OohhoO wrote:This (whilst probably unfortunately correct) is a perfect example of the abysmaly low level of human spiritual, social & psychological development. Progress for individual profit rather than general good. Think of the possibilities for progress if every child was able to develop its potential unhindered!, & in directions other than pure personal greed!
We are just going to have to differ in our opinions here. Capitalism is the opposite of slavery. Do you think it is right to force one person to help another person ?
Economic theory shows that a free market (with zero transactional costs) does best at maximising the distribution of goods. Any change would result in decrease in total welfare. The only time it doesn't is if you don't let a person work out what they consider important themselves.
Capitalism gives people what they want, people should be allowed to decide what they consider important on their own rather than one person (or group) telling everyone what they *should* want.
Progress in the right directions is usually a good thing.
OTOH too much progress too fast or in the wrong directions can be very bad. Progress isn't free (especially capitalist "progress"), and the price is usually paid in terms of ruined lives, which you might think is fine until it hits you or those you care about (& which capitalists then usually don't want to have to pay for - take the profit, but don't pay for the damage!)
Well, that just means we need to extend property rights
. If people were allowed to own rivers, then there would probably be less pollution. Alternatively, if more people don't care about rivers, then there might be more. This is fair, as no one person is telling others what they should do.
In any case, things like compulsory social welfare are a better example of people being protected from the consequencies of their actions and forcing others to provide for them. In its pure form (not exactly attainable), capitalism doesn't shield anyone from the consequences of their actions.