. Anything else is what we expect in the normal range of human behavior.
Self-interest in the business world seems okay to me if and only if all costs are contained within their enterprises, and no costs are externalized. However, what I see in the current economic world indicates a broad trend towards externalizing costs (making a mess others have to clean up). I speak mostly of pollution, but also conditions of third-world poverty and human suffering that results from coercive labor practices (like people getting assassinated for trying to organize unions, etc.)
It turns on precisely what we mean by "greed" and the degree to which costs can be contained in the firms that generate them.
You talked about externalities and that is great so I'm sure you know what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway... with a bit of background.
All men have desires. On the one extreme we have those in desperate states of poverty, some of which are mentally ill. These are the people that are content with a bit of bread and a coat to enable their survival, maybe some alcohol or drugs if they can get it. On the other extreme we have those who have such little meaning to their lives that they have to acquire luxury upon luxury in order to distract themselves from their emptiness. And then in between we have the 95% of society that includes all sorts of healthier variants.
So what I would say about Rand, and what I would say of my more radical approach as well is that we're going to take this fact - that all men desire, and ask ourselves what ethical agreement ought there to be between mankind and what does it accomplish given this fact?
When we put forth a universal approach to ethics and arrive at the conclusion that all men by right own themselves and thus, the fruits of their labor, that all men (not just some) can own and exercise use of justly acquired property - we are left only with the market system.
The market system encompasses capitalism and communism and any other arrangement that man can arrive at voluntarily with each other, submitting only what they rightfully own to the agreement - and not the persons or properties of other.
Besides being the only ethical arrangement (in my understanding), the market is also best equipped to deal with the fact that man desires. This is because the marketplace channels desire (or greed, as you will) to creative rather than destructive purposes. In order to satisfy the desires of another in the market, one must fulfill the desires of another. E.g., you can sing and desire a bushel of wheat and I have a bushel of wheat and desire to hear someone sing, we agree and the products are exchanged.
Consider the alternatives. Powerful politicians fulfill the greed of large corporations by offering them "bailouts", those corporations fulfill the greed of the politicians by offering them kickbacks, thus the desires of these two factions is satisfied at the expense of others without their consent. And to make matters worse in this case, there is fundamentally no way to withdraw consent. One must continue paying taxes to feed the State-corporate arrangement. A million people can cease to do business with said corporation, but it is almost worse to do so - since that would only cause the corporation to fail once again and take another bailouts, again at their expense and without their consent.
When we talk about something like a group of people polluting at least one can inform and educate others and withdraw their business until they clean it up.
However with the State around that business can bribe particular agents of it to protect them. Such bribery is made possible by the fact that the State is paid for at the expense of the general public and without their consent. Therefore, those who offers bribes pay very little to get the full policing powers of the State - that they could otherwise not afford (or at the very least, would be extremely cost prohibitive and an awful decision for a profit-seeking entity to make).
That is the kind of stuff that happens everywhere, it especially occurs in corrupt third world countries. On 60 minutes a few weeks ago they talked about a particular case involving, I believe, a South American government and an oil company. The SA government used its police power (and thus the general fund of taxation) to grant the oil company land, probably at a deflated rate. Because it did not own the land, the inevitable occurred: it pillaged the area and polluted surrounding neighborhoods. The government then lined its pockets by "settling" with the company for the pollution while nearby residents were given no say in the arrangement. Thus small bribes were once again used to take full advantage of the general fund of taxation to the detriment of the many.
The sweatshops, another great example... All industry naturally seeks out lower prices in order to jump on the competition. One way they can do so is by lowering labor costs. So, they seek equilibrium (which is quite wonderful if you think about it) by trying to employ those with lower standards of living. Unfortunately, they also have access to the State. So it is sometimes more profitable to bribe the State to keep competitors out. The State then takes the general fund of taxation paid for by everyone against their will and uses it to enforce deflated labor costs.
I thank you for your sincere, cordial response. As you know, we have had disagreements about economics, and we will probably continue to have such disagreements. However, I am unclear about what it is your are trying to say. Are you refuting my claim that externalities are problematic, or that there should be some way of containing externalities? It seems like we are on common ground here: I take a lot of your claims (insofar as I understand them) to be in support of my argument that externalities are bad.
All men have desires. On the one extreme we have those in desperate states of poverty, some of which are mentally ill. These are the people that are content with a bit of bread and a coat to enable their survival, maybe some alcohol or drugs if they can get it. On the other extreme we have those who have such little meaning to their lives that they have to acquire luxury upon luxury in order to distract themselves from their emptiness. And then in between we have the 95% of society that includes all sorts of healthier variants.
When we put forth a universal approach to ethics and arrive at the conclusion that all men by right own themselves and thus, the fruits of their labor, that all men (not just some) can own and exercise use of justly acquired property - we are left only with the market system.
I agree that people have the right to the fruits of their own labor, but I am unsure that self-ownership is the explanation I want to account for human freedom.
The market system encompasses capitalism and communism and any other arrangement that man can arrive at voluntarily with each other, submitting only what they rightfully own to the agreement - and not the persons or properties of other.
Is it fair to say that externalities impose costs upon other people, and indeed, violate any such voluntary agreement?
Besides being the only ethical arrangement (in my understanding), the market is also best equipped to deal with the fact that man desires. This is because the marketplace channels desire (or greed, as you will) to creative rather than destructive purposes. In order to satisfy the desires of another in the market, one must fulfill the desires of another. E.g., you can sing and desire a bushel of wheat and I have a bushel of wheat and desire to hear someone sing, we agree and the products are exchanged.
Maybe it's my history advocating socialism on these boards, but it seems like you're trying to defend the market against some imagined attack. I'm not attacking the market, and the question of whether the market is ethical has nothing to do with my claim that third parties should never be forced to bear the costs of somebody else's voluntary transactions, and that in the event such externalities are unavoidable, the at least one of the parties to the transaction should be held responsible for assuming the costs others are otherwise forced to bear. It seems like anything else is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Consider the alternatives. Powerful politicians fulfill the greed of large corporations by offering them "bailouts", those corporations fulfill the greed of the politicians by offering them kickbacks, thus the desires of these two factions is satisfied at the expense of others without their consent. And to make matters worse in this case, there is fundamentally no way to withdraw consent. One must continue paying taxes to feed the State-corporate arrangement. A million people can cease to do business with said corporation, but it is almost worse to do so - since that would only cause the corporation to fail once again and take another bailouts, again at their expense and without their consent.
I agree that the bailouts were problematic. The government should not have rescued the financial sector or the auto industry. Hoewever, I find it ironic that if we really played by the rules of capitalism we wouldn't have much of a financial sector to speak of at all.
When we talk about something like a group of people polluting at least one can inform and educate others and withdraw their business until they clean it up.
I'm sorry, but I find that profoundly inadequate. It is well-documented that pollution creates health costs for people in the area surrounding bad polluters. This is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. Leaving out the fact that some of these polluters should be taken out and shot for their behavior, it doesn't do to simply say "don't do business with evil corporations." Reparations (to pay for people's health costs attributable to pollution) are in order.
However with the State around that business can bribe particular agents of it to protect them. Such bribery is made possible by the fact that the State is paid for at the expense of the general public and without their consent. Therefore, those who offers bribes pay very little to get the full policing powers of the State - that they could otherwise not afford (or at the very least, would be extremely cost prohibitive and an awful decision for a profit-seeking entity to make).
That is the kind of stuff that happens everywhere, it especially occurs in corrupt third world countries. On 60 minutes a few weeks ago they talked about a particular case involving, I believe, a South American government and an oil company. The SA government used its police power (and thus the general fund of taxation) to grant the oil company land, probably at a deflated rate. Because it did not own the land, the inevitable occurred: it pillaged the area and polluted surrounding neighborhoods. The government then lined its pockets by "settling" with the company for the pollution while nearby residents were given no say in the arrangement. Thus small bribes were once again used to take full advantage of the general fund of taxation to the detriment of the many.
The sweatshops, another great example... All industry naturally seeks out lower prices in order to jump on the competition. One way they can do so is by lowering labor costs. So, they seek equilibrium (which is quite wonderful if you think about it) by trying to employ those with lower standards of living. Unfortunately, they also have access to the State. So it is sometimes more profitable to bribe the State to keep competitors out. The State then takes the general fund of taxation paid for by everyone against their will and uses it to enforce deflated labor costs.
Sorry for all the rambling...
Mhmm. That's what left-libertarians have been saying for some time now. I am missing the connection of this discussion about the unholy collution of the State and big business and externalities. Could you please fill me in with your thoughts about it?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I thank you for your sincere, cordial response. As you know, we have had disagreements about economics, and we will probably continue to have such disagreements. However, I am unclear about what it is your are trying to say. Are you refuting my claim that externalities are problematic, or that there should be some way of containing externalities? It seems like we are on common ground here: I take a lot of your claims (insofar as I understand them) to be in support of my argument that externalities are bad.
Sorry that was not clear, I do agree with you. Externalities are always a problem. I'm all about responsibility, and externalities remove responsibility. I just wanted to explain where I was coming from and why I think it is a bigger problem in the presence of the State. The entire point of the State is that it is an externality. People are being affected by economic decisions that are not their own.
I agree that people have the right to the fruits of their own labor, but I am unsure that self-ownership is the explanation I want to account for human freedom.
Little slow today... as usual. Can you explain?
Is it fair to say that externalities impose costs upon other people, and indeed, violate any such voluntary agreement?
Sure, yes. The pollution example you made, yes absolutely.
Maybe it's my history advocating socialism on these boards, but it seems like you're trying to defend the market against some imagined attack.
No, not at all. I was trying to discuss this with you. I wanted to give you my take, how Rand kind of fit into it, and see what you thought of it. I'm sorry if you perceived my words as confrontational, they were not meant to be.
I'm not attacking the market, and the question of whether the market is ethical has nothing to do with my claim that third parties should never be forced to bear the costs of somebody else's voluntary transactions,
Depends what we mean by "costs", but yes... sure.
and that in the event such externalities are unavoidable, the at least one of the parties to the transaction should be held responsible for assuming the costs others are otherwise forced to bear. It seems like anything else is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Yup.
I agree that the bailouts were problematic. The government should not have rescued the financial sector or the auto industry. Hoewever, I find it ironic that if we really played by the rules of capitalism we wouldn't have much of a financial sector to speak of at all.
Hey, its my favorite game.. the "what is your definition of capitalism?" game!
Sure, if it played out by the rules of the status quo we might have about the same situation we have now. That's not good. But neither is the status quo.
I'm sorry, but I find that profoundly inadequate. It is well-documented that pollution creates health costs for people in the area surrounding bad polluters. This is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. Leaving out the fact that some of these polluters should be taken out and shot for their behavior, it doesn't do to simply say "don't do business with evil corporations." Reparations (to pay for people's health costs attributable to pollution) are in order.
Yes, polluting the land or body of another is (clearly) a violation of the non-aggression principle.
I understand what you're saying here. Let me clarify what I meant.
I'm not saying that merely ceasing to deal with serious polluters is an ideal soloution. Not at all! How silly would that be? We still end up with the problem of how to achieve justice for those hurt by these kind of decisions, but thank god that without the State there would be no one to artificially prop these people up.
Mhmm. That's what left-libertarians have been saying for some time now. I am missing the connection of this discussion about the unholy collution of the State and big business and externalities. Could you please fill me in with your thoughts about it?
The whole point of the State is to create externalities: the ability for a very elite few to make decisions on behalf of the hundreds of millions at the expense of the latter. Does that make any sense?
In a free situation responsibility is left where it belongs and desire is properly channeled.
How can human desire be reconciled with ethics? What if someone desires to violate the established ethics, by viewing them as, perhaps, "externalities?"
In the law, there is a fiction called the "rational person", handy when determining neglect and such. In the ethics of desire, a similar construct can be used.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Rationality is dependent on information, and information is obtained by desire.
The reasonable (not "rational") person collects as much information as he might reasonably be expected to, which is why ignorance is no defense against charges of recklessness or neglect. Similarly, a reasonable person should amass relevant information before determining his desires.
Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed
From Merriam Webster, so does that mean this debate is over?
It's like saying is "murder" bad or is "gluttony" bad. By their definition, they are bad. Trying to redefine greed as human ambition is like saying murder can be redefined to killing in self defense.
The problem here is that people that think "greed drives the species to succeed!" or whatever are confusing greed with AMBITION. They can be the same, but not always. Some (like mystery maybe!??!) might not see a distinction at all, but that's as ridiculous as saying that without religion, people would be running around murdering and raping all day long.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Banks = Investment. The bank takes inputs of money, gives you an interest percentage on it, and then invests it into the community through loans. Ergo, as long as a rich man is not actively stuffing money into a mattress or hiding it under the floorboards in his house(basically engaging in deflationary activities), he's not being greedy.
The money the "rich man" has is not really his money, it's a percentile of deposits he keeps on stash to keep his books balanced from other people's money. The "rich man" gets paid a wage to oversee that money and manage it and lead the company to make good decisions about how to invest that money.
The issue really is that owners (stock holders) and depositors when people make several bad loans it degrades the stock value and their ability to draw out their deposits. If the "rich man" or rather the manager of the bank cannot pay back money for deposits, since our system only keeps so much in required reserves, it falls back to the government to step in and pay the balance.
The bank manager only becomes a "rich man" when he gets paid big bucks, the issue right now is that whether the money that makes him rich could not be spent else where to bring in more profits for stock holders in dividends or increase the bank's reach through more loans and acquisitions.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Supposing every person in the U.S. destroyed or let's say, burned a $20 bill today*, and no more currency was printed, wouldn't that benefit all money holders? In other words, isn't a deflationary activity not selfish?
* This might be illegal, so don't do it. The last thing ljoss needs is trouble with the law... can you imagine what they would do to me? LOL
So it seems the real arguement in defining greed is attempting to determine what's excessive, preferably in a non-anecdotal way. That's hard as that's going to be a different line for each person.
I often think of greed in relation to systems of government. I like capitolism because greed exists. I do not believe greed is good, but when considering socialism, communism, monarchy, capitolism, etc. it is my opinion that capitolism does the best job of allowing for greed.
I would say any form of governance/society is going to be better without greed than with greed. Unfortunately greed is a reality, so a good realistic form of goverance is one that allows for greed and tries to move it in as good of a direction as possible.
I'd say the fact that we think we even have to debate the question, "Is greed good." is, in and of itself, a demonstration of how well capitolism has been doing at managing greed.
Sure there's some hiccups, and more consitency might be nice, but given the relative amount of success vs failure over the last 100 or so years, I'll take it.
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying in response to what I said: all I was saying is that if investment is considered a non-greedy activity, someone who sticks all their money in the bank and lives off the interest couldn't be considered greedy, as banks reinvest the money they hold.
Yeah, but saying "basically anyone engaging in deflationary activities, quite apart from destruction of one's own cash in order to increase the monetary value of the collected mass of fiat currency holders" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Pardon me for my indiscriminate use of hyperbole. Gomen nasai.
1. Secular Humanism
2. Secular Millenarianism
b.Transhumanism
c. secular altruism
4. Existentialism
5. Intellectualism
6. Atheism
7. Realism
b. philosophic
c. contructive
9. Egalitarianism
b. feminism
11. Liberal conservatism
12. Anti-consumerism
13. Reductionism
Oh. Outside magic.
No. Greed isn't good. My father learned me that I should never negotiate to the bitter end, but always leave something for the other guy. That is what will bring you the most in the long term. (Or is that a greedy thought?).
Try to go for balanced gains. They last longer...
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
Self-interest in the business world seems okay to me if and only if all costs are contained within their enterprises, and no costs are externalized. However, what I see in the current economic world indicates a broad trend towards externalizing costs (making a mess others have to clean up). I speak mostly of pollution, but also conditions of third-world poverty and human suffering that results from coercive labor practices (like people getting assassinated for trying to organize unions, etc.)
It turns on precisely what we mean by "greed" and the degree to which costs can be contained in the firms that generate them.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
You talked about externalities and that is great so I'm sure you know what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway... with a bit of background.
All men have desires. On the one extreme we have those in desperate states of poverty, some of which are mentally ill. These are the people that are content with a bit of bread and a coat to enable their survival, maybe some alcohol or drugs if they can get it. On the other extreme we have those who have such little meaning to their lives that they have to acquire luxury upon luxury in order to distract themselves from their emptiness. And then in between we have the 95% of society that includes all sorts of healthier variants.
So what I would say about Rand, and what I would say of my more radical approach as well is that we're going to take this fact - that all men desire, and ask ourselves what ethical agreement ought there to be between mankind and what does it accomplish given this fact?
When we put forth a universal approach to ethics and arrive at the conclusion that all men by right own themselves and thus, the fruits of their labor, that all men (not just some) can own and exercise use of justly acquired property - we are left only with the market system.
The market system encompasses capitalism and communism and any other arrangement that man can arrive at voluntarily with each other, submitting only what they rightfully own to the agreement - and not the persons or properties of other.
Besides being the only ethical arrangement (in my understanding), the market is also best equipped to deal with the fact that man desires. This is because the marketplace channels desire (or greed, as you will) to creative rather than destructive purposes. In order to satisfy the desires of another in the market, one must fulfill the desires of another. E.g., you can sing and desire a bushel of wheat and I have a bushel of wheat and desire to hear someone sing, we agree and the products are exchanged.
Consider the alternatives. Powerful politicians fulfill the greed of large corporations by offering them "bailouts", those corporations fulfill the greed of the politicians by offering them kickbacks, thus the desires of these two factions is satisfied at the expense of others without their consent. And to make matters worse in this case, there is fundamentally no way to withdraw consent. One must continue paying taxes to feed the State-corporate arrangement. A million people can cease to do business with said corporation, but it is almost worse to do so - since that would only cause the corporation to fail once again and take another bailouts, again at their expense and without their consent.
When we talk about something like a group of people polluting at least one can inform and educate others and withdraw their business until they clean it up.
However with the State around that business can bribe particular agents of it to protect them. Such bribery is made possible by the fact that the State is paid for at the expense of the general public and without their consent. Therefore, those who offers bribes pay very little to get the full policing powers of the State - that they could otherwise not afford (or at the very least, would be extremely cost prohibitive and an awful decision for a profit-seeking entity to make).
That is the kind of stuff that happens everywhere, it especially occurs in corrupt third world countries. On 60 minutes a few weeks ago they talked about a particular case involving, I believe, a South American government and an oil company. The SA government used its police power (and thus the general fund of taxation) to grant the oil company land, probably at a deflated rate. Because it did not own the land, the inevitable occurred: it pillaged the area and polluted surrounding neighborhoods. The government then lined its pockets by "settling" with the company for the pollution while nearby residents were given no say in the arrangement. Thus small bribes were once again used to take full advantage of the general fund of taxation to the detriment of the many.
The sweatshops, another great example... All industry naturally seeks out lower prices in order to jump on the competition. One way they can do so is by lowering labor costs. So, they seek equilibrium (which is quite wonderful if you think about it) by trying to employ those with lower standards of living. Unfortunately, they also have access to the State. So it is sometimes more profitable to bribe the State to keep competitors out. The State then takes the general fund of taxation paid for by everyone against their will and uses it to enforce deflated labor costs.
Sorry for all the rambling...
Okay.
I agree that people have the right to the fruits of their own labor, but I am unsure that self-ownership is the explanation I want to account for human freedom.
Is it fair to say that externalities impose costs upon other people, and indeed, violate any such voluntary agreement?
Maybe it's my history advocating socialism on these boards, but it seems like you're trying to defend the market against some imagined attack. I'm not attacking the market, and the question of whether the market is ethical has nothing to do with my claim that third parties should never be forced to bear the costs of somebody else's voluntary transactions, and that in the event such externalities are unavoidable, the at least one of the parties to the transaction should be held responsible for assuming the costs others are otherwise forced to bear. It seems like anything else is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
I agree that the bailouts were problematic. The government should not have rescued the financial sector or the auto industry. Hoewever, I find it ironic that if we really played by the rules of capitalism we wouldn't have much of a financial sector to speak of at all.
I'm sorry, but I find that profoundly inadequate. It is well-documented that pollution creates health costs for people in the area surrounding bad polluters. This is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. Leaving out the fact that some of these polluters should be taken out and shot for their behavior, it doesn't do to simply say "don't do business with evil corporations." Reparations (to pay for people's health costs attributable to pollution) are in order.
Mhmm. That's what left-libertarians have been saying for some time now. I am missing the connection of this discussion about the unholy collution of the State and big business and externalities. Could you please fill me in with your thoughts about it?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Sorry that was not clear, I do agree with you. Externalities are always a problem. I'm all about responsibility, and externalities remove responsibility. I just wanted to explain where I was coming from and why I think it is a bigger problem in the presence of the State. The entire point of the State is that it is an externality. People are being affected by economic decisions that are not their own.
Little slow today... as usual. Can you explain?
Sure, yes. The pollution example you made, yes absolutely.
No, not at all. I was trying to discuss this with you. I wanted to give you my take, how Rand kind of fit into it, and see what you thought of it. I'm sorry if you perceived my words as confrontational, they were not meant to be.
Depends what we mean by "costs", but yes... sure.
Yup.
Hey, its my favorite game.. the "what is your definition of capitalism?" game!
Sure, if it played out by the rules of the status quo we might have about the same situation we have now. That's not good. But neither is the status quo.
Yes, polluting the land or body of another is (clearly) a violation of the non-aggression principle.
I understand what you're saying here. Let me clarify what I meant.
I'm not saying that merely ceasing to deal with serious polluters is an ideal soloution. Not at all! How silly would that be? We still end up with the problem of how to achieve justice for those hurt by these kind of decisions, but thank god that without the State there would be no one to artificially prop these people up.
The whole point of the State is to create externalities: the ability for a very elite few to make decisions on behalf of the hundreds of millions at the expense of the latter. Does that make any sense?
In a free situation responsibility is left where it belongs and desire is properly channeled.
In the law, there is a fiction called the "rational person", handy when determining neglect and such. In the ethics of desire, a similar construct can be used.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The reasonable (not "rational") person collects as much information as he might reasonably be expected to, which is why ignorance is no defense against charges of recklessness or neglect. Similarly, a reasonable person should amass relevant information before determining his desires.
"As long as some of the context in which the decision is made is ignored"? There's your problem.
Try as I might, I can't see how this has anything to do with anything.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
From Merriam Webster, so does that mean this debate is over?
It's like saying is "murder" bad or is "gluttony" bad. By their definition, they are bad. Trying to redefine greed as human ambition is like saying murder can be redefined to killing in self defense.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.