Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Very strange definition of justice that. I mean, firstly, it doesn't have any appeal to equal treatment - one person could (and does) get more for their work than another person doing exactly the same.

No. If he is doing EXACTLY the same work, same quality for a lower price, he will get more work. Individual greed sees to that.

Oh please. If information distribution was perfect, the market system had no flaws and we accept a rational actor understanding of human action then that argument is correct. However, information distribution is imperfect, the market system does have flaws and the rational actor model is also flawed and so we can't accept your entirely theoretical view. Plus, how does this relate to the current system of wage labour? You seem to be working in a framework of a society of market traders who barter.

On one more note, how can we be assured that individual greed will see to that?

Secondly, it is based on arbitrary criteria - the laws of supply and demand - that are mutable from day to day.

No, the criterion is the same, Whatever the market, comprised of individuals using their property in the way that they see fit, will bear as payment, is your just reward.

It is the same for everyone (and so not arbitrary), but my argument is that it is the nature of the criterion that is arbitrary.

The just reward may fluctuate, but this is because two of the same exact acts, done at different times, have different values, and hence deserve different rewards.

Again, a restatement of your view that the market is fair. You seem to be linking the idea of market value to some absolute idea of value (or arguing that the only true value of something is what someone will pay for it and what someone will sell it at.) Again, this may be a self-evident idea to you but it's no where near for me.

Thirdly, it amounts to little more than a statement, rather than a supported argument - you haven't argued why it is just, but just that it is just.

To me it is self evident.
But lets examine. How can you determine a just reward? Well I would assume that there would obviously be a give and take. Does it not seem morally upright to participate in a free exchange of what I have contributed to society and to individuals, and what they are willing to offer me in return?

It seems like a very fair system....although as an argument for capitalism its very weak. A "free exchange" can not happen in a system of unequal power distribution or in a system with an inequality in supply and demand. In Capitalism this inequality in supply and demand is seen by the average worker, who needs work to live (and thus is subject to economic coercion) and has to look for work from people who do not need one particular worker (i.e. that have the choice from a large supply who not only demand work, but require it.)

And who better to determine what price I am willing to buy a widget for, and for what price you are willing to sell a widget for, than me and you?

That's completely fine, although entirely hypothetical. We do not live in a system of market traders. We live in a system of wages and of set prices.

All in all, it's just not very thought through. Do you want to provide some reasoning for why people should adopt a conception of justice that is inequitable, arbitrary and, consequently, unfair? Or should we just drop this discussion of the justice of capitalism before we get on to your conception of human nature and a whole other realm of things that you just haven't thought about?

Please enlighten me, O well thought out one.

I don't actually want your crap of us being unable to reach our "species essence" under capitalism.

The only enlightenment there is is that there is no ultimate philosophical truth and there are no uncontested ideas. Every argument relies on points that are assumed to be "self-evident" and for which no foundations are offered, which, in actuality, relegates the arguments to advanced statements of belief, rather than arguments about truth. Political philosophy is a theological subject.

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?

You can't please everyone, some people are just wankers who will complain about things.

At 2/20/08 09:25 AM, Slizor wrote:
Oh please. If information distribution was perfect, the market system had no flaws and we accept a rational actor understanding of human action then that argument is correct. However, information distribution is imperfect,

Who'se problem is that? If you have a product or service that you would like to get compensated for, it should be up to you distribute the information about you. Why would you complain about someone not getting compensated for the work that he did, if he did not market it? Who's fault is it?

the market system does have flaws

Which flaws are you reffering to.

and the rational actor model is also flawed and so we can't accept your entirely theoretical view.

How is it flawed?

Plus, how does this relate to the current system of wage labour? You seem to be working in a framework of a society of market traders who barter.

Oh but wage labour is a market. Everything is. And to small degree you do barter with your boss over hourly wage, benefits, and total hours work.
But the real bartering comes with the competition. If a company wants the best workers, it has to be willing to pay the highest wages.

On one more note, how can we be assured that individual greed will see to that?

Simple. I'm greedy, I want an A-1 job done, I don't want to wait, so I will use your service since it is beneficial to me.

It is the same for everyone (and so not arbitrary), but my argument is that it is the nature of the criterion that is arbitrary.

Well... to some extent I guess, but when you think about it, it has to be in order to be fair.
Otherwise the buyer is at a huge disadvantage, being unable to have any say in the matter.
But with its arbitrary nature, both have the same disadvantage and advantage.

Again, a restatement of your view that the market is fair. You seem to be linking the idea of market value to some absolute idea of value (or arguing that the only true value of something is what someone will pay for it and what someone will sell it at.) Again, this may be a self-evident idea to you but it's no where near for me.

How else can you define value?
Value is utility it has to someone. Only the buyer can truly know the utility of something to him, and thus determine what price he is willing to give up for it. Value IS subjective.
A plow has much more value to a farmer than it does to me. Thats why he is WILLING to buy it for thousands of dollars, and I am not.

It seems like a very fair system....although as an argument for capitalism its very weak. A "free exchange" can not happen in a system of unequal power distribution or in a system with an inequality in supply and demand. In Capitalism this inequality in supply and demand is seen by the average worker, who needs work to live (and thus is subject to economic coercion) and has to look for work from people who do not need one particular worker (i.e. that have the choice from a large supply who not only demand work, but require it.)

This is a free exchange. Your labor is diminished because with a large supply of unskilled worker's who are WILLING to work for a low hourly wage.

That's completely fine, although entirely hypothetical. We do not live in a system of market traders. We live in a system of wages and of set prices.

lol? price doesn't change? Just because every store is not a garage sale doesn't mean that the way a price is determined is random. If its to high they will sell less, forcing them to lower their price.
A simple demand curve.

At 2/20/08 09:48 AM, A-Speg wrote:

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?

You can't please everyone, some people are just wankers who will complain about things.

Well that is true for every single economic style in the entire world.

CAPITALISM-MEH

america sux UK RULES
SAY I AM COOL OF U R GAY

Oh my god, skimming through this thread it seems everyone is stuck up on the definition of "perfection".
LOL CAPITALISM IS 100% PERFECT
NO IT NOT
OMG COMMUNISM IS PERFECT
CAPITALISM IS
NEITHER ARE
BOTH ARE
OMG!!

What the hell? Seriously. I don't care. If you're going to type that much at least discuss something fruitful...

Democracy and capitalism are the worst systems of government and economy. They're just better than all the other systems. So I'm going to have to go with neither are, but capitalism is better.

Why? Taking away people's economic freedom leads to stagnation, throughout history stagnant civilisations have been the worst places to live, the most immoral and the worst achievers regardless of how fair the economic system is in theory. Capitalism is better because the benefits of the innovations it allows exceeds the problems caused by crony capitalism and people making bad or unjust financial decisions. People blame capitalism for slavery, but would slavery have ever ended if the industrial revolution never happenned? It was the supposedly evil bourgeois with their evil property and evil uptight middle class lifestyle that were the main source of abolitionists and they would have never had such economic power had the economy not diversified and created a need for an educated/highly skilled class.

Because the rich people are extorting the poor

Since we're bumping this topic, I'll say that no system is perfect; not Communism, not Capitalism.

At 9/15/08 09:17 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Since we're bumping this topic, I'll say that no system is perfect; not Communism, not Capitalism.

My views exactly. Believe it or not, there are things wrong with Capitalism. Of course, I choose it over the alternative, but it still has problems. Everything does.

Capitalism's strength is how productive people are as they get paid in proportion to their contribution. This doesn't work though if people don't spend their money wisely, if a millionaire leaves all his/her money to their playboy kids then you end up with skanks like Paris Hilton and arrogant playboys living off property they didn't earn through merit. This corrupts the market in their favour at everyone elses expense. The trouble is if you tax people so you can spend their money correctly you decrease the incentive for people to work which makes the market less efficient.

not Communism, not Capitalism.

Why are people so black and white to say communism and capitalism there are other forms of socialism and I'm pretty sure there are some other economic systems

At 9/16/08 12:19 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Capitalism's strength is how productive people are as they get paid in proportion to their contribution. This doesn't work though if people don't spend their money wisely, if a millionaire leaves all his/her money to their playboy kids then you end up with skanks like Paris Hilton and arrogant playboys living off property they didn't earn through merit. This corrupts the market in their favour at everyone elses expense. The trouble is if you tax people so you can spend their money correctly you decrease the incentive for people to work which makes the market less efficient.

Quite true, as both systems require impeccable responsibility on the behalf of the entire populous (Capitalism) and the government (Communism) to function properly. In a perfect world, ANY system would be ideal, but we choose the system that causes the least, supposedly, amount of dissension possible.

At 2/16/08 10:08 AM, Slizor wrote: I always have to wonder why people think that capitalism is meritocratic. How can any system where one person can earn more money in a second than people can earn in a year? Any idea of merit in this context certainly wouldn't involve the idea of hard work, unless someone wants to argue that there are indeed supermen who can work millions of times harder than other people.

How is capitalism not meritocratic? Is not a matter of working harder, its a matter of working smarter.
Someone can work their whole life in a printing factory and work hard and make a lot of money.
Another person can work crappier jobs, put themselves through college, end up running group of printing companies, not have to work very hard and make a crap load of money. I'm not saying one person is better than the other, but one certainly makes a lot more.

Opportunity is there for everyone, sometimes it just takes a little sacrifice. I knew a kid who lived out of his car the first year of college so he could afford to go.

Its still better than a socialist system where I get paid the same amount working my ass off as my lazy neighbor.

If I don't waste money on soda and lattes; invest and save part of what I earn, then I deserve to (and will) have more money than someone who worked the same job, but wasn't smart with their money.
Sounds fair to me.

At 9/16/08 11:50 PM, Grubby wrote: I think that any hard working person can stave out a good living

My great-grandfather worked hard his whole life, and was always in poverty. Same with the brother of my grandmother.
My grandfather, on the other hand, was smart, and joined the navy, where he worked much more lightly, and retired at the age of 40.

I have no idea where this thread went, I think I was working on an essay at the time and stopped responding. Oh well. There may be a few misteps because I can't really remember this thread at all.

Oh please. If information distribution was perfect, the market system had no flaws and we accept a rational actor understanding of human action then that argument is correct. However, information distribution is imperfect,

Who'se problem is that? If you have a product or service that you would like to get compensated for, it should be up to you distribute the information about you. Why would you complain about someone not getting compensated for the work that he did, if he did not market it? Who's fault is it?

You're accepting that information distribution is imperfect and you think that it is up to the individual to correct the flaw in the system?

I thought this part was theoretical instead of practical.

the market system does have flaws

Which flaws are you reffering to.

*looks at the news* Hmmmmm.

and the rational actor model is also flawed and so we can't accept your entirely theoretical view.

How is it flawed?

Because people aren't rational actors/if they are then their preferences are so disparate as to destroy any modelling based on it. The answer is dependent upon using either thick or thin rationality.

Plus, how does this relate to the current system of wage labour? You seem to be working in a framework of a society of market traders who barter.

Oh but wage labour is a market. Everything is. And to small degree you do barter with your boss over hourly wage, benefits, and total hours work.

To a very small degree. Most of the time you take what you are given.

Are we having a theoretical or practical discussion, you seem to be jumping.

But the real bartering comes with the competition. If a company wants the best workers, it has to be willing to pay the highest wages.

How does it know who the best workers are? Where does that information come from?

On one more note, how can we be assured that individual greed will see to that?

Simple. I'm greedy, I want an A-1 job done, I don't want to wait, so I will use your service since it is beneficial to me.

That's one person down. 6 billion left.

Again, a restatement of your view that the market is fair. You seem to be linking the idea of market value to some absolute idea of value (or arguing that the only true value of something is what someone will pay for it and what someone will sell it at.) Again, this may be a self-evident idea to you but it's no where near for me.

How else can you define value?
Value is utility it has to someone. Only the buyer can truly know the utility of something to him, and thus determine what price he is willing to give up for it. Value IS subjective.

So you think that justice is subjective? That it should be inconsistent?

That's fucking miles away from my theory of justice.

It seems like a very fair system....although as an argument for capitalism its very weak. A "free exchange" can not happen in a system of unequal power distribution or in a system with an inequality in supply and demand. In Capitalism this inequality in supply and demand is seen by the average worker, who needs work to live (and thus is subject to economic coercion) and has to look for work from people who do not need one particular worker (i.e. that have the choice from a large supply who not only demand work, but require it.)

This is a free exchange. Your labor is diminished because with a large supply of unskilled worker's who are WILLING to work for a low hourly wage.

Who are forced to by their economic circumstances.

That's completely fine, although entirely hypothetical. We do not live in a system of market traders. We live in a system of wages and of set prices.

lol? price doesn't change? Just because every store is not a garage sale doesn't mean that the way a price is determined is random. If its to high they will sell less, forcing them to lower their price.
A simple demand curve.

I didn't say price doesn't change, I said we live in a system of set prices (i.e. the opposite of a bartering system.)

I always have to wonder why people think that capitalism is meritocratic. How can any system where one person can earn more money in a second than people can earn in a year? Any idea of merit in this context certainly wouldn't involve the idea of hard work, unless someone wants to argue that there are indeed supermen who can work millions of times harder than other people.

How is capitalism not meritocratic?

My explaination is directly above. You were meant to respond to it, not pose an argument that tries to paper over my argument.

Is not a matter of working harder, its a matter of working smarter.

As a lazy smart person, I find a system that rewards me distinctly unfair.

Opportunity is there for everyone, sometimes it just takes a little sacrifice. I knew a kid who lived out of his car the first year of college so he could afford to go.

Do you know any people who went to Harvard on daddy's money and lived in a mansion? I'm sure they've earnt everything they're ever got.

Its still better than a socialist system where I get paid the same amount working my ass off as my lazy neighbor.

I think you need to brush up on your understanding of socialism. Seems a bit like a strawman to me.

If I don't waste money on soda and lattes; invest and save part of what I earn, then I deserve to (and will) have more money than someone who worked the same job, but wasn't smart with their money.
Sounds fair to me.

Wow, what a cherrypick. If you save more than you deserve those savings rather than someone who hasn't made any savings.

Fucking-a.

the free market as i always say is essentialy a fairly good thing. i'm not against capitalism per se, just the degenerate anti-culture it encourages amongst the majority of consumers. the fact that money and profit are seen as the main indicators of worth and success while big companies force shit down our throat through constant advertisements and such.
also in spite what many say it makes people unproductive and unskilled; rather than simply learning to be self reliant and "DIY" with your problems (ie cooking, plumbing, joinery, making and repairing household items etc etc) we are encouraged to go out and give someone money to do everything for us and buy ready made stuff.

At 2/15/08 09:25 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Not really--
It's not true otherwise the hardest working (usually... the poorest of our people) would be experiencing luxury... while the rich, who invest money that is usually blue-blood in origin, to compound more money.

Actually the hardest working are the middle class, they are the ones currently driving the economy. And the the newest crop of millionaires are small business owners.

well then why the fuck are the working class called the WORKING CLASS? of course theyre the hardest workers, just the middle class generate more money. altho alot of established skilled tradesmen make as much or more.

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?

It allows factions to take control of the government.

</argument>

a cookie for whoever knows where that idea came from

At 2/15/08 11:04 PM, Musik-of-Anarchy wrote: What's wrong with capitalism? Ask the hundreds of people forced into working low-paying jobs because all the good jobs are shipped overseas. Those people who aren't given the same chance at school that richer people do. I admit, China, the USSR, Cuba, are cases where capitalism didn't work but it's because it was brought about at the wrong time. Many things we enjoy in the Us like the libraries, unions, police force, are all socialist things.

Feudalism leads to capitalism which leads to socialism. It's economic Darwinism.

china,cuba, and the USSR wer fukin communist, and everyone has an equal chance at school but some ppl need to retake it wen they have more money

Hey, no system is really perfect. There are bound to be flaws. It's just that whever there are flaws that we find, we try to fix them.