When GK Chesterton is proclaimed a Saint...
#51
(02-19-2011, 03:25 PM)Pilgrim Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:19 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 03:08 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, he is certainly preferable to people who think Laissez-faire capitalism can be baptized.

You have a problem with the Government staying out of peoples way?

Laissez-faire capitalism makes the same fundamental mistake that socialism/communism does.  It assumes that man is not subject to original sin and will be moral on his own.  In the end, like in so much, a certain degree of regulation is a good idea.

Those who regulate the market are no less prone to original sin than anyone else.
Reply
#52
(02-20-2011, 02:02 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(02-19-2011, 03:25 PM)Pilgrim Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:19 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 03:08 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, he is certainly preferable to people who think Laissez-faire capitalism can be baptized.

You have a problem with the Government staying out of peoples way?

Laissez-faire capitalism makes the same fundamental mistake that socialism/communism does.  It assumes that man is not subject to original sin and will be moral on his own.  In the end, like in so much, a certain degree of regulation is a good idea.

Those who regulate the market are no less prone to original sin than anyone else.

Both you and Ana make a very good point.  However, does that mean that since government is fallible, we should not have government?

Here's a contest:  show me a true free market anywhere in history.  I mean a market that meets the Platonic Form of "laissez-faire capitalism" that has no government involvement in the economy whatsoever.  By your definitions, this economy should have a minimal amount of corruption.  I only ask because, frankly, I can't think of one to test...
Reply
#53
(02-20-2011, 01:59 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: A laborer's just wages are what he and his employer agree upon when he is hired. Paying one's laborer the agreed upon sum isn't defrauding him of anything.

How would one distinguish between an agreement made in good faith vs. one made as a competition? 

Wouldn't a more persuasive person be able to negotiate a deal that benefits one party more than the other?  If someone can maneuver another person into surrendering more and more of the deal to their benefit even if it hurts the partner, how is that just? 

Knowing you have the advantage over someone when that person is ignorant or insufficiently capable of  negotiating on more subtle levels is power over that person.  A quick example would be making a person lower their price because say, a claim is made by the other that they have someone else willing to work for less when they really don't. 
Reply
#54
(02-21-2011, 02:04 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 01:59 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: A laborer's just wages are what he and his employer agree upon when he is hired. Paying one's laborer the agreed upon sum isn't defrauding him of anything.

How would one distinguish between an agreement made in good faith vs. one made as a competition? 

Wouldn't a more persuasive person be able to negotiate a deal that benefits one party more than the other?  If someone can maneuver another person into surrendering more and more of the deal to their benefit even if it hurts the partner, how is that just? 

There's nothing necessarily unjust about getting the better side of a deal if the other person knows the terms he's agreeing to and chooses to accept them.
Reply
#55
(02-21-2011, 02:07 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: There's nothing necessarily unjust about getting the better side of a deal if the other person knows the terms he's agreeing to and chooses to accept them.

Conversely, there would be nothing necessarily just about getting the better side of a deal, nor would there be necessarily any justice in getting the worse part of a deal. 

What are the characteristics that constitute a person "knowing the terms?"  A person with the ability to alter the circumstances by which a person is free to negotiate is by definition able to procure an unjust agreement in their favor.  (eg. through free market ventures, a person is able to corner the market and recreate the atmosphere to be dependent upon their business model or platform and then exert pressure on the customer to fork over disproportionate payments for goods or services.

The classic "Walmart effect" is an example.  Selling items cheaply made in countries with substandard quality controls, and in the short term ruining the quality of brand names by coerced negotiations.  Basically promising high sales, demanding low prices with threats of running a company out of business if they don't play ball and offering the compromise of exporting the production and using the same brand name. 

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/...apper.html#

I'd be curious to know how predatory tactics in business is morally just. 
Reply
#56
(02-21-2011, 02:07 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 02:04 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 01:59 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: A laborer's just wages are what he and his employer agree upon when he is hired. Paying one's laborer the agreed upon sum isn't defrauding him of anything.

How would one distinguish between an agreement made in good faith vs. one made as a competition? 

Wouldn't a more persuasive person be able to negotiate a deal that benefits one party more than the other?  If someone can maneuver another person into surrendering more and more of the deal to their benefit even if it hurts the partner, how is that just? 

There's nothing necessarily unjust about getting the better side of a deal if the other person knows the terms he's agreeing to and chooses to accept them.
This revolts me. A laborer's just wages are positively not simply those that are agreed to in contract. A person can agree to work for less than just wages out of necessity (i.e. they can't find a job anywhere that would remunerate them justly) or ignorance. That is the definition of wage slavery.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)