Enemies of Capitalism
New Rule: neomercantilists, neoconservatives, and statists are no longer allowed to call themselves "free marketers." People who call themselves free marketers such as Bush, Paulson, Greenspan, and Bernanke are the primary threat capitalism faces. These false prophets of capitalism are the greatest friends that proponents of socialism have. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (68)
Matt
"In general, the public simply accepts that if a person claims to believe in capitalism and private-property rights then they are truly capitalists"
In general, the media present self-professed capitalists as truly believing in capitalism, and they are believed by the public. The media need to present self-professed capitalists as well as anti-capitalists in order to appear balanced. The media have no interest in presenting genuine believers in capitalism, as that would upset the sponsors.
Published: January 27, 2009 8:34 AM
Maybe one day...
...I'll read a piece like this that includes mention of the greatest snake-oil salesman of recent times: dear old uncle Milt.
When I do, I'll know that the author really does believe in free market capitalism, and not the fascist system currently seeking shelter under that banner.
Published: January 27, 2009 8:42 AM
John Barbour
Thank you Briggs Armstrong. Your writing is clear and to the point. This is what the American people need. I wish you well in your endevors and may you reach a large enough audience to turn the people back to their heritage.
Published: January 27, 2009 8:58 AM
Stephen Rose
In the vein of the old saying, "With capitalists like these, who needs socialists?"
Published: January 27, 2009 9:24 AM
David Ch
Mr Armstrong
I endorse the sentiment, but I do have a quibble with the terminology. I dont like to conflate 'capitalism' and 'free markets'. INdeed, I go so far as to identify the bad guys in your piece as the 'capitalists', and hence enemies of the pure free market.
A simple taxonomy:
Socialist: purist central planner, coercively implemented.
Capitalist: ONe who pays lip service to free markets while subverting same through rent-seeking collaboration with the State and the entrenchment of special interests. Entails the mixed use of voluntary exchange and coercion , according to the expedient sectarian needs of the moment.
Libertarian: ONe who endorses nothing less than a purely free, unfettered market, with all forms of coercion impermissible.
I will admit that there is a slightly , er, propagandistic motive to this fetish of mine. IN the course of trying to convince naieve but sincere left-leaners as to the virtues of full economic liberty, its much easier to secure agreement on who the bad guys are at the outset. Claiming to be a capitalist is not a good start.
Published: January 27, 2009 9:26 AM
Maturin
Excellent new rule. 'neomercantilists, neoconservatives, and statists are no longer allowed to call themselves "free marketers." '
Let's get Obama Sin Laden to make it a presidential decree, so they can be arrested and tortured for such a crime of telling lirty dies.
Published: January 27, 2009 9:38 AM
GregB
Bravo!! A very nice article indeed! It eloquently expresses what has been tumbling in my head since the first ridiculous bailout.
Mr. Armstrong has granted permission to have this article published in my local newspaper. Of course, whether they publish it is a totally different matter. Let me encourage you all to seek to have it published in your own local media propaganda mill.
Published: January 27, 2009 9:38 AM
H. Stan Banton PhD MAI
A very well written analysis. My first read of this scholar's work. I will read his work mor intensely in the future. But one should expect nothing less. He is, after all, a Auburn University Finance student,
Stan
Auburn 68,69
Published: January 27, 2009 10:26 AM
Michael
Excellent job Mr. Armstrong. I look forward to reading your pieces on Mises.
Similarly, "conservative" is another moniker that's not used correctly. Sheesh, George W. Bush and Ron Paul are both "conservatives", right?
I don't know if the respective conflation of "capitalism" and "conservatism" is purely incidental or if it's a conscious and overt attempt by the media.
Published: January 27, 2009 10:41 AM
Joseph Keckeissen
Not only the big names are false friends of liberty, but perhaps most of the leaders of American business. We ought to start checking into this, if we want freedom to servive. Best, Joe K in Guatemala
Published: January 27, 2009 10:43 AM
Joseph Keckeissen
Not only the big names are false friends of liberty, but perhaps most of the leaders of American business. We ought to start checking into this, if we want freedom to servive. Best, Joe K in Guatemala
Published: January 27, 2009 10:43 AM
Konrad Swart
It seems, that Capitalism has become such a debased word that it is beyond repair.
Apparently, there are three ways to exploit people, of which only one is (mostly) outlawed.
1. The one that is mostly outlawed is by owning the life of a person. This is open slavery. It still exists in conscription.
2. Through taxation. This is the basis of left wing political exploitation.
3. Through debasing the currency by pumping more money into the economy through creating debt. Apparently this is the basis of right wing politics. This is what people like Bush and Greenspan represent.
To begin with, in a free market there are basically two kinds of people. Those who earn their living by working FOR money. These are the laborers. And there are those who earn a living by working THROUGH money.
Sometimes these are called people who let money work for them. These last people are often just called 'the rich'. What is then not realized, is that most of their fortunes exist in the form of industries etc., and therefore has no value to them personally. The wealth of these rich exists mainly in the form of capital that generates income for those who work FOR money. That is, the laborers. As Reisman has shown in his book Capitalism, the first farmers were not laborers, but they must properly be designated to be capitalists in the meaning with which he uses the term. Without 'the rich' in this sense, there would be no laborers. A laborer not in the form of a slave, is a fairly late phenomenon, which mainly emerged with the Industrial Revolution.
So the choice is trying to order society through open violence by using armies, which is the rationale behind conscription. This is the prior way to 'order society' when money did not yet exist. You might call this Fascism, since it was the primary method of Hitler to 'bring order in society'.
Or trying to order society by robbing people directly from the proceeds of their labor, through taxation. You are then robbing people who work FOR money.
In most countries tax rules are such, that the more money you have, the more ways you have to defend yourself legally against taxation. Therefore taxation is primarily targeted at exploiting the poor.
This is mainly what socialists mean when they use the word equality. It is making all people equally poor. If there is more equality in this sense, there are more poor people to tax. Equality under socialism is therefore 'everybody equally poor', so that all can be exploited through taxation.
Or trying to order society through fraud made legal. This last way is the most subtle way to rob people from the results of their actions. This is what governments do with people who succeed in having much money. These are people who work THROUGH money.
The 'big idea' is: you can still rob people who become rich, by robbing them indirectly from their buying power. You can do this through debasing the currency. It is a con game whereby you rob people from the results of their actions through letting them have what they want, namely, more money. The more money you have, the more you can be robbed in this way. It is a very subtle con game, too subtle for socialists, and also apparently too subtle for most millionnaires. It works, because most millionnaires are not very educated people. They have won their fortunes mainly not through their mind, but through their guts. That is, by their ability to bear uncertainty and taking risks. This form of exploitation is right wing politics. Equality under Capitalism is therefore: 'everybody equally rich', so that all of them can be hit maximally through debasing the currency. It is a different kind of exploitation, but it is exploitation nevertheless.
Since money is what most people think about when they hear the word Capitalism, Capitalism has become synonymous to this particular con game. Therefore it is no surprise that all right wing politicians say they are in favor of Capitalism. It is in their direct interest to be so, because it is their way to obtain power.
The people Briggs Armstrong is talking about derive their power from this kind of con game. That is why they say that they are in favor of Capitalism.
So there exists a new distinction. You can be against Capitalism in the form of the above con game, but in favor of the free market.
So we have a choice here. Capitalism becomes more and more a name for the right wing con game of robbing people from the results of their actions. The word Capitalism itself is literally being debased through debasement of the currency. Therefore we should not be surprised to be confused with Bush, Greenspan et al, if we keep calling ourselves Capitalists. Each time we use the word, we have to explain what we are not. In fact, the word Capitalism is already so much debased, that I suggest we avoid any such discussion, and begin designating ourselves with another word.
I sugesst, we call ourselves Freemarketeers, (written deliberately as one word) and make clear from the outset, that this is quite different from being either a fascist, a socialist AND a Capitalist.
Any discussion then begins with an explanation of how Capitalism as it is understood by most people is different from the Freemarket (also deliberately written as one word.)
Published: January 27, 2009 11:02 AM
shaneinwy
If we are to save ourselves, this topic MUST, MUST, MUST be covered far more. This is vital subject matter. I would like to see every single contributer to Mises write something similar.
Published: January 27, 2009 11:36 AM
Patrick
David CH: I agree with you in rejecting the term capitalism.
One correction for you tho: there is coercion permitted in a freed-market--that done in self-defense.
Published: January 27, 2009 12:04 PM
Befree
The enemies of capitalism are really the enemies of freedom. I don't have a problem with members of any group, misguided or not, choosing to sell themselves into slavery. I just choose not to join such a group and I take exception about being coerced to do so. No amount of sophistry or ignorance leading to a redefinition of the word freedom is going to change freedoms true meaning or lure my mind into slavery. A person needs to promise himself to know freedom and keep his mind free if he ever hopes see his own freedom fully realized.
Mr. Armstrong is vocalizing clearly a very important point all real libertarians are feeling as they watch the unfolding fiasco. It's not easy to watch the arsonists (pseudo-capitalists) blame the firemen (real capitalists) whilst the majority of members in the burning household (the misguided) cheer the arsonists on, their thinking confounded in smoke addled brains. At least libertarians have some idea how to get out of the burning house with some of their possessions (sell everything and buy treasuries, joke, joke).
Published: January 27, 2009 12:36 PM
C. Evans
"The enemies of capitalism are really the enemies of freedom."
I think Befree hit on the most basic point which is honestly the toughest point for libertarians to sell. As de la Boetie lamented, I don't know how it is that nature did not put the seed of liberty into all mankind, but it is clear that many people have a deep-seated fear of liberty. The free market is simply the aggregation of all voluntary exchange and it seems the majority of Americans are unwilling to allow others to freely exchange goods and services as they see fit.
I also think envy plays a prominent role. Since talent and motivation are unequally distributed, there will always be some individuals who will do better financially than others. Inequality in this sense is inherent in a free society. There are many people who despise this state of affairs and wish to use the State to "make the market more fair." That is, they want to take away the gains of others to make themselves feel better. This used to be called covetousness and theft, and I am told that they used to be called sins and vices. Of course, in the eyes of the State they are virtues.
Freedom demands high moral character from those who would embrace it. It means our mistakes and the consequences are completely our own and we have no one else to blame but us. Slavery through the State, on the other hand, allows us to blame others for our failings and socialize the costs of our failure. It vitiates the moral character which conservatives say they so want to preserve.
Published: January 27, 2009 1:30 PM
heuristic
I notice in the pictures that Greenspan and Bernanke habitually pray, as well as prey.
Published: January 27, 2009 1:31 PM
heuristic
Specifically, the greatest threat to freedom is liars.
Published: January 27, 2009 1:42 PM
Lewis
Whatever happened to this Alan Greenspan, circa 1966?
"When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.
With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
Published: January 27, 2009 1:42 PM
connie
Re: Paulsons 3 page proposal.
Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.
Quote:
The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.
Perhaps I was not diligent enough to find the sections during my search of the document. Bottom line ... I found no "sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7". Do they exist? Were they simply omitted from the material in the link provided or did the Secretary overlook the fact that no such sections exist? Just a curiosity, however, such oversight might be emblematic of how our nations is being mis-guided!
Published: January 27, 2009 1:52 PM
billwald
How does Libertarian theory prevent cartels?
>Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset.
Theoretically correct but produces a zero sum economy except as new gold is dug out of the ground. A recent "National Geographic" illustrated the economic and social effects of gold mining.
Published: January 27, 2009 2:29 PM
LightOfLiberty
There can be no doubt that cunning opportunists wear the suit that fits them at the moment. To be sure, the so-called capitalists among us may be in the practice of running businesses or espousing the virtues of free markets but, when nauseated by the current economic maelstrom, abandon ship. For when it comes to standing on principle, courage in thought and action is what is brought to the forefront. Now, we see the face of the gutless and mind of the shallow: we've been warned about these enemies from before. In the words of Ayn Rand, capitalism is, indeed, the UNKNOWN ideal to many. The last thing we need cowards to redefine free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, to fuel the angst among the socialists and their sympathizers, and roll out the red carpet for greater State intrusions.
Published: January 27, 2009 2:31 PM
Inquisitor
Sigh, when will these idiotic, stupid arguments on gold be put to death? Look through Reisman or Rothbard's works on money. Did the NG consider their views? No? Then the probability is that it is regurgitating the same old horseshit, sorry to say... and as for cartels, they're self-detonating and usually require the state to survive. See Dominick Armentano on this and stop repeating questions to which there are clear answers available already, if you've not considered these works...
Published: January 27, 2009 2:36 PM
pbergn
Good article from Mr. Armstrong, overall...
I couldn't help but notice the obvious contradiction (at least to me) in his following statement:
Briggs Armstrong writes: "[...] The Federal Reserve System is little more than a central-planning organization created in secret in Jekyll Island, Georgia by a group of the nation's most powerful bankers.[...]".
Is Mr. Armstrong saying that "most powerful bankers" were not capitalists and the direct end-product of unregulated Free Market System? Is he blaming the most successful bankers of not being capitalist enough?
I see a certain contradiction in blaming the most successful entrepreneurs in trying to secure even more profits by essentially taking over the government, when this is exactly what they are supposed to do - maximize their profits by making "investments"...
[Could it be that the Iron Rule of Oligarchy is true, after all?] I am confused now...
Published: January 27, 2009 2:51 PM
Inquisitor
Could it be that the obvious troll just won't die? Could it be that without a state to enforce their will the "capitalists'" desires would amount to nil? Could it? I love Marxian deterministic bullshit. A "product" of the free market. LOL
Published: January 27, 2009 2:53 PM
pbergn
TO: Inquisitor
Inquisitor,
[I understand your sentiment in disliking my points of view...]
Are you essentially saying that in the absence of State, there won't be "most powerful bankers"? Or no bankers at all? Or if they would be, they would not try to pull-off essentially the same trick of monopolizing the control over what is considered to be money?!
Inquisitor, I am confused - is naïveté or just optimism in human nature and Free Market's ability to establish a universal justice?
Published: January 27, 2009 3:07 PM
Rodolpho
Barbarians and Killers of American
Published: January 27, 2009 3:09 PM
Inquisitor
Troll, I am confused, are you just stupid or idiotic? Or both maybe...? Yeah, I am saying in the absence of the state there won't be "powerful bankers" and that they won't be able to pull the wool over the eyes of public-school educated morons. If they want to try, they may. BTW I don't dislike your points of view anymore than I dislike standard ignorance and stupidity.
Published: January 27, 2009 3:10 PM
pbergn
TO: Inquisitor
In other words, Inquisitor, you don't believe that the Free Market will create much more successful and wealthier socio-economic groups, that would try to impose their will on others - less fortunate ones?
In other words you do not believe in hierarchical nature of organization of society, rightfully believing in some sort of utopian, egalitarian society where everyone is essentially equal in wealth and the social power they can wield...
When I think of the world you are hoping for, a serene, rustic scenery emerges in front of my dewy eyes...
Peace! Is it not what we all so covet?!
Published: January 27, 2009 3:21 PM
Inquisitor
Do you have an actual argument that shows that "powerful bankers" will exist absent the state to make them, well, so powerful? Because you're just begging the question otherwise. Just saying people aren't equal won't get you that far (No offence, Marxist quacks)... when you think of the world I am hoping for, think of one where you live under a bridge, in constant fear of acid and fire.
Published: January 27, 2009 3:26 PM
Inquisitor
http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/09/04/chomskys-augustinian-anarchism/
Published: January 27, 2009 3:28 PM
Curt Howland
Patrick,
Self defense isn't coercion. It is in response to coercion.
Published: January 27, 2009 3:29 PM
pbergn
TO: Inquisitor
Easily, Inquisitor...
Imagine the proverbial island where there are limited resources and limited amount of Gold that is considered to be money...
Now assume that at some point, in our islander society there were no powerful rulers or elites, and everyone was enjoying relatively equal standard of living by bartering the goods or services they were producing or providing...
Now assume that this island nation is progressing, and has decided to use Gold as money for the efficiency sake, and assume that a group of strong young men are fairly good archers, and form an archers guild... They gradually start accumulating massive amounts of gold since they are relatively successful in hunting and procuring the food. They gradually start buying more farm land from the farmers growing crops and hiring another group of less-successful hunters to work as shepherds of the domesticated animals on the newly-acquired land..
Gradually they will accumulate all the gold and land, and then start leasing or lending these precious commodities to the rest of the island population...
Gradually this hunters guild will shrink in size by splitting or squeezing out of the unwanted, competing member... Gradually there will be a couple of powerful hunter guilds on the island lobbing the population to take only their services, land or protection... Wars break out on the island, and the strongest guild or team wins by establishing the de facto (so dreaded by you) State, which effectively owns every essential commodity and land on the island and wields the monopoly of coercive power...
All other islander will be forced either to go with the rulers and continue leasing land or borrow Gold from them, or will rebel, and start an Independence war.. etc. etc..
As the example above clearly demonstrates, it is in the nature of Free Market system to produce the winners, which then, if unrestrained by some rules in the public interests, will eventually become the de facto State...
Published: January 27, 2009 3:41 PM
Inquisitor
I don't care about thought experiments predicated on zero-sum game assumptions. I want actual arguments. Not bullshit concoctions of an overactive imagination.
Published: January 27, 2009 3:46 PM
pbergn
TO: Inquisitor
The whole human history is your example...
Published: January 27, 2009 3:49 PM
Inquisitor
Too bad Gabriel Kolko says otherwise. Try again.
Published: January 27, 2009 3:53 PM
Barry
Scroll down to section "Identity Crisis":
Requiem for the Left
Published: January 27, 2009 3:56 PM
Barry
My link didn't link!
Http://ABCDunlimited.com/ideas/leftism.html
Published: January 27, 2009 4:02 PM
Barry
Heck, here it is:
Identity Crisis
While many adherents of the Left made their peace with the poverty and tyranny of the Communist bloc, some did not, which to this day poses the question: How can these people continue to believe socialism a corrective for all the wrongs they denounce -- we can recall Ralph Miliband's classic Marxoid list of exploitation, poverty, war, imperialism, and the "crimes of the ruling classes" -- when these always exist pervasively in those People's Republics where every drop of capitalism, their hypothesized source, has been wrung from the social fabric? It's not so much that they close their eyes as it is that they avert them -- towards a sight in which they believe they find confirmation: the presence of these wrongs in the "capitalist West."
And who can deny it? Who can deny, say, the West's imperialism? But with this and the other stated evils, we must ask: What element of the semi-capitalist West was responsible -- the free market or the coercive state? In Britain, who thundered the loudest against colonialism? The classical liberal advocates of laissez faire, who condemned imperialism long before the birth of the founder of the Soviet Empire. It was the "Tory socialism" of Disraeli, not the free market, that sent British troops overseas.
And the "crimes of the ruling classes"? What were these ever but the deeds, not of truly private businessmen, but of the State? What does Ralph Nader's denunciation of "corporate socialism" concede except that the corporations owe their current privileges, not to laissez faire, but to government intervention? Which leads us to now ask: What exactly is the "capitalism" of these anti-capitalists? Is it "Little England"-ism or mercantilist imperialism? Free trade or protectionism? Laissez faire or interventionism -- A or non-A? Just as theocracy cannot denote both the union and the separation of Church and State, so capitalism cannot be both the union and the separation of Firm and State.
Orthodox Marxism cynically -- amorally -- rejected the possibility of neutrality and equity in political matters. All government was the special interest of one "class" or another. Just as capitalism ushered in the rule of the bourgeoisie, so would socialism bring about the "dictatorship of the proletariat." But how does capitalism -- that is, the free market -- represent the special interest of "capitalists" (i.e., nonmanual laborers)? If respect for property rights favors "capitalists," then why do corporations seek subsidies (each for its own self, mind you, not for the entirety of its purported "class")? If unregulated commerce leads to monopolization by these "capitalists," then why do real-world businessmen turn to government to provide them with monopoly entitlements (optimally, only for their own company, not for all "capitalists" including their competitors)? And if free trade benefits this class and no other, then why do each country's business leaders -- and union members -- lobby for tariffs on imports? We seem to forget that the classical liberals formulated their principles of private property, laissez faire, and free trade -- rejected by the Left and Big Business alike -- not against the graspings of the have-nots, but in opposition to policies that favored the few over the common good. All of the classic Marxoid evils existed before the advent of liberal capitalism, which arose specifically to eliminate them -- and did so most impressively. Social scientist Thomas Sowell sums up capitalism's economic and political contributions by the end of the nineteenth century:
Science and technology had brought undreamed-of progress to the lives of millions of human beings. Whether in agriculture or industry, output was growing by leaps and bounds. Mass killer diseases like smallpox were being defeated by medical science. The last great war to ravage the whole continent of Europe ended 85 years earlier, at Waterloo -- and such horrors were considered permanently behind us. Advances in the relationships among peoples showed similar signs of progress. Slavery, which had lasted for thousands of years on all continents, was wiped out throughout Western civilization, in a matter of decades.
He laments: "The high hopes and expectations with which the twentieth century began gave no inkling" of what was to come -- the abandonment of limited government and the adoption, the bloody rise, of unlimited statism, most notably (in various forms) that of Marx, whose attributing of ancient evils to the emergent liberal order (and its "sham-liberty") was as absolutely insane as attributing polio to the Salk vaccine.
Equally mad are those Marxists who point to the very real problems of partial statism ("state capitalism") but then perversely propose a tried-and-false "solution" -- total statism (socialism) -- that would only exacerbate those problems. It's as if having recognized the danger of drinking polluted water but misidentifying the dangerous element, the Left advocated consumption of the undiluted pollutant. The failings of the mixed economy don't confirm but confute the claims of socialism. It is the State, not the free market, that doles out political privileges -- whether to the nomenklatura or the corporations. And it is the State that condemns whole populations to poverty -- as witness activist Russell Means' comparison of Native Americans, our country's most socialized community, to the citizens of the Soviet Empire.
In the conflict between monopoly statism and the many organs of the body social (i.e., of a free people), the Left habitually made the malignant choice.
Published: January 27, 2009 4:25 PM
Bruce Koerber
Now we know why 'gold' has been denigrated in all of the propaganda of the unConstitutional coup, because it is the 'standard' for free market economics.
We need to restore gold as the world currency and as the basis of a prosperous world economy. With the gold standard criterium along with the criterium of property rights as the true indicators of free market economics there cannot anymore be any confusion about who is and who is not an advocate of the free market.
The lying and scheming ego-driven interventionists will easily be identified as lying and scheming ego-driven interventionists if they try to label themselves as 'free market.' Examples in this article of these imposters are: Bernanke, Paulson, Greenspan, and Bush.
Published: January 27, 2009 4:27 PM
Pat
"They gradually start accumulating massive amounts of gold since they are relatively successful in hunting and procuring the food. They gradually start buying more farm land from the farmers growing crops and hiring another group of less-successful hunters to work as shepherds of the domesticated animals on the newly-acquired land.."
Questions to pbergn: Why would farmers sell those lands? Also, why would the hunters accumulate gold if not to spend it later?
The free market is based on the idea of voluntary exchange. In other words, people would trade goods and services if they feel the need to. What you are suggesting is that some people would indefinitely deny their need to trade. If they accumulate the gold, then they are turning down the possibility to acquire goods and services. Therefore, your thought experiment does not prove what you consider the nature of free market. In fact, I believe it does the very opposite.
Published: January 27, 2009 4:57 PM
pbergn
RE: Pat
Pat,
Maybe because they need some meat in their diet? Or maybe they have got too much of it, and they actually cannot use all of it for husbandry and dwelling purposes? Who knows... But the fact is that those who accumulate the disproportionate amount of Gold or money have upper hand in acquiring all the rest of the vital resources... The more successful group will eventually control the bulk of the strategic resources on the island by cunning or skill, and will force the rest into the de facto serfdom...
This follows from the facts that the resources are scarce and that the talent distribution amongst humans is widely divergent, coupled by the fact that humans tend to adhere to the hierarchical social structure in order to survive, by gathering around the strongest (seemingly) amongst them in expectation of better benefits or protection from harm...
Published: January 27, 2009 5:41 PM
Charles Landesman
Here is the main problem with appealing to the free market and the virtues of capitalism in opposition to the current efforts by goverment to inject capital into the system: Let R be any rule. Consider: "R should be followed no matter what the consequences." I take this claim to be false in general for most rules. I take it to be false that one should follow free market principles no matter what the consequences. So we must judge the policies of Bernanke, Obama, and the rest by their consequences. What are their consequences? We just do not know because our current situation is unprecedented in the sense that no past situation exactly resembles it. We are engaged in gigantic social and economic experiment from which we shall learn a lot. Basically, the argument in favor of trying this experiment is first there is a lot of undeserved suffering going on and second there is a logic to the considerations in its favor (in Keynes for example). The free marketer's claim that leaving markets to take their course will ameliorate this undeserved suffering more quickly and efficiently also has a logic, but we have no idea that it will work better than the experiment. I have not heard any good free market argument that shows that a downward deflationary spiral has a non-tragic stopping point.
Published: January 27, 2009 5:44 PM
pbergn
TO: Barry
Barry,
have to disagree with the following passage:
"[...]What were these ever but the deeds, not of truly private businessmen, but of the State? What does Ralph Nader's denunciation of "corporate socialism" concede except that the corporations owe their current privileges, not to laissez faire, but to government intervention? [...]"
Nobody lauds the Socialism or Communism. This is another extreme. But how can you claim that laissez faire policies will NOT also result in the emergence of the elites and the State?
What would prohibit the most successful bankers to consolidate enough wealth to deny all others a chance of say in the socio-political affairs? What makes you so sure that corporations can emerge only under the auspices of the State?
And what is the State, exactly, but not the abstraction protecting the interests of the most powerful socio-economic groups?
After all what is Communism? It is when the State owns everything, and a small group of elite owns the State.. What would protect all other participants of the Free Market relationship from the rule of elites?
Why do you think that the State was first, and then the elites have appeared? Maybe it was the other way around - a direct consequence of Free Market?
Why, you Purist Free Market guys do not allow a shadow of a doubt in your beliefs? Is it not the definition of Dogmatism, that is characterizing other belligerent groups such as Socialists or Communists?
Published: January 27, 2009 5:50 PM
newson
to pbergn:
"Rags to rags in three generations
The first generation in a family makes money (goes from rags to riches); the second generation holds or keeps the money; and the third generation squanders or loses the money (and so goes back to rags)."
that your scenario (marxian?) is improbable is highlighted even by folk-wisdom, as evidenced by the above saying.
Published: January 27, 2009 6:26 PM
Barry
Dear pbergn,
Thank you for your reply. I'm fitting this in between late-night work at the office, so this is the best I can do.
My answer is a straight-forward restatement: If the free market leads to a monopoly elite, why do all the would-be monopolists turn to the State? Why do theocrats (and atheocrats, e.g., Communists) turn to government coercion to establish themselves as unquestionable rulers? Why not ride freedom of religion to that throne?
Because it has never happened and never will -- and they know it, as do all the corporate execs seeking government perks. Convince THEM of your argument.
Thank you again for your interest,
Non-dogmatic Barry
Http://ABCDunlimited.com/ideas
Published: January 27, 2009 6:48 PM
pbergn
TO: Barry / newson
Thanks Barry.
I understand your point. In other words you too firmly believe in the rags-to-riches-back-to-rags pattern, much like newson does...
I am not denying that in many cases this will be the case. But what would prohibit very rare but nevertheless plausible alternative pattern of rags-to-riches-to-ever-more-riches-to-absolute-control?!
In other words, all the laissez faire believers believe that the force of "Free Market Gravity" will eventually bring the ever successful and rich back to where their ancestors started? Is this so?!
Well then, I hope it is true...
Look, I am no Marxist, as newson accuses me of being. I am a free thinker, and I am throwing monkey wrenches into the people's wheels just to test their theories and their spirit.
If this were a Marxist or Commie site, I would have done the same with them taunting their naive belief that the State is capable of establishing and maintaining the universal social justice without eventually locking everyone up and throwing the keys into the ocean (much like in Chomsky's sabre-toothed tiger and the cage example)...
I do NOT believe in any socio-economic theory in its entirety. I believe that all the theories have that mustard seed of truth, but all of them are vulnerable to fallacies of some kind...
I like to keep my mind open and experiment with things... I am not denying that the Free Market theory is the closest one to me in spirit, a spirit yearning for freedom and happiness (look I grew up in poverty and a lot of misery; pardon me for being somewhat bitter and suspicious towards the world)... I am playing with this theory as well just trying to break it, being a true Software Engineer in spirit...
Thanks again guys for keeping up the good conversation...
Published: January 27, 2009 7:06 PM
Pat
To pbergn:
Again, they still will have to exchange gold or money for something. And it is assuming they find somebody who values gold more than the vital resources you mention. Which means that gold or money will go into the hand of those who sold the land. Ultimately, it all depends on each individual's perceived needs. Therefore, they can only accumulate money as much as they can expect people to ask for their money or gold. One thing I would concede however is that it could happen if some people allow themselves to be taken into slavery. I still question however the idea that it is an indictment to the free market. And no, the same thing cannot be said for socialism. Socialism requires the subordination of the individual to the state. Not so under the free market.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:15 PM
gene
Article certainly was truthful and well written. Capitalism is simply the accumulation and/or use of capital. Capital itself is surplus, whether sacks of grain or otherwise. Kings and corporations alike have practiced it. Even smart socialists can practice it.
Free markets certainly would be nice, there has never been one. If you think there has, revert back to the land[resource], source of all wealth, and show one acre of ownership without force or fraud. If you think you have found one, look a little deeper. We have no way of knowing what true free markets would provide us. We do know that what we have now is not free.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:18 PM
Inquisitor
"If this were a Marxist or Commie site, I would have done the same with them taunting their naive belief that the State is capable"
IOW: "I'm a troll."
Published: January 27, 2009 7:28 PM
pbergn
TO: Pat
Pat, are you implying that in the true Free Market everyone will have as much money / Gold, as much one spends? In other words there will not be any surplus of wealth or wealth accumulation?
I though that he whole purpose of Free Market Capitalism is to make as much profit as it is possible, and the to inest the excess amount to generate even more profits...
This is my understanding of Capitalism in general.
If this is not the Capitalism we are referring to on this blog, I sincerely do apologize to the audience...
I am confused. As I said earlier. There are so many opinions and definitions of Free Market and Capitalism in general that I am totally lost in all of it...
Pardon my ignorance...
Published: January 27, 2009 7:50 PM
pbergn
TO: gene
Totally agree with you, gene.
A Big Thank You! I couldn't have said better! Truly written from my heart.
Published: January 27, 2009 8:08 PM
Pat
To pbergn:
"Pat, are you implying that in the true Free Market everyone will have as much money / Gold, as much one spends? In other words there will not be any surplus of wealth or wealth accumulation?"
No. I am saying that accumulating wealth depends on whether you can expect to exchange a part of it for something else. Money (e.g.: gold) is exchanged for something else (e.g.: land). But for that, you will need to identify who wants to exchange gold for the land. Money is simply a commodity which main use is to facilitate exchange among people. But again, this is assuming people feel the need to exchange thing among each other.
As regarding profits, this again depends on whether the capital is used in a situation in which those profits would arise (e.g.: providing services or goods that are considered as valuable to the potential buyers). It seems to me that you are considering human nature instead of the system per se. In this case, it is a different problem.
Published: January 27, 2009 8:16 PM
Gil
I s'pose in your analogy pbergn the hunters and farmers apparently are roughly equally wealthy - both successfully work the land in different ways. However the hunters probably hires lackeys to clean, carry, repair equipment, etc. and the farmers probably have lackeys to work the farm, maintain equipment, etc. It is probably these workers who don't have the great deal of wealth and are low on the pecking order were the ones you were looking for.
Published: January 27, 2009 8:46 PM
pbergn
TO: Pat
So, Pat, in other words, the Capitalism is a chase for profits, which in turn is useless, since you cannot exchange it for anything useful, which negates the very purpose of Capitalism to exist... Brrr.. Is that what I just said?!
I am loosing it, I guess...
Look, if there is no point in chasing those proverbial "tokens of exchange" (a.k.a. gold, diamonds, rabbits or lollypops) to get as much of them as it is possible, by breaking your back day and night, not sleeping well, waking up early, and getting that second mortgage and being chastised for it by everyone including your spouse does not worth it, then what is the whole purpose of all this Capitalism?!
You are not going to tell me that the entrepreneurs are just a bunch of really good guys who can't help but do what they do, that is run their businesses no matter what, are you?!
If the capitalists were not able to exchange the accumulated excess wealth for anything useful, then, I guess it would not have been called "excess wealth" now, would it?!
There are two things I can conclude about Free Market Capitalism based on the feedback from the theory supporters like you:
1. The Free Market is a system that allows everyone do what they are good at, without any prospects of accumulating any significant amount of money or wealth, that would allow them to gain competitive advantage over the other participants, and would result in them further consolidating the wealth and strategic resources of others;
2. The Free Market is a system where no matter what the Capitalists do they will ultimately loose to their competitors and will be forced to start all over again after suffering losses due to competition (otherwise they would have become super rich, and could have gradually bought out everyone else)...
They are doomed! In other words, this fits the description of a system where all efforts are rendered futile after reaching a certain point, since they are a priori doomed by the system itself...
Not very encouraging to say the least...
Published: January 27, 2009 9:20 PM
fakename
to pbergn,
To make things clear I think what Pat wrote was that capitalism (the exchange of material goods) would be unfathomable unless there was someone who needed something and was willing to give up something else for it.
From this it follows people mustn't be materially equal under the market (as thesis 1 of the above post says) for then there could be no need to facilitate material exchanges and yet material exchanges do occur.
It is also not possible for competitors to consistently lose out or balance each other out with no profits because again, then everything would be fullfilled and no exchanges could take place. This is the fabled neoclassical equilibrium.
Published: January 27, 2009 10:36 PM
gene
The first surplus or profit was due to extra productive land. The fortunate one who claimed this piece for himself ended up with more crops than he could use. The surplus though was useless, unless their were others without land and in need of food or had land that didn't produce enough. If they didn't want to go hungry, they became indebted to the lucky guy.
If everyone was already happy, then the surplus had no value. It's the need that values the surplus. If there is a lot of need, then the owner of capital has a lot of leverage and can act as he sees fit. If there are many with surplus, then needs are meet and surplus has little value.
The system today is no different than what has occurred historically over and over. Limit or control surplus, create or encourage need, artificially control value.
My guess is a free market is one free from these enforced constraints, where the surplus is distributed where it is needed most, not accumulated and hoarded.
Socialism is the effort to do this consciously. My guess is that is also about as possible as a truly free market.
Published: January 28, 2009 12:09 AM
Daniel
Monopolies are not necessarily bad - a monopoly can occur (for a short while) where one provider of goods and services is simply head and shoulders over competitors (without government help, of course).
Likewise pbergn - you appear to be wedded to the idea of egalitarianism. There will be those who are more influential in any given society than others - this is a given under any social order. However, under free markets, those more influential people will have obtained their "influence" (read wealth) through productive and mutually beneficial trade.
Compare with socialism/fascism/statism as how people get their "influence". Put briefly, a free market system is about justice.
Published: January 28, 2009 3:06 AM
Franklin
"In the conflict between monopoly statism and the many organs of the body social (i.e., of a free people), the Left habitually made the malignant choice."
Elegantly written. Yet, why is this so? Intellectual laziness -- pathetically ignorant (and disastrous) hope that the proxies of the state will selflessly do the right thing because they are "accountable."
By the way, thanks a lot, Inqusitor! Not! : ) You have to go mention Chomsky! My hypersensitivity allows a simple word, a name, to ruin my day. I've no tolerance for that rambling buffoon. I remember when he was a guest speaker during a business/technology day in Boston a couple decades ago. Of course, his meandering, dreadfully flawed mumbo-jumbo ultimately veered (as it always does) into "world hunger." These leftists ("libertarian socialists," my ass) are extraordinarily transparent in their avoidance of an individualist paradigm. When he spoke of starvation and malnutrition in the "third world," he sarcastically jibed, "If we try harder, maybe we can increase these numbers [the starving] even more...." That's when I had had enough, and departed. Note the pronoun -- "we" -- so ubiquitous in leftist circles. "We." Pfffttt. Well, I don't know about "we," Mr. Chomsky, but I do know about "me." And I starve nobody and do what I can to minimize the sad state of affairs. Now if you, sir, are starving people, I suggest you get off your aged ass, and change your behavior. And shame on you to admit you are starving people, whilst you stuff your face with the chicken and carrots provided by the sponsors of today's event.
Celebrity-hood is a fascinating phenomenon. If you're the so-called foremost linguistic scholar on the planet (doesn't the irony just kill you?!), then you're worthy of elite status in governmental/societal criticism. This is similar to Hollywood actors and their door-opening (aka, congressional hearing-opening) fame.
The banter on whether true socialism or true libertarianism has ever bee implemented is a red herring. The questions are these: what steps should be taken to advance liberty? What philosophy respects my rights (particularly property rights, since I own myself)? And what are the means to this end?
Is it expanding the power of the bureaucrats and politicians, or is it smashing the power of this oligarchy? Socialists and neo-conservatives tend to prefer the former.
Cheers.
F.
Published: January 28, 2009 12:18 PM
gene
Libertarian Socialism definately has merit as a possible "ideal" system, if I understand their premise. They believe the "means of production" can never be justly distributed. We have no proof that it ever was or could be. The present economy and every one before it used the "means" to the advantage of the few, with little regard for economic of social principles. So, true libertarianism of any sort is also an ideal [since it assumes fair and just oppurtunity of ownership of the means] and has never been a real social system.
Libertarian Socialists believe the "means" should be owned by cooperatives or in common by those who use the "means". This in no way eliminates private property or a true free market or gaurantees big government. If we can truly never have a free market that allows all equal oppurtunity of access to the "means", then they have a great, big point!
As Libertarians, we have a habit of comparing our perfect "ideal" system with other's imperfect "real" systems. It makes us feel superior when in fact it just shows lack of knowledge. We have no "real" system to boast about, unless you want to take credit for what's out there today, and I certainly don't.
I
Published: January 28, 2009 2:50 PM
Franklin
Then you understand better than I, Gene. To me, the terminology is nonsense, a silly paradox, like "Marxist-capitalist" or "Christian-atheist." And it's a comfort zone for the arrogant blunder-busts who seek refuge in a new phraseology because as socialists, like aforementioned Chomsky, they suddenly realized what they stepped in, and the horrors that came with it. I can just hear their minds whirling, "Holy s---! These socialists are half-baked fascists. I need to add liberty to my mantra. Yeah, that's the ticket -- I'm actually a 'libertarian socialist'!!" Cripe.
Many libertarians promote the free market not because "they feel superior." I think most of them (like myself) just simply want to be left alone. Please don't regard the rhetorical questions as directed towards you, Gene, whose writing I find as thoughtful. No doubt the "My ideal philosophy is better than yours but we haven't really tried it" are indeed senseless arguments. Thus, from practical terms, what approach expands liberty, more government intrusion or less?
Which approach promotes the most direct, ethical, respectful path for each individual to pursue his dream? More government or less? Hell, if the Socialists want to tell me that they believe in a minimalist state I'll join them and damn the semantics.
Equal opportunity of the means of production is already available. It's available in socialist economies, capitalist economies, mixed economies, fascist economies.
Every individual has an opportunity to grab the means of production, so long as he conducts himself according to the accepted practices of the environment. In some economies, that includes bribery and violence, majority voting, thuggery, swindling, lobbying. You don't have enough to pay off the liquor commissioner? Tough tooties. When you get the cash-ola, try again. Everybody has that same "opportunity."
Protections against the above stated intrusions lead me to only one approach -- the philosophy of negative rights, to be left alone.
To be sure, the "ideal" is always elusive. Human beings are imperfect. But I know that expanding the power of the state, taking more of the citizenry's money, is not the route to individual respect. Follow the money trail of the so-called "libertarian socialist." At the end of the road will be the fully accountable and selfless state-sponsored bureaucrat, ensuring "equal opportunity," and determining if you are worthy of it.
Published: January 28, 2009 5:55 PM
jason
Excellent summation of points us true freemarketers feel today. Concise and direct.
"I abandoned the principals of capitalism to save capitalism" -GWB
Published: January 28, 2009 7:13 PM
gene
I see what you are saying and it makes sense. But it is a very fine balance. There isn't much difference between the unearned advantage or whatever it takes to get rights to the means when it isn't deserved and using that same "force" to infringe on a person's "negative rights", wanting to be left alone.
Banks are an example, they have controlled the "means" thru monopoly power, cartel, everything but actual enterprise and they aren't going to leave us alone either! Unless all we do is barter, they have their hands in our pockets at all times.
People are just looking for a better way. But, I definately am NOT agruing with you at all. I am no anarchist but BIG government and big Corporations are not friends of mine. Less is more as they say!
Published: January 28, 2009 7:31 PM
pbergn
TO: fakename / Pat
Thanks fakename for your clarification of the main premises of Capitalism. [I am well aware of them, just needed to hear them again...]
I agree with Pat and you that Capitalism is the ONLY economic theory that implies two sides - producers and consumers, whereas all other socio-economic theories imply a notion of a czar of some kind that "knows" what is good for the individual participants in the relationship...
I have no problem with people being rich or having more power than others. In fact that is exactly why I am working for and living for - to improve my material standing in the society...
What I am desperately trying to establish here is the fact that ALL the socio-economic theories have to deal with the fundamental notion of social justice one way or another, which is subjective in its nature.
For example, the Free Market theory proponents are completely forgetting the aspect that at some point of time some of the participants in the Free Market relationship will inevitably attempt to use "unjust" methods in competing against the others, as subjectively defined by others to be as such ... The brilliant example of this is the bankers and the government, or the corporations and their lobbyists, etc...
What many libertarians forget, that at some point of time they will have to deal with the "root of all evil" - they will have to determine what is "justified" or "unjustified" action, such as when initiating force or trying to co-operate towards a common goal... This is true EVEN in the absence of the absolute monopoly on coercive power, i.e. in absence of the State (even more so in the absence of it).
To summarize my point - while the Free Market is unquestionably the best socio-economic theory in existence in my opinion (in terms of its ability to establish maximal social justice), it too suffers from the fundamental problem of objectively defining the "just" and "unjust", thus invalidating all the claims of its superiority in terms of organization of socio-economic affairs, since all the other such theories, also fundamentally rely on the same subjective notion of "social justice"...
My conclusion is that NO objective claim can be made in favor of Free Market theory due to the reasons stated above...
Published: January 28, 2009 8:38 PM
C (The Forgotten Man)
pbergn,
I applaud your efforts to stimulate a civil and intelligent debate on this blog, and encourage you to continue doing so. It helps us all to clarify our thinking when someone challenges us to explain what we mean. This is the beauty of having a comments section after a blogged article, and this site does it better than most.
I am inclined, as you are, to see all ideologies as containing grains of truth and puzzling fallacies. I am also inclined to favor libertarianism more than the others, because the concept of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, as envisioned by our founders and described as "natural rights," seems to generate the fairest system for humans to cooperate and to settle their disputes in a civilized fashion.
In this scintillating debate, i would ask you to better define some of the terms you use, and indicate from which ideological theory you are drawing such terms, so that we can better understand the argument.
For example, "social justice." How is this term not redundant? How can there be a separate "justice" that is "social" from one that is political, criminal, economic, etc.? Justice is the application and exercise of "fairness" in human interactions, whether they be voluntary amongst private citizens, or between the State and its citizens. The standards of "fairness" are generally determined by the society's prevailing beliefs ("by the consent of the governed").
Using the term "social justice," as it is typically used in modern times, implies a socialist notion of enforced egalitarianism, that all members of society are entitled to the same things (wealth, status, education, health care, retirement plans, or whatever), and it is the state's job to see that they get them. Is this what you mean by it?
Published: January 29, 2009 7:03 AM
pbergn
TO: C (The Forgotten Man)
Thanks, C.
Appreciate it. Finally someone making sense on this site...
By the term "social justice" I mean the intuitive feeling of entitlement on something, which is commonly shared by majority of humans and animals alike either in response to some action they or others voluntarily perform or simply as a result of physical or mental differences as it is persieved by the subject himself/herself/itself...
It is NOT in the egalitarian sense - sense that everyone is equal... No, sir, not at all...
For example, if you work harder, if you helped someone you feel you are "entitled" for more benefits in return such as more rewards in the material or psychological sense....
In short, by saying "social justice" I meant "natural justice", which is still subjective in nature...
My point is, that even in Free Market Theory, one has to deal with the subjective concept of justice, such as in sports - one still needs an umpire of some sort...
I personally prefer a weak government to act as that broker - that umpire between me and other society members competing for natural and man-made resources...
Libertarians do not understand that by removing the State, considered as their enemy, they will have to deal with 100 more enemies which will be their very neighbors laying claims on all kinds of property they can get to, first... This is a direct consequence of resources being scarce, and human nature being subjective...
What I was saying is that even in the Free Market System you rely on the subjective notion of fairness in competing for your customer base.
For example, a chemical plant may start using resources of some river shared by it and some farmers, who also compete for the river water to feed their live-stock or irrigate the crops. The chemical plant pollutes the river since it needs to produce more plastic or rubber to make more profits. The farmers are NOT happy, since their crops are dying. So they assail the chemical plant owners with the righteous anger of the chemical company being "unjust". Now, in absence of legal system and some kind of umpire, such as the State to enforce some kind of environmental protection laws, there is no way to uphold the natural justice or the "social justice" as I called it incorrectly in my previous post...
You see the dilemma?
That is why any claim that the Free Market System in particular, and Libertinism in general, is "better" than other rivaling ideologies is subjective, since these concepts are also relying in their core on the subjective nature of man to justify his actions...
That's all I am saying. One has to be objective...
Published: January 29, 2009 1:46 PM
Reason
pbergn,
In professional sports the umpire is hired by the league and is under contract. Not so in the world of states.
Published: January 29, 2009 2:22 PM
Stephen Grossman
See Ayn Rand's _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ for a profound, comprehensive, consistent, principled, integrated, systematic understanding of capitalism.
Capitalism is the politics and economics of individual rights.
The individual needs to be free of initiated force from other so that he can use his mind to guide his actions. Capitalism is based on reason, not mysticism or subjectivism. Austrian economics, esp. Mises, must be split from subjectivism or it will decay into libertarian nihilism.
Published: February 5, 2009 4:46 PM