• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I think the problem isn't capitalism, socialism, or any mix between the two. I think the problem is what people will do for money. Some people will do anything to make money, even if what they are doing is hurting themselves or other people. Money is only as powerful as you make it. If your values don't get corrupted and you aren't willing to break the law, or even more importantly, make victims from the way you obtain your money, then it doesn't really matter how much or how little of that money you have because you haven't at that point compromised your integrity. Integrity is more important than the political and economic systems we use to promote it. In my personal experience with living off of welfare, it is possible to do a lot with just a little amount of money, even with the drastic rise of inflated goods and services due to policies of the current President. I am not suffering nor am I in debt to make ends meet, yet I make significantly less than even a minimum-wage earner.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I think the problem isn't capitalism, socialism, or any mix between the two. I think the problem is what people will do for money. Some people will do anything to make money, even if what they are doing is hurting themselves or other people. Money is only as powerful as you make it. If your values don't get corrupted and you aren't willing to break the law, or even more importantly, make victims from the way you obtain your money, then it doesn't really matter how much or how little of that money you have because you haven't at that point compromised your integrity. Integrity is more important than the political and economic systems we use to promote it. In my personal experience with living off of welfare, it is possible to do a lot with just a little amount of money, even with the drastic rise of inflated goods and services due to policies of the current President. I am not suffering nor am I in debt to make ends meet, yet I make significantly less than even a minimum-wage earner.
No perfect system for imperfect people.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think the problem isn't capitalism, socialism, or any mix between the two. I think the problem is what people will do for money.
Human nature & its diversity are what they are.
A system should be designed to optimally with
this as a premise. A system will affect behavior,
but it can't fundamentally change humans.
We can observe all numerous trials of different
governmental + economic systems by various
countries throughout history to catalog results
associated with each.
The questions become...
Which combined systems worked best?
What can be improved?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
On the bright side there were no Scrappy cartoons.
We had Betty Boop & Clutch Cargo.
Betty was great.
Clutch Cargo was the cheapest cartoon ever made.
Oh, Crusader Rabbit was another forgettable cartoon.
But I've really come to appreciate Davy & Goliath
ever since the (apparent) parody of it by Moral Orel.
 
Last edited:

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Which combined systems worked best?
What can be improved?
The systems that work the best are the ones that incentivize people the most to do the best for other people, and punish or otherwise limit others from victimizing themselves or others. These systems could in theory be in capitalist, socialist or in mixed economies.

In my opinion both corporations and the government need to be regulated. Corporations are regulated by the laws the government passes; the government is regulated by how democracy is set up, and if politicians don't get the votes they need they don't run the government. Since corporations are regulated by the government and the government is regulated by the public in democratic nations, all checks are in balance. But wait - there's more. Some people regulate the corporations simply by refusing to shop at certain stores, too. The power of money allows the checks and balances to be bought, and I've noticed that the companies who add the most value in my life tend to be the most successful ones too.

Of course, there is going to be conflict and disagreement on how victims are made, and which products bring the most value. The diversity of the marketplace to find exactly what you're trying to find is why websites like e-Bay and Amazon exist in the first place. I think most of us would agree that communism nor do other totalitarian governments work because the government is not being regulated by anything but the whim of the dictator. But anarchy doesn't work either, because nobody is regulating the individual and in an anarcho-capitalist society, nobody regulates the corporations and their wealth. And at the same time, right-authoritarianism may have regulation on business but go too far into authoritarianism and you end up in a totalitarian regime without the proper checks and balances on the government.

In conclusion, I would contest that everybody needs to actively participate and be heard and when they are a victim under any circumstance, it should be stopped. I agree with conservatives that hierarchy must exist in society, however, with great power there must be an equal amount of responsibility for the people in charge to produce the best results possible, for the most amount of people. And all institutions need to minimize the amount of victimhood they present on other humans. Of course, there is over-regulation too, where rules are made up that don't have a victim at play - religion is actually great with doing that. But overall, we need to establish systems of governance and the economy in a way that both prevents people from becoming victims and also allows people the most freedom to help other people as much as possible.

And honestly, I think most mixed-economy democratic republics are doing a pretty good job at that already.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
No there is just the idea of putting limits on the government so the government can't abuse its power.
Louis XIV when he said l'état c'est moi, he didn't mean he wanted to abuse his own power, but he meant that he was taking full responsibility for all the state matters, centralizing the power, and so for the sake of the common good of the French.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Louis XIV when he said l'état c'est moi, he didn't mean he wanted to abuse his own power, but he meant that he was taking full responsibility for all the state matters, centralizing the power, and so for the sake of the common good of the French.

It is good to be king.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The systems that work the best are the ones that incentivize people the most to do the best for other people, and punish or otherwise limit others from victimizing themselves or others. These systems could in theory be in capitalist, socialist or in mixed economies.

In my opinion both corporations and the government need to be regulated. Corporations are regulated by the laws the government passes; the government is regulated by how democracy is set up, and if politicians don't get the votes they need they don't run the government. Since corporations are regulated by the government and the government is regulated by the public in democratic nations, all checks are in balance. But wait - there's more. Some people regulate the corporations simply by refusing to shop at certain stores, too. The power of money allows the checks and balances to be bought, and I've noticed that the companies who add the most value in my life tend to be the most successful ones too.

Of course, there is going to be conflict and disagreement on how victims are made, and which products bring the most value. The diversity of the marketplace to find exactly what you're trying to find is why websites like e-Bay and Amazon exist in the first place. I think most of us would agree that communism nor do other totalitarian governments work because the government is not being regulated by anything but the whim of the dictator. But anarchy doesn't work either, because nobody is regulating the individual and in an anarcho-capitalist society, nobody regulates the corporations and their wealth. And at the same time, right-authoritarianism may have regulation on business but go too far into authoritarianism and you end up in a totalitarian regime without the proper checks and balances on the government.

In conclusion, I would contest that everybody needs to actively participate and be heard and when they are a victim under any circumstance, it should be stopped. I agree with conservatives that hierarchy must exist in society, however, with great power there must be an equal amount of responsibility for the people in charge to produce the best results possible, for the most amount of people. And all institutions need to minimize the amount of victimhood they present on other humans. Of course, there is over-regulation too, where rules are made up that don't have a victim at play - religion is actually great with doing that. But overall, we need to establish systems of governance and the economy in a way that both prevents people from becoming victims and also allows people the most freedom to help other people as much as possible.

And honestly, I think most mixed-economy democratic republics are doing a pretty good job at that already.
Capitalism
Democracy
Social services
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
IMO, I think each of us has to decide which is more important, people or money, and then work from there.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Such thinking enables sanctifying socialism,
& demonizing capitalism. One is their dream.
The other is their nightmare.

Interesting take. And here, based on your response to my post #386, it was quite clear that you were the one rigidly taking a binary, fundamentalist, either/or, black-and-white viewpoint. And now you're criticizing others for that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Interesting take. And here, based on your response to my post #386, it was quite clear that you were the one rigidly taking a binary, fundamentalist, either/or, black-and-white viewpoint. And now you're criticizing others for that.
And here I was the one who introduced
the idea of a spectrum on RF...and to
much objection, BTW.
Do you ever consider your criticisms
before making them, or they just
canned responses trotted out randomly?
You weren't even the poster referenced.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And here I was the one who introduced
the idea of a spectrum on RF...and to
much objection, BTW.
Do you ever consider your criticisms
before making them, or they just
canned responses trotted out randomly?
You weren't even the poster referenced.

No, but I just remembered your disagreement with what I wrote in the post in question (#386), when I said that it doesn't have to be an "either/or" question, that a society can have some elements of both capitalism and socialism. That response indicated that you did not agree with the statement I made. This means that you clearly do not believe that a system can have elements of both socialism and capitalism and that it must either be one or the other, indicating a rigidly black-and-white mindset of the kind you just criticized when you suggested "Such thinking enables sanctifying socialism, & demonizing capitalism."

To demonstrate such a complete and sudden reversal of position in the span of a day was quite noteworthy, I thought.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And here I was the one who introduced
the idea of a spectrum on RF...and to
much objection, BTW.
Do you ever consider your criticisms
before making them, or they just
canned responses trotted out randomly?
You weren't even the poster referenced.
Haha

Winner frub
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
1687829230815.png
 
Top