| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Communism is based on the premise that some central mechanism can determine
> > the right quantities of everything for everyone, obviating the need for
> > individual choices. It's based on the premise that people should work hard
> > and not get the fruits of their labors, but rather suffer the consequences
> > of the central mechanism's mistakes.
> >
> > Capitalism is based on the premise that no central mechanism can do as well
> > at determining the right quantities as well as individual choice. It's based
> > on the premise that people should work hard or not, as they choose, and
> > suffer the consequences individually.
> >
> > That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> > argument right there. Further, you can show from a utilitarian basis that
> > central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility. That's a
> > good enough argument right there.
>
> I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your
> personal values are based on individualism instead of the common
> good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's
> a self-replicating system, IMHO.
I would reword that as "if your personal values say that others do not have
the right to dispose of you and your property as they see fit". Wouldn't you
agree?
> > Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
> > aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
>
> No more so than any other system of governance (and perhaps less,
> given the "have-not" economics from which Communist movements
> drew most of their early strength). The whole "exported world
> revolution" spiel got quietly socked away in 1922, and aside from
> the 1939-1940 USSR wars and Tibet I can't think of a single case of
> "territorial aggrandizement" that doesn't involve a chunk that
> tried to break away during the change in government (e.g., Taiwan,
> Ukraine, etc). The "communist bloc" of the Cold War doesn't count
> any more than the Marshall Plan and NATO count as examples of
> "Capitalist territorial aggrandizement."
Did you or someone you are closely related to live in a communist bloc
country? If not, you have no basis for this statement. Further, while some
other systems may also have territorial aggrandisement tendencies,
libertarian and anarchocapitalist ones don't. (1) See, I get to use the "you
aren't comparing to an actual instance of X" defense too.
I note that you didn't do anything with the practical/observation based and
utilitarian legs of this multiphased assertion but just in case you hadn't
gotten around to it yet, here's a bit on the utilitarian part
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter33.html
1 - theoretically. We've never had a pure one of either. But practically the
more democratic and capitalist a country, in general, the less it seems to
spend on attacking its neighbours with weapons as a percent of GNP.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Not "as they see fit." That again imputes capitalist values and a hierarchical structure to the actions of communist leadership. "For the common good" is more accurate. Now, *in practice*, it has often *been* "as they see fit," true...but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your personal values are based on individualism instead of the common good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's a self-replicating system, IMHO. (...) No more so (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
