The Virtues of Capitalism: A Moral Case for Free Markets ...


GALTGULCH8

Recommended Posts

So here is a book, written by Austin Hill and Scott Rae, which offers the moral case for Capitalism.

http://tinyurl.com/d4eoog8

In one of the reviews at Amazon the reviewer says: "They explicitly reject Ayn Rand's response to the greed objection, which recognizes greed to be good."

So I thought I would post this here so we can kick around the issue of "greed," perhaps define it, discuss the profit motive and how that relates to the concept of greed, and address the contention that Ayn Rand gave her blessing to the concept, or not.

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand did not write that "greed is good." She used "greed" often, repeating the critics of capitalism. She obviously thought such criticism was superficial and misguided.

A reviewer (Tim H.) says the authors' idea of capitalism is "based on self-interest rather than greed" and then insinuates Rand's capitalism is based on greed rather than self-interest. Saying or inferring that Ayn Rand's capitalism was not based on self-interest is ludicrous. The authors similarly misrepresent Rand "saying the basis of capitalism was greed" (page 60).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only skimmed over the sales material and comments, but this seems to be a book that claims capitalism has its origins in the Christian Bible.

I need to read more to be sure, but from where I sit, that's not a tenable proposition. It's one thing to say that Christianity can be practiced alongside capitalism, and that, in fact, works in practice quite well. Just look around.

But it's another to claim Christianity is the theoretical and philosophical underpinning of capitalism. Individual rights are the foundation. The same Christianity that brought us God-given individual rights (with emphasis on the God-given part) also brought us the divine rights of kings. It wasn't Christianity per se that made society change from one doctrine to the other, but instead, the adaptation and transformation of Christianity as humankind progressed and other ideas emerged.

Apropos, I believe the concept of rights being a special inalienable gift from God is the Achilles Heel of capitalism. So long as rights depend on a faith-based origin, they can be interpreted or reinterpreted in light of any new faith-based origin that a charismatic person or group can inject into the mainstream.

That means playing it deuces wild (to use a metaphor Rand liked a lot).

With a solid, reason-based origin, the only way to reject individual rights or alter them on a fundamental level is to reject reason. Therein lies the power.

It is epistemology at root, but politically, whoever controls the origin of rights accepted by a society ultimately controls those rights within it.

Our good fortune is that it is not Christianity only that controls the origin in today's America, but the interpretations of many brilliant theorists who fashioned the concept of God distanced from direct involvement in nature--i.e., He made the whole shebang, then stepped back and now lets it run according to the natural laws He made, so to speak.

Still, I believe this is an Achilles Heel. in other words, the way it stands now, reason pertains only to the part of the origin God made then left alone.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You start with unfettered trade.

You protect yourself from thieves and fraudsters.

You are offered protection by one thug against other thugs. So is born the state. So, too, capitalism, which is the accumulation and use of capital. Some of that goes to the state and its factotums. Capitalism evolves, revolves and devolves to crony capitalism and fascism.

The state shakes and bakes conflict and hate and Molochs its way to oblivion and its next incarnation.

Etc.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin Jetton, on 17 Mar 2013 - 15:57, said:

Rand did not write that "greed is good." She used "greed" often, repeating the critics of capitalism. She obviously thought such criticism was superficial and misguided.

A reviewer (Tim H.) says the authors' idea of capitalism is "based on self-interest rather than greed" and then insinuates Rand's capitalism is based on greed rather than self-interest. Saying or inferring that Ayn Rand's capitalism was not based on self-interest is ludicrous. The authors similarly misrepresent Rand "saying the basis of capitalism was greed" (page 60).

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=19&t=13100&qpid=179100

Yes: The first I heard of greed, was +/-3 years ago on a Peikoff podcast. I recall

responding bemusedly on O.Online at hearing him pronounce that greed is a virtue.

Not from Rand, and I've not seen it anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Greed is good" comes from the movie "Wall Street."

It all depends on the assigned context. Take, for instance, "The Utopia of Greed" by way of ironical contrast.

If you want to see greed, watch my dog eat then watch him watch me eat, wanting more. Saga, my dog, has no moral context having no free will. Greed is devoid of moral context so when it's applied to human beings they are considered at worst to be immoral or at best, amoral. It's an immorality born of sociopathy and amorality is only a subcategory to that even if it covers up or obscures its parent. Both deny free will for free will is all about making the best, right and moral choices. All such choices involve various forms of social interaction no matter how atomistic they superficially appear. They start there--inside a person--then they inevitably go out into one's world.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free market limits greed. You don't believe me? Let's imagine a businessman wants to be greedy. One way of being greedy is to raise the price of his eggs from $2 per dozen to $10 per dozen. $2 is the free market, supply and demand price. $10 is the greedy price. Won't work. He will be lucky to sell any eggs at $10 per dozen if the supply and demand price is $2 per dozen. Greed fails. Free market limits greed.

Same deal for wages. The supply and demand wage is $20 per hour. He pays $5 per hour. He should not be surprised if all of his employees who are any good quit and get a better paying job. Free market limits greed.

A certain anti-capitalist told me supply and demand doesn't limit greed. That is not correct.

Greed can be defined as insisting on having more than supply and demand will allow. I suspect that the anti-capitalist would have a different definition of greed. Perhaps something like having more than the anti-capitalist thinks he should have because the anti-capitalist is eaten up with envy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As memory serves, Rand describes Galt's "greed" (not in the money sense) in the sex-on-the-tracks scene between him and Dagny. I don't have a copy at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free market limits greed.

A certain anti-capitalist told me supply and demand doesn't limit greed. That is not correct.

Greed can be defined as insisting on having more than supply and demand will allow. I suspect that the anti-capitalist would have a different definition of greed. Perhaps something like having more than the anti-capitalist thinks he should have because the anti-capitalist is eaten up with envy.

I have no qualms about a businessman making use of a short-term advantage

in the market to gain maximum profit. All it is, is being creative with capital

and timing.

In a free society he knows it won't last long, and those momentary opportunities may be the difference between his survival and failure - in the long term. If that's greed, I'm all for it.

Your anti-capitalist is possibly of the opinion that 'enough is enough', and a "fair share" is plenty. Such people can't see that capital is always flowing (if it's allowed to.) Then, that old zero-sum-game fallacy fixation never seems to die.

Objectively, "greed" is superfluous, wherever there's rational selfishness, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone wants you to contribute to some cause of theirs and you have the funds but have no interest in giving any of your money to the other's cause and say so, you might be called greedy.

It is used as a kind of ad hominem attack. In reality all you are doing is choosing to spend or not spend your own money as you see fit. That being the case the offended solicitor tries to lay a guilt trip on you.

Truly greedy people are those who do not deserve the money they seek, they have not earned it and it is not theirs to begin with, but they want it for their own purposes. If you refuse their request they will call you "greedy."

Greed should not be confused with the profit motive. The profit motive drives one to earn the profit by being productive and acting to satisfy a need in the marketplace. Going to work is the result of the profit motive.

Greed might lead to someone stealing someone else's property.

Politicians who want to take your money by taxing you or who want to remove deductions or loop holes will call those who use the deductions or loop holes as greedy. Underlying their resentment is their concept of fairness and notion that need takes precedence over rights to property.

Ayn Rand made this whole issue clear with her discussion of Altruism and the notion that the Good is determined by the beneficiary of an action.

It is curious that the new Pope was troubled by the fact that many in the church in Argentina were getting too close to the Marxist/Leftists and he refused to join them although he did share a concern for the poor. I hope he discovers that the solution for poverty can be found in Capitalism.

Do these people ever read anything besides the Bible?

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now