Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/coolgeek/freetag/freetag-0.240/adodb/drivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 340
Honest Argument: Capitalism is the only force capable of preventing warfare
join message

Capitalism is the only force capable of preventing warfare

(Click boxes for full text or to add/edit/delete node. More help?)
Capitalism is the only force capable of preventing warfare  Capitalism is the only force capable of preventing warfare
       The self-interest of the economic actors makes warfare prohibitive  The self-interest of the economic actors makes warfare prohibitive
              Trade is the relevant factor  Trade is the relevant factor
       Capitalism impels political systems toward democracy  Capitalism impels political systems toward democracy
              Capitalism exists under many types of governments  Capitalism exists under many types of governments
       Competition for limited resources is the cause of wars  Competition for limited resources is the cause of wars
              The pursuit of scarce resources is not driven by economic ideology  The pursuit of scarce resources is not driven by economic ideology
       Warfare is sometimes necessary  Warfare is sometimes necessary
       An extinction event is also capable  An extinction event is also capable

Comments:




I Disagree that Capitalism is the only source to prevent warfare

Capitalism is a dual edged sword. While Capitalism provides the positive
economic environment for anyone to get ahead, Capitalism is separate from morality and ethics. The news is full of many successful CEO s and
corporations, who have crossed the boundary of ethics, and consequently fell victim to their own greed. Likewise, what about our Politicians ? How does their own personal agenda on foreign policy mask their own realization of the consequences of their own actions ? A consistent international agreement on morality and ethics is the only source that can prevent warfare, as unrealistically as this concept may seem at the present time.

Jim

Comment by: Jim At: 2005-11-30 08:13:49



Re: morality and ethics

Jim -

You are correct in your assertion that capitalism is inherently neutral in terms of morality and ethics.

For that reason, my thesis suggests "regulated" capitalism. Regulation of markets is where a society's morals and ethics are codified.

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2005-12-01 22:21:25



capitalism is irrelevant in a less than free society

It is possible to have a capitalist market and a non-free society. In a state where power is in the hands of a few, and those few will be the ones *not* getting killed, war will exist. It must be a free society to have any hope of preventing war, one wherein it will be those who desire war will be those who will be put on the front lines.
There are innumerable factors to be considered before one can even contemplate the cessation of war, essentially leading to an utopian environment. Absolute limitless resources, a universal end to prejudice, near absolute freedom, a worldwide desire to not wage war.. the list is endless and virtually impossible to achieve.

Comment by: wethion At: 2005-12-05 09:00:01



Warfare is a Wealthy Undertaking

It matters little if the source of wealth is capitalism or conquest or if the governmental form is aristocracy or democracy: warfare is an undertaking of the wealthy. Warfare has a high entry fee, a staggering continuation cost, and usually a substantial exit premium.

Wealth is essentially surplus. In industrial economies, it may be surplus military materiel of the hardware sort; in so-called developing economies, it may be excess human resources. Warfare, at bottom, is an economic undertaking; its calculus is the risk/reward ratio.

It would appear that some object to warfare because of the perception that those who bear the risks are other than those who will reap the rewards. Yet one can only risk that which one has. The wealthy risk the only thing that sets them apart and gives them status -- their wealth. The middle class risks its standard of living on the homefront. The poor risk their lives in battle. As the French say, "plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose."

In a Darwinian sense, warfare is the default option among the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Comment by: jgilmour At: 2005-12-07 16:25:21



Regulated = World Governed


I have always thought that capitalism promotes war, because it encourages governments and companies to compete for the limited resources available.

Also, we can regulate any type of economy and get less warfare. It is the regulation that would do it, not the free market. Of course, this assumes that the regulation would be global. If two nations were regulating themselves and not cooperating, it would still mean there is a great potential for warfare between them.

Comment by: timcgill At: 2006-11-03 00:59:16



Not in this world


Capitalism can flourish under most types of government. There are many dictatorship-capitalist countries alive and well today. And now it appears that some communist countries are turning to capitalism.



Comment by: timcgill At: 2006-11-03 01:07:25



History does not support this.


I'm not sure being a democratic country has helped the US be any less war prone than other countries.
So many wars, so little time...

Though I do think that if we had a real, direct democracy with an informed populace, this would be true.

Comment by: timcgill At: 2006-11-03 01:14:25



Re: node: The self-interest of the economic actors makes warfare

The proposition that one functioning capitalist economy will not make war on another capitalistic entity is quite true. That in itself does not prevent war because a capitalist economy will take war to a political entity that it perceives as worthy of exploitation for its resources or to prevent interference in the economic activities of the capitalist economy's trading partners.

I must now take issue with "governments of any persuasion". The US has taken its capitalist military into the here-to-fore sovereign country of Iraq for reasons that are undecipherable to the world community and now to the US electorate. What other government of any persuasion is now engaged in a state of war with with a neighbor or a distant entity?

Comment by: Lantern Bearer At: 2006-11-18 19:16:17



Re: node: The self-interest of the economic actors makes warfare

The proposition that one functioning capitalist economy will not make war on another capitalistic entity is quite true. That in itself does not prevent war because a capitalist economy will take war to a political entity that it perceives as worthy of exploitation for its resources or to prevent interference in the economic activities of the capitalist economy's trading partners.

I must now take issue with "governments of any persuasion". The US has taken its capitalist military into the here-to-fore sovereign country of Iraq for reasons that are undecipherable to the world community and now to the US electorate. What other government of any persuasion is now engaged in a state of war with with a neighbor or a distant entity?

Comment by: Lantern Bearer At: 2006-11-18 19:18:08



Re: comment: Regulated = World Governed

timcgill
in what way does regulating an economy equal less warfare?

Comment by: herm42 At: 2006-11-20 16:32:31



Re: comment: capitalism is irrelevant in a less than free societ

An unfree society may temporarily engage in some forms of free markets but that does not bestow capitalism. However, capitalism will undermine a tyranical government over time. That process has repeated itself, again and again.

Comment by: drewliberty At: 2006-11-30 19:49:26



Re: node: Capitalism is the only force capable of preventing war

I disagree. In fact, it could be argued that capitalism results in conflict with tyranical governments which do not wish to change their ways. However, capitalism can result in long term peace in stability once established.

Comment by: drewliberty At: 2006-11-30 19:51:45



Re: node: Competition for limited resources is the cause of wars

All resources are limited. Capitalism makes possible the price discovery which allows best utilization overall. Political intervention 'simply' overrides the needs of some to the benefit of others with more political pull. "Simply" above means by force, of course, and is not allowable in a free society.

Comment by: Traderawb At: 2006-12-03 10:00:34



Self-interest takes many forms

As soon as one actor believes their gains through war would be greater than their gains through trade, it would be (at least at one level) a completely rational choice to go to war.

Comment by: mdj At: 2007-01-08 15:53:55



General Inquiry

I am new here, so please excuse the inquiry. Is there a reason that comments are used far more often than the argument nodes? It seems to me that this defeats the purpose of the visual structure, and many of the comments would appropriately fit into that framework.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Comment by: student At: 2008-12-22 14:37:48



You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in or create account (all you need is a valid email address)




Pending Arguments

There are no pending Arguments.

Create an Argument!