70. John:
If you’re going to comment on pure capitalism then don’t you think it would be best to actually make sure you know what it is in the first place?
If I had a dollar for everyone I’ve discussed capitalism with who turned out to be arguing not against capitalism, but against anarchy, I’d be a rich man.
Pure capitalism is not “social Darwinism.” This is ridiculous. Capitalism is a system based on property rights, therefore a capitalist system requires a state which protects individual property rights. For the record: whenever you hear someone argue in favor of free capitalism from now on, can you just take it as decided that they’re not talking about a state of lawless anarchy? It will save you a lot of hot air in the long run.
Capitalism does not “lead to poverty.” Can we PLEASE stop throwing lies around like confetti in these discussions? Capitalism cannot “lead to” poverty and never has. The natural state of humans is poverty – and capitalism inherited this state from the Earth. It didn’t cause it and nothing has done more to eradicate it in human history. Even in its very early days, when kids worked in factories, capitalism was IMPROVING human conditions. The poverty which existed before capitalism was atrocious. People on the whole lived wretched, miserable, short lives of subsistence. Life was cruel and harsh. Capitalism changed all of this.
If you’d like to outline your theory of how pure capitalism will lead to the “death of a large portion of the population” then let’s hear it. I could do with a laugh. Partaking in online discussions over the last few years has really opened my eyes to the level of unmitigated nonsense that many people believe. The thoughtlessness with which many people form opinions terrifies me.
You seem to recognize the importance of maintaining the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – which is good – but then you go and blow it all by suggesting that such a right requires an element of socialism – which is bad. Please stop this nonsense. Socialism is the antithesis of liberty and freedom – whether it’s restricting the way in which two people can trade, or stealing their money at the point of a gun for purposes of “redistribution,” or enslaving people to a common goal they are unlikely to share, socialism always acts to take away individual freedom and liberty. This is an important point to remember, because man needs to act and think of his own free will in order to produce the values he needs to survive.
There is no such thing as an “equilibrium between socialism and capitalism” any more than there is an equilibrium between architecture and fishing. They are two wholly incompatible ideologies – and an attempt to create such a balance always will – and always has – lead to economic stagnation, economic failure and tribal warfare. There is nothing good about socialism whatsover. To suggest that there should be a compromise between the two is like suggesting that there should be a compromise between health and illness. Why throw a spanner in the works willingly? To the extent that people are free to trade with each other on their own terms and act of their own volition, the process of capitalism – with its emphasis on individual rights, liberty and the division of labor – will always act to create wealth and hence raise prosperity and improve living conditions. Every single serious economic problem we have ever had has been caused by government interference in the economy – from the crash which led to the Great Depression, to the prolonging of the Depression itself, to the current financial meltdown – none of them were caused by “laissez-faire capitalism.” It’s time the record was set straight.
If you want to maintain freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness then stop your support for socialism. It’s as simple as that. It’s obvious to me that you are very ideolgically and ethically confused – for instance, you say that we need to preserve the right to use our money as we wish, but then that “we need to ensure that there are programs in place to give assistance to those in need.” Which is it to be? The right to use our money as we wish, or the loss of that right in the form of the government stealing it from us by force in order to create these programs? Where do you think the money comes from? Does the government have it’s own “secret stash”?
Capitalism IS freedom. It is the only system which embodies freedom. Socialism is NOT freedom. It is a system which takes as its premise that man is not free to think and act of his own volition. There is no need to “open up my mind” to the idea of state slavery. I’ve experienced it my whole life and I have no desire to lay down and “accept” it.
There is nothing worse than the sap who believes politics is all about “maintaining an equilibrium” between two opposing ideologies. It’s not. It’s about fighting for your own beliefs. It’s about trying to change popular opinion to the point where democracy favors your beliefs and not those you are opposed to. It’s not about “taking turns,” it’s about winning or losing. If someone from the future told me that a pro-free market, pro-individual rights, anti-socialist government was going to win the next 20 elections, I would be exceedingly pleased. I would not whine about a lack of “equilibrium.” I would not worry that socialism was not being given a chance. I would rejoice.
You say that “all points of view deserve respect.” This is another symptom of your philosophical and ethical confusion. No, not all points of view deserve respect. What they deserve, is the right to be heard – i.e., freedom of speech. We have that. But I don’t have to respect views which go against everything I believe it. An extreme case should suffice to illustrate. Should the view that “all children should be drowned in buckets at birth” be given our “respect”? Should I “open my mind” to this idea? Right is right, wrong is wrong.
