What is Morally Right About Economic Freedom | Daniel Lapin

The 2009 Lou Church Memorial Lecture in Religion and Economics, presented by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Recorded at the annual Austrian Scholars Conference, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 12 March 2009. Includes a Welcome and Introduction by Joseph T. Salerno.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Rabbi
• Daniel
• Lapin
• Economics
• Religion
• Capitalism
• Austrian
• Ludwig
• von
• Mises
• Institute
• Murray
• Rothbard
• Walter
• Block
• Lew
• Rockwell
• Joseph
• Salerno
• Fredom
• Property
• Peace

[rrp1973]

I thought alot about this. What value have I added to the world when I make a profit by shifting money around in my brokerage account. Then I realized, the value I add is that I am accepting risk that others were not willing to take. Profit is my reward for taking that risk. Any worker can participate in the same way. If they dont want to risk their savings on such a thing I respect that. But don't say I exploited your labor profitng from taking a risk you were not willing to take.

[TracyII77]

What is morally wrong, is when those involved on the stock market lie and decieve (such as happened with Enron).  What does it matter how much someone profits, if they raise the living standard of society at large? Profit is not immoral. Deception is.

[robzrob]

"Atheists Are Parasites", says this guy. Hmm, do I want to listen to this?

[phroto13]

@d2004piney im with you about the fact that you cant eat money in the bank... there is a blog called 'surviving in argentina' by a guy named ferfal who explains just that when the banks go on "holiday" the riots happen and its game over

[phroto13]

@d2004piney (3) the trading of the commodities of labor on the market are complex ways of assuming the risk of loss or profit and anyone who assumes those risks will thus gain or loss accordingly, without someone assuming those risks, everyone would be self employed and thus may or may not be able to allocate his own labor to generate profit

[phroto13]

@d2004piney (2) thus since he has a contractual agreement to pay his employees he, or his balance sheet, eats any losses but consequently wins the leveraged gains on the product of that labor... speculation in the stock market is assuming risk in the labor hours of employees... thus those who bet on the profitability in the market are the ones owning the risk that the laborers time may in fact be misallocated...

[phroto13]

@d2004piney (1) but without the risk and speculation who will answer how that labor will be employed... labor by itself is a limited commodity and must, like every other resource, be allocated cost efficiently... now someone who allocates his own labor (self-employeed) is taking a risk by selling a commodity, but an entrepeneur or business owner who hires a worker is leveraged in his risk because not only is he allocating his own labor, but also the labor of his employees...

[selfrealizedexile]

@rrp1973

The better way to justify what value you bring is the organization of resources to where they're most desired for a more prosperous future.

[d2004piney]

@rrp1973

that is called ratiionalization

ergo, its a risky job but someone has to do it??????

I think you are not being intellectually honest. would you rather rely for your daily bread on speculation, or labor. i think without labor there is nothing to speculate about.

and you can't eat money in the bank. you, my friend are about 3 days from riots in the streets. and that is the likely outcome, dude.

[Hashishin13]

@sbuttgereit I messed that up, I meant religion.

The government(or set of rules without a government) that would best support individualism and therefor freedom, which has been proven to increase the quality of life, is one that allows people do do whatever they want as long as they don't violate other people's property.

I think Washington summed it up nicely here:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

[sbuttgereit]

@Hashishin13 I guess I'm missing your point. How then would you differentiate what constitutes a 'moral foundation' vs. a 'belief structure'? Holding moral precepts as opposed to holding recognized axioms from which those precepts derive, in other words, a 'foundation', simply means that your morality is arbitrary and no more valid than any other. The likelihood that immoral positions opposed to individual rights may rule the day increases as less rational ideas float without real challenge.

[Hashishin13]

@jazzbo66zz If you were brought up in a western country you most likely went to a socialist school(public school) that taught you all about how capitalism was bad and how government saves us.

Everyone points to children working in mines, you know what those children were doing before there was a mine to provide them with work and pay to buy food with? They were starving on the family farm. You think their parents were so greedy that they were happy to send their kids there? No, they were hungry.