QUORA: ‘How is capitalism NOT a zero-sum game?’

 QUORA {8}: ‘How is capitalism NOT a zero-sum game?’

I posted this answer:

There are two aspects of this: the political—Capitalism as a complete social system—and the narrower view of capitalism as strictly an economic system. I’ll take them in turn to show that Capitalism is the exact opposite of a “zero-sum game.”

Capitalism as it is understood today arose in the middle to late 18th Century.{3} It is the consequence of the principles of the Enlightenment, which was rooted in thinkers like Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and Baron de Montesquieu. A highly essentialized statement of the Enlightenment principles that gave rise to Capitalism can be found in the American Declaration of Independence.{4} The Declaration states that all Men are created equal in their freedom to self-govern their own lives. This freedom is defined by unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are understood as guarantees to freedom of action, not a “right” or automatic claim on the lives, liberties, or property of others, and define the scope of the individual’s freedom but also the limits of the individual’s freedom so as to protect every person’s liberty rights equally. “Unalienable” and “equal” means that the rights of one cannot infringe on the same rights of another. Unalienable rights include but are not limited to rights to property and free trade, religion and conscience, free speech and press, association (including protection of the sanctity of contracts); trial by jury; protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government, understood for the first time not as the peoples’ ruler but as the peoples’ agent, secures these rights through objective law, applied equally and at all times, punishing those who violate the rights of others, and drawing its delimited powers from the consent of the governed. Since one person’s rights cannot infringe on another person’s rights, whether privately or through government, rights can be understood as every individual’s safe space. Every individual’s “safe space” is protected from all forms of tyranny, including democratic tyranny (rights cannot be infringed or taken away by vote). {1} 

The social conditions established by these Enlightenment principles of individual rights and rights-protecting government naturally gave rise to modern Capitalism. When all people are free and their rights protected, Capitalism happens. Because Capitalism can only exist and function under the Safe Space principles of individual rights, Capitalism is clearly not zero-sum politically.

Which brings us to economics. Unalienable individual rights secured by the rule of objective law translated into a free market. A market is free when the government polices the peoples’ economic affairs against predatory force {5}, but otherwise doesn’t interfere in the voluntary economic interactions of free individuals. 

The free market, in turn, makes discovery, invention, innovation, and wealth production possible on a grand, virtually unlimited scale.{2} The idea that the free market feature of Capitalism is zero-sum is a holdover of the savages’ view of economics. Most of human history on Earth was the life of hunter-gatherers, who existed on the meager offerings of nature. Then man discovered wealth production, probably starting with someone’s discovery that you can take a seed from an existing plant, put it in the ground, and another plant grows from that one seed. When humans competed for the fixed amount of food and other values found free in the wild, economics was zero-sum. If one person picked a wild berry plant clean, there were no more berries for someone else. But when man discovered that he had the power to expand wealth exponentially, through productive work, everything changed. Now, you could cultivate an entire field of berry plants, as many as needed to feed all. No more zero-sum, because the man who plants the seeds and nurtures their growth creates wealth. The hunter-gatherer who picks berries from a wild bush does so at the expense of the next guy who comes along. But the man who grows new berry plants does not. Wealth is not created at the expense of those who didn’t create it, but to the benefit of those who previously would have had to search for another wild berry plant or go hungry. 

True, in any moment in time, only so much wealth exists, and no product can be consumed twice. If there is only one loaf of pumpernickel bread on a supermarket shelf and two consumers desire it, only one will get the loaf at that time and place. 

But labeling this zero-sum ignores reality. The zero-sum mentality fails also to consider the concept of time. Production takes time. Wealth production is not magic, springing into existence on the whim of someone’s immediate demand. But over time, human needs and wants are satisfied by productive innovation and expansion, as long as substantial elements of individual liberty, free markets, and rule of law exist. The general standard of living—a Great Enrichment—has soared in the last 250 years in any country that adopted a substantial degree of capitalistic economic freedom. If capitalism is zero-sum, then how do zero-sum mentalities explain this explosion of prosperity across the whole range of society’s members? The savage sees only the immediate moment. The enlightened mind sees reality not only in the immediate moment but over time. Capitalism protects people’s freedom over time--time for production to catch up with demand. Wealth production expands wealth, so long as the economy remains free and the laws of economics, which are rooted in the laws of nature and man’s nature, are free to operate.  

Of course, the zero-sum mentality grasps that he doesn’t actually live in a jungle. He sees all of the wealth that fills the stores and people’s homes. The modern savage merely switches the source of wealth from nature to society; i.e., the tribe. Like his hunter-gatherer ancestor, the modern savage sees only a fixed amount of wealth provided, somehow, by “society”. (This is the Marxian view.{7}) So one person’s gain is another person’s loss--zero-sum. The modern savage still hasn’t grasped and connected the concepts of production and time. Nor has he grasped that “society” is made up of individuals, and as the Enlightenment teaches, the individual, not the group, is the fundamental unit of economic, moral, and political concern. 

This brings us to the third conceptual failure of the savage--the concept of trade. The corollary of wealth production is free trade, a basic hallmark of Capitalism. Trade is by definition win-win, because it involves voluntary exchange of value for value in the absence of—free of—predatory force. Money is the tool of exchange, but money doesn’t change the nature of free trade. To make money is to produce and exchange a good for money. No zero-sum. To make a fortune is to create a lot of value for a lot of people. But each and every transaction subsumed under the fortune involves the same win-win process. No zero-sum. When I buy something from Amazon, Jeff Bezos’s $billions do me no harm. I have gained from the purchase. The same goes for employment. An Amazon worker offers his labor in exchange for money. It does the worker no harm because the company profits from his labor. Without the coordination of his labor with other Amazon workers, as well as other factors of production, like machinery and marketing, the Amazon worker’s labor would have no value, and there would be no job. Again, win-win. No zero-sum. {6}

Expanding production and trade is the activity that Capitalism promotes through the recognition of individual liberty rights and its corollaries, free markets, rule of objective law, secure property rights, and other freedoms. The more productive, the more money made. The builder of a successful business will likely make more than a janitor because he creates more wealth for more people. But under Capitalism money is never made at the expense of making others worse off, only by making others better off. The fact that at any given time two people may compete for a particular product--or job--is not evidence of zero-sum, since the one who doesn’t “win” is left no worse off than before. Over time, enough of the products or jobs is created to tend to fill all people’s needs and wants, as long as people are left free to act. (For a great history of progress and its source, see the works of Matt Ridley. The Great Enrichment of the past 220 years, sparked by the rise of modern Capitalism after The Enlightenment, is the final nail in the coffin of the zero-sum myth about Capitalism.) 

The failure to grasp production, time, and trade is the reason why some can’t grasp why capitalism is win-win, not zero-sum.

A question such as How is capitalism NOT a zero-sum game? implies someone who doesn’t understand Capitalism.{3} More fundamentally, it implies a worldview that is 12,000 years behind the times, as if production had never been discovered and the universal practice of individual rights, including the freedom of production and trade, had never been recognized. Once man, every individual man, was liberated to pursue his own happiness and prosperity free from coercive interference by his fellow man and from his government, people were enabled to flourish without loss to others. Capitalism enables man to replace zero-sum nature with win-win; the universal exercise of individual rights and thus of ever-growing abundance for all who desire and are willing to work for it. 

{1} [See Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Studies in Social and Political Philosophy)

by Tara Smith and Capitalism Unbound: The Incontestable Moral Case for Individual Rights

by Andrew Bernstein.]

{2} [See the works of Matt Ridley, including his latest book How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom] 

{3} [I have used the upper case “C” for Capitalism because I am using the term as a proper noun—to wit, a specific type of social system defined by a particular political philosophy.] 

{4} [“Men” as understood by the Founders and subsequent freedom activists is a generic term, applying to all individual members of the human species “Man”. See America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson]  

{5} [Predatory (or aggressive or offensive or initiatory) force includes not just overt force, such as armed robbery , but covert force such as extortion, fraud, breach-of-contract, and the like.]  

{6} [See The Money-Making Personality by Ayn Rand, In this talk, Rand distinguishes between Money-Makers (innovators and entrepreneurs who take calculated risks and succeed on free markets) and Money-Appropriators (those who become rich illegitimately, by “cutting corners” or political favoritism). Also available in print form in Why Businessmen Need Philosophy, Page 65.]

{7} [ “(Since) useful labour is only possible in society and through society . . ., only so much therefrom accrues to the individual as is not required to maintain the ‘condition’ of labour, society.” Page 4]

{8} [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]

Related Reading:

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein  

QUORA: ‘Why has modern capitalism risen in the West?’

QUORA: ‘How do capitalists justify the inequality/high disparity part of a capitalistic society that a socialistic system tends to stop?’

QUORA: 'Can certain forms of capitalism be made to work for the people instead of just the elite?'

QUORA*: ‘Is it fair to claim that capitalism does not create better lives, but simply shifts the suffering somewhere else?’

QUORA: 'Why do people think capitalism is ethical?'

QUORA: ‘Is it fair to say capitalism has killed more people than communism?’

QUORA *: 'How is capitalism good despite the fact that it creates higher and lower classes?'

QUORA: '[W]hy do we ignore all the examples of capitalism failing, like the major divide between the wealthy and the poor in the US?'

QUORA: ‘Given that I live in a capitalist society, how can I avoid having my labor exploited?’

QUORA: "Is having an 'Anarcho-capitalist' society possible?"

On ‘Capitalist Government’ and Corporate Bailouts

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

 

QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘

 

QUORA: ‘Can democracy survive capitalism?’

The Great Reset = Red Fascism

There’s talk among political leaders of something called The Great Reset. The idea is to use the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting economic and cultural disruption to enact massive societal changes globally, engineered coercively by governments and world central planners. It is a scheme to enact long-held Leftists policies like Environmentalism, economic egalitarianism, Stakeholder Capitalism, and the like.

Vinay Kolhatkar shared a link on the private Facebook group I belong to called Ayn Rand: Voices of Youth titled “Stakeholder Capitalism” Is a Trojan Horse for Fascism, originally published on The Savvy Street by Vinay. The center of attention for this initiative is the upcoming 2021 annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland January 25 - 29, 2021. The Great Reset is the brainchild of Professor Klaus Schwab, the founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF, an annual gathering of political and business leaders. Stakeholder Capitalism, which was introduced to America by Senator Elizabeth Warren’s fascist Accountable Capitalism Act, is basically a scheme for governments to give outside interests, the “stakeholders,” a role in taking over private businesses from their rightful owners, the shareholders. Since these outside special interests, which may include “representatives” of Environmentalism, labor, racial and social justice crusaders, community activists, etc., will owe their power to governments, Stakeholder Capitalism in effect amounts to government control of business worldwide.

Vinay summarizes his article “Stakeholder Capitalism” Is a Trojan Horse for Fascism:

· 

That shareholders cannot be well served by a corporation that treats its customers or employees unfairly is obvious. One may dismiss the distinction of two types of capitalism as simply a benign delusion. But Davos has always been an instrument of neo-Marxist social engineering, an evil by design. Consider, for instance, the agenda of Davos 2021. The theme is “The Great Reset.”

The Davos Agenda of the 2021 World Economic Forum announces:

The Davos Agenda is a pioneering mobilization of global leaders to shape the principles, policies and partnerships needed in this challenging new context. It is essential for leaders from all walks of life to work together virtually for a more inclusive, cohesive and sustainable future as soon as possible in 2021.

Note what’s missing; any mention of the common individual. Are they expected to meekly follow the “leaders,” rather than shape their own lives? From Vinjay’s article, here is more:

The Great Reset will require us to integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose and action,” Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

“Stakeholder” does not mean you, the individual independent individual. Stakeholder means some “leader” appointed by elites to allegedly represent your particular stakeholder--read collective-- interests, without your consent. From The Great Reset web page:

There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.

This is the favorite statist rallying cry: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

“Changing the traditional context for decision-making” from whom to whom; from what to what? The “inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems” refers to independent nations. “From health and financial to energy and education” refers to the last vestiges of freedom in those fields. In other words, from the individual common man to global central planners.

As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being. The Great Reset, World Economic Forum

All italics are mine. How does central planning foster dignity? Re-read those quotes, then compare the Davos agenda with;

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity.

We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. [sic]

The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. [sic]

We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. [sic]

Again, all italics are mine. That’s from THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (1932) by Benito Mussolini and Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. I consider this doctrine to be the definitive philosophic statement on Fascism, since Fascism originated in Italy and the term Fascism derives from the Italian word fascio. 

I see no essential difference between the Mussolini and Schwab visions. Substitute “contrasting interests” with “stakeholders,” “Ministry of Corporations” with “World Economic Forum,” “national society” with “global society,” and “integrate all stakeholders . . . into a community of common interest, purpose, and action” with “co-coordinating . . . contrasting interests . . . to achieve higher aims,” and you have Mussolini’s definitive statement on Fascism. A state that “controls all forces acting in nature—political forces, moral forces, economic forces”—is a totalitarian state. A global authority that determines “the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons” is a totalitarian state.

What’s the difference? The only difference I see is technical. 21st Century Fascism has moved away from the national socialist model of Mussolini. Taking a page from the Marxist socialists, The Great Reset has gone global. It’s no longer “Workers of the World Unite.” Now, it’s “Stakeholders of the World Unite.” It’s more than a Trojan Horse. The Great Reset could accurately be described as Red Fascism.  

Related  Reading:

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini

Fascism: Back Door to Socialism that Obama and the Left Well Understand

Correcting Michael Coburn: Fascism and Marxian Socialism are Not, Fundamentally, Opposites

Don’t Be Suckered by Pete Buttigieg’s ‘Democratic Capitalism’

On the Purpose of a Corporation by the Business Roundtable, PART 1

On the Purpose of a Corporation by the Business Roundtable, PART 2

Is ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ Newspeak for Economic Fascism? By Mark Hornshaw for FEE

"The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream," World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab recently observed. "In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles."

Of course, when they say “our lifestyles” they mean your lifestyle, not their own. Their preferred vehicle for achieving their goals is other people’s businesses. In short, what they want is for private businesses to serve the interests of their own curated list of stakeholders rather than (as they see it) concentrating on returning profits to business owners. They want governments to pass laws and tax regimes to cajole businesses towards their favored ends. Since this arrangement still involves a modicum of private ownership of the means of production, they call it “Stakeholder Capitalism.”

Related Viewing:

The Yaron Brook Show on The Great Reset

Episode 1 -- A Statist Vision For A Post-Covid World

Episode 2 -- The Anti-Concept of "Stakeholder Capitalism"

Episode 3 -- Inequality

Episode 4 -- Alex Epstein on Climate Change

Self-described ‘One Percenter’ Should Speak Only for Himself

In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, By supporting Trump's tax cuts, GOP candidates threaten Jersey's way of life, self-described “one percenter”  Eric Schoenberg labeled the Trump tax cuts “reckless” because they must be “paid for” by cutting spending on “a combined $1.3 trillion from Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act,” which he incredibly called “three bedrocks of our healthcare system.”[!]What of the real bedrocks, the producers of healthcare--the doctors, the pharmaceutical and medical device companies, nurses, and other creators--without which the consumers of healthcare, including Schoenberg’s alleged “bedrocks” paid for largely through government spending of our redistributed healthcare dollars would not exist. 

Then Schoenberg goes on to lament potential cuts of “$3 trillion more to other vital public services” that, allegedly, would be cut to “pay” for the tax cuts. To be sure, these “cuts” are phantom. They are in fact reductions in the growth rate of spending, not actual spending cuts. Reductions in spending growth is what passes for spending cuts in today’s political jargon. And I doubt that even these phantom cuts will even happen at all. They’ll just run up the debt, rather than cut spending. That’s the achilles heel of tax cuts.

But let’s leave the spending issue aside. For whatever reason, Schoenberg begs the politicians to take and redistribute more of his money. He even advocates “using the tax system to narrow -- rather than widen -- our society's dangerous wealth gap.” Why the wealth gap is “dangerous” or even relevant he doesn’t say. No one ever does. But for all these reasons, he calls for repeal of the Trump tax cuts. 

I used my comments, which are no longer available online thanks to the Star-Ledger’s elimination of the comments function, to highlight a real danger growing like a cancer in America. My comments have been edited for clarity:

Tax cuts allow more money to remain in the hands of the people that earn it. If anyone doesn’t want to keep it, they are free to give their tax savings to any cause they support, including the government. No one has the right to speak for everyone else.

Yet that is exactly what Schoenberg is doing. Not everyone wants to pay higher taxes for redistribution. He doesn’t like his tax cut, so he would rescind the Trump tax cuts for everyone else. And that highlights what is increasingly wrong with our culture. 

Most people respect others’ rights to live by their own choices and values--until they turn to politics. Then the respect evaporates, and a thug emerges. Freedom is increasingly defined as the right to vote, rather than what freedom really is--the right to live our lives by our own judgement  regardless of anyone else's vote. So more and more, people view politics as a moral escape hatch; a chance to do what they wouldn’t, and couldn’t, do privately--force their values on others at gunpoint. The only difference is in their using the government as the hired gun—not Willie Sutton, but Al Capone. 

And then we wonder why politics is increasingly polarized, making elections in essence a cold civil war. Increasingly, our ability to make our own economic choices with our own money is at the mercy of other people’s votes. Until we reduce the power of government to tax, spend, redistribute, and regulate, the situation will only get worse. And we’re moving in the wrong direction.

The Founding Fathers ended centuries of often violent religious conflict by taking the weapon of government out of the hands of religious factions, leading to peaceful coexistence for all conscientious beliefs. It’s called the separation of church and state. It’s time for the separation of economics and state, in the same way and for the same reasons, to accomplish the same peaceful coexistence in our economic affairs as in our conscientious affairs.

Finally, notice the insulting way this article is headlined. Is it Schoenberg’s contention that our “Jersey way of life” is that of dependence on government? Schoenberg, a former investment banker and current adjunct associate professor at Columbia University, should go back to making money in investment banking and stop preaching dependence and more taxes to the rest of us.

Related Reading:

What Accounts for Americans’ Widespread Jekyll/Hyde Morality?

Sterba’s ‘Liberty’ to Steal: Marxian Evil by Any Other Name . . .

What does it Mean to Say: "We'll Have to Agree to Disagree?"

Is It Now ‘Respectable’ to be a Moocher?

Justice, not Need, is the Proper Standard for Government Tax Policy

Are We Now a Nation of Moochers and Thieves?

Capitalism vs. Socialism: Friedman or Rand?

The Atlas Society ran this video of Milton Friedman explaining why capitalism is Superior to Socialism. With respect to Friedman, I think he epitomizes why Socialism keeps winning.

Friedman defines Socialism as a system of social organization in which the government owns and runs the means of production. So he’s talking about what I describe as Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society. Good start.

But he then grants proponents of socialism the benefit of the doubt -- good intentions. I don’t believe good intentions to be fundamental to the Socialist mind. Given the well-known history of Criminal, or state-imposed, Socialism in practice, any good intentions are just a reflection of ignorance. 

But I don’t see ignorance as the prime attraction for Socialists. The attractions are much lower. As I observed in a QUORA answer to “What makes someone a socialist?:

What type of person does such a system appeal to? Since socialism forcibly redistributes wealth from those who earned it to those who don’t, it appeals to greed. Since socialism requires totalitarian powers for government officials, it appeals to powerlust. Since socialism systematically punishes and ultimately destroys productive individuals, it appeals to envy and hatred of achievement. Add to that a craving for unearned prestige; i.e., the desire to be seen as “caring about the welfare of others,” without actually having do do anything for the welfare of others--socialism is a cover to force others to pay for craver’s pseudo-compassion, with the government as his hired gun. So socialism has appeal to the phony. Greed, powerlust, envy, hatred, and phoniness, or some combination thereof, are what draws people to socialism. Why these vices and nothing better? Because virtuous motivations belong to the self-responsible people who simply want to live in peaceful coexistence with others, neither being controlled by others nor controlling others, and who respect the same rights of others to live by their own judgement. Self-responsible, respectful people who fully understand what socialism actually is simply are not attracted to socialism.

Granting the benevolent label “good intentions” to today’s Socialists is a pass they don’t deserve. 

But that’s not the worst of it. Friedman then grants Socialism the moral high ground. He says people are repelled by Capitalism because Capitalism “emphasizes self-interest.” They are repelled by Capitalism putting “narrow” self-interest” ahead of “some broader interest.” It does, but Friedman leaves that fact hanging. He doesn’t explicitly condemn self-interest. But there is a definite “yes, but” before going on to say that Capitalism results in the general betterment of the “common man.” The implication: Capitalism works despite the drawback of individuals pursuing self-interest, and Socialism doesn’t work despite the good intentions of its high-minded, fine adherents.

I think the truth is the exact opposite. Friedman defines Capitalism as a system of private property and voluntary exchange. True, but it’s more than that. Much more. Capitalism is workable, and good, because it leaves people free to pursue their self-interest in voluntary exchange of private property with other self-interested people. Socialism fails precisely because it treats the “common man” as subordinate to the state--that is, as a slave. Socialism is evil precisely because it forces people to serve “some broader interest.” It is this utopian collective moral ideal that leads to all of the horrors of socialism, from economic paralysis and collapse to the crushing of personal freedom and rights to mass murder. If state-imposed collective interests trump personal interest, then on what basis do people claim a right to their lives, liberties, properties, or pursuit of happiness?

Friedman calls Socialists “high-minded, fine people.” For what? For being against the common man’s moral right to advance his own self-interest? For denying his right to his own life? Proponents of Capitalism, especially those proponents who understand fully, on economic and moral grounds, are the ones who deserve that compliment.

The Atlas Society, which put out this video, says “This Might Be The BEST Argument AGAINST Socialism You Will Hear!” This is the Society that promotes Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged! I would say Atlas Shrugged is the best argument against Socialism and for Capitalism. You’d think the Atlas Society would, too.

With arguments like “Socialism is good in theory, but it doesn’t work. Capitalism is morally suspect but it works,” we radicals for Capitalism will never win. Friedman says “look at the results, not the motives or moral premises.” But social systems don’t work or not work for no reason. There are reasons, and they go to motivations and, especially, moral/philosophical principles. There is no dichotomy between theory and practice. Socialism doesn’t work (to put it mildly) because it is bad in theory. Capitalism works because it is good in theory.

Friedman has contributed mightily to the economic understanding of free markets. But economics alone won’t win the battle of Capitalism over Socialism. Ayn Rand convinced me a long time ago that morality trumps economics. As long as Capitalism’s moral essence is minimized, Socialism will keep coming back even though it is a blood-sucking vampire.

 

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

 

QUORA: ‘Do you believe in free market capitalism?’

 

Yes, Bernie Sanders, Castro's literacy program was 'a bad thing.' by Yuri Pérez

 

QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’

 

China’s Recovery from Socialism vs. Bernie Sanders, The Most Evil Politician in America

 

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

 

“Who Would Choose Socialism? The Israeli Kibbutzim Provide the Acid Test for Voluntary Socialism”, by Robert Nozick. Reason, May 1978.

 

A New Textbook of Americanism—edited by Jonathan Hoenig

 

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

 

QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘

 

QUORA: Why do capitalist governments bail out large corporations? Isn’t this a practice of a socialist government?

Happy 2021

 Happy New Year. For me, 2021 will be another year of fighting for liberty and Americanism.