RE: Off Topic: Business & Values

["Hegge, Roy" <Roy_Hegge@adc.com>]

Greg wrote:

> If we define capitalism as an economic system, devoid of moral judgment, 
>then it seems as if we would have to do the same for any system (socialism, 
>totalitarianism, communism, etc.), for those systems too are at heart, 
>economic systems.

I very much believe that this is true.   There have been a few instances of
benevolent dictators and monarchs which one might consider as fostering a 
moral society.  Although these certainly are not the norm.  One can look to 
some of the communal groups within the US for examples of moral communism.  

>Ayn Rand's contention was that capitalism is at its most fundamental root 
>"moral" because it is based on the free exchange, the free trade, of value
>for value, among individuals. 

I like Ayn Rand. I think that she chose to portray the capitalism that we 
should strive for, as implemented by good, honest, hardworking, moral people.
She did not address the darker side of capitalism as implemented by exploiters,
charlatans, thugs, what have you.

>The notion of free trade is largely or completely absent from 
>those systems; they are fundamentally coercive and can be maintained and 
>"protected" from their OWN SUBJECTS only at the point of a gun. (You don't 
>see people climbing in boats in Miami to "escape" the U.S. and flee to 
>Cuba.)

Nor do you see people swimming the ocean to escape the socialism of Norway,
or Sweden.  The US' restrictive trade embargoes on Cuba doomed that society
before it got started.  If they had been given the fair chance that I think
even Ayn Rand would have supported, we might be seeing a migration in the
opposite direction today.


>I have a hard time looking at any system as "amoral." It seems to me that 
>any economic system is inextricably interrelated to its associated 
>political system, and all that is in turn inextricably related to a set of 
>fundamental values.

True.  If you remove morality from the human, you no longer have a human, and
if you remove the human from an economic system, you no longer have a system.
They are inextricably entwined. But it seems to me that if a system can exist
in two opposing states, moral or immoral, depending upon the nature of a third
entity, humans.  Then the system is not what determines the state, but rather 
the third entity, the humans.

>When Reagan called the Soviet Union and "evil empire" I think he was right on
>the money.

I tend to agree. But then Reagan supported governments that in my opinion were
more evil than the Soviet Union.  They just happened to be capitalist societies
that we could exploit.  So I'm not too proud of being on the same side as 
Reagan.  

The Soviet Union, IMHO, was 'evil' not because it was communist, but rather 
because it was totalitarian, elitist, and exploitive.  It was a pretty poor
implementation of communism after all.  Moral communism, again IMHO, is a 
sharing of wealth equally throughout the society.  From each, based on his/her
ability; to each based upon his/her need.

And I feel that we cannot say that the US is a moral society because we are 
fundamentally capitalist.  We as a society have our elitist and exploitive
sides.  But, thank God, we are not yet totalitarian.

Roy



-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Peisert [mailto:gpeisert@jamesgregory.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 3:29 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
Subject: RE: Off Topic: Business & Values

Interesting point, Roy. I'll have to think about it. Capitalism has been 
castigated by  many as "immoral" because there is this pervasive notion 
that "selfishness" and its sister "greed" are "immoral" and that capitalism 
is driven by, motivated by, thrives on, selfishness. Ayn Rand's contention 
was that capitalism is at its most fundamental root "moral" because it is 
based on the free exchange, the free trade, of value for value, among 
individuals. She pointed out that anything other than free, mutually agreed 
upon exchange, is coercion and leads to bloodshed and death. That was why 
she believed that no one should "initiate force" or initiate coercive 
action.

  If we define capitalism as an economic system, devoid of moral judgment, 
then it seems as if we would have to do the same for any system (socialism, 
totalitarianism, communism, etc.), for those systems too are at heart, 
economic systems. Their focus is on the control of the means of production, 
on the ownership of property, and on the role of the individual within that 
context. The notion of free trade is largely or completely absent from 
those systems; they are fundamentally coercive and can be maintained and 
"protected" from their OWN SUBJECTS only at the point of a gun. (You don't 
see people climbing in boats in Miami to "escape" the U.S. and flee to 
Cuba.) Each system, while it deals with economics, also addresses a range 
of issues that affect how humans behave in their business dealings, and 
those business dealings seem to impact almost every other area of life. So, 
I have a hard time looking at any system as "amoral." It seems to me that 
any economic system is inextricably interrelated to its associated 
political system, and all that is in turn inextricably related to a set of 
fundamental values. Since the system springs forth from those values and is 
built upon them, I don't see how one can separate them. When Reagan called 
the Soviet Union and "evil empire" I think he was right on the money.

  Would you agree, or do you see it differently?


-- Greg



On Tuesday, March 02, 1999 11:26 AM, Hegge, Roy [SMTP:Roy_Hegge@adc.com] 
wrote:
> I think that you all have confused the issue by trying to interpret 
capitalist
> actions with a moral context.   Capitalism is an economic system that 
describes
> how goods and services are valued and how they are traded.  It is 
ammoral.
>
> Morality is a human concept that establishes values to human action and 
interaction.
> Morality is subjective, although there tend to be some common threads 
throughout history.
>
> A capitalist society can be moral and responsible if its members are 
moral and responsible and there is agreement on what actions are considered 
to be moral and responsible.
>
> Just as easily, a capitalist society can be immoral and irresponsible if 
its members are immoral and irresponsible. Or, if there tends to be 
disparate thinking in how to assign moral value, there will be disagreement 
on if that society is moral or not.
>
> So I would interpret the gangster/drug dealer world as capitalism 
implemented by immoral people, and greater share of the US business world 
as capitalism implemented by moral people.  I do have to leave myself some 
room here because in my subjective opinion, some of the legal US business 
world is run by immoral people as well.
>
> Roy
>
>