From: Randall Parker 

In <38d11e77{at}w3.nls.net>, the sagacious richhong{at}hawksci.com Richard
Hong perspicated:
> Remember the context of this discussion: economic injustice and human sin.
> What makes you think that bushman isn't *also* guilty of being selfish?  You
> can be selfish and poor at the same time.  A poor person who would grab all
> he can if it was offered to him freely, in excess of his needs, is just as
> guilty of perpetuating an unjust economic system as a rich man who hoards.

Rich men who hoard are not the root cause of world poverty or even one of
the root causes. Rich men who hoard are the sort that cause capital to be
accumulated across decades and it is that process of capital accumulation
that is most responsible for the great decrease in poverty in the Western
countries since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

> The fundamental questions are these:
>
> 1.  If humans were perfect, would we be cooperative or would we be
> competitive?

Competitive. It allows more variations to be tried.

> 2.  If EVERY human worked as hard as he could, using the talents he has, for
> the common good, mightn't we ALL be wealthy?

But unless people get poor as a result of not working they are not going to
work hard.

> BTW, the "common good" doesn't mean sameness.

The "common good" refers to those things that benefit us all.
Getting murders locked up or killed is definitely a common good. Defense to
protect us against foreign tyrants is also a common good. Preventing the
spread of an epidemic disease that could kill a lot of us is also a common
good.

>It can simply mean a society
> where each can take as one desires and each produces as much as one can.

No, that is not what it means.

> (Again, every excess you can imagine would happen if we actually tried this
> is a symptom of sin, which is the point.)

No its not.


> I am not arguing that communism would actually work better than capitalism.

Of course not. You know it wouldn't.

> What I am arguing is that capitalism works *because* it accounts for human
> sin and selfishness, and adapts to it.

It accounts for the fact that we are not all ants in a collective.

>  It is eminently practical.  But
> practical is not utopian.  And utopia is unattainable because we are
> sinners.

Utopian by whose moral standards?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5