LogFAQs > #929604754

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Colegreen_c12 posted...

This quote is what the real problem I have with what he's trying to say. He acts like corporations are inherently evil when in reality they are just a tool. If someone uses a corporation to make a bunch of money to donate to others I would argue that the corporation is good. Because the people behind it are good. Separating corporations and capitalism from people just show to me a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. Boycotting something is a facet of capitalism after all

If capitalism as a tool is only good if the people with the money are good and choose to do good things, why don't we instead take their money and ensure it's going to good things?

edit: fine, "not evil"

And who do you propose does that? The government? Then you are just trusting the government to choose to do good things with it instead of an individual which always goes well.

At the end of the day some human is going to decide what to do with the money and it can either be good or bad. The best you can do is put in checks and rules to make sure it does as best as it can. And you can do that in a capitalist economy as well as a socialist/communist society.

Additionally, say we were in a purely communist society like we are suggesting, say it somehow magically only has altruistic people in charge. Are you ok with the fact that you may be stunting innovation? Is a capitalist society that innovates enough to solve world hunger and global warming in 100 years better? Or a is a communist society that has slower innovation but more equality but doesn't solve those problems until 200 years better?

I can't say one way or the other, but the point is that it's not black and white. Both have their pros and cons.
---

DPOblivion beat us all.