Re: Capitalism is inherently Immoral.

In article <39FVj.33419$dq6.13295@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> 
> "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. 
> 
> 
> 
Well first of all, nobody is arguing for imprudent regulation. That's just
a strawman argument. Sometimes mistakes happen, we learn from it and move
on,
we don't adopt an absolutist theocracy of government and business.

What about a case where the business, in order to maximize it profits, so 
pollutes the environment that everyone is harmed. Should the government 
regulate the pollution or just let everyone suffer and die?