As a Capitalist, I must disagree with your estimation of profit. There's NOTHING wrong with profit. Unjust working conditions? Absolutely. Interference of individual rights? Definately. But those who denounce profit encourage an equal economic footing for all, correct? Those who work hard have the fruit of their labor delivered to the hands of the unskilled and the unwilling simply because they need it. Being free means the freedom to ACT, not to gain without acting. If you work hard, and honestly, then gain all the profit you can, and be proud of it. But to hell with those who sit back and whine about the evil nature of the world, and think that they should be handed the fruits of other people's labors.
Altruism, self-sacrifice, socialism. I consider these to be inherently evil ideas.
(The current nation we live in is not Capitalist. It is a mixed economy/government. Capitalism is an ENTIRELY free market.)
"Down with corporatization and profit" is a terrible curse. The correct phrase should read: "Down with altruism and the unearned."
I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.
If I earn profit by my own hands, then I am under NO obligation to hand it over to those who had no part in the earning of it. It is also NOT a moral virtue to do so.
Whether a person decides to work hard or not for a money profit is not the problem.
I entirely concur with your point: out of 2 people who work hard for money, I would totally expect the person who works harder and makes more sacrifices to make more money than a person who is perhaps more lazy. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Good for the person who is willing to work hard. But if the person who works really hard to trick people into investing in something that is hazardous just so that the person in question makes more money to buy a plasma TV for his/her living room, then you run into problems that I am identifying.
There isn't anything directly wrong with profit; however, the problem is that profit is the only goal. Companies live off of making money (profit). The single most important thing for a private corporation to do in this day and age is to make money; if they didn't, they would die. What worries me is that companies are willing to do whatever it takes to make money, as opposed to provide for the well-being of people (needs). To be sure, there are some companies that might make a product appealing to well-being, but that is because they are making a profit off of an audience comprised of people concerned about such “well-being” issues.
When I say “Down with corporatization and profit” I am tackling the issue of what happens when you corporatize/privatize things in the pursuit of profit in the form of money.
For example, my father works for the FAA. There are people that want to privatize airline safety. If such a corporation were to do the same thing that corporations in the food industry, for instance, does, than those airline safety companies would sell/sacrifice needed machinery, do a lot of budget refining, be sketchy with facts/figures so that the business wouldn't be hurt, and consider replacing safer more expensive technology with cheaper, less reliable technology. I would rather have an agency that is obligated to keep the industry as safe as possible instead of have an agency obligated to make as much money as possible.
What needs to be specifically denounced are the ethics (or lack thereof) of the criminals in question.
Capitalism and the free market are really the only systems of government suited towards individual rights and the freedom of men. All other forms (socialism, nationalism, statism, communism, fascism, etc.) lead men into slavery.
Denouncing capitalism and profit is denouncing man's productive nature (work) and the consequent effect of that nature (profit, or gain).
"There isn't anything directly wrong with profit; however, the problem is that profit is the only goal."
For my own inquiring mind, I'd like to know: What are other worthy goals other than profit? Anything a rational man does, he does for profit (monetary or otherwise). What should be the goal of whatever you're addressing?
Also, it's not necessarily the company's "duty" to provide for a people's well-being. However, it's always most likely in their best interest. In a free market, the companies that choose to be unethical and not consider a public's needs will most likely go out of business. But their duty is not to the people.
I would say that the solution is not the denunciation of profit and personal gain/money, but the reexamination of moral principles and the premises of our philosophies.
I think we are both saying that if one works for just profit (and i've basically been talking only in terms of monetary profit) this can lead to bad things.
You are saying that we should supplement the means to achieve profit with more valued attitude and conscious mind.
I am saying that we should take away monetary profit as the reason to do anything all together.
Consider the underpayed teachers in the U.S. education system. I student taught in a public school. Here and there, there are teachers that work their asses off. For money? no. They do it to provide students with a quality education, and they care about the students; and let me add that those are the only teachers that I have ever seen make a difference. Teachers that don't like what they are paid compare their finances to the inheriters of the Sam Walton estate, and they think that their sorrows justify not working any more than what they have to. Who can blame them though?They have grown up in a world that values making money.
This brings me to what I feel should be the real profit. There's a certain respect and love of life that is not achieved with money. There is a certain attitude, experience, and character that is not achieved with money. The people that make the biggest, most admirable, or note-worthy differences in this world don't do it for the money. No, Ford's invention of the assembly line doesn't count on this one (at first, it seems like genius, and at the time maybe it was. but it has led to a catestrophic chain of events that... well thats for another conversation) Whether you talk about Einstein, Beethoven, Jesus, Dan and Mark, our fore-fathers, Shakespear, Aristotle, or Martin Luther King, they probably made/make money to survive, but any more effort that was spent, or any more sweat that was poured was due to pure passion and a goal, a most worthy profit that was not counted in dollars. We need to replace the persuit of money with the persuit of healthy and happy survival. Does that sound like a paradox? I rest my case.
Perhaps you might say, "well even if i know money wont buy me a certain happiness, if somebody wants to go after money, thats their right" The snowball occurs when, after you have more and more people that go after money influencing each other, that you have children growing up in that environment learning to make money. Unfortunately, the people that work for passion of non-monetary goal get pushed out by the exponential expansion of money-hungry pocket eaters. Money-hungry pocket eaters put more strain on everyone else just so that they can make a buck. When my car was totaled, you have no idea how much i was pushed around and screwed with because nobody wanted to be straight with me... they wanted their money. The people in extreme situations get the biggest debts. I work at a private school, and the owner of the school is starting to restrict so many things, us as teachers are having to sacrifice many things that most people would not tolerate, just so that we can make our difference in the school we work at. I almost became a manager for a marketing company a couple years ago; i became rather good at the whole selling thing, but it wasn't my cup of tea. My time is better spent doing what i do now, being a well-rounded lessons-for-life music teacher doing what I can with today's youth, and not making money selling expensive luxury cutlery to people. We need to discourage the money route as much as possible.
"if one works for just profit (and i've basically been talking only in terms of monetary profit) this can lead to bad things."
Perhaps. I'm not decided on it. I know that love of one's work does not rule out the desire to make a profit for doing that work. It also does not rule out wanting to make the best possible profit. Doing what you intend to do is the purpose of man's productive ability. Profit is the result.
"I am saying that we should take away monetary profit as the reason to do anything all together."
I do not agree with this philosophy. I think that, rationally, monetary profit is not the only motivator of one's work, but there's nothing wrong with taking it into consideration. Indeed, most often profit will be taken into consideration. Profit is not evil, and should in no way be taken out of the picture.
"They do it to provide students with a quality education, and they care about the students. . . Teachers that don't like what they are paid . . . think that their sorrows justify not working any more than what they have to.Who can blame them though?They have grown up in a world that values making money."
This reflects that wanting to do one's job well and wanting to make money are conflicting values. This is a fallacy. And I for one am glad that I live in a society that (somewhat) values making money. I think we could value it much more if we would shed our altruistic premises. Money is what is needed for men to trade with one another. And trade is really the only rational way to do things in a society. It is okay if a teacher wishes to sacrifice his happiness at the expense of taking an underpaid job. If it's a sacrifice, it's not a moral virtue, but that's his choice. If it's not a sacrifice, well, then I will assume he is happy.
I think where we disagree on this point is the fact that you think (as far as I can tell) that sincere work and desire for spiritual profit (by spiritual I mean the sum of a man's consciousness) are in conflict with the desire for monetary profit.
I'll use myself as an example. I want to be a writer and a musician. I intend for either of these two fields to be my career in life (mainly writing). I pursue this field because I love it. I also intend to make as much money as I can from my writing. Why? Because I value my writing, and I expect to receive value for value.
When I write a book, I don't want people to come to the bookstores, get a book, and pay for it with a piece of paper saying "happiness" on it. Their response would be, "But, you have gained real profit, James. The profit of earning my happiness." Ironically, they would keep their money which they spend their time denouncing.
The happiness of a reader is not my goal. My goal is the portrayal of the values and things that I hold to be beautiful and true in this life.
For more information on this, I refer you to Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. There's a speech in that book about money, that is available independently of the book. If you'd like a copy I could send it to you. Maybe you'd get a better idea of where I'm coming from.
(I'm an Objectivist. If you'd like to check that out to understand some of my premises, check out www.aynrand.org)
"We need to replace the persuit of money with the persuit of healthy and happy survival. Does that sound like a paradox? I rest my case."
I like to write music, essays, and books as well. I would rather give my book away and see people reading it (and circulate my reasoning) rather than get money for each book sold. I am recieving value for value.
It just is not rational to equate money with happiness. Families and communities that work together to provide necessities, fellowship, music making (etc.), and work hard together to harvest the seasons crop and never see their labor interpreted in currency are probably more happy than the business owner who lives alone, cuts wages on his workers so that he gets more money and looks more "successful," arguably. Happiness comes from within, and should be defined in and of the self. Not defined by an external force, such as money, bigger car, bigger bank account, or title.
It's our definition of value. What do we want to get in return for what we do? I am content with survival and making a difference in the world. (Whatever it takes to survive, not whatever it takes to make money). Money doesn't logically measure that for me.
I invite you to read the rational of one of the leading intellectuals of our age: Noam Chomsky. I can't say that I agree with everything that his statements represent, but he has some very good points that must not be ignored. I warn you to remove the bias and close minded nature that accompanies the natural approach to these statements, and read logically.
Perhaps you can point me to the specific speech within the book Atlas Shrugged, I plan on obtaining a copy for myself... I always like having a well rounded library :)
Actually, they make a distinct "pamphlet" with that speech available. If you go to www.aynrand.org, you can order a free "Ayn Rand Sampler". It includes that passage.
"In a free market, the companies that choose to be unethical and not consider a public's needs will most likely go out of business." On the contrary, there are many companies that do not consider a public's needs. They are only considering what people want. McDonalds, Walmart, Britney Spears, movie theaters, basically any other company.
The more I think about it, I think the best way to tackle this problem is with children and education. They need to grow up learning about whats good for them. It should be common knowledge that children are basically raised by culture, tv, radio, Ronald McDonald, Saddam Hussein, Howard Stern and everything else in this very culture that criticizes a nourishing upbringing. It is after they grow up and are actually psychologically developed enough when these issues should be brought to cognitive level, they then should understand the hypathetically good habits that they are in. Unfortunately, ya know what the leading audience is for many companies in order for the corporations to ensure that they will make more money and will keep making more money? Children. Just look at the music industry, food industry, game industry, television industry, cigarette industry, toys obviously... and it is democratic government agency's trying to enforce ratings and such... but the damn parents generally dont give a shit about what happens. We hear radiobroadcasters, television companies, government people, rating people, and free-speech enthusiasts arguing all the time... but you never hear the children or parents... ok maybe a couple irate, devoted parents that try to speak for everybody.
So whats next? Well, maybe we could start with keeping everything else in the world like my airline safety from being privately owned, or my musical taste from being privately owned.
It is then when we have educated individuals electing worthy people to our democracy that we can then say "hey government, can you help us take care of ourselves?" I say we would be even more 'free' in that scenario. Of course, another problem that i think we are in is over-population, and the size of the self-sufficient unit is too big. Any city can not support itself in such an integrated field as our country. If we were able to make things more localized, perhaps easier/better changes could occur. That is another conversation.
Aristotle(i think) reasoned that the only people that were worthy to lead a society are philosophers because a true philosopher is open minded, and a philosopher is the only person who can make decisions based on what people truly need.
Although, for your credit, perhaps we're in a catch 22, and I can see how your scenario might look more realistic under the circumstances.
You refuted my free market comment by stating: On the contrary, there are many companies that do not consider a public's needs. They are only considering what people want. McDonalds, Walmart, Britney Spears, movie theaters, basically any other company.
I agree with you. Most companies today are exactly as you described them. I, however, am referring to a free market. I believe I stated in that comment that America right now is a mixed economy. Companies such as McDonald's can do what they do because of government aid, protection and handouts.
I also agree that education is the best key to resolving anything. Though children learning "what's good for them" may be just another example of the elders instilling their values into their kids. Perhaps it should be phrased: Children should learn to reason, and should be taught to trust in the validity of their own mind. So the responsibility of educating the children lies in the parents, teachers, etc. who will teach a child one of two things: self-esteem or self-sacrifice.
As a Capitalist (lassez-faire), I maintain that the only form of government is one which protects the individual rights on man from force and fraud. Therefore, the only branches proper to government are: military, police, and law courts.
So yes, privatize!
I believe that Plato argued for a philosopher king more than Aristotle.
Altruism, self-sacrifice, socialism. I consider these to be inherently evil ideas.
(The current nation we live in is not Capitalist. It is a mixed economy/government. Capitalism is an ENTIRELY free market.)
"Down with corporatization and profit" is a terrible curse. The correct phrase should read: "Down with altruism and the unearned."
I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.
If I earn profit by my own hands, then I am under NO obligation to hand it over to those who had no part in the earning of it. It is also NOT a moral virtue to do so.
Reply
Whether a person decides to work hard or not for a money profit is not the problem.
I entirely concur with your point: out of 2 people who work hard for money, I would totally expect the person who works harder and makes more sacrifices to make more money than a person who is perhaps more lazy. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Good for the person who is willing to work hard. But if the person who works really hard to trick people into investing in something that is hazardous just so that the person in question makes more money to buy a plasma TV for his/her living room, then you run into problems that I am identifying.
There isn't anything directly wrong with profit; however, the problem is that profit is the only goal. Companies live off of making money (profit). The single most important thing for a private corporation to do in this day and age is to make money; if they didn't, they would die. What worries me is that companies are willing to do whatever it takes to make money, as opposed to provide for the well-being of people (needs). To be sure, there are some companies that might make a product appealing to well-being, but that is because they are making a profit off of an audience comprised of people concerned about such “well-being” issues.
When I say “Down with corporatization and profit” I am tackling the issue of what happens when you corporatize/privatize things in the pursuit of profit in the form of money.
For example, my father works for the FAA. There are people that want to privatize airline safety. If such a corporation were to do the same thing that corporations in the food industry, for instance, does, than those airline safety companies would sell/sacrifice needed machinery, do a lot of budget refining, be sketchy with facts/figures so that the business wouldn't be hurt, and consider replacing safer more expensive technology with cheaper, less reliable technology. I would rather have an agency that is obligated to keep the industry as safe as possible instead of have an agency obligated to make as much money as possible.
Reply
What needs to be specifically denounced are the ethics (or lack thereof) of the criminals in question.
Capitalism and the free market are really the only systems of government suited towards individual rights and the freedom of men. All other forms (socialism, nationalism, statism, communism, fascism, etc.) lead men into slavery.
Denouncing capitalism and profit is denouncing man's productive nature (work) and the consequent effect of that nature (profit, or gain).
"There isn't anything directly wrong with profit; however, the problem is that profit is the only goal."
For my own inquiring mind, I'd like to know: What are other worthy goals other than profit? Anything a rational man does, he does for profit (monetary or otherwise). What should be the goal of whatever you're addressing?
Also, it's not necessarily the company's "duty" to provide for a people's well-being. However, it's always most likely in their best interest. In a free market, the companies that choose to be unethical and not consider a public's needs will most likely go out of business. But their duty is not to the people.
I would say that the solution is not the denunciation of profit and personal gain/money, but the reexamination of moral principles and the premises of our philosophies.
Reply
I think we are both saying that if one works for just profit (and i've basically been talking only in terms of monetary profit) this can lead to bad things.
You are saying that we should supplement the means to achieve profit with more valued attitude and conscious mind.
I am saying that we should take away monetary profit as the reason to do anything all together.
Consider the underpayed teachers in the U.S. education system. I student taught in a public school. Here and there, there are teachers that work their asses off. For money? no. They do it to provide students with a quality education, and they care about the students; and let me add that those are the only teachers that I have ever seen make a difference. Teachers that don't like what they are paid compare their finances to the inheriters of the Sam Walton estate, and they think that their sorrows justify not working any more than what they have to. Who can blame them though?They have grown up in a world that values making money.
This brings me to what I feel should be the real profit. There's a certain respect and love of life that is not achieved with money. There is a certain attitude, experience, and character that is not achieved with money. The people that make the biggest, most admirable, or note-worthy differences in this world don't do it for the money. No, Ford's invention of the assembly line doesn't count on this one (at first, it seems like genius, and at the time maybe it was. but it has led to a catestrophic chain of events that... well thats for another conversation) Whether you talk about Einstein, Beethoven, Jesus, Dan and Mark, our fore-fathers, Shakespear, Aristotle, or Martin Luther King, they probably made/make money to survive, but any more effort that was spent, or any more sweat that was poured was due to pure passion and a goal, a most worthy profit that was not counted in dollars. We need to replace the persuit of money with the persuit of healthy and happy survival. Does that sound like a paradox? I rest my case.
Perhaps you might say, "well even if i know money wont buy me a certain happiness, if somebody wants to go after money, thats their right" The snowball occurs when, after you have more and more people that go after money influencing each other, that you have children growing up in that environment learning to make money. Unfortunately, the people that work for passion of non-monetary goal get pushed out by the exponential expansion of money-hungry pocket eaters. Money-hungry pocket eaters put more strain on everyone else just so that they can make a buck. When my car was totaled, you have no idea how much i was pushed around and screwed with because nobody wanted to be straight with me... they wanted their money. The people in extreme situations get the biggest debts. I work at a private school, and the owner of the school is starting to restrict so many things, us as teachers are having to sacrifice many things that most people would not tolerate, just so that we can make our difference in the school we work at. I almost became a manager for a marketing company a couple years ago; i became rather good at the whole selling thing, but it wasn't my cup of tea. My time is better spent doing what i do now, being a well-rounded lessons-for-life music teacher doing what I can with today's youth, and not making money selling expensive luxury cutlery to people. We need to discourage the money route as much as possible.
Reply
Perhaps. I'm not decided on it. I know that love of one's work does not rule out the desire to make a profit for doing that work. It also does not rule out wanting to make the best possible profit. Doing what you intend to do is the purpose of man's productive ability. Profit is the result.
"I am saying that we should take away monetary profit as the reason to do anything all together."
I do not agree with this philosophy. I think that, rationally, monetary profit is not the only motivator of one's work, but there's nothing wrong with taking it into consideration. Indeed, most often profit will be taken into consideration. Profit is not evil, and should in no way be taken out of the picture.
"They do it to provide students with a quality education, and they care about the students. . . Teachers that don't like what they are paid . . . think that their sorrows justify not working any more than what they have to.Who can blame them though?They have grown up in a world that values making money."
This reflects that wanting to do one's job well and wanting to make money are conflicting values. This is a fallacy. And I for one am glad that I live in a society that (somewhat) values making money. I think we could value it much more if we would shed our altruistic premises. Money is what is needed for men to trade with one another. And trade is really the only rational way to do things in a society. It is okay if a teacher wishes to sacrifice his happiness at the expense of taking an underpaid job. If it's a sacrifice, it's not a moral virtue, but that's his choice. If it's not a sacrifice, well, then I will assume he is happy.
I think where we disagree on this point is the fact that you think (as far as I can tell) that sincere work and desire for spiritual profit (by spiritual I mean the sum of a man's consciousness) are in conflict with the desire for monetary profit.
I'll use myself as an example.
I want to be a writer and a musician. I intend for either of these two fields to be my career in life (mainly writing).
I pursue this field because I love it.
I also intend to make as much money as I can from my writing. Why? Because I value my writing, and I expect to receive value for value.
When I write a book, I don't want people to come to the bookstores, get a book, and pay for it with a piece of paper saying "happiness" on it. Their response would be, "But, you have gained real profit, James. The profit of earning my happiness." Ironically, they would keep their money which they spend their time denouncing.
The happiness of a reader is not my goal. My goal is the portrayal of the values and things that I hold to be beautiful and true in this life.
For more information on this, I refer you to Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. There's a speech in that book about money, that is available independently of the book. If you'd like a copy I could send it to you. Maybe you'd get a better idea of where I'm coming from.
(I'm an Objectivist. If you'd like to check that out to understand some of my premises, check out www.aynrand.org)
Reply
"We need to replace the persuit of money with the persuit of healthy and happy survival. Does that sound like a paradox? I rest my case."
I like to write music, essays, and books as well. I would rather give my book away and see people reading it (and circulate my reasoning) rather than get money for each book sold. I am recieving value for value.
It just is not rational to equate money with happiness. Families and communities that work together to provide necessities, fellowship, music making (etc.), and work hard together to harvest the seasons crop and never see their labor interpreted in currency are probably more happy than the business owner who lives alone, cuts wages on his workers so that he gets more money and looks more "successful," arguably. Happiness comes from within, and should be defined in and of the self. Not defined by an external force, such as money, bigger car, bigger bank account, or title.
It's our definition of value. What do we want to get in return for what we do? I am content with survival and making a difference in the world. (Whatever it takes to survive, not whatever it takes to make money). Money doesn't logically measure that for me.
I invite you to read the rational of one of the leading intellectuals of our age: Noam Chomsky. I can't say that I agree with everything that his statements represent, but he has some very good points that must not be ignored. I warn you to remove the bias and close minded nature that accompanies the natural approach to these statements, and read logically.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html
Perhaps you can point me to the specific speech within the book Atlas Shrugged, I plan on obtaining a copy for myself... I always like having a well rounded library :)
Reply
Reply
The more I think about it, I think the best way to tackle this problem is with children and education. They need to grow up learning about whats good for them. It should be common knowledge that children are basically raised by culture, tv, radio, Ronald McDonald, Saddam Hussein, Howard Stern and everything else in this very culture that criticizes a nourishing upbringing. It is after they grow up and are actually psychologically developed enough when these issues should be brought to cognitive level, they then should understand the hypathetically good habits that they are in. Unfortunately, ya know what the leading audience is for many companies in order for the corporations to ensure that they will make more money and will keep making more money? Children. Just look at the music industry, food industry, game industry, television industry, cigarette industry, toys obviously... and it is democratic government agency's trying to enforce ratings and such... but the damn parents generally dont give a shit about what happens. We hear radiobroadcasters, television companies, government people, rating people, and free-speech enthusiasts arguing all the time... but you never hear the children or parents... ok maybe a couple irate, devoted parents that try to speak for everybody.
So whats next? Well, maybe we could start with keeping everything else in the world like my airline safety from being privately owned, or my musical taste from being privately owned.
It is then when we have educated individuals electing worthy people to our democracy that we can then say "hey government, can you help us take care of ourselves?" I say we would be even more 'free' in that scenario. Of course, another problem that i think we are in is over-population, and the size of the self-sufficient unit is too big. Any city can not support itself in such an integrated field as our country. If we were able to make things more localized, perhaps easier/better changes could occur. That is another conversation.
Aristotle(i think) reasoned that the only people that were worthy to lead a society are philosophers because a true philosopher is open minded, and a philosopher is the only person who can make decisions based on what people truly need.
Although, for your credit, perhaps we're in a catch 22, and I can see how your scenario might look more realistic under the circumstances.
Reply
I agree with you. Most companies today are exactly as you described them. I, however, am referring to a free market. I believe I stated in that comment that America right now is a mixed economy. Companies such as McDonald's can do what they do because of government aid, protection and handouts.
I also agree that education is the best key to resolving anything. Though children learning "what's good for them" may be just another example of the elders instilling their values into their kids. Perhaps it should be phrased: Children should learn to reason, and should be taught to trust in the validity of their own mind. So the responsibility of educating the children lies in the parents, teachers, etc. who will teach a child one of two things: self-esteem or self-sacrifice.
As a Capitalist (lassez-faire), I maintain that the only form of government is one which protects the individual rights on man from force and fraud. Therefore, the only branches proper to government are: military, police, and law courts.
So yes, privatize!
I believe that Plato argued for a philosopher king more than Aristotle.
Reply
Leave a comment