Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

38726Re: [existlist] Re: the partial and limited view

Expand Messages
  • Exist List Moderator
    Jun 5 10:39 AM
      On Jun 01, 2006, at 8:49, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

      > and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
      > practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
      > Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
      > compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
      > silly.

      Actually, it is not "silly" to call upon the moral imperatives Smith
      and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you
      lose the moral obligations to society and to whatever moral compass you
      have (admitted for Smith and his colleagues this was a Christian
      ethic), then anything becomes possible.

      The loss of morality / ethics is evident, as you admit, in all social
      systems. I certainly would not present any current world leader or
      government as a model of perfection. Ethics are stuck in some
      soft-n-chewy (not my quote) postmodern relativism that refuses to seek
      clarity but rather strives to show how no ethical system is valid
      because all are valid.

      Capitalism is not Enron, unless you consider the notion that Smith was
      correct when he suggested the courts might be the final solution when
      morality and social ethics fail. At least some stockholders are
      starting to use their ownership to challenge executive hubris.

      > I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
      > the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
      > forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
      > in the US.

      I consider Chavez incredibly dangerous, and increasingly so do his
      neighbors. Unfortunately, generations of corruption supported by the
      Cold War have ruined the political systems of Latin America. The United
      States and Soviet Union did their best to dominate the puppet states,
      depriving the residents of self-determination.

      Now, anyone promising a better life can win for a cycle or two. That
      Caracas is the "most dangerous city in the hemisphere" (Amnesty
      International) doesn't seem to register with Chavez supporters. He will
      eventually use the high crime rate to justify some manner of
      power-grab. We've seen this in Chile, Columbia, and Brazil.

      > concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
      > philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
      > anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
      > philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
      > a system of counting.

      No philosophy works, under this strict notion that you can actually
      implement a pure version of the political or economic. Human nature
      will always interfere. This is why the libertarians and anarchists try
      to limit government -- it has the ultimate power, and the people in
      charge are just people. I don't trust people to do the right thing
      without some manner of public way to cause shame or even humiliation.
      In capitalism, competition is the balancing force, along with the
      notion of complete and honest contractual obligations.

      In "corporatism" (internationalism, or whatever you wish to call it),
      we approach the unholy alliance of government and industry, as was the
      case with fascism and Soviet-style "Communism" we see morphing under
      Putin. China is a more extreme example, but I'm not certain where it
      will evolve. When the government and industry are one, there are no
      checks on power. The leaders of one are the leaders of the other.

      This concerns me right now because when we allow power to become
      centralized, new ideas and even radical rejections of current ideas
      become nearly impossible. No "philosophy" except self-focused,
      inner-peace type solutions become viable when the individual is
      stripped of power.

      Then, you have the existentialism of Frankl or the absurdism of Camus.
      This is where I often turn for reading, and see no conflict with their
      notions and my dream of an individual-based society. I know it is a
      dream because most people... we know what they are like. They aren't
      about to go without handouts or leaders to follow.

      - C. S. Wyatt
      I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
      that I shall be.
      http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
      http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic