A Problem I See With Pure Capitalism

[David Sklansky]

I've touched on this subject before but I will make it more explicit.

If you accept the premise that society is better off in the long run if everyone is trying to selfishly maximize their own gain, what argument can you make against criminal behavior, to those who are in situations where the "trickle down" effect does not figure to reach them in the forseeable future?

Put another way, it seems to me that there are two reasons why poor people should not steal even if they are sure they will not get caught. One is that they are in a system that will have a good chance of elevating them to a greater degree than another system would. So they shouldn't be a party to disrupting it. The other would be if the system frowns on people who live in lavish luxury and do nothing to help the downtrodden.

But say you are in a miserable situation (especially if it is due to little fault of your own) and the architects of your economy say there is nothing wrong with someone owning diamond toilet seats if they can afford it. And go on to justify this stance with the explanation that most poor people will do better in such a system. Then if you are not likely to be one of the poor people who benefit, why not steal from the guy with the toilet seat if you can get away with it?

[lippy]

Wouldn't pure capitalism exist in a restriction-free environment... thus allowing the poor to steal from the rich if they're willing to face consequences (or think they can get away with it)?

[jogger08152]

It exactly does.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
It exactly does.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can you possibly mean by a restriction-free environment? Are pre-agricultural humans capitalists? Is religion a restriction?

Surely capitalism does not equal a state-of-nature or "noble savage" condition. Does any capitalist thinker (and I don't mean Borodog) suggest that markets can exist without regulation of some kind?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does any capitalist thinker (and I don't mean Borodog) suggest that markets can exist without regulation of some kind?

[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially all of the Austrian economists suggest this.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
Does any capitalist thinker (and I don't mean Borodog) suggest that markets can exist without regulation of some kind?

[/ QUOTE ]
All libertarians, classic liberals, John Locke fans, Adam Smith fans, and lots of others.

Unless by regulation, you only mean outlawing theft, fraud, etc. Or a self-regulating free market like libertarians favor.

And I don't know what kind of system DS is referring to with the term "pure capitalism", but I assume it's not regulated by a state.

[jwpepa]

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.atlassociety.org/

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does any capitalist thinker (and I don't mean Borodog) suggest that markets can exist without regulation of some kind?

[/ QUOTE ]
All libertarians, classic liberals, John Locke fans, Adam Smith fans, and lots of others.

Unless by regulation, you only mean outlawing theft, fraud, etc. Or a self-regulating free market like libertarians favor.

And I don't know what kind of system DS is referring to with the term "pure capitalism", but I assume it's not regulated by a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of the specific theorists you mention contend that an absolutely unregulated market would ever be free. Smith, in particular, is very clear on this point: only well-regulated markets are free. Self-regulation? When has that worked and since when is self-regulation not regulation?

[RicP]

Assuming you are defining Capitalism as a social system based on the principle of individual rights and not in it's stricter economic sense

Then the problem with the poor guy stealing the toilet seat is that it infringes upon the Rich guy’s right to own it.

Not sure who said it but I believe this saying applies:

“Your right to throw a punch stops at the end of my nose.”

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept the premise that society is better off in the long run if everyone is trying to selfishly maximize their own gain, what argument can you make against criminal behavior, to those who are in situations where the "trickle down" effect does not figure to reach them in the forseeable future?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't accept that premise. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way, it seems to me that there are two reasons why poor people should not steal even if they are sure they will not get caught. One is that they are in a system that will have a good chance of elevating them to a greater degree than another system would. So they shouldn't be a party to disrupting it. The other would be if the system frowns on people who live in lavish luxury and do nothing to help the downtrodden.

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't think like that. Many (most?) people who steal are being opportunistic.

[ QUOTE ]
But say you are in a miserable situation (especially if it is due to little fault of your own) and the architects of your economy say there is nothing wrong with someone owning diamond toilet seats if they can afford it. And go on to justify this stance with the explanation that most poor people will do better in such a system. Then if you are not likely to be one of the poor people who benefit, why not steal from the guy with the toilet seat if you can get away with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the guy with the toilet seat probably isn't going to let you just take it from him, he's going to make it VERY DIFFICULT for you to steal that toilet seat from him. Protect it, like raising.