Capitalism has always been about ethics
a capitalist system cannot work without
>work ethics
>professional ethics
>moral ethics
>societal ethics
If the following aren't respected the best societal model known to man collapses in a matter of decades if not years
Simply put
>Capitalism simply cannot prosper without morality...
>Capitalism is the only system that works
>Capitalism is the only system than needs to be moral in order to exist.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
lefigaro.fr
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
relying on cheap disgusting chinese labor and colonial riches to fund your system is super moral right?
rich coming from a country that nationalized 4 large industries to fund its social programs, has large worker protection unions in its country. you advocate for capitalism while living under the comforts of a social democracy
the government are the ones who enforce these ethics, ironically, because corporations cannot be trusted to do so
Govts repeatedly and deliberately violate these ethics with every single action they take, you magical retard.
imagine being this myopic
I wouldn't say that. We aren't exactly moral now, but it still works. We shouldn't let it go overboard, obviously. More morals would still make it a more fun experience for everybody.
>Ethics and morality are the same thing
Wew, lad
imagine not having an argument
please entertain me with stories about how good guy corporations actually wanted to pay their employees healthcare and take care of the environment, but the government boogeymen prevented them from doing so
Capitalism also destroyes morality so great, you’ve just discovered another reason why capitalism collapses on itself.
First of all, why the flying fuck should your employer even offer healthcare? The only reason they do today is because the govt mandated wage controls, so the employers needed to offer benefits to prospects who could command more than the wage controls would allow.
Secondly, the employer will only offer perks insofar as they benefit them. Obviously. I mean, fucking obviously. You're not going to give every employee a new car every year unless it's somehow benefiting the business. That's, you know, how a fucking business works. They offered benefits because they could get better employees with them.
An employer offers better pay, conditions and benefits when they are forced to compete with other firms. To the extent that an employer has prospects by the nuts, it's due to a lack of competition on the labor market.
Ergo, the only way to maximize pay/quality is by maximizing the number of businesses competing for labor. The only way to do that is by making it as cheap and easy as possible for anyone to start a business, which will then compete for labor and drive up wages/benefits etc.
And what do regulations do? I mean besides protecting us from ourselves at the bidding of giant govt bureaucracy, that is.
They increase costs. They shut down businesses. They prevent businesses from even starting in the first place. What do minimum wage laws (price controls) do? They prevent anyone from getting hired who doesn't produce above them.
So now you have a shitload of people made permanently unemployable by fiat. And for the rest of us who can work, we now have a small fraction of the job prospects as we would on a free market, drastically lowering our wages.
This all occurs as our money is perpetually devalued, so that the 100 you had saved last year is literally worth less today.
Prices go up. Wages stagnate. Thousands of pages of regulations are added each year.
And morons like you blame freedom, because you're FUCKING MORONS.
Wellfare state and regulations are a byproduct of capitalism. Checkmate.
tell me again why voluntary association and private property are responsible for slavery and imperialism
Yeah how the hell do you figure that, mongol?
>what is the Congo Free State
JESUS COKE IS DELICIOUS.
It s cheap and resonably good
People in the eastern block would litteraly wait in line for some
>what is the Congo Free State
>is the Congo Free State
>the Congo Free State
>Congo Free State
>Free State
>State
You statists can't fucking help BTFOing yourselves, because your ideologies are fundamentally flawed from their most basic axioms.
You know the CFR was owned and operated by a literal KING, right?
>It’s almost as if any capitalist state without the two would crash
Why do you think they were implimented in the first place?
Didn’t they have their own version of cola? I need to get some of that DDR stuff.
It wasn't a state in the conventional sense. It was one man's private property.
>Implying that I can’t call my private property state
Commie detected.
Vote buying, you idiot
Why does capitalism require welfare to maintain? All welfare does is create a dependent underclass, take money from the system and reduce those seeking employment. It's a hindrance, not a necessary part.
Don t worry social the wellfare state will not last much thanks to idiots like you
>over regulating
>enriching the country with millions of low iq migrants
>the social security bank the already 164 billions in the red
LMAO wellfare was literally implimented first in a KAISERREICH that you think is the most ancap state ever.
can we all just agree that capitalism never had their own version of "The Gulag Archipelago" wherein a man screams at you that communism(and by that degree socialism) doesn't work?
Usury is universally considered unethical yet it is a major aspect of capitalism.
If you abolish the wellfare state you also abolish capitalism. Privyet tovarischs! Za sozialistizky uniontsky!
It operated exactly like a state, and it is explicitly defined as a state. It is antithetical to voluntarism and private property. You CANNOT explain how the CFS is capitalistic, because it isn't. All you can do is label it private property without actually describing its behavior/founding, because your argument would instantly collapse. I mean what a pathetic excuse for an arrow. I bet your quiver is bursting with such finely crafted ammo.
The output was terrible that it was a myth... for the not so well connected
OP failed to present even anything resembling an argument. He just made some assertions.
>Not Real Capitalism
Commie-tier argument
>When you discover that state is just a very large amount of private property
If by usury you mean heavy handed lending, no it's not a necessary part of capitalism. If you mean money lending period, my god are you an idiot with zero concept of how finance works.
This. These anarchoniggers are fucking retarded.
Faggot, you NEVER ONCE explained how it was REAL capitalism. You made NO argument. You just said
>Muh CFS
>It was capitalism
Either make an ACTUAL point as to how the CFS represented voluntary assoction and a respect for private property norms or go fuck off back to your hole.
The CFS was owned by a King with the backing of a giant state. It used slave labor and comitted genocide, both of which inherently contravene private property and voluntarism.
Now tell me why I'm wrong or fucking kill yourself, you statist retard.
Examples are self evident
>Enron
>sub primes loans
>Sotzialmachtwitrschaft
>The western prosperity
A state is a body which exerts coercive monopolistic control over a given geographic area, despite not having homesteaded or made first use of the resources/land within said area.
That has absolutely nothing to do with private property.
You statists just assert shit without making actual points, because the second you attempt to you get your shit kicked in with ease.
It was leopolds private property though.
I wouldnt call Chinese Labour conditions disgusting after Maoism
see you absolute brainlet
If I have citizens work on my property it doesn’t mean I lose said property. Soon you’ll say that the workers should also own the means of production. God damn commie!
You do not need strong ethics for capitalism to work.
Is there such a thing as nations with no ethics at all?
Morality can be very subjective, when it comes to measuring outcomes. Some people think it's moral to lie and cheat to get a deal, as long as it benefits their group versus another group.
Some people think profits are immoral, and should not be allowed.
So it's subjective. Although I do agree, there should be a well established set of ethics and morals defining what's acceptable and not acceptable to society, and that morality should be applicable to business transactions.
For the sake of argument and your limited capacity, I'll concede that the entire landmass of the CFS was legitimately acquired either through homesteading or voluntary exchange, and wasn't just grabbed up or outright stolen from prior inhabitants. (that would make it not his legitimate property if he did the latter)
Ok, so he has this property. What did he do with it, and how is what he did representative of free markets?
what the hell are you talking about? do you even know?
It’s his private property. Only a communist would say that he has to follow a spesific economic model within it.
You’re a communist. So you’re okay with me occupying a room in your house by homesteading because you don’t use it?
>When you learn that ancap and ancom are the same thing
Please demonstrate which system CAN work without "work ethics".
Umm, no. Slavery and genocide is not an "economic model." I don't give a fuck if you want to run your business like a commune. Arguing for a state is arguing for slavery. Arguing for anarchy is arguing for the opposite. You don't get to eat children on your property under anarchy.
Cheating and lying might work temporarily, or on a small scale.
But from the moment the cheating becomes structural...the system collapses.
>Rating agencies cheated during the 2008 crisis
>economical collapse
>Enron cheated
>desintegrates in a matter of months
>the ussr cheated
>collapse within weeks of free market perestroika
>Venezuela cheated...
>brainlet
no u
Explain how Anarchocapitalism is EVER a good idea?
The soviet system employed people to do meaningless jobs...
The DDR produced 1960 trabants until the 90s
>Implying that trabants aren’t RAD
Moral: Does not legitimize the use of violence against innocent people.
Practical: Does not empower a giant coercive monopoly which seeks only to expand its control over the lives of its subjects. Does not shield private firms from competition as the state does through regulatory capture and monopoly rights. Maximizes opportunity and living standards.
I’ve never seen an ancap who thinks some voluntary contracts aren’t okay. This settles it, you’re a commie.
It is the best model during pioneer expensions.
Law:
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
National Defense:
youtu.be
Philosophy (Ethics & Property Rights)
youtu.be
Property Rights:
youtu.be
Rebuttal to Minarchism:
youtu.be
Rebuttal to the Social Contract:
youtu.be
Untenable Statism:
youtu.be
Common Objections Countered:
youtu.be
youtu.be
Tbh the leftypol hoes are better looking
Explain spavery in ancient Rome. People were pushed out of the country farms into the cities because they couldnt compete with slave owners. It took regulation by Ceasor to stop the majority of people dying in over crowded cities
I know you're baiting, but I want to see how far it goes.
How are slavery and genocide voluntary?
Trabants costing as much to produce as an 850 bmw
The Soviet system was a lot of things, but 'functional' wasn't one of them.
If someone is on your property per ancap morals you can do whatever you want to them.
I choose RAD over reason
Regulation kept Rome going
Well it "functioned" for 70 years before disappearing
Capitalism is amoral (not moral or immoral), it is a mere economic system and a tool. People who view tools as the ends in and of themselves instead of as means to an end are retarded. There are certain things that the free market cannot do as effectively as a centralized agency, which can only exist as part of a greater entity that has a monopoly on force (govt). For example, food regulation. Good luck doing that in a free market fashion, at least effectively.
1.) You didn't answer my question. Just because I (according to you) have the right to murder people on my property doesn't mean it's voluntary.
2.) That is not AT ALL what ancap ethics say regarding others on your property. Did you actually think that or is this just more trolling? (why am I even asking)
So explain to me what is voluntary about genocide or slavery. There is NOTHING voluntary about either. Both require the initiation of force, so neither are legitimate under Ancap philosophy.
>you mean lifting 25% of the worlds population out of abject poverty.
Youre welcome. Did you think we did it on accident. We exported our economy to lift the world.
Actually, it 'functioned' for barely 50 years. Don't confuse the pre-Stalin USSR with the bureaucratic command economy he implemented.
My point is, a saying like "a capitalist system cannot work without work ethics" is poorly thought-out trash. It doesn't actually MEAN anything substantial. You can either say that about every system, or about no system at all.
>Capitalism cannot work without work ethic
>Feudalism cannot work without work ethic
>Leninism cannot work without work ethic
>Primitivism cannot work without work ethic
>Zoroastrianism cannot work without work ethic
>Quantum Mysticism cannot work without work ethic
FOOD regulation? Are you fucking serious? THAT'S your example of a tough problem? Not national defense or law. I mean, those we could actually debate. Those are the hard problems. But FOOD INSPECTORS? You seriously can't conceive of how the market would handle that? Once again demonstrating you've spent zero time studying any of this.
Let me help you.
Food is a product. On a free market, no one is forced to buy your product.
Poisoned food is undesirable to the consumer.
Ergo, poisoned food is bad for business.
Furthermore, no way of demonstrating that your product is safe is likewise bad for business.
So in ancapistan, you would be at a heavy disadvantage if you didn't put an inspection sticker on your can of yams to demonstrate that it has undergone a certain level of quality control.
So, there is a GIANT FUCKING DEMAND FOR FOOD INSPECTION from both consumers AND producers.
You think that demand vacuum can't be filled by a private firm?
You think a private firm would operate WORSE than the government? In spite of every single piece of both theoretical and empirical economic and historic information that would argue to the contrary?
Jewish relativism I guess...
I my world view morals and ethics are the wide societal applications of natural law.
Therefore systems can be considered unethicaal and immoral.
And in my worldview, letting people starve and leave in wage-slaving misery in a world of plenty is inherently immortal and unethical.
What does your "natural law" say to that?
You should help them and stop using violence to get other people to do so and then thinking you're a good person when you do it.
Also, as an aside, since statists are invariably unprincipled utilitarians: every piece of legislation you use to help the poor by interfering with the market backfires and makes their lives worse.
God you ve given the west the 10 comadment.
Aka
>law is god given
>absolute
Before subversive jew cucks taught it was a good idea to switch to relativism
Best example
Mr Claude all cultures are equal Levy Strauss
>muh no western civilization moral superiority
>muh nothing wrong with cannibalism
Magnus no difference between genders Hirschfeld
>muh ok to cut cucks for metal illness
>muh men and women aren't different
>violence
High taxes are not violence.
>every piece of legislation you use to help the poor by interfering with the market backfires and makes their lives worse
nah man, child labor laws are pretty good af.
Your problem idiot, is that you have a very unsubstantiated and dare I say it “problematic” a priori assumption about human nature, that is that all people are rational and informed consumers. This is why people call ancaps autistic, because you are probably and admittedly a person with above average intelligence and are far more rational than the average person too, but you fail to understand that other people aren’t. So your extrapolation as to how the free market would handle the issue is completely LOGICAL, but based on a false PREMISE, that even the average person is rational or informed, much less the majority of people. Nobody is going to be concerned about what is in their food unless it kills them on the fucking spot. Just look at plastic containers for fucks sake, this is something that is not properly regulated, so companies use plastic food containers that leech xenoestrogens. But because this doesn’t immediately cause you to drop dead, nobody notices, nobody cares, and even those who read about it generally dismiss it because it’s just not a pressing issue in their minds. It’s a long term consequence that can be kicked down the road. What this means is that no free market regulation occurs. There is no consumer selection or boycott of toxic products. Now your response will undoubtedly be “well then the fee market has spoken, if the people don’t care the who are you to say they should?” You’re right, if they don’t care that’s their problem, but why should those of use who don’t want to consume toxic shit be forced to do so just because the majority of consumers are incapable of making the consumer choice that would result in less toxic goods? And this is not arbitrary either, toxicity is something that can be determined objectively. I don’t want to eat shit just because the majority doesn’t know or care.
Good pasta.
Gonna save this under neoclassicaleconomics.txt
They have no other choice than to work hard and hope the best for the next generation...
There are simply no magic pills to societal poverty
Two guys who agree on everything and are both of above average intelligence arguing with one another and calling each other morons. Jow Forums.
The people slaving away in sweatshops are already working very hard.
Oh, and I don't want a "magical pill" for societal poverty. That would be excellent, but the pragmatist within me knows it's not something that could be achieved through one quick set of governmental reforms. So what I really want right now is just to ALLEVIATE that poverty.
Their conditions are durably improving
I guarantee you that their conditions are far better that those of Western workers in the 19th century.
Good, now do that for 3 centuries like in Europe so they can accumulate the same amounts of wealth. Actually, it will take them way less thanks to Capitalism.
lmao nice try, but still stupid
First off, EVERY consumer, no matter how dumb, except the 0.0001% of loonies, wants safe food. Non-fatality is a FEATURE of the product. Without this feature, it ceases to even be considered a product at all, but waste. So the desire for non-poisoned food is baked (lel) into the transaction.
Now, your claim that not all consumers are informed is true! But the conclusion you draw from this truth is false. Not every single consumer needs to know the ins and outs of production. Not even a majority do. The only people who really need to know are those in the industries. Because they are the ones for whom this data is very important. They can use it against competitors or in defense of themselves. And as long as the info is public, even the mass of consumers at least has the potential of being informed.
In the complete absence of state inspections, it would become far more incumbent on consumers to do their dilligence when consuming. Not everyone would, of course, but as I've established, not everyone has to. There are things called consumer advocacy groups who do just this kind of thing. They disseminate info to the media. How many millions and millions of people are now aware of plastics and shit in the water? Did that come about from state regulation or consumer watchdogs?
My worldview is not born of an ignorance of human nature. Yours is merely born of an ignorance of how markets function and your religious faith in the efficacy of state power, despite knowing yourself that you wouldn't want them making phones or cars or sneakers. All products and service, including quality control, are subject to the same economic laws, and putting a giant coercive monopoly in control of any given good or service WILL NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OR COSTS.
The people in sweatshops are getting more than they would have made either on the farm or selling their kids into sex work, you idiot.
You're judging the third world as it goes through industrialization from the position of a foppish post-industrial pussy.
>High taxes are not violence.
No, ALL taxes are violence. Hence the fact that they do not require conswnt and are guaranteed through threats of jail and ultimately death if you resist.
I mean, are you THIS new to political philosophy that you don't understand the nature of taxation? At least old statist heads admit that truth and just argue that it's necessary. Are you really so green and retarded that you think taxes are not coercive?
It took Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong around 25 years to reach western levels of gdp/capita.
In one generation the went from the middle ages to modernity
Oh, they're improving, but not improving as fast as they could have.
Say we both live in a society of two persons. I have 500,000$ and you have 5$. If the societal wealth increases by 10,000$, I take 9,995$ to myself and give 5$ to you, you could say "oh, my wealth has DOUBLED!" But no. You wouldn't. Because that's fucking retarded. If the wealth was shared just a bit more equitably, you could've received 5,000$ - more than a THOUSAND times your original amount. Makes your "doubling of wealth" sound a bit silly.
This is the point of equality as a value. You don't judge the condition of poor people by the standard of poor people 100 years ago, you judge the condition of poor people by the standard they COULD HAVE HAD under a different wealth distribution.
Oh, and before the yellow meme flags comes after me saying the person who has 500,000$ earned it, or that without his (undoubtedly unquestionable) contribution to society those additional 10,000$ wouldn't have existed in the first place, or whatever other libertardian self-affirming market worship bullshit... we're talking about MORALS here. This situation is meant to demonstrate an IDEAL. It is OBVIOUS that full outcome equality cannot be achieved in reality, at least not anytime soon. But it is still worth having that ideal, so you could point towards it in understanding the moral shortcomings of the current, imperfect very much un-ideal system.
Oh, they're improving, but not improving as fast as they could have.
Say we both live in a society of two persons. I have 500,000$ and you have 5$. If the societal wealth increases by 10,000$, I take 9,995$ to myself and give 5$ to you, you could say "oh, my wealth has DOUBLED!" But no. You wouldn't. Because that's fucking retarded. If the wealth was shared just a bit more equitably, you could've received 5,000$ - more than a THOUSAND times your original amount. Makes your "doubling of wealth" sound a bit silly.
This is the point of equality as a value. You don't judge the condition of poor people by the standard of poor people 100 years ago, you judge the condition of poor people by the standard they COULD HAVE HAD under a different wealth distribution.
Oh, and before the yellow meme flags comes after me saying the person who has 500,000$ earned it, or that without his (undoubtedly unquestionable) contribution to society those additional 10,000$ wouldn't have existed in the first place, or whatever other libertardian self-affirming market worship bullshit... we're talking about MORALS here. This situation is meant to demonstrate an IDEAL. It is OBVIOUS that full outcome equality cannot be achieved in reality, at least not anytime soon. But it is still worth having that ideal, so you could point towards it in understanding the moral shortcomings of the current, imperfect very much un-ideal system.
> but not improving as fast as they could have.
yeah, neither is anyone on earth
they'd be improving way faster if they didn't have GIANT GOVERNMENTS WITH MASSIVE REGULATORY CONTROL OVER THEIR MARKETS!
Anarcho-capitalism kike tested kike approved approved
Nice graph.
Now point to a single developed country on earth with low taxes and regulatory burden. Then tell me how a society with massive regulation and taxation, central banking and fiat currency is somehow an aspect of free market capitalism.
Could it be that... gasp... the problems are CAUSED by the ungodly amount of intervention we've had for over a CENTURY?
kikes are high IQ
They also dominate every single political philosophy, retard
All this is leaving an awfully lot to chance.
"Uhhhh, as long as the consumer isn't a dummy, and as long as there are competitors willing to undercut the company, and as long as there are consumer advocacy groups, and, uhh... "
Ever went out insurance shopping, buddy? Ever had that particular Capitalist thrill? Information asymmetry is a real thing (not to say misinformation), and even if you TRY to stay "well informed", you probably won't be able to do it. At least not every single moment of every single day of your miserably short dog-eat-dog libertarian life. The fact is, even if the stars do align and you happen to not get fucked over by an organization several thousand times your own strength TODAY, chances are it will happen tomorrow. Or, alternatively, it'll happen today, just to somebody else.
Relying on "consumer advocacy groups" for the sort of basic life safety and quality standards we hope to have in a society is like relying on charity for poverty alleviation . Nice in theory, and certainly than nothing, but it's simply not enough and never will be.
The inherent weakness of your argument is apparent from your fallback to the old "human nature" and "you just don't understand economics" trifle always made by the yellow memeflags when faced with a conundrum the standard set of "free market" sophisms don't seem to have an immediately obvious solution for.
Oh, and here's another fun one I just came up with: Under a laissez faire ancap society, what possible incentive would any food company have towards putting nutritional labeling on their packaging?
Please see: I judge the third world as I would judge any human life: Are those people happy? Do they live long, satisfying lives? No? What could be done to make them so as soon as possible?
Does kike dick taste good too ?
>ALL taxes are violence
No, my friend. Don't try to use that libertarian sleight-of-hand on me, for I know all of your vile rhetorical tricks!
Violence is causing bodily harm onto another human being. You will not have it redefined just to suit your ideological fancies.