Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term (Read 498 times)
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
"Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Oct 17th, 2017 at 7:51am
Print Post  
A capitalist who asks no help from the government except the "help" of being left alone to operate his or her means of production is the most socially responsible person imaginable.  The capitalists goal is to acquire ever more profit to be used to buy more capital.  That goal depends on producing according to his ability and meeting the needs of individuals according to the individuals' judgement of their own needs.  Therefore, the capitalist must act as though he were the most altruistic person in the world.  Even if that capitalist secretly hates humanity, his own ends are only served by serving the needs of others.

Unfortunately, the phrase "socially responsible capitalism" almost never means what it says.  People who use that phrase almost always mean "capitalism that is subordinate to government."

Ask an advocate of that kind of "socially responsible capitalism" what a capitalist can do to be socially responsible.  The answer is always some variation of "stop being a capitalist and become a charity" or "simple, just do whatever government tells you, especially when there's an election coming up."

Except some people just refuse to answer that question and instead complain about everything by claiming that nothing is "socially responsible" enough.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22054
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #1 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:20am
Print Post  
Good analysis burns.

Being simple minded as I am, "socially responsible capitalism" looks to me to be the resurrection of Feudalism.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #2 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 12:26pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 7:51am:
A capitalist who asks no help from the government except the "help" of being left alone to operate his or her means of production is the most socially responsible person imaginable.


Exactly! As is his ability to perform as a capitalist. And if government has no need to interfere then he will do fine. Unfortunately, government does interfere by giving some capitalists a leg up.


Quote:
Unfortunately, the phrase "socially responsible capitalism" almost never means what it says.  People who use that phrase almost always mean "capitalism that is subordinate to government."


Not in the least in my case but if you are hearing others using the term then tell us about it. I'm quite happy with the way you described it!

Quote:
Ask an advocate of that kind of "socially responsible capitalism" what a capitalist can do to be socially responsible.  The answer is always some variation of "stop being a capitalist and become a charity" or "simple, just do whatever government tells you, especially when there's an election coming up."


On the contrary, a socially responsible capitalist will tell the government what it needs to do and government can be in sync with him if it's not asking for a leg up. It usually will be but good government sorts out the wheat from the chaff.

Quote:
Except some people just refuse to answer that question and instead complain about everything by claiming that nothing is "socially responsible" enough.


Social responsibility in governments varies from one country to another but none are perfect. The country that succeeds the most in making it's people the happiest could be called the most socially responsible. Can there be any greater goal for government?

Is a government that is totally corrupt to the point of enacting laws that deprive the poor and the middle class so much that it leads to talk of revolution, be socially responsible.

I would say NO! That government has forgotten about it's social responsibility to the people completely!

So the question is, can we name examples of governments that show the greatest social responsibility.

Because once on accepts the term as being valid, in whatever sense it is accepted, it deserves more discussion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #3 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 12:30pm
Print Post  
Burnsred offers us this:

Quote:
A capitalist who asks no help from the government except the "help" of being left alone to operate his or her means of production is the most socially responsible person imaginable.


It's a correct definition of 'socially responsible capitalism' but it's a little incomplete. But the main thing is that he proves the term isn't redundant.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #4 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 12:47pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Social responsibility in governments varies from one country to another but none are perfect. The country that succeeds the most in making it's people the happiest could be called the most socially responsible. Can there be any greater goal for government?
Yes, there can.  To be intrusive to the smallest degree possible so that people can pursue their own happiness.


Quote:
Is a government that is totally corrupt to the point of enacting laws that deprive the poor and the middle class so much that it leads to talk of revolution, be socially responsible.
Government which deprives is certainly not desirable.  I'm not sure that "talk of revolution" is adequate proof of corruption since many advocates of revolution are seekers of corruption themselves.

Quote:
I would say NO! That government has forgotten about it's social responsibility to the people completely!

So the question is, can we name examples of governments that show the greatest social responsibility.
Absolutely not.  Socially responsible government is an oxymoron.  Government began by performing its three main functions which individuals cannot do as well as a collective:  mass murder, mass armed robbery and a pyramid shaped extortion racket.  The founders (of the United States constitution) never sought to make government socially responsible any more than they sought to make household rats into domesticated work animals and for the same reason.  The founders sought to keep government as small and as powerless as possible.
Quote:
Because once on accepts the term as being valid, in whatever sense it is accepted, it deserves more discussion.
Sure it does.  Large government always harms society.  Unless "society" is defined as large government in which case the bigger the better.  Of course no statist has ever admitted that when they say "society" they mean government and I certainly expect no such candor here.

Quote:
A capitalist who asks no help from the government except the "help" of being left alone to operate his or her means of production is the most socially responsible person imaginable.


It's a correct definition of 'socially responsible capitalism' but it's a little incomplete. But the main thing is that he proves the term isn't redundant.
I'd be happy to hear an intelligent explanation of what is left out in my definition.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #5 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:04pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 12:47pm:
Yes, there can.  To be intrusive to the smallest degree possible so that people can pursue their own happiness.

You seem to be demonstrating your own aquired stigma when you suggest that government can be intrusive to the smallest degree. That's not realistic, as is no law or law enforcement not realistic. But we know that some governments that bring happiness to their people is possilbe to varying degrees, and hence is possible and realistic.


[quote]Government which deprives is certainly not desirable.  I'm not sure that "talk of revolution" is adequate proof of corruption since many advocates of revolution are seekers of corruption themselves.


I would grant you that more proof may be needed but at least we can agree that it's an indicator of something terribly wrong.

Quote:
Absolutely not.  Socially responsible government is an oxymoron.  Government began by performing its three main functions which individuals cannot do as well as a collective:  mass murder, mass armed robbery and a pyramid shaped extortion racket.  The founders (of the United States constitution) never sought to make government socially responsible any more than they sought to make household rats into domesticated work animals and for the same reason.  The founders sought to keep government as small and as powerless as possible.
Sure it does.  Large government always harms society.  Unless "society" is defined as large government in which case the bigger the better.  Of course no statist has ever admitted that when they say "society" they mean government and I certainly expect no such candor here.


Since 'no government' is not conceivable then 'some government' is realistic. So 'socially responsible government' can be an oxymoron. Even the most dyed in the wool libertarian can't dispute that. If one does then she/he becomes the moron.

Quote:
I'd be happy to hear an intelligent explanation of what is left out in my definition.


The quick answer is that you are imagining 'no government'. I think that answers well enough.

But really burnsred, you have accepted the term and have begun to describe it, proving it isn't redundant.

What is your purpose with this thread? keep on it if I've missed it and I'll stay with you as long as your remain civil.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4488
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #6 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:11pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 12:26pm:
The country that succeeds the most in making it's people the happiest could be called the most socially responsible. Can there be any greater goal for government?

Governments function is to make people happy?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #7 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:16pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:11pm:
Governments function is to make people happy?


Basically yes Chief, in your simplistic world. Government is responsible for law enforcement so far in the US and so that makes people happy. Or at least it's an attempt to make victims of crime happy. Gun crime victims accepted of course because they are beyond being happy! LOL

There is a possibility that the libertarians' imagined system in which private companies do everything that is done by government, comes to be. Being a real libertarian, I'm stuck short of that!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #8 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:18pm
Print Post  
Quote:
I would grant you that more proof may be needed but at least we can agree that [talk of revolution] an indicator of something terribly wrong.
No, because talk is cheap and often meaningless.

Quote:
Quote:
Absolutely not.  Socially responsible government is an oxymoron.  Government began by performing its three main functions which individuals cannot do as well as a collective:  mass murder, mass armed robbery and a pyramid shaped extortion racket.  The founders (of the United States constitution) never sought to make government socially responsible any more than they sought to make household rats into domesticated work animals and for the same reason.  The founders sought to keep government as small and as powerless as possible.
Sure it does.  Large government always harms society.  Unless "society" is defined as large government in which case the bigger the better.  Of course no statist has ever admitted that when they say "society" they mean government and I certainly expect no such candor here.


Since 'no government' is not conceivable then 'some government' is realistic. So 'socially responsible government' can be an oxymoron. Even the most dyed in the wool libertarian can't dispute that. If one does then she/he becomes the moron.

Did you mean that "socially responsible government" cannot be an oxymoron?  If you say that it can be an oxymoron, you are all but conceding the point.
Quote:
Quote:
I'd be happy to hear an intelligent explanation of what is left out in my definition.


The quick answer is that you are imagining 'no government'. I think that answers well enough.

But really burnsred, you have accepted the term and have begun to describe it, proving it isn't redundant.
I accepted the term "socially responsible capitalism" as a redundancy since all true capitalism is highly socially responsible.  The most socially responsible institution ever conceived by humanity.  I never accepted the term "socially responsible government" because that is the least socially responsible institution ever conceived by humanity.

Quote:
What is your purpose with this thread? keep on it if I've missed it and I'll stay with you as long as your remain civil.
As with all my threads, my purpose is to stimulate intelligent conversation about libertarianism.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4488
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Reply #9 - Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:45pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:16pm:
Basically yes Chief, in your simplistic world. Government is responsible for law enforcement so far in the US and so that makes people happy. Or at least it's an attempt to make victims of crime happy. Gun crime victims accepted of course because they are beyond being happy! LOL

Gun crime victims accepted what?  That the government's job is to make them happy? This makes no sense to me.

Don_G wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 1:16pm:
There is a possibility that the libertarians' imagined system in which private companies do everything that is done by government, comes to be.

HUH?   I don't think that private companies do everything that is done by government. Private companies don't tax people and re-distribute wealth.  What crazy ideas are you trying to foist on us?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Socially Responsible Capitalism" is a Redundant Term
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy