Socialism is evil. Tell my why I am wrong. (and let's keep it civil)

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

This isn't just to Anatess.  But it is about these ideas -- which many people believe (both sides of it).  This goes back to my comparison between Objectivism vs. Christian Libertarianism.

In the movie Meet Joe Black, the character Bill Parish says,"Of course I want to make a profit, you can't exist in business without one.  But <the unseen villain in the story> is ALL profit."  Consider that money is NOT the root of all evil.  The LOVE of money is.  There is nothing wrong with making a profit.  But if that is all you're doing in business, then there is something wrong with you.

Part of the culture of early America was that we are all put on this earth for a purpose to serve mankind.  We each have our own mission in life.  And that mission is not just in Church service projects or in neighborhood activities.  For many of us our career is a method of serving mankind.  I don't just come to work to earn a paycheck.  I pursue this career because it is a way that I have of contributing to society.  Businesses are no different.  They do need to make money to survive.

Thomas Sowell said,"Wal-Mart has done more for the poor than any 10 liberals, 8 of whom want to put it out of business."  The Walton Family are somewhat neutral politically.  They don't make many public statements.  But they tend to pay more than minimum wage for many of their entry level positions.  They are concerned about keeping their employees employed.  Not only that, but they've done wonders with the retail market that none have done previously (including K-mart).  They have brought goods and services to the public such that even poor people will feel like they have luxuries.

Even so, if the company is in danger of losing money that year, it simply makes good sense to cut costs where you can.  And one of those costs is employees.  I'd also submit that a major cost issue is government -- taxes, regulations, filings, reports, Obamacare (another tax).  If we didn't have as much government involvement, I'd say that ANY downturn in the economy would either be shorter, or not as severe.

I agree with this.

But I need to qualify it with my statement.

In Captilism - Business exists only for Profit.  Business is the entity.  Not the person.  A Corporation, for example, is an entity.  The Stakeholders are the people.  The Corporation is simply the balance sheet.  There is no reason for a business to exist unless it makes profit.  A Business that exists without profit is either 1.) a money-laundering scheme, 2.) a charitable institution that didn't realize they get tax breaks by declaring themselves a charity.  Now, there are Businesses that are non-profit.  This doesn't mean that they don't exist to make profit... rather they exist to spend all their profits, which can be in the form of giving profits back to the consumers through price breaks or giving profits to the employees through paychecks.  But... they're still in business to make money.

Now... a businessman usually engages in business to fulfill a need.  For a business to succeed, that need has to be something the businessman cares about.  In this sense, the businessman executes service through his business.  But, the business is there to make a profit so the businessman can do more service.  If profit was not the objective, then he is better off organizing a charity to perform the service rather than create a business.  The interesting thing about this is... a businessman who only thinks about profits in the execution of his business plan usually fail in business.  The businessman who thinks about the service in the execution of his business plan usually succeed.  That's the self-correcting beauty of Capitalism.  It rewards good ethics and punishes greed within the system without needing government control.

In addition... like you say, what a businessman does with the profits can be good or evil.  Desiring more profit so the businessman can do more good is what Capitalism is well suited for.  Desiring more profit so the businessman can do more evil is the downfall of Capitalism.

Edited April 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, unixknight said:

The courts.... So you're okay with allowing the Government to make decisions about how to run a private company.  As was presented in an earlier example, it's disingenuous to characterize layoffs as as being merely a tool for profit and gain.  If they're necessary for keeping a company from goingout of business do you really think it's more moral for ALL of the employees to be out of work, instead of a few?

If the CEO breaks the law, he gets prosecuted for it just like everyone else.  Why should this be a special case, and why would you make an assumption like that about what I think?

 

 

We already have many good and necessary laws that govern how private companies utilize resources.  For example water is considered a valued and important resource – so a company cannot do anything it wants with water without consequences.  So to protect the environment and many other related things there are laws the limit what companies can do with water.  I just happen to think and believe that people are important and valuable resources that should not be exploited or abused.

 

I also believe that we will stand accountable to G-d for the stewardships that are entrusted to us.  And I believe we will stand accountable for those institutions to which we give our willing support to assist.  I have no desire to stand before G-d and tell him his children were not important to me.  It is my understanding that there is a place that those willing to allow human to be oppressed can go and be happy – but it is not the Celestial Kingdom.  But if it turns out to be so – I will request to reside in that Kingdom where human are valued more than riches – and it is part of the principles and laws of that society.

 

 

Quote

I see.  So you want the Government to be able to take, at will, earnings legally paid to an employee by a company.  Where does that power end?

 

 

It is interesting that you say “earnings legally paid to an employee” – I am saying the paying someone to exploit and abuse humans and human life should not be legal earnings.  If we agree on that – then there is no disagreement between us.  I assume that you can understand that just because some is paid – does not mean they are paid legally.  I have no problem with what is paid legally - my concern is with those that do not value humanity as a resource worthy of special protection. 

 

I do not understand how someone can pretend to uphold liberty and freedom and not value humanity as a resource worthy of special protection.   

 

 

Quote

I think you've made another statement that's too broad to mean anything:  that people shouldn't profit for putting someone out of a job.  Isn't that exactly what managers are supposed to do if an employee isn't good for the company, for whatever reason?  People lose their jobs every day and not necessarily from layoffs.  Where do you draw the line?  Have you ever been a manager?  I have, and I've fired people.  Should the Government come and take my paycheck?

And layoffs are only necessary because someone isn't doing their job right?  That seems like an awfully broad and unsupported assertion.

 

I believe someone can be fired for poor execution of their responsibilities and stewardship.  A layoff is not that same as being fired.  I would rather that we learn to reverse the “Peter Principle” and rather than fire someone allow them to accept a less responsible stewardship and fewer monetary rewards than to be without employment – especially if our society is under the condition of severe recession or economic depression.

 

 As an additional note – I am not a good manager.  I have problems with delegation.   I am a worker and a doer but I have problems convincing someone to do something they do not want to do.  I am not a good motivator.  My wife is an excellent manager and does so for the businesses we have.  She can get anyone to do anything and be happy to do it – I am, by design and purpose, a worker bee – the best in whatever stewardship I find opportunity.

 

The Traveler

Edited April 14, 2016 by Traveler
add the additional note

[Guest]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I agree with this.

But I need to qualify it with my statement.

In Captilism - Business exists only for Profit.  Business is the entity.  Not the person.  A Corporation, for example, is an entity.  The Stakeholders are the people.  The Corporation is simply the balance sheet.  There is no reason for a business to exist unless it makes profit.  A Business that exists without profit is either 1.) a money-laundering scheme, 2.) a charitable institution that didn't realize they get tax breaks by declaring themselves a charity.  Now, there are Businesses that are non-profit.  This doesn't mean that they don't exist to make profit... rather they exist to spend all their profits, which can be in the form of giving profits back to the consumers through price breaks or giving profits to the employees through paychecks.  But... they're still in business to make money.

Now... a businessman usually engages in business to fulfill a need.  For a business to succeed, that need has to be something the businessman cares about.  In this sense, the businessman executes service through his business.  But, the business is there to make a profit so the businessman can do more service.  If profit was not the objective, then he is better off organizing a charity to perform the service rather than create a business.  The interesting thing about this is... a businessman who only thinks about profits in the execution of his business plan usually fail in business.  The businessman who thinks about the service in the execution of his business plan usually succeed.  That's the self-correcting beauty of Capitalism.  It rewards good ethics and punishes greed within the system without needing government control.

In addition... like you say, what a businessman does with the profits can be good or evil.  Desiring more profit so the businessman can do more good is what Capitalism is well suited for.  Desiring more profit so the businessman can do more evil is the downfall of Capitalism.

I basically agree with this.  But I have some semantic disagreements with the way you've said it.  I'll just leave it at that.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I agree with this.

But I need to qualify it with my statement.

In Captilism - Business exists only for Profit.  Business is the entity.  Not the person.  A Corporation, for example, is an entity.  The Stakeholders are the people.  The Corporation is simply the balance sheet.  There is no reason for a business to exist unless it makes profit.  A Business that exists without profit is either 1.) a money-laundering scheme, 2.) a charitable institution that didn't realize they get tax breaks by declaring themselves a charity.  Now, there are Businesses that are non-profit.  This doesn't mean that they don't exist to make profit... rather they exist to spend all their profits, which can be in the form of giving profits back to the consumers through price breaks or giving profits to the employees through paychecks.  But... they're still in business to make money.

Now... a businessman usually engages in business to fulfill a need.  For a business to succeed, that need has to be something the businessman cares about.  In this sense, the businessman executes service through his business.  But, the business is there to make a profit so the businessman can do more service.  If profit was not the objective, then he is better off organizing a charity to perform the service rather than create a business.  The interesting thing about this is... a businessman who only thinks about profits in the execution of his business plan usually fail in business.  The businessman who thinks about the service in the execution of his business plan usually succeed.  That's the self-correcting beauty of Capitalism.  It rewards good ethics and punishes greed within the system without needing government control.

In addition... like you say, what a businessman does with the profits can be good or evil.  Desiring more profit so the businessman can do more good is what Capitalism is well suited for.  Desiring more profit so the businessman can do more evil is the downfall of Capitalism.

 

I believe there are more important things to live for (not just for my self but for a viable society) rather than profit.  I also believe and understand that Jesus thought so as well and my personal efforts and purpose; by design, are intended to be more in line with what he taught - than with what many think is economics 101.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe there are more important things to live for (not just for my self but for a viable society) rather than profit.  I also believe and understand that Jesus thought so as well and my personal efforts and purpose; by design, are intended to be more in line with what he taught - than with what many think is economics 101.

In what way do you think this sets you apart from others in this conversation?

[mordorbund]

13 hours ago, Str8Shooter said:

Socialism involves the taking of things against the will of others.  Theft is major sin.  If people had high morals, socialism would not exist.  There would be no need for it.

 

This is a different argument than the virtues of capitalism, so I'll assume you've ceded the point that it's not some great virtuous godly system and we'll move on.

Government involves the taking of things against the will of others. Even a government that is only financed through voluntary contributions (either direct donation, or the White House selling it's own brand of cigarettes) still has the power to make and enforce laws. That means at some point it will take a person's life, liberty, and/or property against the person's will! Murder is a major sin. Kidnapping is a major sin. Theft is a major sin. If people had high moral government wouldn't exist. There would be no need for it.

I think the problem you have is more with government than with socialism.

[Traveler]

It is not so much to set myself apart as it is to remind those that seem to, in the moment of discussion, champion profit as the most desirable virtue – that there are more important virtues to motivate a disciple of Christ.  Was this not obvious to you?  Do you disagree with my effort to recognize humanity as a valuable resource for business and society - above the need for profit – especially to those that covenant with G-d?

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We already have many good and necessary laws that govern how private companies utilize resources.  For example water is considered a valued and important resource – so a company cannot do anything it wants with water without consequences.  So to protect the environment and many other related things there are laws the limit what companies can do with water.  I just happen to think and believe that people are important and valuable resources that should not be exploited or abused.

The difference is that it's tyranny for the Government to make business decisions.  Protecting a natural resource that we all share is one thing.  Interfering with a company's internal business practices is quite another.  Sometimes layoffs are a necessity to keep a company solvent, and it isn't necessarily due to bad management.  Things change.  Supply and demand are not static.  The company's management isn't going to be improved by having Government pulling puppet strings and punishing people.  By this logic, the Government should monitor how you raise your kids, because they're people who shouldn't be exploited or abused and by your arguments it appears that you trust Government to oversee it.  Which evenings would you like to schedule your regular visits from Child Services?

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I also believe that we will stand accountable to G-d for the stewardships that are entrusted to us.  And I believe we will stand accountable for those institutions to which we give our willing support to assist.  I have no desire to stand before G-d and tell him his children were not important to me.  It is my understanding that there is a place that those willing to allow human to be oppressed can go and be happy – but it is not the Celestial Kingdom.  But if it turns out to be so – I will request to reside in that Kingdom where human are valued more than riches – and it is part of the principles and laws of that society.

I don't see this as an issue of valuing humanity.  If I were the CEO of a company and I had to choose between protecting what employees I could save or letting the entire company tank and putting them ALL out of work, I'd save as many as I could.  This satisfies both compassion AND self interest, as the more people you can retain in your company, the easier it will be to get things running smoothly again.

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is interesting that you say “earnings legally paid to an employee” – I am saying the paying someone to exploit and abuse humans and human life should not be legal earnings.  If we agree on that – then there is no disagreement between us.  I assume that you can understand that just because some is paid – does not mean they are paid legally.  I have no problem with what is paid legally - my concern is with those that do not value humanity as a resource worthy of special protection. 

If a CEO is being paid according to his contract, then the Government has no right to interfere as long as those contract terms are legal.  Period.  Of course we agree that if something shady is going on and laws are being broken then somebody needs to go to jail.  The issue I have with your arguments is that they're highly subjective.  You really need to express, in a concrete way, what you mean by exploitation and abuse.  Some say any worker who is paid less than $15.00/hr is being exploited, regardless of what their job entails.  Others think $7.00/hr is a perfectly reasonable wage for someone whose skillset includes little more than running a deep fryer and pouring salt on french fries.  Unions often accuse companies of abusing their employees as a way to stir up emotion to strengthen their bargaining posture.     

There are existing laws already that afford protection to employees without playing Big Brother to corporate business decisions.  OSHA comes to mind as an obvious example.

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not understand how someone can pretend to uphold liberty and freedom and not value humanity as a resource worthy of special protection.   

Who's doing that?

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe someone can be fired for poor execution of their responsibilities and stewardship.  A layoff is not that same as being fired.  I would rather that we learn to reverse the “Peter Principle” and rather than fire someone allow them to accept a less responsible stewardship and fewer monetary rewards than to be without employment – especially if our society is under the condition of severe recession or economic depression.

Sometimes companies try to do exactly that, but often employees simply can't afford a deep pay cut and opt to try and find another job with a similar rate of pay to what they were making before.  I'm a Software Engineer.  If I had to take a pay cut down to the level of, say, a Software Consultant, I would have no choice but to start job hunting because I couldn't possibly cover my expenses at that level.  Mind you, this assumes that the company even has job openings to filter the workers into, which is never the case.  Your solution also doesn't work if an entire department has to be let go since there would be no lower positions at all. 

[unixknight]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is not so much to set myself apart as it is to remind those that seem to, in the moment of discussion, champion profit as the most desirable virtue – that there are more important virtues to motivate a disciple of Christ.  Was this not obvious to you?  Do you disagree with my effort to recognize humanity as a valuable resource for business and society - above the need for profit – especially to those that covenant with G-d?

A company must make a profit to stay in business.   Period.  All those employees who work for the company need that company to stay in the green.  So yes, profit is why they're in business.  You think when Jesus was working with Joseph as a carpenter, that He was giving away free tables, or do you think He sold His wares for a profit so that the family could eat and the family business remain afloat?

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is not so much to set myself apart as it is to remind those that seem to, in the moment of discussion, champion profit as the most desirable virtue – that there are more important virtues to motivate a disciple of Christ.  Was this not obvious to you?  Do you disagree with my effort to recognize humanity as a valuable resource for business and society - above the need for profit – especially to those that covenant with G-d?

 

 

The Traveler

You don't need business to fulfill covenants.  You don't need business to serve.

When you do engage in business, it is for profit.  There is NOTHING wrong with that.  Unless you can feed 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish by praying to the Father for it, starting a business to make a boatload of profit to turn your 5 loaves and 2 fish into more loaves and fish is your surefire avenue to be able to perform that kind of miracle.

Edited April 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Traveler]

I am suggesting that when profit is more important than people - not only is there a problem but honest people that believe in freedom and liberty are obligated to do something about it.  I have not said that I do not believe in profit - though the question stands to those that think I am anti profit - do you think so because you are anti people?  What I suggest is that as a society we have a morale obligation to value people more then profit.

Who disagrees?  Who thinks profit should be a more important consideration than the livelyhood (liberty and freedom) of humanity?

Should we sacrifice some of humanity (liberty and freedom) for profit? or should we sacrifice some profit for the sake of humanity (freedom and liberty).

 

For me - if I am to error - I choose to error on the side of humanity.  I would be most interested in how other feel - it appears to that many intend to error on the side of encouraging profits and the love of profits within a society rather than the love of mankind.  Have I read this wrong?

I believe that we can have both - we can make a profit and have love and respect for humanity (one another).  But I believe that in order to do both (Abraham Chapter 3) that one will have greater value than the other - and I believe love for others should and must take presidence.

The Traveler

Edited April 14, 2016 by Traveler

[unixknight]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am suggesting that when profit is more important than people - not only is there a problem but honest people that believe in freedom and liberty are obligated to do something about it.  I have not said that I do not believe in profit - though the question stands to those that think I am anti profit - do you think so because you are anti people?  What I suggest is that as a society we have a morale obligation to value people more then profit.

I don't think anyone here would put profit above people as far as personal priorities.  That said, difficult decisions need to be made when you're running a business, and I don't think a Government official is going to be any better than a professional businessperson, so no way would I leave it to any Government entity to hand out punishments for CEOs who have had to lay people off.  If laws were broken that's one thing, but letting Government into your business makes things worse, not better.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is not so much to set myself apart as it is to remind those that seem to, in the moment of discussion, champion profit as the most desirable virtue – that there are more important virtues to motivate a disciple of Christ.  Was this not obvious to you?  Do you disagree with my effort to recognize humanity as a valuable resource for business and society - above the need for profit – especially to those that covenant with G-d?

Who was championing it as the greatest of all virtues?

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Who was championing it as the greatest of all virtues?

It's not the greatest of virtues, but it is a virtue. If a business doesn't profit it will not function, people will lose their jobs. 

If you lose your job and you can't feed your own family, odds are you won't donate to charity or help others just because you can't afford it.

Capitalism is like the girlfriend you broke up with because you never treated her well. It's under appreciated and constantly bashed by people who don't know that the other alternatives are much worse.  

 

Since capitalism isn't based in force (A business can't force you to spend money there) it's all up to the consumer. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Who was championing it as the greatest of all virtues?

I was wondering that myself.  There seems to be a horde of strawmen in this thread today...

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

For me - if I am to error - I choose to error on the side of humanity.  I would be most interested in how other feel - it appears to that many intend to error on the side of encouraging profits and the love of profits within a society rather than the love of mankind.  Have I read this wrong?

No economic system in the history of the world is more "on the side of humanity" than capitalism. For some reason, we must modify this so people know we are not speaking of crony capitalism, which isn't capitalism at all, but simple corruption, as seen when O'bama gave billions of tax borrowed dollars to his bundlers like the heads of A123 and Fisker and Solyndra.

The profit motive has given more people life and health than any other motivation. It has fed more people, kept them safe from the elements, educated them, given them leisure time, even the poorest in those societies wise enough to get out of the way.

So, if one wishes to err on the side of humanity, it would be a good choice to support capitalism and the profit motive above all other systems.

Lehi

Edited April 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[David13]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am suggesting that when profit is more important than people ...

The Traveler

You keep harping about "people".  But I suggest you don't know what you are talking about.

Are not the ceos people?  Are not the stockholders people?  Are not those who profit also people?

Or do you mean only those certain people who you decide should matter?

Is there such a thing as a profit without a person, or "people" behind it?

Does not the system reward "people" according to their productivity and social value? 

Do you not understand you can pay "people" to produce something useless, that cannot be sold, to your heart's content.

Or you can do something with your life other than seek profit all you want.

But where do you come off thinking the world has appointed you to impose your misguided ideas upon others?

dc

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is not so much to set myself apart as it is to remind those that seem to, in the moment of discussion, champion profit as the most desirable virtue – that there are more important virtues to motivate a disciple of Christ.  Was this not obvious to you?

Not at all. Still isn't, though I'm willing to take your word for it.

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Do you disagree with my effort to recognize humanity as a valuable resource for business and society - above the need for profit – especially to those that covenant with G-d?

No. I disagree with what seems to be your implicit characterization of those who don't see things your way as somehow unChristlike.

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am suggesting that when profit is more important than people - not only is there a problem but honest people that believe in freedom and liberty are obligated to do something about it.

Why should they? What should they do?

We read in the late XVIII in a book with a very long name (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) that it is not because the butcher or baker cares about our breakfast that we eat. It is in their own self interest (profit) that they act.

The odd thing, at least to people who don't understand economics, is that the profit motive assures that any resource will always be put to its best and highest use because of profits, but, remove the profit incentive, and resources, including people, will be wasted, used for the wrong purposes. The examples are myriad.

Stupidity in the marketplace is rewarded with losses, wise choices with profits. Among the most stupid of choices is to try to keep people employed when the product of their labor is not demanded by the public. Any attempt to "save jobs" by a bureaucracy or a judge or a union or any other entity or person will inevitably lead to wasted resources (not least being the people's labor itself).

A true market, true capitalism never arrives entirely at ultimate "best and highest" use, but it tends toward that end. No other economic system even comes close.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

54 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Why should they? What should they do?

We read in the late XVIII in a book with a very long name (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) that it is not because the butcher or baker cares about our breakfast that we eat. It is in their own self interest (profit) that they act.

 

Adam Smith. 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Adam Smith. 

Didn't want to give it away.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Didn't want to give it away.

Lehi

It's obvious to anyone who has read anything on free market economics. That's a very famous passage. 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's obvious to anyone who has read anything on free market economics. That's a very famous passage. 

Too many people don't read any more.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Too many people don't read any more.

Lehi

We agree totally, and the bigger problem is that they don't read things they don't already agree with. So nothing challenges them. So they remain ignorant. 

[tesuji]

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We agree totally, and the bigger problem is that they don't read things they don't already agree with. So nothing challenges them. So they remain ignorant. 

Or listen to media that challenges their views, since broadcasting is fading out and narrowcasting is in.

Or talk to people who aren't like them, since people are tending to live in like-minded neighborhoods: http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723/

Too many people live in echo chambers and only hear their own views repeated back at them