Re: Capitalism is inherently Immoral.

In article <LpXVj.3336$hv2.944@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Poetic Justice
<@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> Poetic Justice wrote:
> > Hothead McCain wrote:
> >> In article <39FVj.33419$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?
> >>
> > That's not morality it's practicality.
> Killing customers is bad for business...  Unless you run a funeral home.
> 
In the real world, Exxon funds junk science about global warming 
so it can make more money.