Quote:
Originally Posted by ModernUKIP
If anything, Universities go out of their way to indoctrinate students into being 'Liberal', anti-market, pro-Lefty Guardianistas.
|
Completely agree!
Quote:
|
I think you have missed my point to some extent. However, recalling that you are at University, I am beginning to wonder if the young of today have been indoctrinated by Adam Smith within the education system.
|
Far from it. There is a huge left wing bias at university.
Quote:
|
Amongst many of your age group there seems to be a total conviction that the raison d'etre of existance is the pursuit of wealth and for the economy of a nation to grow at the fastest rate possible and that a free market economy is some kind of heaven on earth for this to propagate.
|
Firstly, the majority of my age group are idealists who believe the can make the world a better place through socialism. Secondly, I never claimed that capitalism would create heaven on earth. There will always be poor people, there will always be economic slumps, there will always be death. The question is not which system is best, but which system is least bad. I believe the least bad system is free market capitalism, not corporatism, not mercantilism, not socialism and certainly not communism.
Quote:
|
Given a even start in a society where everyone had an equal share, over time raw capitalisism will redistribute that wealth so that the bulk would fall into the hands of a minority at the expense of the majority. However, we are not at that beginning, the bulk of wealth is already in the hands of the very few and the freer the market the quicker the bulk of what remains will be pass to the fabulously rich.
|
Firstly, the majority had the wealth long before capitalism came along, we were not starting from an original position - government had bastardised that. In fact, when the supporters of Adam Smith finally convinced the UK government to enact free trade, not only did one of the biggest criminal elements in the UK cease to exist (smuggling), but the wealth of the average individual increased at a rate that has never been seen since. From an agrarian and poverty stricken society to an urbanised, industrialised superpower.
Secondly, if we all start at a position of perfect equality, I would much rather support the free system of Robert Nozick (justice in acquisition) than the socialistic system of John Rawls, which requires government force to redistribute wealth. I am not a fan of distributive justice in the Rawlsian sense. It is absolutely absurd to think that because person A gives some of his income to buy a product from person B that a third party (government) must enter the frame and re-balance the system by taking some of the money A gave to B and forcing B to give it back to A, ignoring the fact that a just trade took place.
Thirdly, I would like you to support your claim that capitalism would create a two tier society and I would also like you to tell me why it would be at the expense of the majority.
Quote:
|
I know that it has been termed 'Selfish Capitalism' meaning that everyone should look out for their own personal interest, solely, however, if some kind of concern for your fellow man is shown, you would wish this 'tooth and claw' capitalism to be regulated by government so that wealth was distributed more widely. This to avoid a society that does not consist of a handful of fabulously rich and powerful, a small proportion of rich [the lieutenants of the fabulously rich and powerful] and the vast majority living at some kind of subsistance level and having to work long and hard each day. Because a nation has the largest economy in the world does not mean that the population share in it.
|
Again, this is reliant upon you proving what you believe capitalism will cause (as I asked in point three above).
Secondly, I am not a Randian. I believe in altruism. Who said anything about human nature being purely self interested? The capitalist system does not require everyone to be rational (like other systems) nor does it require them to be self interested. I can show concern for my fellow man by giving to charity or helping an old lady cross the road - I can not show concern for my fellow man by asking government to take money from some people and give it to me. Violence is not my thing, whether it comes from the gun of an individual or the many guns of the state.
Thirdly, if the majority would live in a detrimental state (as you claim), then the top tier of society could simply not exist. The reason Nissan is wealthy (to use an earlier example) is because tens of thousands of people can buy their cars. The reason Tesco is wealthy is because millions of Britons can buy their products. Without this lower base, the top tier (as you describe it) simply cannot exist.
Quote:
|
If you want to know from where the motive for this scheme stems - go down to the zoo and watch how 'group living' primates order their society. The single most powerful male at any one time will have the services of all or the vast majority of the females - this is its fundemental root - the total pursuit of sex and power. Surely during the time that we have come down from the trees we have learned to transmute this primordial power into something more sophisticated - usually described as civilisation.
|
Political power =/= economic power. I believe you are confusing the two. The problem for capitalism is not the capitalist system itself, but the power of the state. The key is to somehow invent a state where the government, with the influence of trade unions, business and other special interest, does not turn into a corporatist society and/or a socialist society (as we have today). I do not believe a democratic society can ever achieve this, since politicians are always required to pander in such a society.
Quote:
|
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. JK Galbraith
|
Ohh! A quote game! I want to play!
"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system."
Milton Friedman.