Is Capitalism Moral?

[polar]

Debating First Principles: Is Capitalism Moral?
Sunday, April 24, 2011


The America we live in today is not a capitalist country. For more than a century, we have lived in a mixed economy - a mixture of capitalism and socialism - in which the government interferes in more and more of our decisions, and takes away more and more of our wealth.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of individual liberty--the inalienable right to follow your own dreams and act according to your own judgment. It means the right to start a hair salon without seeking a government license, or the right to take a drug your doctor thinks could save your life, regardless of what some FDA bureaucrat thinks.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of inviolate private property - including the inalienable right to the product of your own work. It means the right to spend your money on expanding your business rather than on someone else’s retirement, or on a family vacation instead of your neighbor’s tonsillectomy.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of voluntary association - individuals deal with one another by persuasion and trade rather than physical force. It means that no matter how noble someone thinks his goals are--whether it’s building wind farms or sending other people’s children to college or erecting a bridge to nowhere--he has no right to force them on you. And it means that no matter how misguided someone thinks your goals are, so long as you are peaceful he has no power to stop you from living the kind of life you want to live.

Capitalism is the system where there is no government manipulation and distortion of the market (e.g., the Federal Reserve and Freddie and Fannie’s affordable housing policy that created the financial crisis), no alphabet regulatory agencies dictating and overseeing your every action, no wealth redistribution schemes to give your hard-earned income to causes someone else thinks are worthy.

Capitalism, in brief, is the system where you’re free to set your own goals and make your own choices, to find a career you love and rise as high as your ability and ambition will take you, to deal with others through win-win trades, and to keep the fruits of your labor.

I believe that this is the moral system. But the supporters of the mixed economy disagree. They call it selfish, greedy, heartless, immoral--and righteously claim the power to use force to get you to obey their vision of the “common good.” They hold that a society based on voluntary association is “exploitive”--and have replaced it with a dog-eat-dog system of pressure group warfare, where your freedom and wealth are at the mercy of how much political influence you can muster.

But capitalism is not exploitative. I spent nearly twenty years as the CEO of one of America’s largest financial institutions, BB&T, and one of the things I saw again and again was that a businessman who abandons principle and tries to make money at the expense of others, although he may succeed in the short run, is doomed in the long run. Taking advantage of people is not truly selfish, it is self-defeating: people will not trust you. You might fool Fred and Suzie, but they will tell Tom, Dick, and Harry and no one will trust you. Being untrustworthy will put you out of business.

The reason BB&T has been so successful is because we help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. They voluntarily pay us for this service, allowing us to make a profit. Both BB&T and our customers are better off from this win-win relationship. On a free market, where you can’t seek favors or bailouts from Washington, business is about creating these types of win-win relationships--by figuring out ways to benefit your clients while making a profit doing so. (And, if you do defraud your customers or engage in some other crime, the government in a free market is there to put a stop to it.)

But, you may be thinking, isn’t pursuing profit and your own self-interest wrong? Don’t we have a moral obligation to altruistically put the needs of others above our own? That is what we’re taught--but why is it true? Why is it moral to serve other people’s happiness, but not your own? Why is it wrong to try to make the most of your own life, neither sacrificing yourself to others nor others to yourself? Don’t you have as much right to your life as anyone else has to his?

You may have detected a theme running through the arguments made by the Ayn Rand Center representatives over the course of the debates. Underlying all of our arguments is a single basic principle: that you should be free to live your own life, and that no one--not the government, not your neighbors--should be able to force you to live the way he thinks you ought to. Our view, in other words, is that you have an inalienable right to pursue your own happiness. What could be more moral than that?

---John Allison is chairman of the board of BB&T Corporation. He began his service with BB&T in 1971, became president in 1987 and was elected chairman and CEO in 1989 (serving as CEO until the end of 2008). During Mr. Allison’s tenure, BB&T has grown from $4.5 billion to $137 billion in assets.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/apr/24/debating-first-principles-capitalism-moral/

i rly enjoy reading these arguments, sounds like something i'd say almost verbatim

[antonyrose]

Debating First Principles: Is Capitalism Moral?
Sunday, April 24, 2011


The America we live in today is not a capitalist country. For more than a century, we have lived in a mixed economy - a mixture of capitalism and socialism - in which the government interferes in more and more of our decisions, and takes away more and more of our wealth.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of individual liberty--the inalienable right to follow your own dreams and act according to your own judgment. It means the right to start a hair salon without seeking a government license, or the right to take a drug your doctor thinks could save your life, regardless of what some FDA bureaucrat thinks.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of inviolate private property - including the inalienable right to the product of your own work. It means the right to spend your money on expanding your business rather than on someone else’s retirement, or on a family vacation instead of your neighbor’s tonsillectomy.

Genuine capitalism is based on the principle of voluntary association - individuals deal with one another by persuasion and trade rather than physical force. It means that no matter how noble someone thinks his goals are--whether it’s building wind farms or sending other people’s children to college or erecting a bridge to nowhere--he has no right to force them on you. And it means that no matter how misguided someone thinks your goals are, so long as you are peaceful he has no power to stop you from living the kind of life you want to live.

Capitalism is the system where there is no government manipulation and distortion of the market (e.g., the Federal Reserve and Freddie and Fannie’s affordable housing policy that created the financial crisis), no alphabet regulatory agencies dictating and overseeing your every action, no wealth redistribution schemes to give your hard-earned income to causes someone else thinks are worthy.

Capitalism, in brief, is the system where you’re free to set your own goals and make your own choices, to find a career you love and rise as high as your ability and ambition will take you, to deal with others through win-win trades, and to keep the fruits of your labor.

I believe that this is the moral system. But the supporters of the mixed economy disagree. They call it selfish, greedy, heartless, immoral--and righteously claim the power to use force to get you to obey their vision of the “common good.” They hold that a society based on voluntary association is “exploitive”--and have replaced it with a dog-eat-dog system of pressure group warfare, where your freedom and wealth are at the mercy of how much political influence you can muster.

But capitalism is not exploitative. I spent nearly twenty years as the CEO of one of America’s largest financial institutions, BB&T, and one of the things I saw again and again was that a businessman who abandons principle and tries to make money at the expense of others, although he may succeed in the short run, is doomed in the long run. Taking advantage of people is not truly selfish, it is self-defeating: people will not trust you. You might fool Fred and Suzie, but they will tell Tom, Dick, and Harry and no one will trust you. Being untrustworthy will put you out of business.

The reason BB&T has been so successful is because we help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. They voluntarily pay us for this service, allowing us to make a profit. Both BB&T and our customers are better off from this win-win relationship. On a free market, where you can’t seek favors or bailouts from Washington, business is about creating these types of win-win relationships--by figuring out ways to benefit your clients while making a profit doing so. (And, if you do defraud your customers or engage in some other crime, the government in a free market is there to put a stop to it.)

But, you may be thinking, isn’t pursuing profit and your own self-interest wrong? Don’t we have a moral obligation to altruistically put the needs of others above our own? That is what we’re taught--but why is it true? Why is it moral to serve other people’s happiness, but not your own? Why is it wrong to try to make the most of your own life, neither sacrificing yourself to others nor others to yourself? Don’t you have as much right to your life as anyone else has to his?

You may have detected a theme running through the arguments made by the Ayn Rand Center representatives over the course of the debates. Underlying all of our arguments is a single basic principle: that you should be free to live your own life, and that no one--not the government, not your neighbors--should be able to force you to live the way he thinks you ought to. Our view, in other words, is that you have an inalienable right to pursue your own happiness. What could be more moral than that?

---John Allison is chairman of the board of BB&T Corporation. He began his service with BB&T in 1971, became president in 1987 and was elected chairman and CEO in 1989 (serving as CEO until the end of 2008). During Mr. Allison’s tenure, BB&T has grown from $4.5 billion to $137 billion in assets.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/apr/24/debating-first-principles-capitalism-moral/

i rly enjoy reading these arguments, sounds like something i'd say almost verbatim

  

[dman1991]

You are probably gonna call me an idiot again as I have tried to drive this point home 1000 times. All is great in this system, but the govt is still the police. Police =  (modern)weapons = power = corruption= a failed system. I understand in a perfect world a govt would serve its purpose and only that, but shouldnt we consider the human aspect?

[polar]

either you are saying that the police should be staffed with an army of Terminators, or you're saying that no govt should ever exist and we should live under anarchy

as stated previously, there is no freedom under anarchy.  the idea that govt is flawed and corruptable is obvious.  for the sake of argument we put aside this issue, we have to emphasize that the concept of the perfect system of government is fallacious and self-contradictory

[sunnyp]

If you're at the top, it's moral.

If you're at the bottom, it's immoral.

It depends who you ask, really. Those who get rich will do anything to stay rich. Those who are poor will always struggle to change the system, because they haven't got any power.

[polar]

If you're at the top, it's moral.

If you're at the bottom, it's immoral.

It depends who you ask, really. Those who get rich will do anything to stay rich. Those who are poor will always struggle to change the system, because they haven't got any power.

can you demonstrate what you mean?  can you show me exactly where under free market capitalism system with no government interference that the poor are at a disadvantage?

i think you're rallying against government regulation, where the elite co-opt the govt to make sure they don't have competition or allow anyone else to enter the market

[Rocket Queen]

the elite co-opt the govt to make sure they don't have competition or allow anyone else to enter the market

Status quo in U.S.

[mooney]

can you demonstrate what you mean?  can you show me exactly where under free market capitalism system with no government interference that the poor are at a disadvantage?

which free market capitalist system are you talking about?

[polar]

Status quo in U.S.

exactly, which i was i'm always pushing for no regulation

[dman1991]

Status quo in U.S.

Or anywhere else ever in the history of the world

[dman1991]

either you are saying that the police should be staffed with an army of Terminators, or you're saying that no govt should ever exist and we should live under anarchy

as stated previously, there is no freedom under anarchy.  the idea that govt is flawed and corruptable is obvious.  for the sake of argument we put aside this issue, we have to emphasize that the concept of the perfect system of government is fallacious and self-contradictory

Honestly, where we are right now, I would prefer the terminators, they arent capable of making selfish decisions. They just compute the best possible scenario. Id rather have a robot decide whats absolutely right than a guy who needs to do what he can to get his slut daughters into college. Catch my drift?

[dman1991]

either you are saying that the police should be staffed with an army of Terminators, or you're saying that no govt should ever exist and we should live under anarchy

as stated previously, there is no freedom under anarchy.  the idea that govt is flawed and corruptable is obvious.  for the sake of argument we put aside this issue, we have to emphasize that the concept of the perfect system of government is fallacious and self-contradictory

When one country's government can shoot a pelican from 3000 miles away, or record everything you say or everywhere you go via iphone, I dont really think it matters.  The term govt is now fallacious, as we have seen everyone ever go bad. This is why I continue to retardedally challenge your libertarian and free market shit. There is no balance anymore, do you really think ron paul is going to sway the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

[polar]

so basically as technology advances, you're saying that makes the case that the government should run around with no rules?

[sunnyp]

can you demonstrate what you mean?  can you show me exactly where under free market capitalism system with no government interference that the poor are at a disadvantage?

i think you're rallying against government regulation, where the elite co-opt the govt to make sure they don't have competition or allow anyone else to enter the market

Well, this is just my opinion, but it seems that any form of leadership or government is open to corruption and immoral behaviour. It is easy for immoral behaviour to occur in a capitalist society. It's just as likely to happen in a communist society as demonstrated in the USSR.

It is immoral, but then again so is every other type of society. It's human nature to exploit others.

Thus, those at the top benefit, while those at the bottom are usually the ones who line the pockets of the rich with their hard work. Capitalism is structured in such a way that money flows disproportionately to the top of the system, benefitting a small minority. Moral capitalism is possible, and it's one where money is shared more equally.

Just my opinion based on observations.