Capitalism and Alturism

[applepansy]

Why can't both work together? Why does our society and the world see them as opposites?

This is really troubling me. Without being able to reap the rewards of our work/efforts can we really be in a position to truly have selfless concern for others less fortunate?

In less than 24 hours I watch Atlas Shrugged and then this morning someone on Facebook posted links to interviews by the real Patch Adams. I've always liked his story. I felt it was a real example of innovation and values that Capitalism promotes. BUT, in listening to him speak I discovered that he does not understand that without capitalism we cannot have true and effect alturism.

I am grateful to belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where we are encouraged to be our best, to excel and then use the product of our efforts to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Discussion?

[applepansy]

I agree. and I'm not talking about forcing or taking away agency.

[zippy_do46]

I think some of the problem is that some people do not really recognize a need.

[Dravin]

Why can't both work together? Why does our society and the world see them as opposites?

Define capitalism please. If we accept as Wikipedia states, "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit." Then universal health care, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, welfare, or taxation do not run (necessarily) contrary to that. In fact the things that run contrary to that is when arguably the government is doing something a contractor could do, such as operate a military. Though I suppose we have to figure out what the means of production are, is the military a means of production?

Edit: One also has to define altruism. Is the passing of a child labor law an act of altruism? I think fundamentally why you see laws to do things when theoretically a sufficient level of charity would take care of things is the lack of trust that people will do the right thing consistently enough. And that's an idea that the balance of powers in the US Constitution was sold on. That people suck, can't be trusted to always do the right thing, so we will use that base tendency to stymie the collection of powering into one area. The same idea is inherent in laws defined to improve the welfare of a people or class, people aren't doing it enough on their own so as a matter of social policy we will enforce it.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Dravin

[applepansy]

Capitalism definition (dictionary.com): 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, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Altruism definition: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.

changed, I love John Adams and Abigail too. :)

Dravin, I don't believe the military is a source of production. I also don't believe that government can be capitalistic or altruistic. I believe both are a state of individuals and society not government. However, our government is a reflection of society to some extent. When people are unrighteous we end up with another law.

What I don't understand is why in the world today people do not believe the two concepts can and should work together. Without capitalism we don't have innovation and people lose the desire to excel. Without altruism people do not take care of each other especially the less fortunate.

In my opinion, in a balanced society both work together instead of at opposite purposes.

When a society becomes selfish and greedy we see a swing away from balance and more towards one side or the other, OR capitalism VERSUS altruism.

I believe we can and should have both.

Since this morning I remembered an incident from 25 years ago. I have health issues. Because of chronic pain I have a hard time pushing my body to do things for myself. I can more easily push it to do things for other people. As I explained this problem to my doctor, he got a wry smile and a bit of disgust in his voice and said, "You're altruisitic" as if that was a bad thing. Now 25 years later I hear the same disgust when people talk about capitalism.

I would also like to add that I don't believe capitalism equals selfish.

[Dravin]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams

And yet even in his days there were laws designed to control others and attempt to coerce them into following social policy. Laws making murder illegal are not a recent invention. Or if what you are trying to get at is some sort of disagreement that the constitution was so designed as to utilize less admirable human traits to its own benefit I bring you Federalist Paper 51:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Why can't both work together? Why does our society and the world see them as opposites?

This is really troubling me. Without being able to reap the rewards of our work/efforts can we really be in a position to truly have selfless concern for others less fortunate?

In less than 24 hours I watch Atlas Shrugged and then this morning someone on Facebook posted links to interviews by the real Patch Adams. I've always liked his story. I felt it was a real example of innovation and values that Capitalism promotes. BUT, in listening to him speak I discovered that he does not understand that without capitalism we cannot have true and effect alturism.

I am grateful to belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where we are encouraged to be our best, to excel and then use the product of our efforts to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Discussion?

It's one of the things I greatly admire about the LDS church as well. A study was done comparing the charity habits of conservatives vs liberals. It concluded that conservatives give more to charity by 30%. A few points can be gleaned from this:

1. Conservatives put their money where their mouth is. They preach a society that can sustain itself and care for the less fortunate without government intrusion and they put it into practice.

2. Liberals seem to put more faith in government as an agency of aid even in spite of the fact that welfare programs, housing projects, and other entitlements have proven to be dismal failures that help few while spreading poverty and keeping millions mired in it.

3. Faith truly does produce an ameliorable society. Liberals tend to think of religion as promoting the idea of "social justice" whereby government attempts to alleviate the ills of society whereas conservatives see religion as an inspiration to personally help out his fellow man, reaching into his own pockets instead of someone elses. The conservative use of religion produces manifest benefit to society markedly more so than those who are "helped" by government programs.

With their emphasis on charity, is it any wonder that the LDS have thrived as a society whereas other communities beholden to government programs, such as Indian reservations, languish in squalid poverty?

[Dravin]

I also don't believe that government can be capitalistic or altruistic.

While the government itself cannot be capitalistic it can espouse ideologies and laws that support capitalist economic structure. Altruism is a harder one, I suppose the issue is would a supposed act of altruism by government be altruism of the government or altruism of the people prescribing said act. Also, if one is cynical enough there is no such thing as an altruistic act, for government or people, because we always do something for which we perceive some benefit even if a delayed one, or to soothe conscience.

What I don't understand is why in the world today people do not believe the two concepts can and should work together.

I don't think people so much believe they can't work together, inasmuch as they won't. Pollution standards, work safety standards, child labor, they by and large in Western Society aren't something that was willingly taken on by capital they were enforced. It's much like a having a perfectly benevolent dictatorship. It would be a highly effective form of government, the only problem is finding the perfectly benevolent dictator. Nothing prevents all businesses from being sufficiently altruistic such that laws proscribing certain behaviors would be unnecessary. The thing is people aren't sufficiently altruistic and such laws are necessary. This applies to more than just economic policy and law, it applies to policy and law in general. If nobody committed fraud, or sped then laws concerning those things would be unnecessary.

I would also like to add that I don't believe capitalism equals selfish.

I don't either. I don't think capitalism is a special case where controls are needed to protect others, it falls under the general case that currently (and in any extant nation) people aren't sufficiently benevolent enough that we needn't bother with laws proscribing behavior. Note I'm not arguing for X% of taxes, or Y social program. I'm speaking in reference to capitalism (or people) without any controls at all, currently we have controls and have had for a very long time.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

It occurs to me that we may be having a different idea of what altruism entails. I think it encompasses more than the traditional charity (food, shelter, clothing, love, and/or training). For instance the reason we don't allow 8 year olds to work in coal mines is one of altruism. The reason for proscribing such behavior was/is the welfare of said 8 year olds. Likewise with laws making it illegal for me to skin my cat alive.

[HoosierGuy]

In less than 24 hours I watch Atlas Shrugged and then this morning someone on Facebook posted links to interviews by the real Patch Adams. I've always liked his story. I felt it was a real example of innovation and values that Capitalism promotes.

Atlas Shrugged? Ugh, only 6% reviewers liked it on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't be mislead by that propaganda, I'm hearing Ayn Rand was a big hypocrite.

There is completely unrestrained capitalism and then there is controlled capitalism, with many levels in between. The capitalism in the U.S. since the 1980's is almost pure evil.

But altruism? I like it! Wiki says Altruism, is ...holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.

Hmm, at the sacrifice of self interest? I like the sound of that. But we would not have to go that far. All of these things benefit one and all and not just a select few:

Altruism - Universal healthcare. Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - Increased regulation. Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - Regulate prescription drugs - Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - Wealthy pays more taxes - Capitals says NO.

Altruism - All people subject to the same laws equally - Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - More U.S. good paying jobs - Capitalist says no.

And it goes on and on. I'm starting to see capitalism as the work of the devil. We aren't suppose to worship false idols. What do they have in Wall Street? A big charging bull sculpture. That bull has horns. Devil has horns.

[rameumptom]

Can government be altruistic, when it is using everyone else's money? I personally do not think so. Individuals can be altruistic, not governments. Altruistic individuals in government can influence motives and actions of government, but eventually greed gets in the way, and any attempt at altruism is destroyed.

Atlas Shrugged cannot show altruism, because it is Objectivism, not capitalism. Capitalism can occur even in a socialist or unfree state. Just look at China for an example.

What is important are free markets and private ownership, and then encouragement from society: neighbors, family, friends, etc., to act altruistically. The billions that Bill Gates is spending on charitable programs is a perfect example. He is using caution to ensure that the money is carefully and wisely spent. Meanwhile, only about 40% of federal dollars end up going directly to the program.

Federal "charity" has recently bailed out global banks, GM, and other huge companies. Yet, small people still can't find work, see their groceries and gas prices jumping, and are still having their homes foreclosed on. How's that for government altruism?

[Dravin]

Federal "charity" has recently bailed out global banks, GM, and other huge companies. Yet, small people still can't find work, see their groceries and gas prices jumping, and are still having their homes foreclosed on. How's that for government altruism?

If we assume that the purpose of bailout was to selflessly improve the welfare of people then, ignoring the issue with the source of money, it is still altruism. Altruism doesn't need to be effective to be altruism. If I give money to a homeless drug addict and they use it to take some heroine and the end result is nobody's welfare was improved, or even possibly worsened because said addict, now closer to what he needs for a hit, decides to mug someone, it is still an altruistic act.

Now there are reasons to argue the bailout was not altruistic (arguments of it being anything but a selfless attempt to improve the welfare of others being a primary one, and as you bring up the issue of funding), but an argument from efficiency doesn't really hold as nothing about the altruism requires it be effective. Now one can debate*, if like the drug addict situation, money could have been better put elsewhere or if it was ultimately counterproductive but that's a different issue.

*Though such a debate is probably off topic for the thread.

[applepansy]

Can government be altruistic, when it is using everyone else's money? I personally do not think so. Individuals can be altruistic, not governments. Altruistic individuals in government can influence motives and actions of government, but eventually greed gets in the way, and any attempt at altruism is destroyed.

Atlas Shrugged cannot show altruism, because it is Objectivism, not capitalism. Capitalism can occur even in a socialist or unfree state. Just look at China for an example.

What is important are free markets and private ownership, and then encouragement from society: neighbors, family, friends, etc., to act altruistically. The billions that Bill Gates is spending on charitable programs is a perfect example. He is using caution to ensure that the money is carefully and wisely spent. Meanwhile, only about 40% of federal dollars end up going directly to the program.

Federal "charity" has recently bailed out global banks, GM, and other huge companies. Yet, small people still can't find work, see their groceries and gas prices jumping, and are still having their homes foreclosed on. How's that for government altruism?

Rame, I completely agree.

[applepansy]

It occurs to me that we may be having a different idea of what altruism entails. I think it encompasses more than the traditional charity (food, shelter, clothing, love, and/or training). For instance the reason we don't allow 8 year olds to work in coal mines is one of altruism. The reason for proscribing such behavior was/is the welfare of said 8 year olds. Likewise with laws making it illegal for me to skin my cat alive.

I agree. We aren't talking about the same thing. Government does not have the ability to be alturistic. Indivduals can be selfless.

[applepansy]

Atlas Shrugged? Ugh, only 6% reviewers liked it on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't be mislead by that propaganda, I'm hearing Ayn Rand was a big hypocrite.

There is completely unrestrained capitalism and then there is controlled capitalism, with many levels in between. The capitalism in the U.S. since the 1980's is almost pure evil.

But altruism? I like it! Wiki says Altruism, is ...holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.

Hmm, at the sacrifice of self interest? I like the sound of that. But we would not have to go that far. All of these things benefit one and all and not just a select few:

Altruism - Universal healthcare. Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - Increased regulation. Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - Regulate prescription drugs - Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - Wealthy pays more taxes - Capitals says NO.

Altruism - All people subject to the same laws equally - Capitalist says NO.

Altruism - More U.S. good paying jobs - Capitalist says no.

And it goes on and on. I'm starting to see capitalism as the work of the devil. We aren't suppose to worship false idols. What do they have in Wall Street? A big charging bull sculpture. That bull has horns. Devil has horns.

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, but not because Ayn Rand was a wonderful person. I don't agree with her on many issues. I do find it interesting that 40 (?) years ago she wrote a book about government taking over private business and we are now seeing it happen.

Altruism does not mean universal health care, increased regulation or anything else you listed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm seeing my questions answered rather quickly. In society today, there isn't a balance between both sides and I don't think there can be. Not until more people understand what the church teaches about achieving excellence and about the law of consecration.

I don't believe that owning a business is evil. I believe owning a business, excelling at making a profit, gives a person the ability to be truly altruisitic, If they choose to be.

Unfortunately we live in a times when selfishness is running rampant. Big Business CEOs (who usually are not owners) are selfish and greedy, Elected goverment officials are also selfish, and people are becoming more selfish. I see a lot of people with their hand out and less and less giving.

I see Capitalism as having the ability to fund altruism. In my opinion, too much of one or the other is not good. There needs to be both to have a successful society with truly happy people.

[Dravin]

I agree. We aren't talking about the same thing. Government does not have the ability to be alturistic. Indivduals can be selfless.

Then make the passing and/or the pressure for those laws the altruism of the individuals. The point is that altruism is more than, but does include, traditional charity.

I don't believe that owning a business is evil. I believe owning a business, excelling at making a profit, gives a person the ability to be truly altruisitic, If they choose to be.

Someone with money can generally create greater results with their altruism then someone without means, but rich or poor can practice altruism. Additionally by tying altruism into capitalism you imply that someone living in a communistic society can not truly practice a devotion to the selfless welfare of others and this is incorrect. A person in capitalistic society and a person in a communistic society both help their neighbor when they are sick by washing their dishes. Both acts are altruistic.

Perhaps what you mean is that in a capitalistic society one can devote a greater percentage of their time and talents (or something that represents those two: money) into a greater number of areas and into areas of their choosing? I'm not sure I would equate that with altruism being truer any more than I would equate a donation by Bill Gates with being more true then the Widow's mite. Though as a personal matter it would be my preference.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

I still think that altruism only occurs when one uses his/her own funds. Government doesn't do this. Instead, individuals within government make decisions as to where the funds will go, not based upon personal sacrifice of the individual, but based on rules, regulations and often political background. When Bill Gates spends a billion dollars on charity, he has no direct method to replace that money (except to make more money for himself). Government can spend the billion, then go back to the taxpayers and coerce another billion from them, or borrow it from our children, who have no say in the issue. This is not altruism, because government is not personally sacrificing anything. Today's money can easily be replaced by taxes, adjusting the value of money, or borrowing. We cannot do the same.

[JudoMinja]

One of the best and worst things about capitalism is that it leaves everything up to individual choice, and that can be seen as a connection to altruism because altruism is also about individual choice.

We are as altruistic as we choose to be. Money certainly increases our ability to put more service out there, but money is not necessary to be altruistic.

A capitalist society (when functioning at its best) will reward people for their hard work and efforts. Whether we choose to use our "rewards" for our own personal benefit or the betterment of others is completely up to us. Unfortunately, many people fall victim to weaknesses on both ends of the spectrum. Some become greedy and refuse to use their gifts to help those in need, and some refuse to work for their own selves content to live off hand-outs from those who are giving. Capitalism is not necessarily at fault for these problems. We are.

[HoosierGuy]

I still think that altruism only occurs when one uses his/her own funds. Government doesn't do this.

People do it through the Government.

[applepansy]

Then make the passing and/or the pressure for those laws the altruism of the individuals. The point is that altruism is more than, but does include, traditional charity.

I don't think I ever said anything about traditional charity. I'm beginning to think I'm talking more about the Law of Consecration. When all we do is consecrated to the Lord (which includes our businesses) then we are truly altruistic, in my opinion.

Someone with money can generally create greater results with their altruism then someone without means, but rich or poor can practice altruism. Additionally by tying altruism into capitalism you imply that someone living in a communistic society can not truly practice a devotion to the selfless welfare of others and this is incorrect. A person in capitalistic society and a person in a communistic society both help their neighbor when they are sick by washing their dishes. Both acts are altruistic.

And both have nothing to do with government.

Perhaps what you mean is that in a capitalistic society one can devote a greater percentage of their time and talents (or something that represents those two: money) into a greater number of areas and into areas of their choosing? I'm not sure I would equate that with altruism being truer any more than I would equate a donation by Bill Gates with being more true then the Widow's mite. Though as a personal matter it would be my preference.

What I'm trying to point out is that both sides are needed to have balance. When we do not have balance we get carried away. What I'm seeing in our world today is a division between those espousing capitalism as the only way and those who claim capitalism is evil and altruism is the only way. I also see those who claim to be alturistic being selfish (not truly alturistic).

I agree that you don't need money to be truly altruistic.

[applepansy]

One of the best and worst things about capitalism is that it leaves everything up to individual choice, and that can be seen as a connection to altruism because altruism is also about individual choice.

We are as altruistic as we choose to be. Money certainly increases our ability to put more service out there, but money is not necessary to be altruistic.

A capitalist society (when functioning at its best) will reward people for their hard work and efforts. Whether we choose to use our "rewards" for our own personal benefit or the betterment of others is completely up to us. Unfortunately, many people fall victim to weaknesses on both ends of the spectrum. Some become greedy and refuse to use their gifts to help those in need, and some refuse to work for their own selves content to live off hand-outs from those who are giving. Capitalism is not necessarily at fault for these problems. We are.

JujoMinja: I agree. Agency plays a big part in this discussion.

I believe that we will probably be judged on how we made these principles work together.

We are commanded to be our best and we are commanded to take care of those less fortunate. So if we don't do both, aren't we failing as a society? I do think that individually we can succeed to the extent government allows. If government continues to make laws restricting our agency in being charitable then nobody will be truly alturistic. Then where will we be?

[Dravin]

I still think that altruism only occurs when one uses his/her own funds.

My main objection to your bailout comment was you were making an argument from efficiency/efficacy. Ignoring funding issues, I'm cynical enough to have a hard time believing most governments aren't doing what they do with some pay-out in mind making it not so much altruism as it is quid pro quo. I don't think that means it isn't possible, though it would probably require a government for which participation is entirely voluntary and require unanimity to accomplish goals.

[JudoMinja]

We are commanded to be our best and we are commanded to take care of those less fortunate. So if we don't do both, aren't we failing as a society? I do think that individually we can succeed to the extent government allows. If government continues to make laws restricting our agency in being charitable then nobody will be truly alturistic. Then where will we be?

This thread, and specifically this question brings to mind a post I made for a class assignment recently. I just completed my requirement for an American government course, and one of the topics we covered was government regulations on the economy. Here is what I said:

The United States government was designed with the intention of preventing tyranny- to protect the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the purpose of elected government officials to represent the interests of the people and protect these rights. It is no surprise then that a vast majority of public policies involve issues with the economy. Money is the fuel of life. In our capitalist society, when people do not have money they have nothing. So, the need for the government to protect our rights has evolved into their need to fuel the economy and protect our dollars.

What is a dollar worth, really? The worth of anything is entirely relative to one’s need and desire to have it. Someone with a natural spring in their backyard will likely be unwilling to pay even a nickle for a bottle of water- so long as they are not separated from that spring. Yet, someone roaming the desert would practically be willing to give their life for nothing more than the taste of water on their lips. Basic needs like water will always be in demand, but we do not directly trade in such items anymore. Instead of a farmer trading their eggs for a carpenter's chair these items are now mass produced and sent to markets where they are attributed a monetary value. Everyone receives wages for their work, based on the "vaule" of their services, and those wages are then used to purchase these items of need as well as extra items that are wanted.

The simple laws of supply and demand keep the economic system going, giving sellers a general idea of what their items are worth monetarily and giving buyers the means to keep money flowing as they reveal through their purchases which items are desired and which are not. When businesses or producers find they are not making a profit, they face the need to make some changes if they want to keep their business going. When consumers are unable to afford what they want, they can either accumulate debt or find other ways to heighten their income in order to better afford those items. Adjustments are constantly being made on both sides as the value of the dollar constantly changes. At the start of our nation, it was believed that allowing the economy to run as a “free market” with no government interference would produce the best results. However, it was not long before the government started interfering to protect the interests of those losing in such a highly competitive world.

With no interventions whatsoever, economy would work on a “survival of the fittest” standard. In a eat-or-be-eaten economy monopolies would form, workers would find themselves being taken advantage of, the “little men” would fall to the wayside, and we would see an enormous gap between the rich and poor. Many would find themselves completely unable to “pursue happiness” as their opportunities would be stinted by their ability to find work which would pay enough for them to get by. Labor unions first formed as workers attempted to advocate for their basic rights- wages high enough to afford their basic needs, reasonable working hours, no child labor, etc. As problems continued, the government formed policies that would allow them to step in, regulating labor and providing aid to those in poverty.

Farmers were facing losses that would destroy their livelihood as “industrial agriculture” began stepping in and cheapening the cost of farmed goods. Again, the government stepped in, providing subsidies to farmers in order to keep the agricultural system from collapsing. Companies facing crisis also appealed to the government and received aid in order to stimulate competition in the economy. But how much involvement is too much involvement? Now, many companies are outsourcing jobs in order to cheapen their cost of labor as many people in other countries are willing to work for less than Americans. Is globalization simply another obstacle to overcome in keeping our economy afloat, or do we need to rethink a broken system?

I believe in trusting in those things that are concrete over the abstract. Private businesses are only interested in profit, and should they experience collapse they will cease to do business. Why then, do we put so much trust in private businesses to provide our basic necessities? Why do we measure the health of our economy on the value of the dollar- an entirely abstract concept that is really nothing more than a piece of paper? The American Dream was never meant to be the pursuit of money. It was the pursuit of a life free of oppression. We have traded in a physical tyrant for a symbolic one- the dollar. Instead of a land where everyone has all they could ever want or need, we have only another country where people are divided into a caste system- one where occupation determines income and income determines social position.

Poverty, corporate welfare, and globalization would not be problems facing our government if we did not run on a capitalist “free market” society. While I am certain many would disagree with me and feel that this very system is what promotes the American Dream- that an individual can thrive or fail based on their individual effort- I believe this to be the source of many of our problems. Why would globalization worry us if it did not so drastically alter the value of our dollar? Why would we be facing poverty if our ability to provide food and shelter for our families was not determined by the value of our dollar? Take out the dollar. Quit living in debt. Focus on the concrete- home, family, food, water…

If it were entirely up to me there would be no compartmentalizing of labor. Everyone would learn the many skills necessary for basic survival so that they would not find themselves dependant on others for their basic needs. Everyone would have a number of skills they could share to benefit themselves and their community. Public policy would be focused on making sure the necessities were equally distributed to all and that all capable were making an active contribution to society, not on saving an already dead dollar.

Now, I know here I'm basically bashing capitalism. I do, however, believe that capitalism would work wonderfully if we could rely on the general population to remain morally conscious and help those in need. I also believe that the reliance on personal choice is something the Lord wants- he does not want people to be forced to choose righteousness. Government, however, is in place to protect us from tyranny and tyranny comes when those in power abuse their power. Those who become rich off capitalism can become tyrannical. Yet, the government is also becoming corrupt and our whole system is beginning to fall apart.

[Dravin]

I don't think I ever said anything about traditional charity.

No you didn't. I apologize, I was channeling other's comments and past discussions.

When all we do is consecrated to the Lord (which includes our businesses) then we are truly altruistic, in my opinion.

Actually that brings up a great point (though it probably requires weirdness of thought chains like mine). More than just a concern for the welfare of others would be needed in a hypothetically unregulated society (not just unregulated economy either) inasmuch as one needs to have a concept of what truly is in the best interests in the welfare of other people. If your compass is off you can end up with stuff like pedophiles who have convinced themselves that their relationship is not hurtful to the welfare of their victims. Or to go back to an economic basis, the whole give a man a fish, teach him to fish debate.

And both have nothing to do with government.

I'm talking about people being altruistic under certain economic systems. One can be altruistic under either system. Even law of consecration wise it's just what is truly yours (materially speaking) to consecrate to the lord represents a smaller portion of your labor. In a way I'm agreeing with one of your larger points inasmuch as capitalism and altruism are independent variables (if I'm reading you right) as opposed to the inverse relationship some like to suggest.

What I'm trying to point out is that both sides are needed to have balance. When we do not have balance we get carried away.

Both sides being capitalism and altruism? I must confess I'm a little confused, the one extreme, capitalism without altruism is easy to contemplate, but no capitalism with an extreme of altruism doesn't seem to work unless one qualifies things like socialistic programs and policies as altruism. I got the sense you disagreed such things were altruistic.

For what it's worth, I reiterate that I think a highly altruistic society with pure unregulated capitalism would probably be a dandy place to live, possibly ideal. I just think that in reality, whether one wants to call them altruism or altruistically motivated or not, some social protections are necessary. And I'm talking in more than just the economic realm, for example child abuse is a function of altruism (or lack thereof) and not so much economic principles.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

People do it through the Government.

Would it be fair to say you feel that the Government is doing the work of a charitable organization and that taxes substitute for donations? I imagine the last part is going to get a roused response from Ram. :)

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin