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.

[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.

[El Diablo]

David,

I agree and think you can reasonably extend that argument into scenarios where it would be illogical for certain categories of people to NOT engage in crime.

[valenzuela]

You can steal from him if you wish. But in pure capitalism there will be enough security to stop ppl from stealing.
And if there isnt enough security then it simply means that the guy with the toilet seat is willing to take the risk of being robbed.

[RicP]

Well,

No it should mean that the Poor guy will NOT try to steal the seat in order to protect his own rights.

If he feels free to violate other's rights then he has to assume that his rights will be violated in return.

[DustinG]

[ 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


[/ QUOTE ]
I can accept that through increases in technology the "standard of living" is raised.
[ QUOTE ]

, 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 ]
New numbers just came out a few week weeks ago that said (iirc) that the top %2 held %50 of the worlds wealth, and so I think its very important that we understand that this trickle down effect is purely hypothetical.
[ 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 ]
I think this just comes down to ev. One could possibly restate your question as: Would Robin Hood be acting more immoral under a capitalist system rather than a fuedal one? I don't think he would be. And since morals aren't a factor then, only through ev can this problem be analyzed. Is the short term gain from stealing greater than the long term damage done to the system? But if the problem is stated in this way way, morals come back into the equation as long as one is a beliver in Utilitarian philoosophy (the greatest good for the greatest number). Lets say a moden day Robin Hood figures out how to create electronic money (e.g. adding zeros and ones to bank accounts) without getting caught. And he does this for poor people all around the world- giving them 1 million dollars. But the problem is that he has now devauled the money supply, making all of that money worthless. So in a situation like this stealing would be wrong, but as long as one is acting on a small scale I can't come up with an argument against it.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
No it should mean that the Poor guy will NOT try to steal the seat in order to protect his own rights.

If he feels free to violate other's rights then he has to assume that his rights will be violated in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, if he's skilled enough not to get caught then it's not like his decision to steal will have any bearing on whether anyone steals from him.

Second, we're talking about people who don't have much to lose. Not people with a lot of assets.