Callia

Gaus makes three main arguments in favor of capitalism. These arguments focus on the right to
private property, capitalism and markets, and profit maximizing. The first argument is about
private property, Gaus gives a list of rules that are to be followed in determining that property is
truly the private property of one owner. These rules are

The right to use P as he wishes so long as this is not harmful to others or their property;
The right to exclude others from using P;
The right to manage: Alf may give permission to any others he wishes to use P, and
determine how it may be used by them;
The right to compensation: If someone damages or uses P without Alfs consent, Alf has
a right to compensation for the loss of Ps value from that person.
The rights to destroy, waste or modify: Alf may destroy P, waste it or change it.
The right to income: Alf has a right to the financial benefits of forgoing his own use of P
and letting someone else use it.
Immunity from expropriation: P (or any part of P) may not be made the property of
another or the government without Alfs consent, with the exception of a few items such
as taxation.
Liability to execution: P may be taken away from Alf by authorized persons for
repayment of a debt.
Absence of term: Alfs rights over P are of indefinite duration.
Rights to rent and sale (transfer rights): Alf may temporarily or permanently transfer all
or some of his rights over P to anyone he chooses.

These rules must be followed exactly for something to be truly considered private property.

Capitalism and markets focuses on when and where does the cost of goods meet the benefit
provided by those goods, and how does that balance relate to the social costs and the social
benefits. The text uses the example of the solar panel factory in China. The waste from the
process is highly toxic, it is very expensive to recycle the waste, and yet the solar panels are
very good and environmentally friendly. The text speaks about finding the balance point
between polluting the environment vs raising the price of the panels to pay for the
recycling. It focuses on how this all effects the factory, surrounding farmers, and
consumers.

The last argument is about the Hierarchal profit maximizing. It speaks of the benefits of
profit maximizing and looks to having companies whom are run by a board of workers who
choose their manager. The manager still tells the workers what to do, but the workers can
also fire the manager. Profit maximizing is spoken about greatly because it is great for the
companies. However, the movie tells of the many ways in which profit maximizing has been
detrimental to our society.
 Not long ago the entirety of New England was filled with linen factories all along every river
in the north east (Look at Lowell Mass). These factories started with promises of good
futures and well-paying jobs for women, the factories even provided housing and an
education to the employees. For a bit everything was good, but when it was discovered that
children were cheap labor, and that the factories didnt have to be super nice and clean and
safe, and that it was much cheaper to produce things under these conditions. The profit
margins were maximized while the working conditions became deplorable.

This he defends the economic system by the amount of money that it brings in. Gaus does it
by speaking of how money is a private matter, and not shared like that of communists. His
arguments are well thought out and decent enough, although I do not see pure capitalism in
the way Gaus describes it as being ethical by any means.

Lyndsi
Gaus acknowledges that the popular belief in philosophy is that capitalism itself is unjust, or that
if changed a modified version of it could work. Gaus believes it is important to look at what a
pure form of capitalism would be, in order to find out if we could truly have ethical business
principles.

The pure form of capitalism is characterized by maximally extensive feasible property rights
with dimensions concerning extent (of those rights). In order to have full property rights it must:
not be harmful to others, right to exclude, right to manage, right to compensation, right to
destroy, right to income, liable for execution and so on. However, these maximally extensive
feasible property rights are a part of an ideal pure conception of capitalism, that are oftentimes
limited or controlled (zoning laws, district regulations, licensing laws etc). This does beg the
question of What exactly can be owned? And who and what determines community pool
resources? Community pool resources are relatively open (with public access) and private
consumption. For example, fresh water is accessible to all but is a private consumption.,

There are many animalistic descriptions where Gaus describes markets...dog eat dog world, for
everyone who eats there is someone who is eaten, and even referring it to the law of nature or
the jungle (10). However, Gaus goes on to say: Capitalism rejects this conflict-ridden view of
social life and the market. If I possess two bottles of beer, and you posses two slices of pizza,
an exchange of a slice of pizza for a bottle of beer will make us both better off (10-11). In other
worlds, a market of different interest and specialities are able to mutually enjoy each other's
product...and not everyone needs to do every single thing (e.g cut the meat, brew the beer,
grow the crops, make the bread). There are of course skepticisms, such as: lack of equal
education and uneven bartering power. In a market there is also a debate about the freedom
to leave a job and have a choice. Some scholars argue that you have the freedom to go and
choose a job wherever, while others argue that you may be limited on need and specialized
training. Beinhocker points out that the 400-fold difference in income does not even begin to
estimate
the difference in options; the New Yorker, he estimates, has an order of 10 more choices, and
10

in comparison with non-market economies the wealth and options are limitless.

I think it is hard to argue against that there are benefits in capitalism: you do get access to those
little things, luxury is more(ish) accessible and there is a sense of freedom in the workplace
choice. However, that being said, I think it is just as easy to see the flaws associated with
capitalism, and the importance of being aware of them. Capitalism is complex in the way that
there is a hierarchy of who gets the profit, and this does/can lead to exploitation of workers. I
think the video also does bring an important question: Is it worth it? The products are often
pastimes...simple baubles. Can this justify the mistreatment of those who worked over it? I do
not think capitalism is something we can just simply eliminate, it is too ingrained and does have
some benefits in its structure, but looking at it critically and ethically can only work to enhance
the humanity.