The Liberal Philosophy is Morally Superior To The Philosophy of the Right.

Foolish Thoughts?

A friend who follows Ayn Rand religiously in her Objectivist philosophy has said that an union was just like a business. And when asked how so he replied in this manner;

“In structure they are much like a bushiness in the sense they have a hierarchy and well defined roles for individuals who perform individual tasks. They “manage”, “invest”, pay “salaries”, “lobby congress”, hold “conventions”, maintain a “payroll”, and other activities that are perceived to be in the union’s rational self interest.”

His words gave my mind food to think upon. Now, if you look at that explanation you can assume that an economic system can be set up using a union type of businesses as the model for all business. And given the intent and purpose of unions we can now imagine what an economic system would be and how it would work as opposed to the current model of business.

It can only be said that Socialism, with an union type of business model is a morally superior economic system to Capitalism with the current type of business model. Why? Well, let’s look at the two models. The current type of business model by the nature of its being places profit above the welfare of the people. History records that Unions came into existence only because of greedy owners of business in their desire to accumulate money at the expense of workers forced a necessity for them. So what does that say about the moral fibre of the current model of business?

Safety was one of the reasons unions came into existence. An union model of business by the nature of its being would place the welfare of the worker above profits. Since its primary concern would be the welfare of the worker it would see that the worker had a safe environment to perform his tasks even if it was at the expense of greater profits. Now, you tell me, is the welfare of the worker or the accumulation of money more important? This is proof that a socialistic form of economic is the morally superior economic system.

The current business model seeks to pay as little as possible to its workers even to the point of forcing those workers into debt in order to feed his family just to create greater profits and make the rich richer. History shows this as one of reasons for the necessity of the existence of unions. We see it now days in the form of sweat shops using illegal aliens as labor. This indicates a need for unions in order to protect these hard working people from being exploited for only one thing, profits. We see it in the outsourcing of jobs today to places where businesses can hire worker for slave wages. Is this the model of moral superiority? I don’t think so.

In an union type of business model this could not occur. Each worker would be paid a living wage so that he could feed his family in a nutritious manner even if it meant that the business would be less profitable. Sweat shops could not exist in this type of environment. This is why this business model is the moral superior model. How can anyone doubt this?

The current business model seeks to maximize its profits by selling its product or services at inflated rates to the consumer and it is done without care as to the impact those prices has on people. We can see this impact as the price of food and gas rise each and every day. The rising number of the poor is proof of this impact. The profit is this business model’s only concern. Is this how a morally superior system treats people?

In an union type of business environment a product would be sold at a fair price to all. This is because it would be recognized that the consumer is the very person who produced that product, the worker. And we must remember that it is the welfare of the worker that is the primary concern of the union model not profits. Isn’t that what morality is all about?

Isn’t that what any society is all about, the welfare of all of its people? If it is then shouldn’t we judge the morality of any society by how it treats the individuals that depend on society for his safety and welfare? If it is then shouldn’t that society through government policies put into practice an economic system that places the welfare of the individual above the greed of profits?

And we should remember, no business has a right to exist. If we recognize this then shouldn’t a society through government policies set up an economic system where businesses realize this and in this recognition realize its privilege and indebtedness to that society by giving back as much as it has taken from society? Wouldn’t that be the best indication of a morally superior system?

Best of all it would be a system without any governmental regulations in the finest tradition a free enterprise system. For why would there be any regulation in a system that places the welfare of the worker above the greed of profit? Regulations are only necessary to prevent abuse and the cause of abuse is greed as a result of placing profits above everything else. And isn’t government regulations the biggest complaint of the right in regards to the current system? As we see it would meet all of Ayn Rand’s criteria of an economic system.

So, my friends, these are but a few reasons why Socialism with a union type of business model is the morally superior Economic system over the morally corrupt Capitalistic form of Economic system that is now in place. And anyone who is an advocate of the current system can only be said to value greed above the welfare of people. Everything he does is done with greed in his heart. He is a person that cannot do anything good for everything he does he does to profit himself and himself alone. And this type of person only deserves to be treated with contempt, should he not?

Can we doubt the moral superiority of the liberal mindset over the morally corrupt mindset of those on the right now?

Categories: Economics, Ethics and Morality, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Post navigation

17 thoughts on “The Liberal Philosophy is Morally Superior To The Philosophy of the Right.

  1. In theory, either system, if allowed to function in a unregulated environment, could be good for all involved. HOWEVER, that wrongly supposes that poor men are more moral than rich men and forgets that man, by nature, WILL NOT cease in monkeying with ANY system in place, working or not.

  2. BB-Idaho

    Thought of you yesterday, Griper. Had just finished the final
    chapter of Ridley’s ‘Chromosome- The Autobiography of a Species
    in 23 Chapters’. It was a rational discussion of determinism vs
    free will from the standpoint of genetic makeup, the effect of
    social & physical environment; and the feedback loop between
    the two which inevitably leads to randomness and mathematical
    chaos in the life experience and choices. The possibilities of
    any small occurence, according to chaos theory, can lead to
    further effect, great or small, which unlike the mechanistic approach of Descartes, are far too numerically great to fit a deterministic
    equation. So it appears the rigors of science and theology converge
    on the subject. ….and yes, I just typed this of my own free will!
    As for economic systems, one wonders of those two ancient
    ponderers, Plato & Aristotle, who dabbled in the philosopy of
    economics ; I’m thinking that the modern complexities of labor, business, profit, loss, overhead,
    regulation, cost decking, stock options, etc, would tempt the
    Greek philosophers to trade in economic philosophy and become
    hobby farmers. 🙂

  3. The Griper

    yet it is still a mystery, BB, because while we define it we still don’t know what it is or how it works. one more question can be asked too. were we born with it or is free will learned?
    and if it does exist then how does that affect the theories of the social sciences since they are disciplines of determinism?

    as for Plato and Aristotle, i have a feeling that if either one of them were living in today’s world their theories would be so far advanced they’d leave everyone else behind just as they did in their day.

  4. The Griper

    the above theory sounds good and i worded it to appeal to the most basic desire of man but there is one glaring flaw in it that liberals refuse to take into consideration and that is revealed for everyone to see in the national and States debts.

  5. Interesting how you took my response to your question and went on the long and winding road to arrive where you did,

    Oh, and there is a error in your opening.

    I dropped the independent conservative description some time back. unless you understand the meaning of classical liberal it really means nothing.

  6. The Griper

    glad you found it interesting, RN, but it wasn’t that great of leap to reach that conclusion. its just another variation of the same ideology, your definition of a union only made it easier and more in line with what liberals try to preach, that is all.

    • What it should highlight is the absurdity of labels, especially conservative and liberal.

      What is critical is to understand the diametrically opposed concepts of liberty and tyranny and arriving at a understanding of how one can result in the other, however unintentionally.

  7. The Griper

    labels will always be a part of life, RN. people need to be able to identify with something or be a part of something.

    and liberty and tyranny is also a part of life and, unfortunately, will always be a part of the life cycle. it is just a matter of understanding in which direction man is going at any particular time, towards tyranny or towards liberty.

    there are no checks and balances in life. and the first step towards tyranny is always the establishment of a government. from that moment on it is only a matter of time until a state of tyranny is reached. how long it takes is another matter.

    the only thing it takes to begin down the path of tyranny is a unkeepable promise of a better way of life.

    • And so, man has a choice across a broad political/social spectrum ranging from total freedom (anarchy) to complete tyranny (slavery).

      The choices made by each individual society, whether it be tribal or cosmopolitan determines the eventual degree of liberty.

      The US Constitution provides for a government as close to a state of “ideal” liberty as has ever existed.

      Of course that is just one rational man’s view, this one and it is as it always has been.

      Thanks for giving the opportunity to clarify the point.

  8. The Griper

    that may be true RN but it did not take long for someone to corrupt the founding intent behind that Constitution so as to justify sending us back down the wrong path just as i was able to corrupt your intent of the quote i used in this post to justify liberal principles just as i said i could.

  9. The Griper

    and i did it in such a manner as to indicate that you were the inspiration for a way for the left and right to agree on without anyone compromising their principles and to create a more perfect union and society under liberal principles too. and i did it in a manner as to include Ayn Rand’s principles of separation of the state/economy. i, in essense, made you a hero for the liberal cause. think how Shaw, Truth, or Jersey would react to this, RN.

  10. Well Griper I can safely say that I do not care how the three you mentioned may or may not react. Truth is truth, you or anyone can spin it however desired.

    And, that is what most people do. Both on the left and the right. I am at a loss these days to determine which is the more egregious of the two.

  11. The Griper

    no spin but you’re right, RN, truth is truth and i told you the truth about how that could be used by liberals. that, you cannot deny. the above post is a very rational use of and application of your quote even tho you had no intent on it being used in this manner.

    • And rational individuals will understand the quote, especially so if they have read my post it in its entirety.

      As I have said many times… at the end of the day each has their own inner drummer.

      I was merely one messenger of many…

  12. The Griper

    the reading of your post won’ t change the definition or the meaning of the word as you portrayed it, RN. it would be one thing if i had used it without first ascertaining your meaning but i did not.

    i first got your understanding of it then based this post on that understanding. i made sure that i wouldn’t take it out of context of your meaning by doing so. and your follow up remarks in our discussion clarified that meaning very well.

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: