Countering the emotional argument lies againt capitalism
Most of the time I see people from a liberal viewpoint discuss capitalism, they immediately act as if capitalists are only greedy thieves that are not interested in anything but themselves. The arguement that I seem them push is that capitalism is a grave ethics failure destroying the moral fiber of a society. Also, I see them try and make the claim that capitalists want to enslave people. While I know personally that I truly do care about others, and I am not what these people say (that I wish to enslave, that I am incapable of compassion, that I would never give to charity) I see these argument fallicies repeated too freely. From the perspective of trying to change people from being supporters of self enslavement to a socialist society, does anyone here have methods of arguements they would suggest (practical and real ones that are not intended to be snarky)?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I completely support you redistributing wealth in any way you feel right. As for creating the wealth to redistribute, I'm curious to know - how do you plan to go about that? Will you be creating that wealth? Your friends maybe? Let me know how you get on with that.
Jan
Jan
The patent system is one of the most corrupt practices in existence, with cronyism between the patent lawyers and the patent examiners. There's a revolving door in that system that would be considered a scandal, if the media ever goes back to real investigative reporting.
Microsoft is a deteriorating monolith, and Apple has won the market. Google is the prime example of crony capitalism, corrupt to its core and tied so tightly to a government that violates nearly every element of the Bill of Rights that it will eventually be carved to pieces, just like the old AT&T phone system.
Jan
Good quote. Excellent find or memory. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
dealt with the attempt to justify capitalism on the
grounds of "the common good". She denounced
this approach. Although it does (when allowed to
operate) achieve "the common good", that was
NOT her justification of it. She said it was justi-
fied on the ground of individual rights. In "The
Virtue of Selfishness", (and elsewhere) she
held that living for oneself did not preclude help-
ing other people, if one could afford it (not
damage oneself or one's values doing it), and
if there was some value in the person helped;
but that it should not be one's primary goal.
OK, here goes mine:
Do they understand the concept of the work ethic? The fable of the ant and the grasshopper? Have they ever heard the simple rule, "You don't work, you don't eat"? Have they heard of the quaint commandment, "Thou shalt not steal"?
Put the shoe on the other foot. Socialists want, by force, to take from some to give to others, preferably to themselves. To justify their rapacious philosophy, they create a myth about the productive members of society becoming rich through some kind of exploitation of the poor, throwing around the spurious term "social justice".
Here's the thing. All living things need to eat or they don't stay alive very long. Each individual being has to expend effort to obtain nourishment to put in their own stomach. But, as Ayn Rand put it, there is no such thing as a collective stomach. And back in prehistory, food was all around and critters just took what they could find or hunt down or take from another. Ever see chickens in the barnyard tugging on the same worm? There was not yet the notion of private property, though you'd better not mess with a lion's kill. What the lion gets belongs to his or her pride. Extended further, in times of scarcity even animals had territorial claims and would chase away intruders.
Speaking of lions, hear the one about democracy being two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner?
Once humans learned to produce food instead of just collect it--agriculture, domestication of animals, food storage, shelter construction--the concept of property rights emerged. That which someone "produces" belongs to that individual, though he may choose to share it with family, kin and tribe. Collaborative hunting provided for sharing the bounty with the group. But be assured that every critter has a notion of "it's mine, don't touch."
And every critter has a hardwired sense of how much effort to put out for expected results. The lioness stops running when she can tell the gazelle is too fast. Expending more energy than the return gained would soon leave the animal starved to death. Without ROI, or profit, life doesn't work.
The premise is that what you put time and energy into obtaining and producing belongs to you. This is the concept of the earned vs. the unearned. As someone earlier remarked, when you have invested a piece of your life into producing a value, it is yours. In more advanced societies you can rent or sell your time, and the money you are paid is a portable, exchangeable piece of your life. Anyone who seeks to TAKE what is yours is in effect stealing a piece of your life, or making you a slave for that length of your time. You, on the other hand, get to decide how to dispose of what is yours, through trade, the only truly socially just formula, and only capitalism provides it.
To understand capitalism in its simplest essence, ask your arguers if they like the idea of Kickstarter or "crowdsourcing". It's a growing trend, and surprise: that's capitalism, investing savings towards making something with the expectation of future profit. If they persist in ascribing greed to others, have them search their own motives. Envy is the root of all evil.
Every field of endeavour has its exploiters, its cheats, its looters. Marriages have numerous partners who cheat. Charities have numerous staff who embezzle critically-needed funds. But does this discredit marriage, or charity?
For example, now that our system has allowed 1% of society controls 99% of the wealth (it is really true), one must ask Ayn Rand's view of "value for value". If one works hard, that person should receive, not according to the owner's need, but according to that value produced. Value for value. As an atheist and individualist since 12, I never asked for anything I didn't earn. Reading Atlas Shrugged at 16, I became a fan.
But I disagree with a number of its tenets. That's my choice.
https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
Then discuss the individuals who are in charge in socialism. Who are these people. Let the person identify them. Are these people greedy? Of course. This is the inevitable road to totalitarianism.
Then discuss efficiency. Can you demonstrate a government program that is more cost effective than an equivalent private one?
So greed is inherent. In capitalism it is leveraged to drive overall wealth. In socialism it is either attempted to be controlled (voluntary/philanthropy) or ignored (involuntary = forced becomes totalitarianism). One thing that gets socialists thinking is to point out they seek to take things from others at gunpoint, which is essentially what giving power to the government is. They never think about it that way on their own.
The next logic is showing which companies are more successful, those that treat their employees well, or those that abuse them. Companies that abuse employees are invariable on their death throws. This is Ayn's Objectivist version of "philanthropy". Treat people well to achieve more. Such a simple concept, and why people behave in society (misbehave = ostracized = less food. Behave = cooperation = more food)
If we think about what wealth really is this line of argument is even closer in parallel to the murder example because wealth and money is really a physical manifestation of a part of your life. If you give up 8 hours of you life at a job, your employer will pay you a certain sum of money, you have then sold part of your life. If someone then steals that money, they have just stolen that part of your life. You might say that.."it is only 8 hours, not the whole life"……. to that I would respond that if you murder a 90 year old man, it is still punishable the same amount as if you had killed a 20 year old man.
One final thing....all these generous liberals who talk about re-distributing wealth to the less fortunate. I have always noticed that they always seem to fall in to one of 2 categories. 1. They are in a relatively low tax bracket and are likely to receive some of the wealth transfer. Or 2. They are very well off and either "Have theirs" or have an accountant and a tax strategy that keeps them from paying what the rest of us do!
Statists, of whatever stripe, cannot serve the public good. No one can do any good to anyone by means of human sacrifice. When you violate the rights of oe, you violate the rights of all--and a polity of rightless creatures will destroy itself.
Hammer at this point: statism never accomplishes its stated goal. All the things they say capitalism does, statism does. Psychologists call this "projection" -- literally, throwing off your own sins at the other person.
My experience is this converts a confrontation into a discussion IF the person is not simply posturing in some sort of moral righteousness (unfortunately something for which we Objectivists are well known). If the latter, let him have his stage for a few seconds and excuse yourself from the preaching. You will never change such a person.
Monopolies and "crony capitalism" impede the benefits of a free market, and should be blocked whenever possible. A real free market thrives on competition, with competitors striving to offer an ever-evolving product or service at a competitive price.
Whenever government presumes to deliver the product or service desired, a market-destroying monopoly is created. When a government seeks to control a market, it diminishes the dynamic force of the consumer that's the driver of that market, by impeding the ability of the providers to respond.
Challenge the liberals to read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Without understanding that, one shouldn't claim to understand capitalism, anymore than someone who hasn't read the works of Marx and Engels can claim to understand Communism.
Load more comments...