Nicholas writes:
> Wealth is created legitimately either by saving or by
>exchanging goods or services for pecuniary gain (read: profit). Without
>savings there can be no investment. *One* of the reasons the economies
>of the "Dragons of Asia" are growing so rapidly is that those countries
>on the whole have relatively high national savings rates.
> The other means of growth, profit, can only result after an
>initial investment of funds. People who own stock in a company put
>off consumption one day for compensation in the future by the
>corporation for the use of those funds.
Nicholas, you give us some interesting food for thought. But what do you
mean by "wealth is created legitmately"? If you mean through the legal
transactions designated by society, well okay. But if you mean
"legitmately" in some moral or non-contractarian way, then you are way off.
Wealth can never be created legitmately in this sense; that is, there is
no "right", "duty," or basically any fair reason for some to accumalte
goods which they do not need. We only have a legitmate claim to those
things which we need for sustenance and which we might use. Note, that
this use does noot involve selling something we "produce" to another for
money that we then keep not to use again. Where might such a claim to
excess goods originate? Obviously if we say from our parents or relatives,
that just moves the question back a generation, for their claim is only
contractually legitimate. No one is born with a claim on a certain plot of
land: if they were, who would give it to them? The only possible person
who could would be God. But why would God give excess goods to someone,
especially if this means that others must go wihtout necessities? Thomas
Aquinas argued that we have a claim to property because this is the best
way to make sure that civilization has enough to maintain itself, that
people won't starve, and to put to good use the land of the world. But
this does not entitle us to excess, but only to enough to maintain that
land, and perhaps a little extra for good maintanence. But I think this is
faulty reasoning. Given land, people are not genreally going to let it go
to waste because they are too lazy- this is capitalsit propoganda
(interesting that we find it in the middle ages, huh?). Given the right
things they need for susstenance, people will basically manage it well,
cultivate it for their progeny, and share with those who run into
misfortune. That is the only claim to property that anyone might have.
Thus, I couold not agree more with Rousseau:
"It follows from this presentation that, since inequality is practically
non-existent in the state of nature, it derives its force and growth from
the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind and
eventually becomes stable and legitmate through the establishment of
property and laws. Moreover, it follows that nhat moral inequality ,
authorized by positive right alone, is contrary to natural right whenever
it is not combined in the same proportion with physical inequality: a
distinctionn that is sufficient to determine what one should think in
regard about the sort of inequality that reigns among all civilized people,
for it is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it may be
defined, for a child to command an old man, for an imbecile to lead a wise
man, and for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluties while
the starving multitude lacks necessities." (Discourse on Inequality, last
lines)
Nicholas continues:
> None of this is to deny that capitalism produces (informal)
>inequalities. Nor is it to deny that some state actions to adjust those
>inequalities are beneficial to a society. However, only those societies
>will be
>prosperous that maintain *a* system of private property and profit,
>whether that
>system is purely free market (an idealization) or salt-water capitalism
>(market socialism).
>
> Nicholas
What are informal inequalities? What do you mean by "prosperous"? Why
would any society want to be prosperosu except under the sawy of the
reality principle? If being propserous requires unjust inequalities-formal
or not- then should we strive to be prosperous? In any case, I dny your
whole claim. I think that a society can be prosperous, if you mean by this
maintain a level of standard of living above the bare necessities, without
the "persuasion" of profit- or what it boils down to, the lies of the
reality principle. Socialist and egalitarians do not want minimum
equality: we desire equality for all at the highest level possible. The
motivation is not based on profit but on fulfillment. If people have the
oppurtunity to reach for a certain level of self-fulfillment, by which I do
not mean some beourgeois notion of being rich but an Aristotelian notion of
eudaimonia, then they will strive for it. Society is unjust when based on
a drive for profit and a market economy both of which are simply
happenstance aspects of individuals.
Jeff
JLN "The architectonic structure of the Kantian
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx system, like the gymnastic pyramids of
Sade's orgies and the schematized
principles of the early bourgeois
freemasonry reveals an organization of
life as a whole which is deprived of
any substantial goal."
from _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_
> Wealth is created legitimately either by saving or by
>exchanging goods or services for pecuniary gain (read: profit). Without
>savings there can be no investment. *One* of the reasons the economies
>of the "Dragons of Asia" are growing so rapidly is that those countries
>on the whole have relatively high national savings rates.
> The other means of growth, profit, can only result after an
>initial investment of funds. People who own stock in a company put
>off consumption one day for compensation in the future by the
>corporation for the use of those funds.
Nicholas, you give us some interesting food for thought. But what do you
mean by "wealth is created legitmately"? If you mean through the legal
transactions designated by society, well okay. But if you mean
"legitmately" in some moral or non-contractarian way, then you are way off.
Wealth can never be created legitmately in this sense; that is, there is
no "right", "duty," or basically any fair reason for some to accumalte
goods which they do not need. We only have a legitmate claim to those
things which we need for sustenance and which we might use. Note, that
this use does noot involve selling something we "produce" to another for
money that we then keep not to use again. Where might such a claim to
excess goods originate? Obviously if we say from our parents or relatives,
that just moves the question back a generation, for their claim is only
contractually legitimate. No one is born with a claim on a certain plot of
land: if they were, who would give it to them? The only possible person
who could would be God. But why would God give excess goods to someone,
especially if this means that others must go wihtout necessities? Thomas
Aquinas argued that we have a claim to property because this is the best
way to make sure that civilization has enough to maintain itself, that
people won't starve, and to put to good use the land of the world. But
this does not entitle us to excess, but only to enough to maintain that
land, and perhaps a little extra for good maintanence. But I think this is
faulty reasoning. Given land, people are not genreally going to let it go
to waste because they are too lazy- this is capitalsit propoganda
(interesting that we find it in the middle ages, huh?). Given the right
things they need for susstenance, people will basically manage it well,
cultivate it for their progeny, and share with those who run into
misfortune. That is the only claim to property that anyone might have.
Thus, I couold not agree more with Rousseau:
"It follows from this presentation that, since inequality is practically
non-existent in the state of nature, it derives its force and growth from
the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind and
eventually becomes stable and legitmate through the establishment of
property and laws. Moreover, it follows that nhat moral inequality ,
authorized by positive right alone, is contrary to natural right whenever
it is not combined in the same proportion with physical inequality: a
distinctionn that is sufficient to determine what one should think in
regard about the sort of inequality that reigns among all civilized people,
for it is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it may be
defined, for a child to command an old man, for an imbecile to lead a wise
man, and for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluties while
the starving multitude lacks necessities." (Discourse on Inequality, last
lines)
Nicholas continues:
> None of this is to deny that capitalism produces (informal)
>inequalities. Nor is it to deny that some state actions to adjust those
>inequalities are beneficial to a society. However, only those societies
>will be
>prosperous that maintain *a* system of private property and profit,
>whether that
>system is purely free market (an idealization) or salt-water capitalism
>(market socialism).
>
> Nicholas
What are informal inequalities? What do you mean by "prosperous"? Why
would any society want to be prosperosu except under the sawy of the
reality principle? If being propserous requires unjust inequalities-formal
or not- then should we strive to be prosperous? In any case, I dny your
whole claim. I think that a society can be prosperous, if you mean by this
maintain a level of standard of living above the bare necessities, without
the "persuasion" of profit- or what it boils down to, the lies of the
reality principle. Socialist and egalitarians do not want minimum
equality: we desire equality for all at the highest level possible. The
motivation is not based on profit but on fulfillment. If people have the
oppurtunity to reach for a certain level of self-fulfillment, by which I do
not mean some beourgeois notion of being rich but an Aristotelian notion of
eudaimonia, then they will strive for it. Society is unjust when based on
a drive for profit and a market economy both of which are simply
happenstance aspects of individuals.
Jeff
JLN "The architectonic structure of the Kantian
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx system, like the gymnastic pyramids of
Sade's orgies and the schematized
principles of the early bourgeois
freemasonry reveals an organization of
life as a whole which is deprived of
any substantial goal."
from _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_