“How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist urges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people.”
His points about slavery and concentration camps are great.
His point about democracy at the end is a good point, too, but I know the “majorities” aren’t going to understand it.
This is so good.
I still have a lot more learning about the free market to go before I can say that I’m comfortable understanding it. But the basic principle is that you can’t get rich in the free market by ripping people off. In other words, if theft is punished in the free market, as it is, then in order to earn money through the free market, you can’t steal from someone else. Buying something expensive that you need isn’t theft. If you really need something, and it is really expensive, and you lobby government to make that good cheaper, the producer just is not going to produce as many of that good. It’s pretty basic. Therefore, if a producer is charging a high price, it is only going to be bought by someone that thinks the good is more valuable to him than something else he could buy at that price. Yes, that means that he may have to pay a lot more money for gasoline, or a lot more money for a house, and his “extra cash” might be low. But the alternative of making the prices for these goods artificially low is that people that don’t need the goods as badly as others will buy it. Think about it: if there is a hurricane, and people’s houses get destroyed, they are going to need new houses. Producers know this, and they are going to provide a big sum of these houses for a high profit: much higher than would be without the hurricane. So your instinct is to say that these producers are ripping people off. But why are they providing the houses in the first place? Are they providing them for the good of the people? Not necessarily: they’re providing them for profit. Therefore, the profit incentive means that more houses will be provided to this area. So what happens if you limit the prices? If you limit the prices, not as many people are going to produce houses. So what is going to happen? There are not going to be as many houses as could otherwise be. So in other words, the new houses are bought on a first-come first-serve basis because they’re extremely cheap: which the argument is that it is good for them to be cheap. But what happens if the first person in line to buy this new house is a wealthy person with many houses, and he is just looking to buy this house for himself, and he doesn’t need it? Or what if he wants to buy it cheaply and sell it for a higher profit? Or what if he wants to buy it and live in it while he has other islands on his home to go to? Well, this is what happens when you limit the price that can be bought for items, also known as price gouging. Without these limits, yes, that house will be extremely high. But people will pay for it if they desperately need it. That wealthy man might think twice if the price being demanded is much higher than he is willing to pay, even if he is rich. Therefore, the house is going to the person that needs it the most, even if they have less disposable income. I think that the myth is that everyone is supposed to be wealthy, and maintain a certain high level of income. But this harms the consumers the most, because it harms the producers. The producers of goods do not produce goods for the good of the consumer: at least not necessarily. Even if they do love their consumer and want to provide good products, the profit incentive will force them to provide even better products than they would without the profit incentive. Think about it: are you willing to mow someone’s lawn better because you care about them, or because they are going to pay you a lot of money? Of course you are going to pick the money. The biggest problem with attacks on capitalism is that they assume money is evil, which it is not. There are greater forces at work here.
How does it make sense for people to get wealthy by ripping people off in the free market and with capitalism? If you were really being ripped off, would you not stop buying the product? This is also where competition comes into play: why is there a McDonald’s, a Burger King, a Wendy’s, and countless other restaurants? To serve you. Think this isn’t the case? Are you going to buy them if you don’t like them? Are you going to buy them if the restaurant is disgusting? Of course not. They have to meet your needs if they are going to receive your money.
The thinking is that because we need things, other people shouldn’t profit from it. But without that profit, are they just going to create houses because we need it? That is slavery. Imagine building houses all day and not receiving any payment for it. Hell, even the slaves received payment for their work: they got houses, food, etc., for all of those “bare minimum” minimum wage advocates.
But the bottom line is that you do not have the right to someone else’s labor. You make your own decisions, which include hiring someone, not hiring someone, starting your own business, keeping your own profits, and you have the right to quit. Nothing happens without mutual decisions, and yes, this includes the mutual decisions of paying for gas, buying a house, etc. You have no right to force someone else to provide these things for you unless you want to own a slave, even if you are feeding them what you think is the “bare minimum” that they need and enough for them to survive.
Pay attention to the fact that she says that the disproportionate number of African-Americans in American society contributes to the perception that there are more blacks on welfare than there are whites.
Also pay attention to how EARNING money makes you happier than getting a handout.
I’m learning this.
Also pay attention to the public vs. private homeless shelters.
I hope that we shatter this negative perception about capitalism and privatization.
If the money is more valuable to you than the service, you won’t buy the service.
Wealth is only generated when people give it to the wealthy individual.
If you don’t want Bill Gates to be wealthy, then give him back ALL of your Windows products that you have.
If you think that he should give you the product without you paying for it, then you believe he should be your slave. If you don’t believe that he should profit off of his product, but that you should still GET the product, then you believe that he should make the product for you for free.
That is the definition of slavery.
How hypocritical is that, as a socially just, redistributionist of wealth and racial equality liberal?
Competition is a grossly misunderstood concept to the liberal.