Comments (19)

• Mill Town

  "But doesn't capitalism produce all sorts of nasty, degrading stuff like cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, and violent movies and video games?"

  Capitalism is just a framework, it's the people who produce and consume cigarettes. The only thing I have against cigarettes is second hand smoke and the fact that this second hand smoke is an aggression against non-consenting bystanders.

  For the rest, I don't see what's nasty in alcohol, again it's the people who abuse alcohol who are nasty and this is their own business, not mine.

  What's nasty about pornography ? If the pornographers consented to pose nude to make money and if the consumers agree to spend money to see such productions, where is the crime ? How can anything be nasty by itself ?

  How can a movie be "violent" ? That movie never threated me or any other person and we are all free to go watch or boycott the movie. If I don't like what I see, I can leave or I can refrain from watching movies. Again, I don't see what's nasty in it.

  Same thing about "violent" video games. Such video games can be a good way to vent off steam.

  Capitalism doesn't produce wealth nor nasty stuff, it's the people that do.

  Capitalism is like a land, it's the people who cultivate whatever crops they wish on that land, the land itself produces nothing.

  Capitalism doesn't "work", it's the individuals who work. Capitalism is just a set of naturals rules and contracts about how to exchange and keep the fruits of such work.

  Capitalism is not a failure, it's the people who are the success or the failure.

  Published: November 3, 2009 8:42 AM

• Mill Town

  "The only thing I have against cigarettes is second hand smoke and the fact that this second hand smoke is an aggression against non-consenting bystanders."

  And again, that's not a problem about cigarettes or how "nasty" they are.

  That's a problem about how nasty the smoker is for not caring about the other people he forces to breathe second hand smoke.

  And as a non-consenting bystander, I am free to leave or stand somewhere else with less smoke.

  People are nasty, not stuff. Capitalism is innocent.

  There is no such thing as nasty stuff. But there is an abundant supply of nasty people and they generally work as police officers or government officials.

  Those nasty people are the first to claim that stuff are nasty, probably in an attempt to divert attention from their own personal nastiness.

  Published: November 3, 2009 8:48 AM

• Nate

  Mill Town,

  Your comment echo a description of the free market system I read, The free market is not some living entity capable of making decisions, it is merely a matrix of all the voluntary transactions that have taken place within a specified region.

  Published: November 3, 2009 10:47 AM

• Mix

  "......economic historian Gregory Clark points out that if you look at real returns to land (rental rates), they have fluctuated but remain virtually unchanged. The same holds true for capital (interest rates). Real wages for unskilled workers, meanwhile, have exploded."

  How can there not have been someone claim a victory for government intervention and unionism yet? Without the counterpoint of artificially rising prices in this paragraph, it looks as if artificial wage controls were exactly what was needed for unskilled labor to keep them from being exploited.

  I also can't believe no one has stepped up yet to bash Walmart. That normally seems to be the Pavlovian response.

  Published: November 3, 2009 11:02 AM

• Mill Town

  Nate,

  And capitalism is the matrix which gives the most freedom for transactions.

  In fact, the law of supply and demand exists outside any political system and will always come back to haunt down, should I say HUNT down, those who fiddle with it.

  Just because governments regulate prices and rations supplies doesn't mean demand disappears and doesn't mean the appetite for profits disappear.

  Al-Capone is a product of prohibition, not a product of bootlegging.

  Crime syndicates always exist because of frustrated demand.

  If governments would not prohibit products and services, crime syndicates would lose their profitability and have to find honest work.

  Published: November 3, 2009 11:04 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  From here:

  If bigotry is the natural reflex of the social masses, why have racists always had to turn to the State to keep people of different races from teaching each other, hiring each other, marrying each other, and basically living together as members of the same society? Indeed, if there is an organic relationship between racism and capitalism, then history's greatest racist should also have been its greatest capitalist. Our text books would record how Adolf Hitler and his National Capitalist Party created the ultimate racist regime by implementing completely the libertarian free-market agenda: an unregulated economy, freedom of expression, freedom of sexuality, private education, open borders, equality before the law, anti-militarism, etc. Of course, actual National Socialist policy was the polar opposite on every point. Hitler chose totalitarian socialism (that is, total socialism) as the means to his racist end because he understood what every other racist has always understood: that mass bigotry is "socialist," not capitalist -- statist, not societal -- in nature.

  Published: November 3, 2009 11:41 AM

• Thomas Talionis

  Animosity towards immigrants is also caused by Socialism.

  When you make one group of people responsible for the food, clothing and shelter of another group, you create resentment and tension.

  Published: November 3, 2009 11:58 AM

• Chance Witt

  Good article. The only dispute I have is the assessment of medical licensing. What you really have a problem with is that the government regulates medication and decided that doctors are the ones who decide if you can have it. As for advice, you can pay the guy on the corner for advice if you want. No one keeps you from doing that. There are all sorts of alternative medicine doctors, healers, psychics, etc. In this case, the MD or DO is just a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval". If anyone was allowed to buy any medication without a prescription it would be a completely free market.

  Published: November 3, 2009 5:41 PM

• Gil

  If bigotry falters under Capitalism why was the government required to force people to integrate (i.e. desegregation laws)? Wasn't a Libertarian hero the principal who stood in a doorway in the defiance of being forced to accept black students against his will?

  Published: November 3, 2009 7:35 PM

• Robert Brazil

  Gil, forcing people to integrate didn't actually reduce bigotry. If anything, it made the bigots even more resentful than they would have been.

  This is the mistake that statists always make. They think that if they hold a gun to your head and force you to say your prayers, then they have made you believe in God.

  It is enough to prohibit actual crimes against person and property, regardless of the motive. If there is going to be a state (and it's a shame that we didn't abolish this "peculiar institution" along with that other one), then everyone should have the same protection of the law. But forcing people to associate with others against their will is tyrannical and evil.

  Published: November 3, 2009 8:33 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

  "Real wages for unskilled workers, meanwhile, have exploded".

  Beware survivor bias. Real openings for unskilled workers have shrunk, so a proper comparison isn't between unskilled workers before and after but between unskilled workers before and unskilled workers and unskilled unemployed after - who don't all get counted if you only look at unskilled actual workers. (Of course, even that comparison is too narrow to assess larger issues, since you ought to look at all workers before and all workers and unemployed after, not just the unskilled ones, because skills and opportunities also change - but if you do start with them you should follow the same category throughout.)

  Also, just taking starts and ends ignores what happens in between - it actually got worse then, and weighing it all up involves applying discount factors over time.

  Published: November 3, 2009 8:38 PM

• K Ackermann

  Good stuff, but I have 2 inter-related quibbles

  Capitalism, at its essence, is not just about equitable trade, it is about gainful trade, and there is nothing wrong with that.

  However, at fundamental odds with that, is gains by any means. Complete self regulation is a farce. Even Greenspan, who supposedly said fraud should not be policed (or something to that effect) admitted there is a flaw in that argument.

  There has to be an up-front disincentive to seek ill-gotten gains. IBGYBG lords over the most abusive fraud. I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone, is not corrected for by the market. It's too late then. It's too easy to plan fraud, and then a a quick exit, and on to the next fraud.

  I don't think endless regulation is the way to solve it, but I think we should at least try exceptionally harsh punishment and see what that does. If somebody dumps something nasty in a river with complete disregard to the downstream consequences, then that person is a proven danger to all of society, and has waived his right to run his life as he see fit.

  Like it or not, the quest for gain needs enforceable boundaries. Just my discounted 2 cents.

  Published: November 3, 2009 8:48 PM

• Robert Brazil

  K Ackerman,

  I think most free-marketers do believe in legal penalties for fraud. Fraud is a form of theft and should be treated as such.

  But remember, people adapt to events, and the market can ameliorate the problem of fraud -- for instance, by means of private accreditation agencies, customer reviews of products and services, etc.

  I don't think dumping toxic waste into a river constitutes fraud, however. That would be a form of trespass or property destruction. If the stuff caused real harm to people, such an act might even be treated similarly to that of firing a gun into a crowd. But I'm not a legal expert.

  Published: November 3, 2009 9:33 PM

• K Ackermann

  But remember, people adapt to events, and the market can ameliorate the problem of fraud -- for instance, by means of private accreditation agencies, customer reviews of products and services, etc.

  Those should be in place anyway, IMO. The market has a great record of delivering optimal value in the aggregate, but some signals take a long time to propegate, and a lot of damage can be done in that time.

  I was amazed when I recently read that financial investors who manage all our money, in the aggregate, since 1984, underperformed the S&P500 by a wide margin. The average return was 5.5%, vs something like 11% CAGR for the index.

  That is a price signal that hit me between the eyes, and has me asking why I would use these people to reduce my wealth. I can be in equities just as easy as they can, but I settle for the aggregate and beat the pants off of the one's picking sectors.

  And they charge fees too. The market has not purged them.

  Published: November 3, 2009 10:46 PM

• Mix

  Gil

  "Wasn't a Libertarian hero the principal who stood in a doorway in the defiance of being forced to accept black students against his will?"

  No, Gil, a Libertarian hero would have been standing in the doorway saying the statist institution shouldn't exist in the first place. Good effort, though.

  Published: November 4, 2009 7:44 AM

• Robert Brazil

  And they charge fees too. The market has not purged them.

  I wonder to what extent the government involvement in money and banking has resulted in people's relative lack of knowledge/interest regarding their finances. Because such disinterest is not limited to the merits of financial advisors. How many people do you know who are aware of how fractional reserve banking works? They put their money in the banks and assume it is safe and sound. The FDIC makes it so.

  The overwhelming majority today have not even a basic knowledge of the history and theory of money and banking. They consider it a technical field for technicians who are smarter than themselves. Out of sight, out of mind.

  But if you look at our history, central banking used to be a hot topic. Everyone had an opinion. People were concerned about the soundness of their banks, and their currency.

  I can't prove this, but I sincerely believe that if we had a genuine free market in money and banking, the average person would be much better informed about these issues, as a matter of necessity. There would also be less need to "play" the stock market, since a non-fiat money like gold would mostly appreciate in value over time relative to other goods (otherwise it would be rejected by the market).

  Published: November 4, 2009 10:32 AM

• Jeremiah Dyke

  I would like to hear the end of the Block video on captalism and racism but it cuts off before he can address the point on capital. Is there a link to the full length video?

  Published: November 4, 2009 11:24 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  If bigotry falters under Capitalism why was the government required to force people to integrate (i.e. desegregation laws)?
  
  Perhaps, because before the government tried to force integration, it was busy trying to force segregation? The problem, in both cases, was government initiating force against its citizens.
  
  Wasn't a Libertarian hero the principal who stood in a doorway in the defiance of being forced to accept black students against his will?
  
  A typical misunderstanding of libertarianism is if something should be tolerated, then it must necessarily be considered a good thing. A common example is recreational drug use. Just because libertarians support drug legalization doesn't mean that we necessarily think using recreational drugs is a good thing that everyone ought to do. Likewise, just because forced integration is wrong doesn't mean that we support and applaud racial discrimination. But this distinction is often too subtle for some people to understand.

  Published: November 5, 2009 11:16 AM

• Micael R Stoddard

  Great defense of Capitalism. Of all the memes out in the public mind right now, rehabilitating Capitalism is the most important. When we raise the standard of Capitalism on the moral high ground, we will reestablish liberty and a free society. I recommend the establishment of The Capitalist Political Party to dismantle the State.

  Published: November 5, 2009 12:25 PM