I have mentioned recently that my previous definitions of Capitalism are a bit off. Mostly, that I thought pro-business meant pro-Capitalism. I've never been in favor of all that Capitalism stands for. About the same time that I debated in favor of Capitalism, I started writing (but didn't get very far in) an essay about Capitalism. It started like this:

"Once, in distant lands, and times that are now ancient history, people sacrificed animals, and even humans, to old Pagan Gods. In the Holy Lands, Christian Templars cried out the name of Christ to justify the spilling of heathen blood. In modern times, terrorists and zealots cry out 'Allah' and 'Jihad' as they level full city blocks.

"Here in the civilized world, however, there are atrocities and crimes still being committed. We, like people of old, call out the name of an almighty God; the God of Profit."

Capitalism certainly doesn't mandate greed. But it certainly does reward it. Those who are willing to tread on others the most will get more short-term gain. That short-term gain would expire, except the reinvestment of it allows for increased market share, and larger profits still.

It's basic psychology. You reward the behavior that you want to have continue. If we reward greed, greed continues. If we reward underpaying employees, underpaying employees continue. If we reward cutting corners and cutting costs, then these things will only magnify.

What are we rewarding? It's not all bad. Courage, risk-taking, intelligence, and creating a better product - all good things. A greater awareness of the trends and markets. A greater ability to be efficient and effective. The reason I stand behind business is all of this. I believe strongly that people should be encouraged to be daring, to use all their resources, to be hard workers, and to provide better for their market. I think, in this way, everyone wins.

Is there a possible compromise? One in which all the good of business is encouraged, while eliminating the bad? Perhaps so, and perhaps no.

Is a minimum wage truly sufficient to eliminate unfair wages? Absolutely not. Especially not while we allow people to send work overseas for lower than the minimum wage. A lack of enforcement, and a poor immigration policy, also make this more difficult.

Is punishing monopolies and unfair business practice enough to prevent these things? No, certainly not. The reward is too great to violate the rules, and the punishments too inconsistent. The rules themselves, and the punishments, are too easy to sway, when the reward for violating them is the playing piece for changing the rules.

Money runs the system. Money keeps the politicians in office. Money keeps people watching the news stations. Money is power. It's not to be contested. That's not a guess. It just is. Money is a symbol for power. The power to do what is very flexible.

What determines the distinction between legality and morality? Well, lawmakers. Lawmakers determine at what point we draw the line, at what point we punish, and at what point we move on. But the lawmakers are owned by a system that establishes greed as a precedent - they are offered more power by allowing others to have more power. Denying the others power will merely diminish their own power. So the laws are bought as well.

Are they completely? Can a person refuse to be bought? Certainly so, but in that very act, so disempowers himself that his refusal is made worthless, and he allows for someone who is willing to be bought to take his place. Money is mandatory for office, for public position. The noble in spirit will refuse the money, and so be taken away from control.

Everyone loses.

If you reward corruption, corruption continues.

So, what do we do? Can we keep the good, and eliminate the bad? The entrepeneurial spirit that allows a man to exercise a free will, and forge through hard work, intelligence, and determination a life for himself?

I've been reading very little, and thinking quite a lot, and I should reverse that. The systems of government that I could contemplate are so entirely different that it is hard for me to understand them fully. My personality being what it is, it makes me want to start a co-op business, and understand it first hand.

I'll call this next part hypothetical. Some of you know where I work. I will say someone else is talking. A manager, who thinks of himself as a moralist, may say:

"I know how much my company pays for my services. I know more than anyone in the company how much it costs to fulfill our contract. I know how profitable we are. If we were to change our procedures, we could make our clients more successful. We could make our success rates boom, and our cancellations drop through the floor. We could make a huge impact in the life of many. And we don't. For what is basically a 50% increase in profit.

Our employees are stuck in what basically smells like a moral gutter. They question their jobs. They have trouble sleeping at night. They have told me this. And we sacrifice this, for a 50% increase in profit, that those doing the work never see.

I'm bothered by this. I'm bothered by a lot of things. But what is the solution, when my stepping aside only allows for someone less moral to take my place? When the one who took my place would only let success rates drop further?"

I don't feel my mind has changed, though I have thought some more things through. What solutions are there? How can we maintain the good, which I feel is so extraordinarily important, while eliminating the bad?

Maybe I'm just depressed about my job today. But this has all been very interesting to think about.

The next think blog I'm going to do is on the subject of free will, so that should be interesting.