Re: Don't blame the doctor-- (alsoknownas"Don't Shoot the Messenger.")(f

md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:

> of course, i am not talking about extra-ordinary circumstances like wars
> where weak people have to use guns to defend themselves against hegemonic
> powers. revolutions and anti-imperialist struggles would have been
> impossible without guns. whereever there is domination, there is
> resistence, whatever the form of resistence is. however, this is a
> historically spefic example which is not relevant to the subject matter of
> the discussion now. in my original question, i was rather referring to the
> ordinary life circumstances. do we really need guns? or are we being
> brainwashed by the those who naturalize the need for guns in the name of
> self-defense?


Aysen, I guess we have been talking about different subjects. As I
recall, this thread began with a discussion of the cause of war. I
continue to be concerned with that subject. My references to demand and
supply were meant as analogies, or simplifications. My point is that
individuals in the market economy (private property rights and the money
system) are "servants" of each other. Each individual, in his own
interest, aims to produce satisfaction of others effective demands in
order to satisfy his own demand. In this system, individuals acting in
the roles of capitalists and entrepreneurs, will provide whatever goods
human beings want and are willing to pay for. If they want war, the
capitalists and entrepreneurs will produce war materials. But, except
for recognizing the normal tendency of capitalists and entrepreneurs to
promote a demand for their products (including "bread" and "drug use"),
we would be mistaken to think that they have an incentive to cause a
war.

At the same time, people who act in the role of capitalists and
entrepreneurs are no more moral than anyone else. They also can be
robbers and pirates. But when they act in this way, they are not wearing
their capitalist and entrepreneur hats. They are wearing their robber
masks and pirate caps. 

My concern is with the claim that capitalism causes war or that it
inevitably leads to war. I think that the logic that leads to this
conclusion is based on a definition of capitalism that disregards the
market economy's function. We have seen that Andrew's defense of this
view employs a definition of capitalism in which fascism is regarded as
a type of capitalism. Yet the private property rights system is one in
which the legitimate owner of a piece of property is its producer, so
long as it is produced with his own effort and the "legitimately
acquired" resources of others. (By legitimately acquired I mean acquired
through exchange and not robbery or theft.) Under these circumstances,
no fascist dictator could confiscate a person's property or order
him/her into military service. So fascism and capitalism (by my
definition, stated above) are fundamentally incompatible.

Of course, I am not quarreling over definitions. I don't care how one
uses the term "capitalism." My concern is with the issue of whether the
expansion of the market economy to more and more parts of the global
society is likely to increase or decrease the extent of war.
-- 
Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm