More answers to some commonly asked questions.
1. Why are there no commonly accepted answers to basic scientific questions?
Because thanks to our friends on the Left, science has become a weapon to use against conservative ideas, not an objective pursuit of the truth.
The fact that science is politicized is not a new phenomenon. To one degree or another, politics and religion have always influenced what is scientifically acceptable and what isn’t. (See “The Politics of Science and Religion” for more on this.)
The difference today is that the pursuit of scientific knowledge has gone well beyond the defense of one paradigm in the face of a new competing theory. Science has become a blunt instrument to discredit and attack a political opponent. This is why even dubious scientific judgments which were formally labeled “theories” are no longer presented as conditional opinions in need of further verification. Once a “scientific consensus” is reached, all investigation into the validity of a claim immediately ceases. Never mind that the so-called consensus isn’t even a numerically superior number of scientists in the field under study. All it takes is an organization which lays claim to representing scientific thought, and presto-bingo, “consensus” is achieved.
And this doesn’t even need to be an organization of scientific peers. The Natural Resource Defense Council is a citizen-based lobbying group, much like the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations, which claims to speak on behalf of the scientific community. It takes what dubious evidence there is that man is responsible for the warming we see on Earth (as well, presumably, as on Mars, Venus, and Pluto) and, via the magic of scientific consensus, pronounces the United States (exempting China, India and other countries) as the sole reason for this global temperature change. Toss in an Al Gore-inspired movie that shows the ice caps melting when it’s really only thickening, and a devastating global warming-produced hurricane season in 2005 (which has yet to be repeated in 2006 or 2007), and you have the basis for making public policy.
At least, that’s what the Left would have us believe. There’s a reason why they call “theories” theories, “consensus” consensus, and “facts” facts. Blurring the difference between these three notions not only destroys the credibility of the issue under discussion, it taints the entire scientific process. If the NRDC and others are going to lie about what is/isn’t an actual, scientifically-verified happening (as opposed to what they themselves would like to believe is/isn’t happening), then any future pronouncements they make on any environmental matter will fall on deaf ears. And the same goes for the other so-called scientists and media who jump on the Earth-is-Doomed bandwagon.
My fear is that one day these same interest groups and scientists may actually be right about an issue, the same way a stopped clock is correct twice a day. But I and many others won’t listen to anything they say, because they have no credibility. By overtly politicizing what has always been, at best, a highly subjective process, the Left has done more to destroy the public’s belief that science may in fact provide us with real answers than anything people tried to do centuries ago by denying that the world was round, or by claiming that the Biblical story of creation was the only scientifically-accurate reflection of reality. At least the Defenders of the Status Quo admitted their error about the Earth being the center of the Universe in the face of evidence to the contrary, and theories of Intelligent Design have evolved to reconcile science with the notion that God created the Universe. But on the Left, we still see the same rigid adherence to the current scientific “consensus,” regardless of whether it gets hotter or colder, rainier or dryer, or their crisis of the day flies in the face of any other evidence that calls their basic opinions into question.
2. How do companies survive if they kill their customers?
They don’t.
We’re told constantly by the Left that the only thing business people care about is making money. It doesn’t matter whether their product is safe or unsafe; as long as they can make a buck at the sucker’s (er, I mean customer’s) expense, that’s all that matters. And, they get bonus points if they rob the poor of what little savings they have by selling them harmful or defective products. The purpose of business is to steal money and enrich their fat cat owners. Nothing else matters.
Like so many observations from the Left, I’m always struck by their failure to see the irony of their own remarks. As someone who was already an adult in 1984, I remember the build up to that Orwellian trigger-date. Reagan was President, and he was threatening world-wide thermonuclear conflict with the Russians by not being nice to the Communists. Big Brother was already looking over our shoulders with as much — if not more — Leftist hysteria than the Patriot Act generated a couple of decades later. Everything George Orwell predicted had come true, and the U.S. was the living embodiment of his nightmarish vision.
Except for one thing. The true Orwellian society wasn’t the U.S.; it was the U.S.S.R. Anyone with half a brain (and a passing knowledge of the works of Alexander Solzenitzen, or Merle Fainsod’s Smolensk Under Soviet Rule) knew that the Soviet Union had become the embodiment of all things Orwellian, not The United States. But never one to let the facts get in the way of a good smear, the Left just plunged ahead with ignoring the obvious, and directed their full morally-indignant wrath towards the world’s greatest democracy.
And so it is with the Left’s analysis of the American economic system. Sure, isolated companies can and will lie to, steal from and/or cheat their customers, just the way individuals do the same with their family, friends and neighbors. And yes, in the earlier part of our nation’s history, there were some pretty creepy capitalists who took full advantage of their monopolies and trusts. But when an essentially democratic system is combined with the free market forces of capitalism, two things tend to happen. The government begins to target the bad guys and severely circumscribe their actions or put them out of business altogether, and those companies that offer a good product at a fair price tend to prosper. It’s called competition in a free market system. Make a better product at a competitive price, and you’ll start to drive a Toyota instead of a Ford — and stay loyal to that company in the years to come.
It’s only when the Left introduces its extraneous, politically-motivated issues into the discussion that the conversation becomes confused. Unionize Wal-Mart workers, and the same store — with the same management structure, and policies — would instantly change from evil pariah to the model of good corporate citizenship.
3. Why can Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. make stupid statements and not be held accountable for them the way others in the public view are?
I dealt with this in an article I wrote “Democrats Hate Little Children (Allah Be Praised),” and the answer bears repeating.
Listening to Liberals and Democrats is like watching a group of ten-year-olds on the school playground call someone a stinky-pants, or say that they’re ugly, or insist that their mother never really liked them. Nobody really analyzes what they say. You don’t find their teacher sniffing around little Johnny’s trousers to see if he’s actually emitting a foul odor, or sizing up little Suzie for a nose job and other plastic surgeries, or calling Tommy’s Mom to see if she does love her little boy after all.
Instead, you treat the remarks for what they actually are; silly, infantile expressions coming from a group of children who really don’t know any better, and as such can’t be held to the same standard as an adult. Contrast this with the same comment made by little Johnny/Suzie/Tommy’s teacher, and you’d see him or her put on suspension pending a full disciplinary hearing before the board of education.
And so it is that the Left can say just about anything they want — from commenting on race relations, to sexual orientation, to the war in Iraq — and no matter how egregiously stupid they act or sound the press isn’t going to call them on it. But let the “adults” (that is, Republicans and Conservatives) comment on the same subject matter, and every word, punctuation mark and/or nuance of what they say is scrutinized for content which is then used to criticize them.
To put it even more directly, Jessie, Al and the rest of the “progressive” wing of the American political system (which includes the Cindy Sheehans of the world and most Democrats running for president) are not held fully accountable for what they say because, well, everybody knows they’re just a bunch of morons, and therefore no one really takes them seriously.
If their pronouncements about the Bush presidency, Global Warming, Social Security or any other issue help further the Liberal/Media agenda, their statements are reported with a straight face. When the so-called facts these idiots present disintegrate under scrutiny, another template kicks in. Their facts may have been wrong, but their hearts were in the right place, so we’re supposed to give them a pass. But if a Republican said it was 12:30 when it was actually 12:31, that’s a deliberate lie designed to mislead and injure the time-sensitive American people. And nothing short of the offender’s removal from office (or an extended stay in prison) is warranted by this egregious error.
Now you can understand the uproar over the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence when no such outcry was heard to prosecute the man who actually leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. And, it accounts for the lack of any outcry from the Left over the “mis-truths” and other distortions told by both Plame and her husband in sworn testimony before Congress.
4. Do Republican policies really force old people to choose between buying food and buying medicine to survive?
For years we’ve been treated to media stories fed by Democrat politicians that because of Republican policies, older people must choose between buying medicine and buying food. As evidence they point to legions of unnamed senior citizens who are forced to eat dog food because they don’t have enough money to buy real food after paying for their life-sustaining medicines.
Despite the fact that not a single person was ever identified as having made this choice, the rumor persisted that Republican favor-the-rich policies routinely, and systematically, forced older Americans to eat dog food to survive. Now, thanks to the Chinese, we finally have actual data to put this claim to the test.
In recent months tainted dog food from China has sickened and killed a number of pets. Yet, during this time, not a single human being reported any dog-food related illness; that is, not any single American. The only reported cases of human illness came from a Canadian woman who claimed she was trying to entice her pets to eat by sampling their dog food. Luckily, the Canadian Health Care system has put her on a priority waiting list for treatment, so she’ll only have to wait seven months instead of the usual nine to see a doctor and get the necessary treatment their superior system provides.
5. Why do liberals believe that Islamo-facism poses no real threat to the US?
We can thank the multiculturalism curricula in our public schools, which teaches that there are no real differences between people; a fact that would be clearly seen if not for the bigotry and hate practiced by people on the Right.
Multiculturalism is the product of a society that embraces all things diverse, and thus instinctively seeks mediation over conflict. Multiculturalists are convinced that jihadists aren’t all that different from us. If we can just sit down with them over a cup of coffee (er, I mean, some drink without caffeine or alcohol or anything else prohibited by God) and talk things over, they’ll see that we mean them no harm. They understand that Osama was provoked into sending those planes into the World Trade Center because Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, who like them only wants to make the world safe from Global Warming.
We’re all reasonable people, this thought process goes, and reasonable people will find a reasonable way to reasonably compromise. Like our schools have taught us, through dialogue and understanding the other person’s point of view, we’ll find a way to deal with those pesky issues (like women having equal rights to men, and the existence of Israel) that complicate our Middle East relations, and in doing so make the world a more peaceful place for all of us. If only the U.S. wasn’t so bellicose and disrespectful of Arab sensibilities, we would have avoided the need for military action at all in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
And if only my farts smelled like perfume, I wouldn’t have to blame the dog every time I ate Mexican food. But they don’t, so I do.
Wishing the world was different is not the same thing as advocating a real-world policy to deal with a real-world problem. The world isn’t like your family, or your neighborhood, or your community, where people share a common set of values. It’s filled with Hitlers and Stalins, and Osamas and little Korean dictators with funny looking hair. They aren’t interested in “hashing thing out.” They’re interested in hacking you up.
In Liberal-think, if a terrorist wants to kill me just because I pray in a church instead of a mosque, or because I believe that women should be allowed to work outside the home, drive a car, or even vote, it's incumbent on me to reason out our differences and find common ground. Unfortunately, in the real world, that common ground is normally about 6 feet of soil covering my rotting corpse, because that's the only compromise a terrorist will agree to.
You can compromise with your spouse. Sometimes, you can compromise with your neighbor. And occasionally, you can compromise with your boss (if you still have the negatives from last year's Christmas party to use as an inducement to his cooperation). But you can't compromise with evil.
Wishing for a better world won't make it happen. But a couple of tons of bunker-busting bombs dropped on the right target will.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Insightful once again.
Just a note regarding your comments on capitalism. Capitalism cannot include illegal or immoral acts. Capitalism is defined simply as a legal, willing exchange of valuable things.
If the exchange is not willing, it's not capitalism. If one party is cheating the other, it's not capitalism. If the exchange is a drug deal on a street corner, it's not capitalism. If the seller is a fatcat with a monopoly, it's not capitalism. Selling a shoddy item is not capitalism.
With this understanding, the house of cards constructed by leftists tumbles to the ground. Every criticism of capitalism is rendered void, because those criticisms are of things that fall outside the realm of capitalism.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 27, 2007
Mountain Man said "Capitalism cannot include illegal or immoral acts." Wherever did that come from? Capitalism is defined as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
Do you seriously believe that Johns-Manville's deliberate hiding of the health effects of asbestos from its employees for decades was moral?
Do you seriously believe that Rohm & Haas' deliberate hiding of the health effects of bis-chloromethyl ether from its employees for decades was moral?
If capitalism was moral, would tens of thousands of employees of companies in the United States die from work-related injuries and illnesses each year?
Go back a couple of hundred years - look at companies that "employed" slaves when slavery was legal. Was that moral?
Comment by PaulBurnett | July 27, 2007
I've always been confused by the idea that we need to compromise with Islamists on things such as "female rights".
When a Republican wishes to put limits on abortion, he secretly wishes to enslave all women, and must be stopped. When Islamists engage in female genital mutilation, and actual enslavement…we need to find common ground.
Comment by WolvenBear | July 27, 2007
Mountain man — I’ve got to go with Paul Burnett on this one, insofar as Capitalism is a morally-neutral system as I understand and have studied it. I reject the value-laden Marxist terminology that assigns “bad” connotations to acts of capitalism, just as I reject any inherent notion of morality assigned to a free market system. In its simplest terms, Capitalism and/or a market-driven economy describes a process and outcome that is different than, say, Socialism or Communism. Morality (or the lack of it) is the province of human actions operating under any one of these systems.
The problem is that the term “Capitalism” has been used in the past to describe a number of things, from the Adam Smith world view to that of Uncle Karl. It means free enterprise to some people, and the ownership and control of the means of production to others. So a conversation about “Capitalism” per se can get kind of confusing until a common ground is reached for even using that term.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
"If capitalism was moral, would tens of thousands of employees of companies in the United States die from work-related injuries and illnesses each year?"
Lol. Yeah, that damned capitalism causes workers to get injured and killed on the job. And serves as proof that the free market is immoral. Contrast that with morally upright command economies where workers are never injured or killed on the job. Ever.
I'm not even going to bother with any further response. It would pointless. Fight the power man!
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | July 27, 2007
"If capitalism was moral, would tens of thousands of employees of companies in the United States die from work-related injuries and illnesses each year?"
Lol. Yeah, that damned capitalism causes workers to get injured and killed on the job. And serves as proof that the free market is immoral. Contrast that with morally upright command economies where workers are never injured or killed on the job. Ever.
I'm not even going to bother with any further response. It would be pointless. Fight the power man!
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | July 27, 2007
Oops…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | July 27, 2007
Oops too…sloppy editing of my response above. I meant to say "thousands of employees die each year and tens of thousands are seriously injured or made ill from work-related causes…" About 6,000 US employees die each year from work-related injuries or illnesses.
And Patrick, I know it's worse in "command economies." Socialist and communist systems generally have less compunctions about killing their workers than capitalist systems. I didn't (and wouldn't) say the free market philosophy is immoral.
Comment by PaulBurnett | July 27, 2007
Sorry, Phil, capitalism has to behave morally. If a business deliberately hides the health effects of asbestos from its employees for decades, that is contrary to the principles of capitalism. Its behavior is not a manifestion of capitalism, because what it did was both immoral and illegal.
Every instance named in post #2 is either illegal or immoral, or both. Therefore, none of them are manifestations of capitalism.
Capitalism is the willing exchange between parties. This includes disclosure of the conditions of the transaction, representation that the valuable consideration being exchanged is accurately protrayed, and that it is a legal activity for a legal purpose.
These transactions are made under certain assumptions, including moral and legal behavior. If it is immoral (i.e., prostitution), illegal (i.e., fencing stolen items), it is uncapitalistic.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 27, 2007
Mr. Burnett,
I would submit that capitalism is not morally neutral. It is actually the most moral system that has yet been devised to allow people to succeed or fail in a manner directly proportional to their own initiative. Citing lawbreakers does not invalidate the economic system, it merely demonstrate that people often break the law for economic gain, regardless of the economic system under which they live. Socialist societies aren't any more exempt than capitalist societies.
However, the individuals that practice capitalism can indeed be moral or immoral. As such, I would further submit that your findings as a safety & health inspection professional are directly attributable to the people who abuse the law and exploit their employees - not the underlying economic system of capitalism itself.
If you really want to see appalling violations of health, environment, and safety, I suggest a trip to the former USSR. The Chernobyl cleanup is a good starting place.
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
Paul,
Ever hear of a place called Chernobyl? How about Dzerzinsk?
Interesting that every single one of the 10 most polluted cities in the world all occur outside the USA, and most of those represent economies that aren't capitalist.
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/world_pollution.html#Anchor-Linfen-23240
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
Everyone is blending the notion of capitalism as a political system with the pure economics of a free market system. An Israeli kibbutz is a form of a communist/communalistic system. I wouldn’t say that this is an inherently immoral system. It matters whether the political system has forced at gunpoint an economic system on the population, or whether it’s been embraced legitimately/democratically.
I’m way out of my league commenting on economic issues, so I’ll end my analysis here, other than to reiterate that absent politics (which is something I know a bit about), I still find it difficult to assign morality or immorality to a purely economic process. Morality is something humans act in concert with or against, not a function of whether the state or private sector owns the means of production.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
One more thing that might help clarify my point of view. Mountain Man said "If a business [does X]." Businesses are inanimate objects. The “business” is not taking an action, the CEO, board of directors, and/or employees are. These human decisions are either moral/immoral, legal/illegal, etc. It’s like saying that an SUV killed a pedestrian. The driver killed the pedestrian — whose actions may or may not be mitigated if there was a mechanical failure of the SUV. The SUV has no moral responsibility one way or another.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
Phil,
We don't tend to disagree on much, but I remain of the opinion that the frameworks we construct to govern ourselves both politically and economically can either align with or contradict moral principles. As such, the frameworks themselves can be moral or immoral, not just the people that inhabit those frameworks.
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
So Tyco / Enron / WorldCom / Parmalat / Global Crossing / Adelphia Cable / et cetera ad nauseum such were not examples of capitalism running amuck, but of immoral people running amuck, taking personal advantage of a morally neutral system? A corollary of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Comment by PaulBurnett | July 27, 2007
Exactly.
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
“the frameworks we construct to govern ourselves both politically and economically can either align with or contradict moral principles.”
Steve, yes — but they align with or contradict moral principles only by human actions that take place within this framework.
There is nothing about private ownership of the means of production that requires one to make an honest product (vs. a deliberately defective one). It’s the person operating within that economic system that decides to cheat or not; a decision that may be aided or impeded by a political system that looks the other way or puts people like that in prison. Conversely, while I wouldn’t want to live in a commune, I don’t think the people on an Israeli Kibbutz are acting immorally because they choose to forego capitalism in favor of a different economic system.
Again, I’m only talking about economics here. I do think that a political system can be built on an immoral foundation. But again, it’s the human element that makes this ultimate designation. Going back to my communalist example, these people are not inherently immoral because they live in and are governed by a collective. And as the decision to legalize an abortion industry in the US shows, a market-driven system can operate immorally in certain instances.
I can accept that classic communism, as practiced by Stalin, is inherently immoral because it is built on the idea of suppressing individual freedom and will to the state. But this has nothing to do with who owns/controls the means of production.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
What Mountain Man is saying is that those who break the rules set forth in the free market system are not truly operating within the free market system, and therefore are not a reflection of the failure of such system, but of the immoral actions of certain individuals. And he is correct. The free market is not a no holds barred free for all. Operating as it should, the free market is the willful exchange of something of value between two or more parties. If two parties do not find each other's terms agreeable, no exchange takes place. This is why the free market is looked upon as morally superior - no one is coerced into an exchange against their will. That's also why it is the most efficient way to distribute goods - pricing and market indicators will always ensure that goods are distributed where they are needed or desired most. The lack of market indicators and static prices are the primary reason why socialist and communist systems are horribly inefficient and frequently either overpace or underpace supply. That's why black markets tend to thrive in such an environment - they serve as a means for supply and demand to more closely find equilibrium. But back to the point I was making, people who act in bad faith have not acted in accordance with the principles of the free market, and therefore are operating outside of it. The free market is no more responsible for individuals who break its rules than the law is responsible for criminals. The argument you are making is analogous to saying that because people break the law, the law is responsible for causing crime. The criminal operated outside the law - consequently you cannot blame the law for his crime. What this basically comes down to is a question of whether you believe personal or collective responsibility. This a classic debate in the liberal versus conservative mindset. Conservatives would tend to believe that the person who actually made the decision that caused harm is responsible for his actions. Liberals tend to believe that the action is the result of the system under which it occurred - basically, the freedom to make an immoral or unscrupulous decision implies that it must be done. The solution, of course, being to destroy the system and remove said freedom so that it cannot be exercised. Of course, this removes the freedom to choose otherwise as well - it removes the freedom to make choices altogether. Rather than punish the individual for his actions - as the law prescribes in our free market/capitalist economic system - you punish the system itself. "People wouldn't kill each other if they didn't have guns in the house."; "I wouldn't have cheated on my wife if that prostitute hadn't been there."; et cetera, ad nauseum.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | July 27, 2007
Morality is uniquely individual, but morals can be expressed corporately, (i.e., in societies, governments, and corporations). However, only individuals can be immoral or moral. Governments and businesses are simply tools that express the morality of the individuals who hold power within them.
This is why a government cannot be compassionate. A government must appropriate and allocate other peoples' money to fund "compassionate" programs. This is an immoral activity of the individuals elected to office who use government to redistribute wealth, ironically labled compassion by approving leftists.
Capitalism is not a political construct, it is a composite of the actions of millions of individuals financially interacting with each other in private transactions. There is no political ramifications unless government inserts itself into these transactions using its coercive power. The moment government does this, it waters down capitalism slowly into socialism or economic fascism.
Government has two roles in capitalism:
1) make and enforce laws so that economic transactions remain capitalistic (ie., willing participants, full disclosure, legal purpose, etc).
2) levy taxes as prescribed by the Constitution, except for the 16th amendment, which violates the original intent of the founders.
Laws are an expression of morality, but they are not synonymous. They are integrated together. "Fairness," for example, is a moral concept that can be expressed in law, but also can be misapplied (as in the so-called Fairness Doctrine).
So, true capitalism must be both moral and legal, or it ceases to be capitalism.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 27, 2007
I still think we're all defining key terms (like "capitalism" and "morality") in somewhat different ways.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
Is there anything in the "moral business" model that says immoral companies will go out of business but moral companies will stay in business?
Comment by PaulBurnett | July 27, 2007
Ahh, PaulBurnett is asking a good question. I was beginning to worry about him.
If society is comprised of people who value moral behavior, then immorality will be censured through economic choices. For example, if enough people highly value a clean environment, they will make personal economic and behavioral choices that reflect these values. Polluting businesses will have no customers.
Government action would not be needed. No CAFE, no emissions requirements, not even littering laws. But the problem is, government is pressed to legislate someone's moral viewpoint because society is being slowly sanitized of the Judeo Christian moral standard upon which this country was built. Subsequently, morality is now being externally imposed via more and more laws.
But back to the question. In a free society where the market is allowed to correct itself without the coercive meddling of government, then the consumer has all the power. Business is at the mercy of the consumer. Walmart is not an economic juggernaught holding consumers hostage. It would be out of business in a matter of days without its customers. If a moral people makes moral choices, business must toe the line or go out of business.
Ironically perhaps, this is what makes labor unions good. Unions are a good example of individuals combining together to exert pressure on a badly behaving business, providing all the checks needed to rein in "run amok capitalism."
Comment by Mountain Man | July 27, 2007
Mountain Man,
The problem with your definition is that it obscures more than it reveals. Specifically, you claim that for an exchange to be capitalistic, it must be both moral and legal.
First, I don't know many economic interventionists who disagree with the proposition that moral exchanges should be permitted, but that immoral exchanges should be forbidden. The question is: "What constitutes a 'moral' exchange?" There is a legitimate question of whether accumulation of large profits is moral. I happen to think it is, but a socialist would think differently. But we could still agree on the abstract principle that all exchanges should be moral.
Second, the principle that exchanges must be legal illuminates nothing, because it provides no guidance for determining what should and should not be legal. Again, a socialist or interventionist could use this same principle to support his economic philosophy.
You also write that levying taxes in accordance with the 16th Amendment is anti-capitalistic. I don't understand the argument here. How does "original intent of the framers" affect whether something is capitalistic? By that reasoning, banning slavery in accordance with the 13th Amendment is anti-capitalistic.
"Original intent" may be relevant constitutionally, but in this case that "intent" has been modified by a actual constitutional amendment. In any case, defining capitalism is not a constitutional issue.
Comment by Katzen | July 27, 2007
Paul,
What exactly is it that your are trying to say:
A. That capitalism is immoral?
B. That big business is immoral?
C. That capitalism should punish the immoral?
I don't think it is the role of capitalism to punish the immoral except to the extent that it inherently doesn't reward laziness or reward all individuals equally independent of contribution.
But it seems to me you are looking to capitalism to do more than it is designed to address. We have laws to stop the Tycos and Enrons and WorldComms. The problems in these companies were not failings of capitalism - they were just good old-fashioned garden-variety lies. People falsified financial records and documents, and violated insider trading laws. Surely as someone who audits companies for safety and environmental compliance for a living you understand this.
It seems to me that if we follow your reasoning, then we should condemn the practice of accounting because, if a ledger hadn't been kept, there would be no false ledger.
Please, just spit it out - whatever point it is that you are trying to make.
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
Enron provides a good example. The company I work for purchased Enron's wind turbine business. Normally in business acquisitions, the acquired business fights tooth and nail to keep its name rather than get swallowed up and lose its identity. But in the case of Enron, they couldn't wait to print the business cards with the new logo and tear down the old signs. I'm sure it was the same thing with Anderson Consulting. The market does reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. Perhaps not perfectly, but certainly more linearly than via the whim of a king or party bureaucrat.
The company I work for is huge. Outside of designing room-temperature fusion or vehicles that get 100 mpg on tap water, there is very little I can do to make the stock price go up markedly. However, it is drilled into us continually that any single person can tank the stock price by behaving badly because the marketplace will react swiftly when it believes a company cannot be trusted or is breaking the law. One individual can make a gigantic, rapid difference in the stock price by doing something stupid that puts the company in the crosshairs of a 60 Minutes correspondent, on the front page of the WSJ, or in the nightly news.
So, we can argue about whether the system is moral or only the people within it, but I would suggest that at least with capitalism we have a system that does a reasonable job of tying reward and punish to conduct that is moral. Also, notice I did not say "breaking the law." I said moral. It is not against the law to operate sweatshops with child labor in some countries. But when the American consumer finds out that they are purchasing products made under such conditions, they react and the manufacturer generally finds itself blacklisted by consumers and retailers.
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
Patrick,
Very good comments. This is again why I hold to the belief that a framework can be moral or immoral, not just the agents operating within it. A communal lifestyle can indeed by adopted by mutual consent - not by decree - but this does not in and of itself make the lifestyle amoral.
Phil, maybe I'm missing something here by not understanding the distinctions between political and economic. If I construct an economic framework under which certain activities are valued more than others according to the formula:
- killing innocents: 10 shares
- harming innocents: 5 shares
- not harming innocents: 1 share
Is the framework itself immoral, or does it only become immoral when someone acts in accordance to the framework?
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
I asked "Is there anything in the “moral business” model that says immoral companies will go out of business but moral companies will stay in business?" Mountain Man and Steve Sabin seem to generally agree with that.
So a moral company will survive and an immoral company (or a morally neutral company with immoral managment) will not…based on the selection pressure of the purchasing public. Interesting model. There's a term for natural selection leading to survival of the fittest, isn't there? It's called evolution. Or would you want to propose that moral companies are intelligently designed?
Comment by PaulBurnett | July 27, 2007
Survival of the fittest is a tautology. Only the fittest survive. How do we know? Because they survived. Why did they survive? Well, they're the fittest.
Natural selection? Nope, this is purposeful selection made by sentient minds based on perceived merit. A conscious process.
Yes, moral companies (that is, those who are in positions of power within those companies) have chosen to behave morally. And incidently, the choice to behave morally can entail risk. Or it might be an irrelevant factor. Consumers might choose to not purchase from the moral company for a variety of reasons, so even though it might be moral, it might fail. Morality doesn't guarantee success. But doing the right thing morally is not about consequences, it is about doing the right thing regardless.
Beyond that, everyone involved in the process utilizes conscious choices. Hardly a rose tossed to evolution.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 27, 2007
If a moral (or morally neutral) company manufactures immoral products (Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms products; or abortion instruments; or broadcasts of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction; or cars whose gas tanks explode in a low-speed rear-end collision; or whatever) would that make it an immoral company?
Some of the longer-lived companies that come to mind are tobacco companies and breweries of various sorts. Is survival a virtue irrespective of a company's morality?
Comment by PaulBurnett | July 27, 2007
“I’m missing something here by not understanding the distinctions between political and economic. If I construct an economic framework under which certain activities are valued more than others according to the formula:
- killing innocents: 10 shares
- harming innocents: 5 shares
- not harming innocents: 1 share
Is the framework itself immoral, or does it only become immoral when someone acts in accordance to the framework?”
*** Steve, this isn’t an economic system. It may be an economic calculation in a hypothetical and somewhat bizarre situation, but it isn’t a “system” which is based on either a state or individual owning the means of production.
The problem with this entire discussion is that everyone is using their own definition for an “economy”, and for “morality.” To some, morality is an application of Judeo-Christian morality (which, as I have maintained before, is not the same thing I discuss when speaking about a universal moral code). Others are so grounded in a God-Doesn’t-Exist & Evolution-Explains-Everything mindset that to them morality is just a strategic calculation.
At its core, an economic system deals with the question of who owns and/or controls the means of production. That economic system operates within a legal/political environment where some things are permitted or encouraged, and others are not. (However, “legal” is not the definition of “moral”, as abortion in the present day US and slavery in 19th century America clearly show.)
Unless a political system denies people an opportunity to exercise free will and make moral choices, the political system is morally neutral. This is why I can assign the term “immoral” to the communist/collectivist Soviet Union of the 1930s, but not necessarily to a modern day collectivist (and even communistic in the way it operates) Israeli Kibbutz.
In both a legal and political environment, people act/interact with others, and make decisions. It’s those actions and decisions — the actions and decisions of individual human beings — that involve questions of morality, not whether the economic structure is free market or socialistic.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
No Paul, I'm going to suggest that intelligent, moral companies and the framework within which they operate are the result of carbon atoms with no prior causitive source, a perfect non-oxidizing and then oxidizing atmosphere, lots of time and chance, random electrostatic discharge, followed by hundreds of millions of years of beneficial yet unguided mutations.
It's obvious, is it not?
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
Morality is little more than a choice unless it is subject to an absolute source. This can only be provided by God. Otherwise, morality is individually determined, or arrived at by consensus, or whatever pop culture happens to be advocating today. Such a morality is useless to a free society. In fact, relative morality has no utility. it is a moving target, and it carries no authoirty beyond the individual who chooses it.
I am not going to get into specific lines of business as to the morality of their product lines. We are talking general principles, universal in nature, and broad in application.
The value of morality is not in its utility. The results achieved do not justify the choice. Moral behavior does not regard the outcome. People behave morally because it is the right thing to do regardless of consequences.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 27, 2007
(sorry Paul, I just couldn't resist)
Comment by Steve Sabin | July 27, 2007
Mountain Man is exactly correct. Moral relativism will be the downfall of our society. In fact, it is no morality at all, simply a lethal case of each of us insisting that we have the right decide what is moral or immoral. Who wins? I suppose the one who is the strongest, or has the most firepower, or can marshal the largest number of committed individuals to take his side. In the end, we all lose.
Comment by denniscampbell | July 27, 2007
My fellow Americans, it is now time for you take notice of the world around you, get off your lazy behinds and start taking responsibility for your country and the people who are running it. Apparently, you no longer care what they do and what the end result is for our country and the people who live here. Today’s problems that include the war, immigration, taxes, poverty, and crime are the result of you not getting involved in what your elected officials are doing. Put yourself in the shoes of our elected officials in Washington who know that only half of you show up every four years to vote, so why shouldn’t they swear allegiance to a lobbyist or a special interest group and create and pass legislation that favors the special interest groups who have their backs. The folks in Washington consider you to be irrelevant since you never phone, fax, or e-mail and you never invite them home to talk to you and your friends, and wouldn’t a town hall meeting with homemade pastries be a nice touch?
To make matters worse, there are some of you who really believe that ONE political party has all the answers and nothing can be farther from the truth. Both the Democrat and Republican parties are propaganda based and are incapable of providing any leadership as are both being torn asunder from within and neither side wants to truly work with the other and in the end the American people are the losers. Throw away your party allegiance and register Independent and make them stand up and pay attention to your frustration. The power is with the people and it is about time you take control and us that power that was given to you by our founding fathers.
Comment by st8oftheunion | July 27, 2007
And the last Independent elected president was?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 27, 2007
“All it takes is an organization which lays claim to representing scientific thought, and presto-bingo, ‘consensus’ is achieved.”
Correction: Consensus is declared an article of faith by "Pope Owl Gore I", as another blogger called him.
“…But you can't compromise with evil.”
Why this isn’t obvious is beyond me. Even in spite of the sorry record of attempting to compromise with, or appease an evil adversary, it never loses its appeal. Such attempts date at least as far back as the Byzantine Empire’s attempt to buy off Attila the Hun (see http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/appeasement-as-war-doctrine ). The most recent attempt to snooker a democracy is the Arab offer to recognize Israel if Israel gives back the land it took in the 1967 war. You would have to have been a fool born yesterday to think the Arabs will keep their agreement once Israeli forces are withdrawn and Hamas and Hezb’allh moved in and filled the vacuum. Even if they did keep their part of the bargain, would it mean the end of the conflict? It would mean only that forces hostile to Israel would get to move their guns in closer.
Comment by sedonaman | July 29, 2007
Hi, Katzen.
Your post deserves a response, but I missed its appearing.
You said, "First, I don’t know many economic interventionists who disagree with the proposition that moral exchanges should be permitted, but that immoral exchanges should be forbidden." I have not suggested that immoral exhanges be forbidden. I have made the case for a moral people exercising their economic power to censure immoral transactions.
You ask if large profits are immoral. If a legally operating business, engaging in capitalism as I have defined it obtains a large profit, how can that be immoral? It has obtained the results of its capitalistic behavior.
You write, "…the principle that exchanges must be legal illuminates nothing." Allow me to remind you how I phrased the issue of legality: Government should "…make and enforce laws so that economic transactions remain capitalistic (ie., willing participants, full disclosure, legal purpose, etc)…" This means that any law government makes that contravenes capitalism (as I have defined it) or is outside the authority of the constitution is an illegal law. Price controls, safety standards, quotas, luxury taxes, are all extra constitutional exercises of government power.
As I mentioned, laws and morality are entwined. Therefore, an abortion for fee is a non capitalistic transaction, even though abortion is legal. Same with pornography, and prostitution in certain counties in Nevada. Further, it would be an immoral transaction for a car salesman to take advantage of a naive buyer and overcharge for a vehicle.
"You also write that levying taxes in accordance with the 16th Amendment is anti-capitalistic. " I actually did not write this. This amendment is an example of an unconstitutional amendment to the constitution, because it expands the power of government in a way the framers never intended. I'm sure you would understand that prohibition was unconstitutional. Just because the constitution has been amended doesn't mean the amendment is automatically constitutional.
Of course, this issue does have an impact on capitalism as well. An income tax means the government lays claim to the productivity of its citizens. This indentures every wage earner to the interests of government, making citizens serve government. If the definition of slavery is the denial of the right of a person to keep the fruits of one's own labor, then the income tax is slavery.
On that level, then, we must admit that constitutional amendments can and do impact both original intent as well as captialism.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 30, 2007
Mountain Man,
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment to the constitution. The Constitution contains no restrictions on the amendment power. Any amendment, properly adopted, becomes a part of the Constitution with standing equal to all other parts. This is a fundamental principle of constitutional law, accepted by originalists, whether they be original intent originalists or original meaning originalists, or whether they be Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, or Madisonians.
You ask, "If a legally operating business, engaging in capitalism as I have defined it obtains a large proft, how can that be immoral?"
Under your principles of morality, it obviously can't be immoral. My point is that other people conceive of morality differently. Some people, for instance, believe it is immoral for CEOs to earn millions each year while they pay their employees low wages. I don't believe that. You don't believe that. But it is not self-evident that you and I are right, and that others are wrong.
By the way, when say that only legal actions that you think are moral can be capitalistic, you are inventing your own definition of capitalism. I don't think that is the plain, public meaning of that word. Nor is it the accepted economic definition. PaulBurnett's definition in post 2 is correct.
Comment by Katzen | July 30, 2007
Mountain Man,
Doesn't every and tax deny people the right to keep the fruits of their labor? Are all taxes incompatible with capitalism? Are all taxes forms of slavery? And, if so, are all taxes unconstitutional?
Comment by Katzen | July 30, 2007
Katzen,
There is such a thing as an unconstitutional amendment. I mentioned Prohibition as an example.
You are correct, of course, there are no restrictions on amendments if the prescribed constitutional procedure is followed. But hypothetically speaking, let's say that the House of Representatives was eliminated by a properly passed amendment. Would that be constitutional? Or what about the repeal of the first amendment? Would that be acceptable to you?
I think you see what I'm saying. Amendments to the constitution, by definition, must be consistent with the principles of the constitution itself. We cannot adopt an amendment that invalidates the constitution or changes the fundamental structure or power of the government, for constitutional principles are immutable. Invalidating the basic principles of the constitutions is the equivalent of revolution.
Nor can we accept amendments that contradict or invalidate unrepealed amendments or constitutional provisions. The 16th amendment did just that.
Regarding morality, I'm not contesting that other people have their own versions of morality. I am saying that other versions of morality, like that regarding CEO pay for example, are inconsistent with capitalism.
Paul Burnett's definition is a political definition, and really adds no information or understanding. Mine is economic, real-world and practical. I am not trying to parrot some dictionary definition of the word. I am attempting to go beyond the textbook explanation to get at fundamental understanding.
Capitalism is not a system, it is not a manifestation of political implementation that would not exist otherwise. Anyone who buys and sells with another willing party, regardless of the political environment, is engaging in capitalism to some degree. Even in a dictatorship or within communism, capitalism manifests.
I did not say that only legal actions that I think are moral can be capitalistic. I said that immoral and/or illegal actions are not capitalism. Cheating someone may not be illegal, but it is immoral. Selling a product with planned obsolesence is immoral. Selling a product with a known defect is immoral. Whether these should be illegal may be another matter.
But since they are immoral, they are not capitalistic behavior. Why? Because they violate a basic principle required for capitalism: Capitalism requires a willing buyer and a willing seller with full disclosure of the valuable consideration being exchanged.
Regarding taxes: Every tax on productivity deprives a person of the fruits of his labor. How far you want to take this, as far as other taxes, is up to you. It doesn't change the principle that the money one earns belongs to him, and government takes part of what belongs to the individual to fund its own objectives, which may run counter to the individual's own aims. That is, as I said, slavery.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 30, 2007
Mountain Man,
If Congress and the states properly passed an amendment repealing the First Amendment (or the House of Represenatives), then it would indeed become a valid part of the Constitution. Would that amendment be acceptable to me? No, it wouldn't. But whether something is constitutional and whether it is acceptable to me are two different things. The Prohibition amendment was absolutely constitutional, and it is only null and void as a result of the amendment repealing it.
You write, "Amendments to the constitution, by definition, must be consistent with the principles of the constitution itself." On the contrary, amendments to the Constitution, by definition, amend (or change) the Constitution and may alter its underlying principles.
You are making the same type of mistake many non-textualist jurists make. You are discovering principles you think are imbeded within the Constitution and treating them as if they themselves were part of the text. As far as I can tell, this is just a conservative version of "penumbras, formed by emanations." It is no more convincing than the original version articulated by Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Prostitution involves a willing buyer and a willing seller, and–unless the prostitute has an STD–there is full disclosure of what is being exchanged. Yet you say it is not capitalistic, even when legal. Why? Because, you say, it is immoral. Why is it immoral? That's the question your argument needs to answer to complete itself. Many who favor legalized prostitution think it is not wrong, and therefore–by your definition–have every reason to believe it to be capitalistic. So the part of your definition that requires capitalistic behavior to be moral itself requires a definition: What is moral?
In case anyone misunderstands me, I am not a relativist. I have a very definite view of what I think is moral and what is not. And when people disagree with me, I think they are mistaken. But, I don't doubt that such people believe that they act morally. So telling them that capitalistic exchanges must be moral exchanges does little good us we agree on what is moral. And that requires discussion and inquiry.
I don't think PaulBurnett's definition is as unhelpful as you claim. The definition clearly draws a distinction between economies in which the means of production are generally privately-owned and those in which the means of production are not privately owned. The former is capitalism, the latter is not capitalism. I think that's a fine and useful distinction.
I guess I just don't agree that your understanding of capitalism is the correct understanding of capitalism. I don't think an action need be moral in order to be capitalistic (which is the necessary implication when you say, "immoral and/or illegal actions are not capitalism"). I think you and I simply understand the word differently, and there is no type of evidence or logic that can convince you or I that the other is right. I will note, though, that PaulBurnett and I use the word the way economists do, whereas you seem to have invented your own definition.
I'm slightly confused by your answer to my questions about taxes. Do you agree that a sales tax on liquor is a "tax on productivity?" If so, according to your reasoning, it must be a form of slavery. And if it is a form of slavery, is it unconstitutional? Or, since sales taxes predate the prohibition on slavery, is the 13th Amendment unconstitutional?
Comment by Katzen | July 30, 2007
Now you are confusing me. You say you are not a moral relativist, but yet you ask, "what is moral?" Morality is easy to discover, but sometimes hard to accept. I have given several examples of how capitalism must be moral in order to function, and you have yet to address any of them. Nor have you refuted the idea that capitalism is rooted in moral behavior.
Law is a reflection of morality. We probably would agree that stealing from Walmart is wrong. But why is it wrong? Because the law says so? No, it is wrong because stealing is a moral issue. And our moral issues are grounded in judeo-christian principles. These are absolute, non-negotiable, and foundational to human existence.
John Adams wrote this: “There is no Government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to govern any other.”
And James Madison, the chief architect of the constitution, wrote this: “We have staked the whole future of the American Civilization not on the power of Government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” If anyone is making a mistake about understanding the principles of the constitition (and morality), it is you.
Capitalism has less to do with ownership than you think. In America today, if you do not pay your property taxes long enough, the government will sieze your house. So then, who really owns it? If you do not pay your income tax long enough, the government can attach your wages, sell your assets for cash, or put you in jail. So who really owns your economic fruitfulness?
Yet in America, millions of capitalistic transactions happen every day. Same with Cuba, though it is communist. Even North Korea. Again, capitalism has little to do with politics.
You really think that the constitution can be amended for any and all reasons, if the procedure is followed? You don't think that there are foundational principles in the constitution that cannot be violated? Then you truly do not understand the principles of unalienable rights bestowed by our Creator. You truly do not understand the nature of liberty, self-government, and inherent indiviudal worth and dignity.
You will never convince me that is constitutional to repeal free speech. You will never pursuade me that the constitution would allow an amendment that would permit slavery, or the dissolution of all religion, or the disarming of citizens. This would be like saying it is consistent with good construction techniques to dismantle a house's foundation while leaving the structure intact.
It makes no sense to invoke a constitutional procedure in order to dismantle that very constitution. I'm sorry, Katzen, you are terribly wrong about this.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 31, 2007
Mountain Man,
I'm not a moral relativist because I have definite moral views and I think those who disagree with me are wrong. But I don't think all moral cases are easy cases, as simple as concluding that stealing is wrong. Reasonable people can differ on some moral issues.
I can't refute your idea that capitalism is rooted in moral behavior. You and I simply understand the word "capitalism" differently. No facts exist that could prove you right and me wrong, or me right and you wrong.
You write, "It makes no sense to invoke a constitutional procedure in order to dismantle that very constitution." Who said anything about "dismantling?" We are talking about "amending," which I do think is the very thing the constitutional amendment process is for. Those amendment properly adopted are "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution."
That there are no constitutional restrictions on the contents of constitutional amendments other that those specificied in the text of Article V has never been seriously contested. Indeed, it cannot be seriously contested. But just for fun, try not paying your income tax and explaining to a court that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Not only will you lose, your argument will be dismissed as frivolous, and your lawyer might face disciplinary proceedings. It's just not a plausible argument.
The founders gave us the amendment process because they understood that the Constitution might not be sufficient forever. They were not so presumptive as to declare any part of the Constitution immune from amendment. The plain import of Article V, as understood at the time and ever since, is that any amendment is valid if it conforms to the explicit requirments of that same Article.
To put it simply, that the First Amendment could theoretically be repealed by constitutional amendment is a constitutional fact. He who does not understand that fact also does not understand the Constitution.
Comment by Katzen | July 31, 2007
I think vigorous, honest debate between reasonable people is what sets us apart from leftists. Your input has been valuable to me in crystalizing my thoughts in this matter.
When we are talking about capitalism, morality is relatively simple. The great debates of philosophers is not what we are dealing with. We are not attempting to parse intricate moral dilemnas.
In capitalism, there is only a few simple moral axioms at most. 1) It is wrong to steal (i.e. take something which does not belong to you, whether by cheating, overcharging, or whatever). 2) It is wrong to lie (i.e. misrepresent, hide facts that impact the transaction) 3) It is wrong to make a promise and not follow through (i.e. sign a contract and then break it) 4) it is wrong to manipulate a transaction in order to get more than what you are entitled to (i.e., clever sales techniques, bait and switch, additional-cost items added at the end of a sale after a price has been agreed). Hmm, you'll find each of these in the Ten Commandments!
Would you agree this isn't a particulary gray set of moral precepts? Would you agree also that engaging in this behavior will not only keep you on the right side of the law, but it will build goodwill with those involved in transactions with you? And lastly, would you agree that these precepts are crucial to the health and trustworthiness of capitalism as the superior form of commerce?
Regarding the constitution, you object to me characterizing the amendment process as having the potential to dismantle it. But if pushed to the logical conclusion, then that is what you're advocating. If any duly passed amendment is valid, then an amendment or series of amendments could be passed that would dismantle the constitution. As I said earlier, this is functional revolution. As I also said, one cannot engage in a by-the-book demolition of the foundation of a building and expect that the house will continue to stand.
I am not saying this cannot be done constitutionally. I have always agreed with you that a duly passed amendment is valid in process. What I have suggested is that there can be unconstitutional amendments. Why was prohibition repealed? Because it became clear that it is not the role of the constitution to govern the behavior of individuals. Why has the marriage amendment not gained traction? Because (at least in part), the purpose of the constitution is not to govern the behavior of citizens.
This is critical, because it speaks to my point. The singular theme of the constitution must remain: it is a document that delinates and limits the duties and power of government. It does not grant rights to people, it has nothing at all to say regarding what people can and cannot do. It is solely a document that limits the power of government.
Any amendment that violates this foundational assumption is unconstitutional in nature. Sure, it is functionally valid because it crossed the T's and dotted the I's, but in principle (and principle is supremely important), the constitution will have been invalidated to some degree.
I pay my income taxes because the government has power over me. It has power over me because an amendment was passed that diminished my freedom and increased the government's scope. I am obligated now to fund the government's aims at the expense of my own. I have not argued that it was not duly passed and therefore can be ignored, as some have done. I am arguing that it violates the foundational nature of the constitution as intended.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 31, 2007
Mountain Man,
I agree that this debate has been worthwhile and enlightening.
I also agree that the moral precepts you laid out are not particularly gray (though "clever sales tactics" is open to a lot of interpretation). I agree that following those precepts will build goodwill and keep you on the right side of the law (generally). And I agree that those principles are crucial to the trustworthiness of capitalism. This isn't exactly the same as being inherent in the very definition of capitalism, though I think these four principles, which I interpret as prohibiting force and fraud, might well be inherent in that definition.
But those four precepts do not tell me why prostitution, if legal, is not a capitalistic exchange. It is neither force nor fraud. Until you tell me the moral precept you would add to capitalism that would rule out prostitution, I tell you whether or not I agree with that principle. Nor can I tell you whether I think it is inherent in the definition of capitalism.
I said before that you and I understand the word "capitalism" differently. Your last post indicates that we understand the word "unconstitutional" differently, as well. I've always understood an unconstitutional law to be a law that, because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, is necessarily null and void. You apparently understand "unconstitutional" as describing not only such laws, but also valid parts of the Constitution that seem philosophically at odds with the basic principles of our supreme law. I suggest to you that your usage is not the common usage. And I further reiterate that it is the text that is the law, not the unratified intentions. Any official who swears to uphold the Constitution, whether he be in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch, swears to adhere to the written and ratified text–including the parts he doesn't like, and the parts he thinks "violates the foundational nature of the constitution as intended." The essence of my position is that the Constitution, though it may have an underlying philosophy, is itself law, not philosophy.
Comment by Katzen | July 31, 2007
Are you asking about the morality of prostitution, the legality of it, or the capitalistic nature of it? I am not intending to impact the libertarian perspective on so-called "victimless crimes" in this discussion, if that's what you're asking me. We can do so if you wish, however.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 1, 2007
I have several questions.
1. If prostitution were legal, would it be capitalistic?
2. If not, would it be because prostitution is immoral?
3. Is the principle by which you conclude that prostitution is immoral to be found among the four you named above?
4. If so, which one?
5. If not, what principle would you add?
Comment by Katzen | August 2, 2007
My list of principles wasn't intended to cover every eventuality, but I think they are sufficient for most situations. Maybe I need to add to it…
Anyway, prostitution first violates principle #3. It does so when someone who is married and has spoken vows to their spouse (promise/contract to have no other) breaks those vows.
Second, prostitution violates principle #1. As you know, "free love" is a relatively new concept in American society. In prior centuries, husband and wife were treated as a single entity (unfortunately, often subjugating the woman to the man, an error derived from a faulty understanding of marriage). Christianity teaches that the married couple is "one flesh." Man and wife belong to each other, value each other, complete each other, and combine together where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
But unmarried people do not belong to each other. They are taking from each other something they are not entitled to have. The old-time Bible word for this is "fornication," which is translated from the Greek word "porneia." We get our word pornography from it. If refers to any sexual activity of any kind outside the boundaries of marriage. Therefore, having sexual relations outside of marriage is stealing something from the other person and creating "one flesh" connections where they do not belong.
There are things that look like capitalism (willing buyer, willing seller) but are really not. I've listed several examples above. The test of legality is not a sufficient requirement to determine capitalism, because laws change. Abortion used to be illegal, now it's not. Did it suddenly become capitalistic when it was legalized? No, because it is immoral.
If I promise to pay someone to kill my neighbor, it is not capitalism because it is not legal. But since you have said that the constitution can be amended in any way, we must therefore admit that murder can be legalized. Same with illegal drugs, sex with children, polygamy, incest, etc. There is no reason, absent the moral test, why all of these things shouldn't be legal, and therefore, potential capitalism.
Morality is a higher test than legality. Legality must always come under moral scrutiny. You're familiar with the concept of civil disobedience. It's basic precept is that immoral laws can be broken. Morality trumps the law. Rosa Parks' bus ride applied moral principles to the law, and the law lost. Rightly so.
That's why absolute morality is so important, because this kind of morality never changes. The law always changes. And, it must be changed to be brought under moral understanding, not to escape morality.
That's why the constitution doesn't operate in a vacuum. It has a moral underpinning established in the declaration of independence and millenia of moral understanding. All law (and the constitution is a collection of laws) is based on presuppositions, assumptions, and established understandings. We must consider those contexts and operate within those understandings, subjecting them to Madison's criteria (as quoted above). Otherwise, laws are ultimately meaningless.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 2, 2007
Prostitution arguably violates principle #3, but only when one of the parties is married.
I think it's a stretch to say that prostitution violates principle #1, even using the old Chrisitian teachings. But I'll defer to you on that. I suppose where we differ is that I don't find that teaching morally convincing.
I actually think abortion did become capitalisitc when it was legalized. If abortion is immoral, then capitalism allows immoral exchanges. But, yes, I think any legal transaction with a willing buyer and a willing seller is capitalistic.
I don't disagree with the notion that in some circumstances breaking the law is appropriate. But part of civil disobedience is to openly admit to oneself and to the world that one is breaking the law, and not to invent a strange legal doctrine whereby a law is only a law if one thinks it is moral.
I agree that the Constitution is "based on presuppositions, assumptions, and established understandings." And if those presuppositions, assumptions, and established understandings remain in tact, the Constitution should be fine. If not, we have the amendment process. Your restrictive view of the amendment process would force the Constitution to operate in a vaccuum by declaring that, no matter how the moral underpinnings of society change, the Constitution's own moral underpinnings cannot be amended.
I stress again that the Founders did not set up the Constitution so that their will could bind their ancestors until the end of time. They set up the Constitution because they were trying to establish a federal government appropriate to their circumstances. The only reason they could possibly have had for creating an amendment process is that they recognized the possibility that circumstances would change, and that the Constitution would have to accomodate. If American history shows one thing, it is that the Constitution will change–either through the amendment process, or through philosopher-kings on the Supreme Court. With the former, the Constitution changes prudently and in accordance with the will of the American people. With the latter, it changes irratically and mysteriously, and in accordance with the will of five to nine lawyers. I prefer the former.
Now, could the Constitution be amended to allow murder? Yes, theoretically, if 2/3 of each House of Congress and three quarters of the states thought this was a good idea. But this unlikely even would provoke a revolution, and rightly so. If the Constitution becomes intolerable, we should revolt. But, in that case, we shouldn't claim to be protecting the Constitution. We should freely admit to revolting against it.
Comment by Katzen | August 3, 2007
You are arguing that any transaction between a willing buyer and seller is capitalistic if it is legal. Yet you have arrived at this conclusion based on what, your sense of right and wrong (your moral understanding)? Do you not see the contradiction?
I don't think I said that I said that "a law is only a law if one thinks it is moral." Civil disobedience is predicated on the idea that immoral laws should not be obeyed. That is a quite different idea. And that is not a "strange legal doctrine." This has been practiced for thousands of years, because the understanding of law being weighed in light of its morality is a well-established and crucial doctrine.
You seem to be saying that amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations places it in a vacuum. You want it to be divorced from its historical context and be interpreted according to the whims of pop culture and shifting moral understanding. But somehow you are not a moral relativist.
Yet you suggest that amending the constitution to allow murder would be repugnant to you. Thank you, you are making my point for me. Murder is a moral evil that will always remain so, no matter what the opinion de jur is. It is a fundamental moral understanding that cannot ever change.
Just the opposite of operating in a vacuum, the historical underpinnings and moral understanding of the Framers provides context, meaning, and authority to the constitution. However, subjecting the constitution to the current notions of public opinion is actually where the vacuum is created.
The historical context of constitution is being ignored by government and reinterpreted with strange doctrines by a supreme court that has chosen to ignore precedent. Contemporary interpretations and ignoring the historical context… hmmm, we already have the results of your position, don't we?
Would you prefer a poker game where the rules change mid hand, or where the rules are plain, constant, and unambiguous? The constution is not a living document that requires the contemporary mind to interpret it. It is a foundational document that must be understood and applied according to its context and the intent of its writers.
Any conservative should understand this. Any conservative should stand on timeless moral principles. These things are basic to being a conservative. They are quintessentially American.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 6, 2007
(Hopefully this isn't a duplicate post)
You seem to be saying that amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations places it in a vacuum. You want it to be divorced from its historical context and be interpreted according to the whims of pop culture and shifting moral understanding. But somehow you are not a moral relativist.
Yet you suggest that amending the constitution to allow murder would be repugnant to you. Thank you, you are making my point for me. Murder is a moral evil that will always remain so, no matter what the opinion de jour is. It is a fundamental moral understanding that cannot ever change.
Just the opposite of operating in a vacuum, the historical underpinnings and moral understanding of the Framers provides context, meaning, and authority to the constitution. However, subjecting the constitution to the current notions of public opinion is actually where the vacuum is created.
The historical context of constitution is being ignored by government and reinterpreted with strange doctrines by a supreme court that has chosen to ignore precedent. Contemporary interpretations and ignoring the historical context… hmmm, we already have the results of your position, don't we?
Would you prefer a poker game where the rules change mid hand, or where the rules are plain, constant, and unambiguous? The constution is not a living document that requires the contemporary mind to interpret it. It is a foundational document that must be understood and applied according to its context and the intent of its writers.
Any conservative should understand this. Any conservative should stand on timeless moral principles. These things are basic to being a conservative. They are quintessentially American.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 6, 2007
I'm beginning to wonder if we haven't exhausted the topic, because your last post is full of mistakes and strawmen.
First of all, let me address the mistake I may have made. If you agree that a law does not cease to be a law simply because it is immoral, then why do you seem to have a problem with the notion that a constitutional amendment does not cease to be constitutional simply because it is immoral? I'm still somewhat unclear as to whether this is nothing more that a language dispute. You've indicated that "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" mean different things to you than they mean to the rest of the English-speaking world. For the record, I will state that I believe a constutional law or amendment is, by definition, a law or amendment made pursuant to and/or in accordance with the Constitution. And an unconstitutional law is, by definition, a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution. And an unconstitutional amendment is an amendment that contradicts the restrictions imposed in Article V of the Constitution. Under these definitions, all sorts of horrible, disgusting things could be amended into the Constitution.
Now, on to your mistakes. You write:
"You are arguing that any transaction between a willing buyer and seller is capitalistic if it is legal. Yet you have arrived at this conclusion based on what, your sense of right and wrong (your moral understanding)? Do you not see the contradiction?"
No, I do not arrive at this conclusion based on my sense of right and wrong. I arrive at that conclusion based on my understanding of the word "capitalism"–an understanding economists share. You're mistaking a disagreement over language for a disagreement over morality.
You write:
"You seem to be saying that amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations places it in a vacuum. You want it to be divorced from its historical context and be interpreted according to the whims of pop culture and shifting moral understanding. But somehow you are not a moral relativist."
Here, you are mistaking our disagreement about how a Constitution may be amended for a disagreement about how the Constitution, as currently written, should be interpreted. I have not written a word in support of the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted differently year to year. That sort of constitutional change is wholly illegitmate. We are not talking about interpreting the Constitution, but amending the Constitution. And even if we were talking about interpretive philosophy, I fail to see how my interpretation of words on paper has any bearing on my moral philosophy. The rest of the paragraph I don't understand. What does "amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations" even mean?
You write:
"Yet you suggest that amending the constitution to allow murder would be repugnant to you. Thank you, you are making my point for me. Murder is a moral evil that will always remain so, no matter what the opinion de jur is. It is a fundamental moral understanding that cannot ever change."
There's no "yet" about it. I don't disagree with any of this, and I don't see how my position that the Constitution can be amended to allow murder contradicts my belief that it shouldn't be so amended–not now, not ever. The legal prohibition on murder exists as long as the law prohibits murder. The moral prohibition on murder exists for all time. The moral prohibition inspires the legal prohibition, but they are not the same thing.
You write:
"The historical context of constitution is being ignored by government and reinterpreted with strange doctrines by a supreme court that has chosen to ignore precedent. Contemporary interpretations and ignoring the historical context… hmmm, we already have the results of your position, don’t we?"
No, we don't. Once again, you are mistaking our disagreement about how a Constitution may be amended for a disagreement about how the Constitution, as currently written, should be interpreted. The results we have are the results of applying an interpretive philosophy that holds that the Constitution magically "evolves." That is not a philosophy I share. I do believe that the Constitution can be consciously and legally changed by amendment. I believe this, not because of moral relativism and vaccuums, but because the text is unambiguous about this.
Equally unambiguous was my last post about this very issue. I wrote:
"If American history shows one thing, it is that the Constitution will change–either through the amendment process, or through philosopher-kings on the Supreme Court. With the former, the Constitution changes prudently and in accordance with the will of the American people. With the latter, it changes irratically and mysteriously, and in accordance with the will of five to nine lawyers. I prefer the former."
I thought from this sentence it was clear that I believe re-interpreting the Constitution to fit the views of the Supreme Court is "irratic [sic]" (should be "erratic") and "mysterious." Those words do not normally describe something the person who wrote them thinks is just dandy.
You write:
"Would you prefer a poker game where the rules change mid hand, or where the rules are plain, constant, and unambiguous? The constution is not a living document that requires the contemporary mind to interpret it. It is a foundational document that must be understood and applied according to its context and the intent of its writers."
This is a continued refutation of an opinion I never stated and don't hold. What I've said elsewhere in this post applies here. I hope, for the sake of this discussion's clarity, that I have sufficiently explained the difference between my actual views and the one's you have bizarrely attributed to me.
Comment by Katzen | August 6, 2007
Katzen,
It is dishonest of you to paint me as being the only one to hold this opinion, simply because we disagree. Yes, I think we have exhausted this topic, if only because you have not refuted my opinion but simply denied it.
I asserted that morality is an important component of capitalism and should you many reasons why. You simply denied my point.
I asserted that to divorce the constitution from its historical context would do violence to it, and showed you why. You simply denied my point.
I asserted that the constitution must be only be amended according to its context and foundational context, and showed you why. You simply denied my point.
I asserted that the constitution can be amended with unconstitutional amendments, and showed you some examples. You simply denied my point.
You have done little more than just summarily dismiss what I say without offering any evidence for your position.
Yup, I've had enough.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 8, 2007
Mountain Man,
You never explained why morality is part of the definition of a capitalistic exchange. You simply asserted that certain exchanges are not capitalistic because they are immoral. How exactly can I "refute" your definition? I can't. All I can do is what I have done–suggest that your definition of capitalism differs from the commonly accepted understanding. You have insisted on painting this simple disagreement about the meaning of a word as a profound moral disagreement.
I never claimed that to divorce the Constitution from its historical context wouldn't do violence to it, but I admire your persistence in beating up this straw-man. I only claimed that as the world changes, we might wish to amend the Constitution in accordance with the process laid out in Article V, ratified by our Founding Fathers whose intent you claim to honor. I also argued that the purpose of the amendment process just might be to–gasp!–amend the Constitution. Even–gasp!–what Mountain Man thinks are its "foundations."
I did not simply deny your point that amendments must jive with the Constitution's original foundational context. I pointed you directly to Article V, which allows any amendment whatsoever, subject to a few specific restrictions, none of which would preclude something like, say, an amendment allowing for an income tax. You have completely ignored the text of the Constitution throughout this discussion. You have not produced a single quote from a Founding Father, from a court decision, from a legal authority, or from the Constitution itself that would support the idea that an amendment made in accordance with Article V could be unconstitutional. It is an idea that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution's history or text.
I have quoted the text of the Constitution to support my argument, but you apparently think that this doesn't count as valid support for my position. So, let's look at what the one of the founders had to say.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm
"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications." –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82
"Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still wanting." –Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
True, none of these quotes specifically say that the "foundations" of the Constitution might be changed, but so what? You're the one claiming that the text of Article V contains an unwritten understanding. Surely, if that's true, you could find plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers reflecting that understanding. The burden of proof is on you. You haven't met it because you can't. But what you can do is ignore the text of the Constitution. And, boy, does that strategy work for you.
You did indeed assert that the Constitution can be amended with unconstitutional amendments. It remains an absurd and illogical assertion, since the Constitution permits, by logical necessity, the thing it was amended to permit. When you say that you provided examples, you mean that you simply asserted, against all reason and historical evidence, that amendments you don't like are unconstitutional.
Let's do an autopsy. The conservation did not die because I refused to treat your points seriously. It died because you invent strange definitions and treat the ensuing disputes as moral rather than linguistic. It died because you repeatedly ascribed to me views that I did not express. It died because you ignored the views I did express. And it died because you, contrary to your insistence, did not support your views with evidence.
I have never encountered somebody who could so easily turn a productive debate into a useless quarrel through the use of straw-men, distortions, and fallacies. Well done, sir.
Comment by Katzen | August 8, 2007
Mountain Man, Katzen:
"You never explained why morality is part of the definition of a capitalistic exchange."
I haven't been following this headache that closely, and maybe it was covered, but it's quite obvious to me that capitalism involves the free exchange of goods and services. For this to happen each party to an exchange has to rely on the other's willingness to abide by his part of the agreement. That's where morality enters into the picture.
We've all heard stories about a party not meeting his part of the bargain after the other did, and got away with it because it was not economically feasible for the wronged party to sue.
Comment by sedonaman | August 8, 2007
sedonaman,
Mountain Man and I both agree that an exchange in which one party breaches the contract is not capitalistic. My only point is that an exchange can (emphasize can) still be capitalistic even if is immoral.
For instance, the way I understand capitalism, a production company that puts out a gratuitously violent film may be acting immorally, but it is nonetheless engaging in a capitalistic enterprise. Porn stars engage in capitalism when they agree to have sex on camera for money. If prostitution were legal, it too would be capitalistic.
Mountain Man articulated 4 moral principles of capitalism. I was very receptive to them. He had earlier said that prostitution, if legal, would not be capitalistic. I did not think his 4 principles invited that conclusion. In post 49, he argued that his stated principles did indeed prohibit prostitution. I found this argument unconvincing in post 50. Mountain Man also conceded that he might need to add more principles. But since he did not go so far as say what those principles might be, I could not examine their relevance to "capitalism" as I understand it.
Comment by Katzen | August 8, 2007
Katzen:
I guess it all depends on your definition of capitalism. Personally, I define it as the use of wealth to create more wealth. Willing exchanges are necessary but insufficient. If a person in the old Soviet Union bought a TV, there might be a willing exchange, but IMHO it would not constitute capitalism.
In the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII was critical of capitalism because its excesses would de-humanize the individual. (by contrast, he condemned socialism.) The conclusion is that there indeed can be immoral capitalistic exchanges.
That’s my two cents.
Comment by sedonaman | August 9, 2007
sedonaman,
I think you're bascially right about the definition, though I would add that a business venture that attempts to create more wealth and fails is, despite the failure, capitalistic. I couldn't say for sure whether your definition allows for that.
And you're exactly right on the issue of morality and capitalism.
Comment by Katzen | August 9, 2007