Social responsibility and capitalism.

[Domingo Halliburton]

"the social responsibility of businesses is to increase profits"
-Milton Friedman

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

If consumers care about pollution and wont buy from companies that pollute, you don't need laws against pollution(forcing social responsibility), it will be stemmed by the market mechanism itself.

I swear libertarians are as rigid and dogmatic as religious fundamentalists sometimes. I can't believe anyone can possibly believe this.

 

[Poitier]

That's a pretty concise assessment of something that has never existed...

It's human nature. Funny how when it comes to people getting rich in the market at the expense of others, you could care less about morals, but when it's obvious that the rich would abuse the market, you seek to employ the "humans are moral, they would never abuse the market" argument.

 

[DEAD7]

Europe has a system like this mid ages and prior..... Things played at exactly as he described until some enlighted folk came along and fixed them. Enlightened white people and before that moors helped them realize that "completely free market" = slavery.

nobles n shyt were the business leaders and only business leaders. the central gov only got involved to give these business leaders power----- similar to what a completely free market would look like today.

^
This what i wrote above is something someone told me. Idk if I completely agree, what do u think?

None of that is true.

I swear libertarians are as rigid and dogmatic as religious fundamentalists sometimes. I can't believe anyone can possibly believe this.

That's funny cause it happens constantly in the real world... If the consumer disproves of a practice and places their money elsewhere, the practice is stopped by those who wish to turn a profit. I'd give you empirical examples of this, but it won't change your mind.

It's human nature. Funny how when it comes to people getting rich in the market at the expense of others, you could care less about morals, but when it's obvious that the rich would abuse the market, you seek to employ the "humans are moral, they would never abuse the market" argument.

almost had a point. Too bad its not at the expense of anyone.
Interaction/transactions in a capitalist economy are voluntary and mutually beneficial(the only way they occur). When they cease being voluntary, it stops being capitalism.
Non Aggression is the moral imperative followed.

The argument you are making is humans are fukked up so we need to put humans in charge to regulate...

 

[Poitier]

The argument you are making is humans are fukked up so we need to put humans in charge to regulate...

No, the argument is that most people are altruistic but there are outliers who would manipulate and abuse others to gain an advantage. You need to put your idealistic notions and textbooks down and enter the real world.

 

[DEAD7]

No, the argument is that most people are altruistic but there are outliers who would manipulate and abuse others to gain an advantage. You need to put your idealistic notions and textbooks down and enter the real world.

Most people are altruistic, but charity won't work?

Spoiler

and the people we put people in charge will abuse and manipulate(obviously). People period will abuse and manipulate, what you suggest is self defeating. I am simply suggesting that we er on the side of freedom in the event of inevitable fukkkery...

 

[Poitier]

No, charity is not altruistic. Charity is a guilty conscience from exploiting others taking form.

 

[mbewane]

That's a pretty concise assessment of something that has never existed...

It's only logical IF free-marketeers wold be consequent with what they claim to believe in. There would be no government (since no taxes would be raised), no public school, no public police, no public transportation, no public army, no public law system, no public roads, no public education. Again, emphasis on "IF free-marketeers would be consequent with what they claim to believe in", because most "capitalists" don't have any problem seeing governments bail banks out, taking advantage of public-funded research, and I won't even mention all the private companies eating good off the US military complex and working hand-in-hand with it (Shoutout to Halliburton).

 

[DEAD7]

No, charity is not altruistic. Charity is a guilty conscience from exploiting others taking form.

 

[DEAD7]

The surrogate decision making pushed by liberals is . I dont know how they got all you critical thinkers on board.

 

[Poitier]

I'll repeat it, you're a slave, you just don't know it yet.

 

[DEAD7]

It's only logical IF free-marketeers wold be consequent with what they claim to believe in. There would be no government (since no taxes would be raised), no public school, no public police, no public transportation, no public army, no public law system, no public roads, no public education. Again, emphasis on "IF free-marketeers would be consequent with what they claim to believe in", because most "capitalists" don't have any problem seeing governments bail banks out, taking advantage of public-funded research, and I won't even mention all the private companies eating good off the US military complex and working hand-in-hand with it (Shoutout to Halliburton).

Corporatism ≠ Capitalism

This keeps coming up which reflects the fundamental flaw in your approach to these issues. If you truly see them as one in the same, there is nothing to discuss.


I'm not even gonna address the jump from socialism to no government at all, such an extreme outlook leaves little room for debate. Dealing in absolutes goes nowhere.

 

[DEAD7]

I'll repeat it, you're a slave, you just don't know it yet.

The difference is your accepting of it.

 

[Poitier]

You don't live in the real world. You seem to lack a sound theory of mind. You keep talking about all these hypotheticals and yet lack the most important ingredient, human behavior. You seem to use mental gymnastics to justify why humans would act in favor of capitalism but when the moral dilemmas come up, you seem to use a malformed altruistic argument. I can now see that you are some nerd behind a computer screen who has had very little interaction in the real world. You also seem to love straw man arguments.

 

[mbewane]

Corporatism ≠ Capitalism

This keeps coming up which reflects the fundamental flaw in your approach to these issues. If you truly see them as one in the same, there is nothing to discuss.

I'm not even gonna address the jump from socialism to no government at all, such an extreme outlook leaves little room for debate. Dealing in absolutes goes nowhere.

If you don't see that corporatism is an inherent part of capitalism, I'm not sure what sort of "capitalism" you're talking about.

I don't know why you wrote the rest tbh, I'm not the one advocating the "jump from socialism (don't know what socialism you're talking about) to no government at all", but it's nothing but the logical consequence of free-marketteers' "policy".