john cena Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 So I was watching a TED talk, (Strange Answers to the Psychopath Test | Jon Ronsonand) and even getting mildly interested in it. I've always thought TED was a sophist cult, but here's the creme of the crop.. "Capitalism gives ruthless rewards to physhopathic behavior" "It's a form of psychopathy that's come to affect us all"https://youtu.be/xYemnKEKx0c?t=9m52s(Where he makes these comments) How are we ever going to convince people that freedom is the way when we have people on such a highly held platform openly saying that free trade is psychopathic? Do you think this man is legitimately evil and psychopath himself, or is he simply ignorant of the extend to which government force is the pinnacle of psychopathic power? What's a concise point to shut this guy down, aside from the moral argument from non aggression which he obviously denies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 He might be defining 'capitalism' differently than you and I might define it. He might also be projecting as many free-market haters do. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Without reference to UPB, any moral judgments are just opinions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincepsLupus Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 A lot of people seem to relate capitalism with the Republican party of the US, which is obviously laughable. Free trade is the ideal solution, but not if there is a situation where one country has free trade and the other has restrictions on its trade. Trade between those countries will not be fair, and it will not lead to the greatest potential outcome of efficiency in the global economy. All it would do in this situation is to create issues for the country having free trade, whilst the other gets more benefits. But the important point here is that the global economy will suffer as a whole, even though one of the countries seem to be benefitting from it. Being psychopatic tends to result in the urge of gaining control, due to their violent social behaviour. You can gain control over people in a socialistic society, where the moral standards of a few will be enforced on everyone. A pure capitalistic society gives you control of your own body only, nothing else. Arguing against capitalism without defining it properly is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LandoRamone30 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Being a psychopath or psychopaty is define as anti social. Not sure how this is accomplished since we live in very close proximity to other people. Capital doesn't say anything about social behavior other than trade. To me it would seem capitalism promote social interaction rather than stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jughead Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 A lot of people seem to relate capitalism with the Republican party of the US, which is obviously laughable. Free trade is the ideal solution, but not if there is a situation where one country has free trade and the other has restrictions on its trade. Trade between those countries will not be fair, and it will not lead to the greatest potential outcome of efficiency in the global economy. All it would do in this situation is to create issues for the country having free trade, whilst the other gets more benefits. But the important point here is that the global economy will suffer as a whole, even though one of the countries seem to be benefitting from it. Being psychopatic tends to result in the urge of gaining control, due to their violent social behaviour. You can gain control over people in a socialistic society, where the moral standards of a few will be enforced on everyone. A pure capitalistic society gives you control of your own body only, nothing else. Arguing against capitalism without defining it properly is pointless. I don't agree with your analysis of the effects of a free trade nation vs a protectionist nation. Milton Friedman, while he certainly had his faults, said it best: A fourth argument, one that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice. Other countries that impose restrictions on international trade do hurt us. But they also hurt themselves. Aside from the three cases just considered, if we impose restrictions in turn, we simply add to the harm to ourselves and also harm them as well. Competition in masochism and sadism is hardly a prescription for sensible international economic policy! Far from leading to a reduction in restrictions by other countries, this kind of retaliatory action simply leads to further restrictions. Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade. Instead of making grants to foreign governments in the name of economic aid–thereby promoting socialism–while at the same time imposing restrictions on the products they produce–thereby hindering free enterprise–we could assume a consistent and principled stance. We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Capitalism is psychopathic because it doesn't force people to surrender their money for people with less money, which is the most moral thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdever Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Being a psychopath or psychopaty is define as anti social. Not sure how this is accomplished since we live in very close proximity to other people. Capital doesn't say anything about social behavior other than trade. To me it would seem capitalism promote social interaction rather than stop it. The term 'anti social' in relation to psychopathy or sociopathy (some people define all three differently, some say they are all the same thing) doesn't mean avoiding social interaction, it refers to antisocial personality disorder. ASPD has more to do with impulsivity and a lack of empathy or remorse, and a disregard for any sort of laws or social rules or the rights of others. With that in mind I would say statism is the true manifestation of human psychopathy, by giving psychopaths access to guns and armies to violate the rights of others and not requiring them to convince other people to surrender their resources voluntarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djoop Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Probably meant to say that capitalism is a system that operates on profit. I'm not surprised to hear that psychopathy is more prevalent among CEO's. I just think it's rather naive to assume they'd be less prevalent in other economic systems. I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more prevalent in other economic systems. 4% means 96% are not, that's more surprising to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Probably meant to say that capitalism is a system that operates on profit. But it's more accurate to say that all sides benefit from every transaction. Sure, they could benefit more, but they all give up something that's worth less to them than what they are getting, unless they are forced. If they are forced it ceases to be "free market capitalism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djoop Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 But it's more accurate to say that all sides benefit from every transaction. Sure, they could benefit more, but they all give up something that's worth less to them than what they are getting, unless they are forced. If they are forced it ceases to be "free market capitalism". Yes, there's a financial benefit to parties involved in these transactions. I just don't understand why you consider that a more accurate statement. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Yes, there's a financial benefit to parties involved in these transactions. I just don't understand why you consider that a more accurate statement. Care to elaborate? It doesn't have to be financial. Everyone in a free transaction gets something better than they started with. That's less loaded terminology than "operates on profit" and it misses the point that all participants benefit from transactions or they are free to walk away from them if they won't benefit. Or that a person is free to shop around for the deal that appeals most to them. Or to wait until a better deal is in the offing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djoop Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 It doesn't have to be financial. Everyone in a free transaction gets something better than they started with. That's less loaded terminology than "operates on profit" and it misses the point that all participants benefit from transactions or they are free to walk away from them if they won't benefit. Or that a person is free to shop around for the deal that appeals most to them. Or to wait until a better deal is in the offing. Thanks. I'm not sure if I can agree with that though. Whether something is beneficial or not is rather subjective. Furthermore, the speaker spoke about 'capitalism' not 'free market capitalism'. One of the reasons I favor free market capitalism is because of the very principle you explained earlier. I do agree that it's a less loaded terminology, but one could question if it should be. The fact that a business activity requires profit draws back on the idea that there has to be a finiancial benefit to make the activity sustainable. We never speak about self interest in a negative way when it's a about feeding our children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Thanks. I'm not sure if I can agree with that though. Whether something is beneficial or not is rather subjective. Furthermore, the speaker spoke about 'capitalism' not 'free market capitalism'. One of the reasons I favor free market capitalism is because of the very principle you explained earlier. I do agree that it's a less loaded terminology, but one could question if it should be. The fact that a business activity requires profit draws back on the idea that there has to be a finiancial benefit to make the activity sustainable. We never speak about self interest in a negative way when it's a about feeding our children. It doesn't matter if it's subjective. Nobody would voluntarily exchange something that "feels" like a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Business activities do not require a explicit financial profit. In fact, some business activities are explicitly designed to foster good will in communities in hopes of future business, but not deterministic rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 ...to wit: I've lost a ton of money offering my house to my friends in need, as opposed to renting it out. I'm fine with this loss, and have "profited" from the goodwill in many non-cash ways. This is capitalism too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GailG Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 I wholly disagree with you. I just finished writing a book detailing how capitalism affects people--giving studies as proof. Capitalism and the wealth inequality that it creates does great damage to humans and the rest of life. The earth is already in the midst of the 6th mass extinction of life on earth as a direct result of it. Capitalism is a remnant of feudalism. It is slavery, not freedom. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kearnsybobs Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I wholly disagree with you. I just finished writing a book detailing how capitalism affects people--giving studies as proof. Capitalism and the wealth inequality that it creates does great damage to humans and the rest of life. The earth is already in the midst of the 6th mass extinction of life on earth as a direct result of it. Capitalism is a remnant of feudalism. It is slavery, not freedom. I hope your book contains some actual arguments... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts