Re: Capitalism is inherently Immoral.

"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:39FVj.33419$dq6.13295@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Hothead McCain" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2290ac8998c6daf098a24b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article 
> <9b43249e-84a0-462a-a4f6-0843ed49df9f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
> tomaxo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>> On May 11, 1:18 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
>> <Just...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> >
>> > > Because they're Capitalists. All they care about is money. They
>> > > don't respect human rights. They don't even acknowledge that the
>> > > right to life is a human right. Remember the Irish Hunger? Half 
>> > > the
>> > > population of Ireland wiped out, just because they didn't have 
>> > > the
>> > > money to buy wheat during the potato blight. Capitalists think 
>> > > that
>> > > kind of thing is funny.
>> > > Which is exactly where Communism came from:
>> >
>> > I agree with Jerry Kraus. Capitalism is inherently Immoral.
>>
>> As morality is a purely religious distinction, are you proposing the
>> distribution of goods and services be determined by the church?
>>
>>
> No, we need laws for cor****ations, or regulations. Republicans
> fight against regulations and therefore they fight FOR immorality.
>
> [JG] In your vigor to garrot as many Republicans as possible, let's 
> not start overstating the case. There is nothing inherently "moral" or 
> "immoral" about regulation.
>
> ALL regulations inhibit capital formation. Capital formation is 
> necessary for competitiveness and job creation. Thus, regulations make 
> the regulated company less competitive against its overseas 
> competition, and/or decrease employment levels. Thus, one could quite 
> rationally make the case that regulations are immoral, as they cost 
> jobs, just as easily as another person could argue that a LACK of 
> regulation is immoral, for various reasons of which I'm sure you can 
> list.
>
> The point here is not to argue for or against regulation. If a 
> regulation can be written which has maximal positive impact on the 
> lives of workers and people but minimal impact on competitivness and 
> employment, then that's a good regulation and probably worth imposing. 
> However, all too many regulations have the opposite characterstics, 
> minimal effect on those who were intended to be helped, and 
> constraining on business activity.
>
> It's correct to point out that the GOPs skepticism that decent 
> regulation can be written leads them to be slow to move to initiate 
> needed reforms; however, it's just as true that some (not all, as most 
> Democrats are dedicated free-marketers no different than the GOP) 
> Democrats are so in love with the idea of regulation that they would 
> implement them imprudently; and that would result in conditions just 
> as bad, if not worse, than one which avoids regulations unless forced 
> to implement them.
>
> JG
>
>
> That's just one of the many reasons why Republicans suck.

There is morality and then there is liberal morality which is Do as I 
say and not as I do.