Profit Is NOT Evil
Profit potential incentivizes innovation. Restrict profit, or demonize it, and you inhibit progress.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
No trackbacks/pingbacks yet.
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’ll grant you that- but at the same time, and without advocating government solution, you can’t deny that growing the rift between rich and poor is not something to be wished.
Your statements are too general.
“Profit potential incentivizes innovation.”
This, in certain cases, ie., with certain constraints may be true (within a truly free market, not “free market” as widely understood); in others, it’s not true (usually stealing and robbery are not very innovative).
“Restrict profit, or demonize it, and you inhibit progress.”
This, of course, as a statement has little value. Even the most hard-core libertarian believes in some restriction, ie., prohibition against fraud and robbery. Also, to seek profit, above all other values for example, IS evil. Murdering competition for an advantage or profit should be demonized. Doing so “incentivizes”, and does not inhibit progress.
My problem with such generalities is that people end up believing such shortcuts of thought literally, and without qualification or exception.
Markets are great, but they are NOT the greatest good. Profit is good, but not in and of itself. Context isn’t optional.
In short, the idea you present isn’t worthy of imitating a great saying of wisdom.
They would, perhaps, be too general if someone wasn’t familiar with libertarian philosophy.
Man is naturally free … completely free. Through a social contract (Federal and State constitutions and local municipal elections), we concede certain freedoms to be restricted. The liberties we concede can categorized as those liberties that could, when exercised, limit the liberties of another.
To put it simply … your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Therefore, if a corporation decides to exercise economic liberties by stealing, defrauding, or murdering someone, they’ve violated that person’s right to life, liberty, and property. The government exists exclusively as a means of protecting the liberties of the people it represents.
Telling a corporation how much they can charge customers for a service, or how much profit is “reasonable”, does not fall into the category of protecting anyone’s liberty. It only restricts it.
I really didn’t address the philosophy behind the profit/innovation correlation. Hopefully the post makes more sense in light of my philosophy on Government.
Whos to say that inhibiting progress is inherently wrong? Progress doesn’t always evoke good. And a lot of the good that is created from progress evokes a lot of bad things. The use of chemical fertilizer was groundbreaking for humanity and allows populations of society that have the means to take advantage of it sky rocket. Is more people such a good thing? Over crowded societies are harmful to the society itself.
This is just a secular perspective. In a christian perspective there would be many arguments for why human progress is essentially bad for the people.