I keep running into people who seem to share your enumerated first principles that seem to anchor your worldview and shape your political leanings, and I've been mulling them over. So in continuation of our last discussion, I want to reiterate one question and ask you another.
1) Distinguish your economic model from Darwinism.You're free to bring in alternative moral theories (which I think is probably absolutely necessary), or I suppose, stack your moral theories in some sort of hierarchy to make sense of it. I tend to think, though, that introducing almost any set of moral philosophy or principles (outside of Objectivism) will force you to untether yourself from your foundational principles.
2) Explain why slavery is objectionable, and not reflective of a market wage.
You can email me your response if you don't want to do it bloggy style (yes, I am very aware that made you uncomfortable).
3 comments:
Operating at the most basic level, my moral premises do coincide with Social Darwinism. There is a difference however. Spencer’s idea of Social Darwinism proposes that in order for the human race to advance, those who are not able to survive should be weeded out, i.e. those who are less fit to produce and live in our industrial society should not be “subsidized” by the strong. In other words; survival of the fittest. There is an interesting, and I believe errant, presupposition underlying this however. Social Darwinism holds that the interest of each individual are in fundamental conflict to every other individual. For one person to achieve success, another individual must fail.
My principles are different. Remember that I hold as sacred that one man cannot take from another that which the first man has earned. When an individual uses his innate talent and works prodigiously to in pursuit of profit, he does so without encroaching on the rights of others to do the same. Since my philosophy leaves it to the individual to prosper as they see fit, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor without having it redistributed to others, in the form of welfare etc…, all members of society can prosper simultaneously if they chose to make the effort.
As to slavery, I presume you are referring to chattel slavery such as that which existed in the American South. (There are other types of slavery, not necessarily negative). However, for the purposes of this response, I’ll operate on the belief that you are implying forcing one individual to work for another, and under the ownership of another.
Indeed, this is probable the most reprehensible policy to my espoused moral principles. Slavery denies the freedom of contract; it denies the slave the ability to rationally choose to whom his labor should be sold. The freedom of contract, based on rational choice, is one of the foundations of the moral premise I operate on. Further, slavery is supported by the principle of force. No man should use force to take away that for which another has produced. Thus slavery is morally abhorrent.
These two principles are important, to where I’m going here, so I’m going to repeat them. Each man should be allowed to contract with whomever he desires; guided by rational principles. Secondly, no man should use force to take away that which another has produced, for his own benefit, or that of another.
Let me give you a practical example. If I choose to work in the United States, I am required to pay taxes. Some of those taxes go to things such as the army, which protects me from others trying to take away by force that which I’ve earned. Other parts of my taxes go to social welfare programs. Thus, my wealth is taken from me and given to another. Now, in this instance, this has been allowed by my elected representatives. However, it is still, at its root level, supported by force. If I don’t pay those taxes, that which I have earned is taken away, through the use of the IRS. If I still do not pay, I could end up in jail, deprived of my freedom. Therefore, at its base, these social welfare programs state, I should give up what I earn to someone else. If I don’t then I will be forced to. This is very different than taxing me to pay for my protection, it also interferes with that first principle, it interferes with the freedom of contract.
My exam is tomorrow so I'm going to respond to the first one real quickly...which is confusion over the alternate reality you created.
Basically, you responded to my question about a theoretical construct based in this reality with something akin to "In Utopia, there are no problems, so we should design our institutions as if we were in Utopia." (for the record, there are an infinite number of ways government could be structured in Utopia, depending on whatever human trait you want to pretend exists.)
In short, are you seriously contending that individuals seeking profit aren't fucking over other people right now? I'm baffled.
(I think, reading over your slavery comments and thinking over your ideas, that all of your ideas actually do make sense. Just not on Earth. For humans.)
I'm sure that many people, nee most, in the pursuit of profits, are screwing over other people. But this violates the principles that I've set forth. Indeed, its happening in this cases I'm working on. That's why I'm trying to stop it.
Post a Comment