The only moral obligation...

[Norsefire]

...is to serve self-interest. Why should any man live to serve such arbitrary and pointless concepts as a "nation" or a "society"? Why should any man deprive himself of pleasure and satisfaction and happiness because of these illusions?

The only moral obligation is the realization of self-interest, whatever that interest be. Religion and morality are mere constructs designed to limit the individual.

Individuals must live for themselves and those they willingly care about; and thus, individuals must be allowed to make their own choices in the absolute sense.

This is, of course, impossible when you have the coercive forces of the state and the church and the socialist tools on your throat. A capitalist society is the only society where you truly and absolutely are free.

 

[lightgigantic]

...is to serve self-interest. Why should any man live to serve such arbitrary and pointless concepts as a "nation" or a "society"?

because the "self" by definition, is constantly in a state of dependence

Why should any man deprive himself of pleasure and satisfaction and happiness because of these illusions?

on the contrary, a reckless analysis of one's state of dependence (like say burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow) is just as much folly as an illusory overly obligated analysis of one's state of dependence (such as a sense of self completely delineated by coca cola)

The only moral obligation is the realization of self-interest, whatever that interest be.

and such a search comes to its conclusion when it locates the essential aspect of one's dependence

Religion and morality are mere constructs designed to limit the individual.

Actually we are limited by birth, death, old age and disease.
There are numerous theistic suggestions why we are currently part of that design.

Individuals must live for themselves and those they willingly care about; and thus, individuals must be allowed to make their own choices in the absolute sense.

We are innately independent .... it's an inescapable condition of consciousness.... but that independence is minuscule (our independence is contextualized by broader issues of dependence in the form of consequences - for instance you are free to jump off a building but you are not free from the consequence of gravity and the pavement)

however, the problem at the moment is that we are in a medium (ie this material world) where such prescriptive descriptions as you suggest often result in strife, chaos etc

IOW simply caring about one's self and others related to one's self doesn't encompass the needs, interests and concerns of the other 99.9999999% of the population, who are likely, either directly or indirectly) to interfere in our wonderful loving pastimes

This is, of course, impossible when you have the coercive forces of the state and the church and the socialist tools on your throat. A capitalist society is the only society where you truly and absolutely are free.

capitalism simply reduces all moral imperatives to issues of capital.

It doesn't take a genius to see how this is coercive.

 

[spidergoat]

...is to...

Thank you Ayn Rand.

 

[Norsefire]

because the "self" by definition, is constantly in a state of dependence

There are limitations, of course; but why impose upon yourself unnecessary limitations? The only limits are the limits of simply existing in a physical world bound by physical laws, and even these limits might one day, with technology and constant self-improvement, be overcome.

on the contrary, a reckless analysis of one's state of dependence (like say burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow) is just as much folly as an illusory overly obligated analysis of one's state of dependence (such as a sense of self completely delineated by coca cola)

Living for oneself doesn't mean one can't be rational in their decision making and think ahead. You draw a wrong conclusion. Even when you help others or abstain from burning all fossil fuels like there is no tommorow, it is done in self interest and it just so happens to be beneficial (or at least, not harmful) to others.

and such a search comes to its conclusion when it locates the essential aspect of one's dependence

Dependence on food, water, and shelter. A social dependence, perhaps, as well as it is programmed into us, as social beings. Again, self interest and being social, to an extent, do not conflict.

Actually we are limited by birth, death, old age and disease.
There are numerous theistic suggestions why we are currently part of that design.

And these limits will eventually be overcome. Immortality is right around the corner, within this century I am confident we will figure out how to stop aging.

We are innately independent .... it's an inescapable condition of consciousness.... but that independence is minuscule (our independence is contextualized by broader issues of dependence in the form of consequences - for instance you are free to jump off a building but you are not free from the consequence of gravity and the pavement)

Therefore the only limits are physical ones. This is understood.. But apart from this, why burden yourself with unncessary, arbitrary limits to your own well being and happiness?

IOW simply caring about one's self and others related to one's self doesn't encompass the needs, interests and concerns of the other 99.9999999% of the population, who are likely, either directly or indirectly) to interfere in our wonderful loving pastimes

It is not my obligation to care for 99.9999 percent of the population. Only those I care about and myself.

capitalism simply reduces all moral imperatives to issues of capital.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sorry, try again.

It doesn't take a genius to see how this is coercive.

Really? Because, I'm pretty sure voluntarily choosing what I do, how I live, etc, is free.


Spidergoat: so....anything else to add? Do you agree or not?

 

[lightgigantic]

Norsefire

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
because the "self" by definition, is constantly in a state of dependence
”
There are limitations, of course; but why impose upon yourself unnecessary limitations?

Some limits are necessary for greater freedoms

For instance if one doesn't limit their criminal propensity they will quite likely experiencing the reduced freedoms of prison life

The only limits are the limits of simply existing in a physical world bound by physical laws, and even these limits might one day, with technology and constant self-improvement, be overcome.

there are a whole range of limits - physical, social, psychological etc etc .... and to declare that they can all be surmounted with technology in the future bears a striking resemblance to a neophyte theist declaring that in the future one will burn in hell for all eternity

“
on the contrary, a reckless analysis of one's state of dependence (like say burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow) is just as much folly as an illusory overly obligated analysis of one's state of dependence (such as a sense of self completely delineated by coca cola)
”
Living for oneself doesn't mean one can't be rational in their decision making and think ahead. You draw a wrong conclusion. Even when you help others or abstain from burning all fossil fuels like there is no tommorow, it is done in self interest and it just so happens to be beneficial (or at least, not harmful) to others.

read the newspaper

it is full of stories of conflict from people acting in their self interest.

there is no clear connection between "my personal satisfaction = world harmony" simply because material life houses so many incongruous value systems

“
and such a search comes to its conclusion when it locates the essential aspect of one's dependence
”
Dependence on food, water, and shelter. A social dependence, perhaps, as well as it is programmed into us, as social beings. Again, self interest and being social, to an extent, do not conflict.

times it by 6 billion and it certainly does extend to conflict

“
Actually we are limited by birth, death, old age and disease.
There are numerous theistic suggestions why we are currently part of that design.
”
And these limits will eventually be overcome. Immortality is right around the corner, within this century I am confident we will figure out how to stop aging.

philosophically or ethically speaking, it is more elegant to talk of the present, especially when your tool of the trade is empiricism - big talk and empiricism make bad companions

“
We are innately independent .... it's an inescapable condition of consciousness.... but that independence is minuscule (our independence is contextualized by broader issues of dependence in the form of consequences - for instance you are free to jump off a building but you are not free from the consequence of gravity and the pavement)
”
Therefore the only limits are physical ones. This is understand. But apart from this, why burden yourself with unncessary, arbitrary limits to your own well being and happiness?

I wasn't aware that happiness is physically reducible

Do you ask yourself whether you have food in your stomach, a roof over your head and the bills paid and then conclude that you are happy?

Strikes me as a shallow type of existence .....

however, the problem at the moment is that we are in a medium (ie this material world) where such prescriptive descriptions as you suggest often result in strife, chaos etc

“
IOW simply caring about one's self and others related to one's self doesn't encompass the needs, interests and concerns of the other 99.9999999% of the population, who are likely, either directly or indirectly) to interfere in our wonderful loving pastimes
”
It is not my obligation to care for 99.9999 percent of the population. Only those I care about and myself.

and the irony is that 99.9999999 percent of the population have the same idea - hence the world is what it is

:shrug:

“
capitalism simply reduces all moral imperatives to issues of capital.
”
There is no such thing as objective morality.

.

so say the moral relativists, eh?

“
It doesn't take a genius to see how this is coercive.
”
Really? Because, I'm pretty sure voluntarily choosing what I do, how I live, etc, is free.

I'm not sure how this information establishes that you are not being coerced by capitalism

 

[cosmictraveler]

The ONLY moral interest?? That statement just doesn't make any sense at all for we all have many moral obligations, to ourselves, families, loved ones, and on and on.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire


Some limits are necessary for greater freedoms

For instance if one doesn't limit their criminal propensity they will quite likely experiencing the reduced freedoms of prison life

Under a government. In a capitalist society there would be no such thign as crime aside from property crimes, and likely no such things as prisons. Crime is only crime from a certain point of view.

there are a whole range of limits - physical, social, psychological etc etc .... and to declare that they can all be surmounted with technology in the future bears a striking resemblance to a neophyte theist declaring that in the future one will burn in hell for all eternity

The difference, of course, being that we can actually do something about the world around us if we wish and are capable. That is the power of existing. And there are no such things as social limits, as there is no such thing as morality.

read the newspaper

it is full of stories of conflict from people acting in their self interest.

This is natural, wherever prevalent; it's called competition and survival of the fittest.

there is no clear connection between "my personal satisfaction = world harmony" simply because material life houses so many incongruous value systems

times it by 6 billion and it certainly does extend to conflict

And so the best of individuals will come out on top whereever there is conflict. Harsh, but it is the natural way of things.

I wasn't aware that happiness is physically reducible

Happiness requires a number of factors to be in harmony and satisfied in order to be achieved. That's common sense. And it is YOUR responsibility to obtain your own happiness should you desire it, just as it is mine to obtain mine should I wish it.

and the irony is that 99.9999999 percent of the population have the same idea - hence the world is what it is

And some of the population are quite successful and happy, so all is fine.

so say the moral relativists, eh?

Morality IS relative. Fact. Morality is an opinion.

I'm not sure how this information establishes that you are not being coerced by capitalism

You aren't. You can choose if even to work, if even to be a part of the system, or to create your own system; there is no coercion.

The ONLY moral onterest?? That statement just doesn't make any sense at all for we all have many moral obligations, to ourselves, families, loved ones, and on and on.

Moral obligation, I said, not moral interest. And caring for your loved ones is part of your self interest

Caring for random people you don't know just because they are "countrymen" is not and serves you in no way.

You can still love and be compassionate while still being rationally selfish.

 

[lightgigantic]

Norsefire

Some limits are necessary for greater freedoms

For instance if one doesn't limit their criminal propensity they will quite likely experiencing the reduced freedoms of prison life
”
Under a government. In a capitalist society there would be no such thign as crime aside from property crimes, and likely no such things as prisons. Crime is only crime from a certain point of view.

Its not clear why you suggest these thinsg wouldn't exist ... much less how one could resolve them without some penal system

“
there are a whole range of limits - physical, social, psychological etc etc .... and to declare that they can all be surmounted with technology in the future bears a striking resemblance to a neophyte theist declaring that in the future one will burn in hell for all eternity
”
The difference, of course, being that we can actually do something about the world around us if we wish and are capable.

on the contrary, our wish and capacity are not the final call on the matter

That is the power of existing.

given that this power is faced with the dilemma of very shortly not existing, there's a few problems ensuing

And there are no such things as social limits, as there is no such thing as morality.

there is such a thing as "jail" for persons who devoutly espouse this ideology

“
read the newspaper

it is full of stories of conflict from people acting in their self interest.
”
This is natural, wherever prevalent; it's called competition and survival of the fittest.

hence your call of flower power and capitalism is a bit premature
“

there is no clear connection between "my personal satisfaction = world harmony" simply because material life houses so many incongruous value systems

times it by 6 billion and it certainly does extend to conflict
”
And so the best of individuals will come out on top whereever there is conflict. Harsh, but it is the natural way of things.

hence the rain on your parade

“
I wasn't aware that happiness is physically reducible
”
Happiness requires a number of factors to be in harmony and satisfied in order to be achieved. That's common sense.

yes, but what isn't so apparent is how all these factors are materially reducible .... in fact according to WHO statistics, the regions that report the highest levels of happiness tend to be the less materially established ones (mexico, bangladesh, etc)

And it is YOUR responsibility to obtain your own happiness should you desire it, just as it is mine to obtain mine should I wish it.

yes, but the success of this mutual pursuit of happiness s wholly determined by the broader social context that orchestrates it ... and sure, you can talk about capitalism being the flavour of the month, but to get up on a soap box and hail it as the truth, the light and the way is simply hot air.

“
and the irony is that 99.9999999 percent of the population have the same idea - hence the world is what it is
”
And some of the population are quite successful and happy, so all is fine.

and since fascism, oligarchies and monarchies also ensured that some people were happy and successful, its not clear what establishes capitalism as the panacea for all ills

“
so say the moral relativists, eh?
”
Morality IS relative. Fact. Morality is an opinion.

its not unusual for an atheist to have a moral outlook that complements their value system

“
I'm not sure how this information establishes that you are not being coerced by capitalism
”
You aren't. You can choose if even to work, if even to be a part of the system, or to create your own system; there is no coercion.

on the contrary, there are very clear coercive capitalist initiatives to keep one in the system - for instance the redistribution of labor from an agricultural economy to an industrial one, etc etc

In many places, whatever your choices may be, the ability to breathe clean air and drink the tap water is not one of them
“

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire


Its not clear why you suggest these thinsg wouldn't exist ... much less how one could resolve them without some penal system

Who would fund these prisons and establish law? Why is there a monopoly on Law and Order? In a capitalist system, there would be only the law and order you consent to, that you employ, and can fire if you wish.

on the contrary, our wish and capacity are not the final call on the matter

Yes, our action is. The thing is we CAN take action.

there is such a thing as "jail" for persons who devoutly espouse this ideology

Funded by the state and its monopoly on law and order. Jail is an artificial creation, and so can be taken down.

hence your call of flower power and capitalism is a bit premature

Clarify

yes, but what isn't so apparent is how all these factors are materially reducible .... in fact according to WHO statistics, the regions that report the highest levels of happiness tend to be the less materially established ones (mexico, bangladesh, etc)

I never necessarily said they were. If living in poverty and pollution makes you happy, then do it. We first decide what will make us happy and act on that, and capitalism allows us to.

If your thing is being compassionate and loving to all, then you are free to do it without forcing others to be "equal" and such.

and since fascism, oligarchies and monarchies also ensured that some people were happy and successful, its not clear what establishes capitalism as the panacea for all ills

The difference is capitalism allows for every individual to have the potential to realize their own ideal lifestyle; in fascism, it was a key few individuals and others either had no opportunity, or had to adhere to that key fews' principles in order to join them.

In capitalism you can find your own happiness in your own fashion, and you have the power to do so.

its not unusual for an atheist to have a moral outlook that complements their value system

Morality is like art; we all have an opinion, but no opinion is "correct" and so it is, in the end, nonexistent in any concrete sense.

In many places, whatever your choices may be, the ability to breathe clean air and drink the tap water is not one of them
“

You can move.

 

[lightgigantic]

Norsefire

Its not clear why you suggest these thinsg wouldn't exist ... much less how one could resolve them without some penal system
”
Who would fund these prisons and establish law?

As places like Afghanistan indicate, there is a direct connection between law and order and economic development

Why is there a monopoly on Law and Order?

because control and regulation require centralized organization, and are the prerequisites for any society that engages in production (which is the means of economic development)

In a capitalist system, there would be only the law and order you consent to, that you employ, and can fire if you wish.

Regardless who calls the shots, if law and order is destabilized or radically "reformed" on a regular basis, you won't have much in the way of production .... which might affect the ability to hire and fire the cops

“
on the contrary, our wish and capacity are not the final call on the matter
”
Yes, our action is. The thing is we CAN take action.

yes, but extrapolating that action to infinite ends is childish

“
there is such a thing as "jail" for persons who devoutly espouse this ideology
”
Funded by the state and its monopoly on law and order. Jail is an artificial creation, and so can be taken down.

jail is created for a very real need. If you delcare it is artificial you would have to establish how capitalism declares things like theft, murder, etc as artificial ..

“
hence your call of flower power and capitalism is a bit premature
”
Clarify

wherever there is conflict you have a need for a system of justice - whether it is jails, bribes or a big stick with a nail in it. To simultaneously declare issues of conflict and the non existence of crime is naive.

“
yes, but what isn't so apparent is how all these factors are materially reducible .... in fact according to WHO statistics, the regions that report the highest levels of happiness tend to be the less materially established ones (mexico, bangladesh, etc)
”
I never necessarily said they were. If living in poverty and pollution makes you happy, then do it. We first decide what will make us happy and act on that, and capitalism allows us to.

and that's the problem

conflict ensues from opposed parties based on the decision

If your thing is being compassionate and loving to all, then you are free to do it without forcing others to be "equal" and such.

a person's ability to be compassionate etc will certainly be influenced by the degree that moral imperatives are relative to capital

“
and since fascism, oligarchies and monarchies also ensured that some people were happy and successful, its not clear what establishes capitalism as the panacea for all ills
”
The difference is capitalism allows for every individual to have the potential to realize their own ideal lifestyle;

well not really since capitalism tends to suck everyone into occupations of production

To quote Marx (who, IMHO, is a terrible politician but quite an accomplished historian) "The means of production determines social relationships" -

in fascism, it was a key few individuals and others either had no opportunity, or had to adhere to that key fews' principles in order to join them.

why is holding the power strings an insurance policy against unhappiness?

In capitalism you can find your own happiness in your own fashion, and you have the power to do so.

capitalism places very real influences on means of production
and means of production places very real influences on social relationships
and social relationships place very real needs on the pursuit of happiness ......

“
its not unusual for an atheist to have a moral outlook that complements their value system
”
Morality is like art; we all have an opinion, but no opinion is "correct" and so it is, in the end, nonexistent in any concrete sense.

yes, but such a view point of ultimate relativity doesn't encompass god, since god is determined as the personality that every thing is relative to

“
In many places, whatever your choices may be, the ability to breathe clean air and drink the tap water is not one of them
“
”
You can move.

only if you can afford to

 

[spidergoat]

Governments are created out of self-interest.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire


As places like Afghanistan indicate, there is a direct connection between law and order and economic development

Law might have an effect on economic development, but that is way different than saying the economy cannot function without law. The economy doesn't require law and law is unneccessary and hindering.

because control and regulation require centralized organization, and are the prerequisites for any society that engages in production (which is the means of economic development)

Wrong. Private institutions can perform the function of regulation as well. Product review sites? Product seals? From private organizations, and what will keep them credible? Well, without credibility they go out of business.

jail is created for a very real need. If you delcare it is artificial you would have to establish how capitalism declares things like theft, murder, etc as artificial ..

"Capitalism" declares nothing. Individuals do. If an individual views something as wrong, he can do something about it. For instance, bounty services and private courts.

wherever there is conflict you have a need for a system of justice - whether it is jails, bribes or a big stick with a nail in it. To simultaneously declare issues of conflict and the non existence of crime is naive.

I disagree. We already have a natural system for resolving conflicts. This is called "survival of the fittest"
The same works for businesses and individuals. I could take you to court or challenge you to a duel (a consensual activity)

and that's the problem

conflict ensues from opposed parties based on the decision

And the fittest comes out on top

a person's ability to be compassionate etc will certainly be influenced by the degree that moral imperatives are relative to capital

This is incorrect. The types of capital and uses of capital are dependent upon the individual, not vice versa; a compassionate individual, who is first compassionate, would use his capital to compassionate ends.

well not really since capitalism tends to suck everyone into occupations of production

If they choose to be employed in the area

The influences are voluntary; you don't HAVE to have that job under that type of work for that kind of pay. You can quit.

yes, but such a view point of ultimate relativity doesn't encompass god, since god is determined as the personality that every thing is relative to

We must first prove god, I think, before we can talk any further about him.

only if you can afford to

And if you can't, it's MY problem?

Not necessarily you, but anyone in general.

 

[Norsefire]

Governments are created out of self-interest.

And so was the mafia. The government, however, doesn't serve my interests yet still is coercive against me.

There's a problem. If you wish to be ruled by others, you do it and don't force me to be.

 

[lightgigantic]

Norsefire

As places like Afghanistan indicate, there is a direct connection between law and order and economic development
”
Law might have an effect on economic development, but that is way different than saying the economy cannot function without law. The economy doesn't require law and law is unneccessary and hindering.

I don't follow

You admit that economy requires conflict, yet you say there is no requirement for justice

“
because control and regulation require centralized organization, and are the prerequisites for any society that engages in production (which is the means of economic development)
”
Wrong. Private institutions can perform the function of regulation as well.

perhaps I should have used the word "uniform" instead of "centralized"

Product review sites? Product seals? From private organizations, and what will keep them credible? Well, without credibility they go out of business.

I am suggesting that unless there are uniform codes to deal with things like theft, murder, etc, you won't have a stable production base for anything ...

“
jail is created for a very real need. If you delcare it is artificial you would have to establish how capitalism declares things like theft, murder, etc as artificial ..
”
"Capitalism" declares nothing. Individuals do. If an individual views something as wrong, he can do something about it. For instance, bounty services and private courts.

the success of such measures will be determined by the degree of justice ... if you are going to talk about a system without jails you have to talk about how you plan to deal with issues of justice ..... even to entertain such musings as a bounty hunter or private court, its not clear what they would do with an offender in a jail-less society

“
wherever there is conflict you have a need for a system of justice - whether it is jails, bribes or a big stick with a nail in it. To simultaneously declare issues of conflict and the non existence of crime is naive.
”
I disagree. We already have a natural system for resolving conflicts. This is called "survival of the fittest"

yeah
I think that was in vogue during the dark ages

The same works for businesses and individuals. I could take you to court or challenge you to a duel (a consensual activity)

and I could burn your rape and pillage your village .... which might affect the local production scene dramatically

“
and that's the problem

conflict ensues from opposed parties based on the decision
”
And the fittest comes out on top

that doesn't necessarily provide for a wonderful social environment for production and labour for the oogling capitalists however

“
a person's ability to be compassionate etc will certainly be influenced by the degree that moral imperatives are relative to capital
”
This is incorrect. The types of capital and uses of capital are dependent upon the individual, not vice versa; a compassionate individual, who is first compassionate, would use his capital to compassionate ends.

hehe
yes but if the moral imperatives are relative to capital, you have a radical definition of compassion for the taking

“
well not really since capitalism tends to suck everyone into occupations of production
”
If they choose to be employed in the area

well yeah ... if they can afford to choose

The influences are voluntary; you don't HAVE to have that job under that type of work for that kind of pay. You can quit.

work or starve

nice choice

“
yes, but such a view point of ultimate relativity doesn't encompass god, since god is determined as the personality that every thing is relative to
”
We must first prove god, I think, before we can talk any further about him.

well actually we must first talk about what qualifications are required to evidence god first, ... just like a discussion on evidencing an electron might require a few qualifications in the field of physics

“
only if you can afford to
”
And if you can't, it's MY problem?

if you espouse capitalism as the solution for the world, indirectly, yes

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire


I don't follow

You admit that economy requires conflict, yet you say there is no requirement for justice

No I admitted no such thing. Economy requires needs and desires, and that MIGHT have conflicts, but not necessarily so.

perhaps I should have used the word "uniform" instead of "centralized"

The market might assume an unofficial consumer code, why not? It's just the choice of individuals that influence this. If the consumer demand for a uniform consumer code is there, it'll happen, as businesses arise because of this to meet this demand, but unlike bureaucracy, it isn't set in stone and it can change.

I am suggesting that unless there are uniform codes to deal with things like theft, murder, etc, you won't have a stable production base for anything ...

Again, there can be unofficial consumer codes for such agencies. If the majority of people find it wrong, and want to do something about it, they can, without setting it in stone
t

he success of such measures will be determined by the degree of justice ... if you are going to talk about a system without jails you have to talk about how you plan to deal with issues of justice ..... even to entertain such musings as a bounty hunter or private court, its not clear what they would do with an offender in a jail-less society

What is "justice"? First, I never meant a bounty hunter that captures
you

And next, prisons? Do you know what has more power than prisons today?

Credit companies. You can resist paying back for a crime, but then your credit will be crippled by whatever private institution you choose to associate with, and if you don't associate, you might not necessarily receive service

Incentives are there without need of violence
yeah

I think that was in vogue during the dark ages

No, that was more like "let's let god sort it out"

"just a while longer now"
"just be patient"

But people realized that change has to come from THEM. Survival of the fittest is natural.

and I could burn your rape and pillage your village .... which might affect the local production scene dramatically

In which case I could hire a protection agency.

that doesn't necessarily provide for a wonderful social environment for production and labour for the oogling capitalists however

That isn't my obligation or my problem, though.

hehe
yes but if the moral imperatives are relative to capital, you have a radical definition of compassion for the taking

The moral imperatives are yours to decide, and you use capital to further your already-present wishes.

well yeah ... if they can afford to choose

If they can't it isn't my problem or yours

work or starve

nice choice

Worker unions? Those work. No, really. Then, businesses will be forced to be fairer.

well actually we must first talk about what qualifications are required to evidence god first, ... just like a discussion on evidencing an electron might require a few qualifications in the field of physics

A lack of rationality is required, so yes, I'm sorry but I'm not qualified.

if you espouse capitalism as the solution for the world, indirectly, yes

Capitalism isn't about giving people good lives, it's about allowing them to give themselves a good life.

 

[Norsefire]

Capitalism is free, but also dangerous, yes. But if you want freedom you must accept danger and the inequalities. True freedom is literally doing what you can and please, and only capitalism allows for this.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Who would fund these prisons and establish law? Why is there a monopoly on Law and Order? In a capitalist system, there would be only the law and order you consent to, that you employ, and can fire if you wish.

Although I'm on your side here, you're venturing past capitalism into anarchy if you want no law whatsoever. In capitalism the government should maintain law and order, enforce contracts, and defend the shores. All interactions between individuals should be voluntary, and to their mutual benefit. The state should only step in when one person violates another's rights (ie by commiting an act of violence, theft, etc).

 

[copernicus66]

...is to serve self-interest. Why should any man live to serve such arbitrary and pointless concepts as a "nation" or a "society"? Why should any man deprive himself of pleasure and satisfaction and happiness because of these illusions?

The only moral obligation is the realization of self-interest, whatever that interest be. Religion and morality are mere constructs designed to limit the individual.

Individuals must live for themselves and those they willingly care about; and thus, individuals must be allowed to make their own choices in the absolute sense.

This is, of course, impossible when you have the coercive forces of the state and the church and the socialist tools on your throat. A capitalist society is the only society where you truly and absolutely are free.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter II

 

[Baron Max]

Capitalism is free, but also dangerous, yes. But if you want freedom you must accept danger and the inequalities. True freedom is literally doing what you can and please, and only capitalism allows for this.

No, not even capitalism allows that much freedom. I.e., if you want to eat, you must pay the price that the food vendors set for their food. That's not YOUR freedom, it's theirs! See?

Oh, you say, "Just grow your own food!"? Okay, that's fine, but then you not free of toiling in the dirt, are you? You give up doing what you want in order to eat. See? You aren't free.

There simply ain't no freedom such as you are trying to establish. Well, okay, there is .....but ONLY if you are the ONLY person on Earth. And that freedom would get damned old, damned quickly.

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

Why should any man live to serve such arbitrary and pointless concepts as a "nation" or a "society"?

Because they serve self-interest.. :shrug: