Is capitalism or democracy more peaceful?

[brien]

Quote by: grandpa I just said how it is difficult, how boycot's of something like Coke would fail because people like how Coke tastes. Environmental impact should depend on science, not who can afford the best lawyer and ideology. I think people's lungs are far more important than ideology. Laws have a chance of preventing environmental abuse instead of having a new lawsuit pop up when its already too late. People may sue for damages, but they'd already have a foot in the grave. Grandpa h.

Gramps: If people really understood how bad Coca Cola is for them, if it is indeed bad for them to consume, they would quit drinking it altogether. No boycott would be required! The truth just needs to be understood by the average American. Perhaps, they just aren't making informed decisions, but that is not to say these decisions should be made for them by government. Perhaps, if it is very dangerous to drink Coca Cola, then It may be government's responsibility to help inform the public of the dangers of drinking Coca Cola, but the government's responsibility ends there. Just like cigarettes, people should be free to pick their poison on an informed basis.

Enviornmental impact has two liabilities. Once criminal and one civil, as you point out. Should ABC company pollute "Love Canal" then the company, and its management, should be held criminally and financially responsible.

Enviornmental regulations, as long as they are logical, arrived at by general consensus, and are in the best interest of ALL citizens and businesses alike, ie society, are important to everyone in that society.

Sometimes I wonder where this idea of a "free for all" society comes from here. I hope it isn't assumed that the Libertarians are responsible for this drivel. I am loathe to be confused with anarchists. :eek:

[bishop]

Quote by: SteveA Between capitalism (rights based and voluntary interactions/transactions) and democracy (laws and rights determined by popularity/majority rule), which form of government promotes peace in the world more?

isn't this a bit of an apples/oranges question? capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a political system..

i'd say that neither promote peace any more than the other. the ancient greeks, for example, lived in pure democratic states - and they were incredibly warlike people.

and since the days of westphalia, countless wars have been fought for economic reasons. many of these wars have been fought by capitalist countries.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Protostar Quote by: grandpa As he explained it, sure. But capitalism is easily perverted into something far more meaningless. I'm afraid too many "capitalists" are perhaps too into their beliefs, forgetting that businesses are instruments of social control interacting with people and therefore deserve some level of accountability. Grandpa h. Not really. The people can force businesses to do their bidding by not patronizing them. Regulations stifle competition (which is why huge corps adore them) and places them out of the accountability of the people.

I think Grandpa agreed. He was pointing out that simply calling something Capitalism doesn't mean those concerns you mentioned are really possible though or that other factors can't be added that make free competition difficult to achieve, yet people still often call it capitalism. Oftentimes people claim that the U.S. is a capitalist nation but is that really true or simply that the U.S. appears closer to capitalism when compared against more oppressive governments?

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

[b]cap·i·tal·ism[/n]
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

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

NOTE: Corporations under capitalism shouldn't be treated as anything other than shared ownership between more than one person. Corporations were simply created as a way to recognize shared interests in an endeavor but aren't needed for much beyond that.

A purely capitalist system would seem to deny any form of mandatory taxation. Government under capitalism would also need to be a product of a free market, which would mean government couldn't assign monopolies or decide who and who can't freely compete in markets.

One major abuse under capitalism is in how property is often defined. Property isn't a top down assignment by government under capitalism and people don't "own" markets like property either. What does the term "free markets" mean other than they are not manipulated forcibly by government and that competition is tolerated. There are a ton of government agencies and regulations that don't allow people to compete freely and place unnecessary burdens on what would otherwise be a free market system.

It's the same thing as how democracy is often viewed: democracy derives itself from demo = people, and cracy = rule. So a government by which the people rule sounds, at face value, a decent thing. You'd assume democracy should represent something where people rule over themselves and can determine in a relatively voluntary manner what they feel works best. I think anarchy would be closer to the implicit meaning of democracy than what we have now, as that would remove government altogether and let people truly rule over themselves, instead of being ruled over by others.

Quote by: brien Since Capitalism is an Economic system, and Democracy a poltical one, I think the two compliment each other. As for peace, this is dependent upon too many extraneous forces brought to bear upon these systems, thus perhaps, it is fruitless to speculate on peace.

I don't believe you're really looking at things close enough. I've naively believed democracy was complimentary to capitalism as well but come to realize they are in many ways opposites.

First of all, consider that capitalism is based upon mutually agreed upon exchanges for the parties involved. How do mandatory taxes fit into capitalism? How can emminent domain be compatible with capitalism? What about many unnecessary business regulations?

Democracy couldn't exist like we have it now under capitalism. Capitalism would expect these interactions to be agreed upon by the parties involved. So a democracy under capitalism would have little say in any affairs outside those of the people immediately involved. In a sense corporations are (or at least can be) democracy under capitalism.

[SteveA]

Quote by: bishop isn't this a bit of an apples/oranges question? capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a political system..

Let me ask you a question. If we truly had a capitalistic nation, how would democracy exist other than as a joint private effort such as a corporation? What power would democracy have other than over the individuals who decided to participate in it, under capitalism? Capitalism is about voluntary exchange/interactions and a respect for individual (property) rights.

i'd say that neither promote peace any more than the other. the ancient greeks, for example, lived in pure democratic states - and they were incredibly warlike people. and since the days of westphalia, countless wars have been fought for economic reasons. many of these wars have been fought by capitalist countries.

But weren't these wars create by democratic forces instead of capitalistic ones. Capitalism itself seems to explicitly deny war, other than in defense. Of course when you get enough people stampeding, individual rights and voluntary exchanges become lost in the shuffle.

The U.S. was very isolationist up until even WW II and it was much more capitalistic at the time.

The German economy might have been built on many capitalistic principles but wasn't it truly democracy that motivated the war?

Consider that under capitalism, trade is relatively free between people. National boundaries and economies don't simply stop at a border when it comes to economic markets. If two countries exchange a lot, and individual participation in any collective endeavor is volnutary, what motivation would most individuals have under a capitalistic economy to go to war?

[brien]

Quote by: SteveA I think Grandpa agreed. He was pointing out that simply calling something Capitalism doesn't mean those concerns you mentioned are really possible though or that other factors can't be added that make free competition difficult to achieve, yet people still often call it capitalism. Oftentimes people claim that the U.S. is a capitalist nation but is that really true or simply that the U.S. appears closer to capitalism when compared against more oppressive governments? ---------------------------- [b]cap·i·tal·ism[/n] n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. --------------------------- NOTE: Corporations under capitalism shouldn't be treated as anything other than shared ownership between more than one person. Corporations were simply created as a way to recognize shared interests in an endeavor but aren't needed for much beyond that. A purely capitalist system would seem to deny any form of mandatory taxation. Government under capitalism would also need to be a product of a free market, which would mean government couldn't assign monopolies or decide who and who can't freely compete in markets. One major abuse under capitalism is in how property is often defined. Property isn't a top down assignment by government under capitalism and people don't "own" markets like property either. What does the term "free markets" mean other than they are not manipulated forcibly by government and that competition is tolerated. There are a ton of government agencies and regulations that don't allow people to compete freely and place unnecessary burdens on what would otherwise be a free market system. It's the same thing as how democracy is often viewed: democracy derives itself from demo = people, and cracy = rule. So a government by which the people rule sounds, at face value, a decent thing. You'd assume democracy should represent something where people rule over themselves and can determine in a relatively voluntary manner what they feel works best. I think anarchy would be closer to the implicit meaning of democracy than what we have now, as that would remove government altogether and let people truly rule over themselves, instead of being ruled over by others. I don't believe you're really looking at things close enough. I've naively believed democracy was complimentary to capitalism as well but come to realize they are in many ways opposites. First of all, consider that capitalism is based upon mutually agreed upon exchanges for the parties involved. How do mandatory taxes fit into capitalism? How can emminent domain be compatible with capitalism? What about many unnecessary business regulations? Democracy couldn't exist like we have it now under capitalism. Capitalism would expect these interactions to be agreed upon by the parties involved. So a democracy under capitalism would have little say in any affairs outside those of the people immediately involved. In a sense corporations are (or at least can be) democracy under capitalism.

Ut Oh. We better define Democracy. I will work with your definition here. We, in the US, actually live in Republic, not a Democracy, if that makes a difference in what we are discussing here.

I think as you have defined democracy, that it can compliment Capitalism ,in that people through referendum can support that which they believe in economics (Captilaism) through their one person one vote in a Democracy.

As far as mandatory taxes, they only enter the picture when they are mutually agreed upon through an acceptable vote in the democracy. Republics are more likely to shove taxes at constituents who have no real say in Legislation except for electing those who supposedly represent them.

[SteveA]

Quote by: brien Ut Oh. We better define Democracy.

Good idea :) I'd say true democracy as in 'demo = people' and 'cracy = rule' would look a lot like anarchy, where every individual was sovereign over themselves.

There should be a specific term for a voting majority rule type government, and it wouldn't be considered democracy, but I recognize that democracy is typically seen as a majority rule form of government with one adult, one vote.

[bishop]

Quote by: steve Let me ask you a question. If we truly had a capitalistic nation, how would democracy exist other than as a joint private effort such as a corporation? What power would democracy have other than over the individuals who decided to participate in it, under capitalism? Capitalism is about voluntary exchange/interactions and a respect for individual rights.

i don't buy the argument that there can be a true capitalistic nation.. that's exactly the same line that pro-socialists use - i.e. that we've never had a true socialist system.

what we have is little different than what other capitalistic nations have been.. be it belgium, britain, whatever.. the system has consistently shown a propensity towards mercantalism and corruption.

i have to base my analysis on reality. neither democracy nor capitalism (nor any other political/economic system) have shown any true propensity in support of peace.

[SteveA]

Quote by: bishop i don't buy the argument that there can be a true capitalistic nation.. that's exactly the same line that pro-socialists use - i.e. that we've never had a true socialist system. what we have is little different than what other capitalistic nations have been.. be it belgium, britain, whatever.. the system has consistently shown a propensity towards mercantalism and corruption. i have to base my analysis on reality. neither democracy nor capitalism (nor any other political/economic system) have shown any true propensity in support of peace.

And I agee totally, just like neither pure tyranny nor anarchy ever really exist, but this doesn't deny cultures leaning in various directions.

In a sense, what you pointed out here is the root problems of many government issues - the simplistic view that societies are composed of a single homogeneous ideology. Maybe that sounds hypocritial of me, but capitalism seems much more able to capatibly support various ideologies than does majority rule, as majority rule seems to explicitly view things as homogeneous (as determined by majority vote).

Having a better view of what democracy should represent would be great.

[bishop]

in the least wordy definition, democracy is simply mob rule. there are no constants - the electorate is empowered to make decisions as they see fit (including overwriting previous decisions)..

i still think that capitalism/democracy is apples and oranges. seems to make more sense to ask whether capitalism vs. socialism are more apt to promote peace.. (or democracy vs. communism)

what most societies tend to trend towards are oligarchies. and when you have a situation where the interests of a powerful few overpower those of the many, you end up in situations where peace isn't promoted. this has been the case in countless countries and doesn't seem to have any preference towards the economic or political system used in that country.

[SteveA]

Quote by: bishop in the least wordy definition, democracy is simply mob rule. there are no constants - the electorate is empowered to make decisions as they see fit (including overwriting previous decisions).. i still think that capitalism/democracy is apples and oranges. seems to make more sense to ask whether capitalism vs. socialism are more apt to promote peace.. (or democracy vs. communism)

If democracy were expected to remain limited to operating under a capitalistic system, then yes, it would be a non-issue but we don't have that. We've placed democracy over capitalism instead. Capitalism and democracy are not compatible but are inherently at conflict on most political issues. What could possibly be up for grabs by a majority vote that capitalism wouldn't deny as being a voluntary issue for an individual to decide?

The only way democracy could be compatible with capitalism is if democracy were expected to operate under capitalism - similar to a corporation (and I don't mean a corporation as defined by U.S. Corporate Law but instead a corporation as composed by the voluntary associations of people sharing in an endeavor under capitalism).

Quote by: bishop what most societies tend to trend towards are oligarchies. and when you have a situation where the interests of a powerful few overpower those of the many, you end up in situations where peace isn't promoted. this has been the case in countless countries and doesn't seem to have any preference towards the economic or political system used in that country.

Are you implying all forms of government are identical in promoting tyranny and that we should throw our hands up and simply say it's futile to try to make things better?

If you aren't, then would you believe peace is promoted more by capitalistic cultures or democratic ones?

The only real "problem" with capitalism is that it typically results in strong economies, that are capable of waging war if democratic forces later predominate but in itself, true capitalism (not the half breed version we have in the U.S.) is inherently peaceful and even seems to explicitly deny initiating wars as that would require ignoring the property rights of others. The U.S. has become more warlike because we've strayed from capitalistic ideals in favor of government controlled markets and monopolies, and a belief that if you get 51% of a vote you can ignore the rights of any remaining minorites (including foreign countries).

[Jeff]

True democracy is unworkable. A complete democracy would mean voting on every single decision that the government now makes. Our government is more of a republic. One could say that we have a representative democracy. Most people, however, do not know the names of the people who represent them. Few know how their representatives are voting on their behalf.

I do certainly favor a capitalist system. In a capitalist system there is a need for some entity, usually governmental, to be a referee. Rights often overlap. It is necessary to have those rights protected.

[bishop]

Quote by: steve Are you implying all forms of government are identical in promoting tyranny and that we should throw our hands up and simply say it's futile to try to make things better?

i'm not implying anything - i'm merely pointing out that all the different systems employed in human history tend to result in corruption. what goes up, must come down so to speak.

that doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying to make things better, but again, i'm arguing from the perspective of reality and history. this isn't in the philosophy forum, otherwise i would be more willing to argue this topic from a purely philosophical stance.


you're arguing in favor of capitalism without mentioning any of its negative aspects - particularly exploitation. as i've argued, all systems trend towards corruption (you cannot deny the force of human nature), and as a result people are increasingly exploited.

Quote by: steve The U.S. has become more warlike because we've strayed from capitalistic ideals in favor of government controlled markets and monopolies, and a belief that if you get 51% of a vote you can ignore the rights of any remaining minorites (including foreign countries).

we've always been a warlike country.. we started it off by waging an arguably genocidal war against the american indians.. the only difference between then and now is that now we have matured (and corrupted) and have the power to be an imperial power. (i would argue that the spirit of the trail of tears is still alive and well - conquering new people in new lands.)

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien Gramps: If people really understood how bad Coca Cola is for them, if it is indeed bad for them to consume, they would quit drinking it altogether. No boycott would be required! :

One easy thing to point out is how this is not true. People generally know Coca Cola and other things aren't the healthiest for them. That's an aside, however. My point was boycotts probably aren't going to be effective unless a huge amount of people simply stop cosnuming such and such a product. You, on the other hand, are insisting democracy corresponds wih sales--which is frankly a bogus concept. Sales are sales, hence I talk about people enjoying the taste of Coke products despite wicked things they might do to workers in Colombia.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: bishop i'm not implying anything - i'm merely pointing out that all the different systems employed in human history tend to result in corruption. what goes up, must come down so to speak.

That's one thing absolute anarchists have to go on, but then you have the question: Where do we go from here? People tend to be social creatures. It seems some institutions are desirable, if not downright necessary. But people should abide by the basic anarchic premise of challenging authority and therefore limiting corruption.

Grandpa h.

[bishop]

well, to be defeatist and just accept reality is definitely not a favorable outcome.. life in a corrupt oligarchy is no fun.. the revolutions disgruntled people have waged over they years shows the end result of these oligarchies...

so, to avoid violent revolution, we should be active in looking to solve our problems peacefully.. this can best occur under a democratic system.

[Apeman81]

A democracy in the form of a Representaive Republic is the worst form of government but for all others.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa No, as I said, it's be extremely hard to effectively boycott Coke, or any other popular product. So it hardly even matters, ultimately.

Because Coke doesn't do anything bad.

If they did something really bad, I bet people would.


But, to the point, you could boycott them. Shouldn't that be good enough? Aren't you making a point?

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Because Coke doesn't do anything bad. If they did something really bad, I bet people would.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 But, to the point, you could boycott them. Shouldn't that be good enough? Aren't you making a point?

Oh, anyone could try to boycott anything if they want. Somtimes it dos work, even. But that doesn't necessarily matter much. So long as certain questionable activities can legally happen which are beneficial to a company, they'll still do it. Certain laws could probably put a damper on that fact, though.

Another point I must repeat again is buying something is NOT democratic.
Money itself is not, as the votes per dollar are what matter, not majority rule or even basic moral principles.
But at least there is minority protection--the minority being the wealthy who basically own the system.

Grandpa h.

[SteveA]

There are at least a couple ways that corruption is penalized under capitalism. Let's look at Coke.

1) If Coke is able to gain a competitive advantage by using non-capitalistic actions in other countries, is that the fault of capitalism or a problem with uncapitalistic systems elsewhere?

We can rather safely assume that if Coke literally attempted to force people to work for them here in the U.S. there'd be at least civil lawsuits, if not criminal ones trying to stop this. If we assume that this truly was the case and the government and justice systems operated as intended, that Coke would not only find physical resistance from police but economic penalities through fines and compensations.

2) Of course, as others of you have pointed out, the value of Coke is something subject to personal values. If information regarding Coke indicates that it can create health risks, the value of a can becomes less to buyers and fewer buyers are present. The costs remain similar in making a can of Coke but fewer profits and growth result, and in many cases companies lose money and close up.

This of course requires a relatively free flow of information though this can also be affected by government ... consider FDA decisions regarding information about medications and drugs or FCC regulations of much of the media or the military stopping reporters in Iraq etc. Fraud is something that also needs to be protected against under capitalism.

3) If capitalistic ideas of individual (property) rights and voluntary exchanges had greater support, oppresive operations would find even more resistance against them as they'd be seen as even more unjust. This resistance would correlate to even more 'costs of doing business' which would provide additional pressures against these operations. For example, in a society that viewed such oppression as routine, it might only take one armed individual to effectively enslave 20 other people. If instead that society didn't accept this as a legitimate "business relationship", it would take more effort to maintain such slave labor. That translates into being less competitive versus another institution that is able to maintain a much more voluntary relationship between the workers. Over time, such oppressive institutions wither under capitalistic pressures.

The key though is to realize capitalism isn't something whimisically defined by corporate laws. It's based upon the simple idea that every individual has a right to claim and defend (and even expect defense from others to some extent) their own individual life, vested interests in property and whatever natural ability they have to pursue happiness. Interactions with others socially or economically should remain as mutually voluntary as possible and any harms done should expect compensation or at least have some system of deterring them.

Corporations were simply created to address the fact that people can operate with shared interests in an endeavor but shouldn't be viewed as much more than that.

I admit there have been a few arguments I've heard from left-anarchists against our current system and after filtering through the chaff, there are some good arguments they've made that what we currently have in the U.S. only vaguely represents capitalism and has fallen rather far off course. (Other than redistributionist ideas, I share a lot of common views with left-anarchists. I hope someday the more libertarian types among the left and right will recognize there are peaceful solutions possible that make most everyone happy)

[bishop]

all of these examples occurred due to the democratic process - not capitalism..

economic systems don't solve problems - good leadership does.