Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System?

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html

The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two-hundred years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting.

It is fashionable among college professors, journalists, and politicians these days to sneer at the free-enterprise system. They tell us that capitalism is base, callous, exploitative, dehumanizing, alienating, and ultimately enslaving.

The intellectuals’ mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works.

Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.

The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own. Socialism’s teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good." Fascism, said Mussolini, is "a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests…realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies."

Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.

Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.

This is one of the clearest, simplest, and most thorough essays on the difference between Capitalism and Socialism I have ever read. It also is an excellent defense of the morality of Capitalism - a defense that few intellectuals have ever proposed (other than Ayn Rand).

Celebrating Income Inequality

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5005

Democrat and Republican candidates for President are debating one another on nearly every issue--but nearly all are united on one thing: America faces a crisis of "income inequality." The rich are getting richer, the refrain goes, while the poor and middle class are held back by stagnating wages, lousy schools, and growing healthcare costs. The solution, we are told, is more government intervention: spend more on education, provide "universal healthcare," and force employers to raise wages through minimum-wage increases and union protection legislation.

But all of this outcry is based on a false premise--that income inequality is bad. While some of the problems critics point to are legitimate concerns, income inequality is not. Income inequality is a natural and desirable part of a free, prosperous society.

In America, equality should mean only one thing: freedom for all. If business and wages were deregulated, we would see a dramatic rise in economic opportunity. If education and medicine were left free, with America's businessmen, doctors, and educators liberated to offer education and medicine at all different price points, we would see quality and price improvements like those for computers or flat-panel television sets. But these benefits of freedom require that we recognize the moral right of each individual to enjoy whatever he produces--and recognize that none of us has a right to something for nothing.

Great essay from Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute. I love topics like this that catch people in the contradiction of their thoughts. Most people instinctively condemn "inequality", but in this case, when they apply their minds to why that inequality exists and what is being proposed to "fix it", they find some difficult pills to swallow. This is yet another example of the two paradigms: one that is risk averse, wanting protection from one's own weakness, and the other that embraces risk and the responsibility that comes with it (and its ensuing rewards).

Too many people see only the rewards gained by some, and covet them. Not understanding why they have those rewards (e.g. proof of their profitable actions), they take on the mentality of the victim, saying that they were unfairly gained, either by unfair competitive circumstances or at the expense (exploitation) of the poor victim.

Bill Gates Needs an Econ Course

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/bill_gates_needs_an_econ_cours.html

At Harvard, Gates said, "We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism -- if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities."

He misses the point. Gates faults the free market for problems caused by governments. What constricts the reach of the free market is the state. Gates seems oblivious to all the ways that governments here and abroad cripple enterprise. In poor countries, corrupt bureaucracies smother entrepreneurship while enriching cronies. The lack of formal property rights and stable law keeps average people from accumulating capital. So the poor stay poor. That's what causes "scarcity of clean water" and kills "children who die from diseases we can cure."

John Stossel takes Gates to task for confusing the root causes of poverty. Once again, the only-somewhat-informed public debate looks at free markets, looks at suffering, and then determines that the free market has failed, and therefore the State should intervene (or more accurately, since it has been intervening already, it should improve its intervention).

Gates' statement at the end of this article, "We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes" is especially telling. The idea that somehow problems would be solved if we just did the wrong thing in a better way is futile. Ignoring the underlying truth that individuals know best how to spend their money does the poor a disservice. The arrogant assumption that the poor - or anyone - would be better off if a benevolent dictator would take their resources and then wisely dispose of them for the greatest benefit of their former owner is a gross deception. I'm baffled that such an idea is so widely accepted...

The Romantic Illusion of Universal Health Care

I found all these short essays on CapMag on the same day - so it seemed appropriate to bundle them together and share them here to counter the ignorance I hear every day about Universal Health Care. It's gotten to where the phrase is used as a litmus test - you're either for it or against it (like the abortion issue). Even more perversely, the public consensus has judged that UHC is inherently good (who could possibly be against caring for people?), it is inevitable (everyone else is doing it!), and it is only being held up by selfish, heartless, greedy people (if you're not in favor of the Patriot Act, you must be a traitor!).

Universal Health Care Freedom on the Fourth of July
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4983

The talk about a "right" to health care really means that no one should have the right to any health care at all except through the government. As we celebrate the Fourth of July this year we must remember that our right to manage our own health care as we see fit is as vital to our liberty as freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Why Health Insurance Should Not Be Universal
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4984

Power-hungry politicians feed off the irrationality of the citizenry. If the citizenry were more rational, there would be no place in the political system for politicians who value power over freedom and justice. Today's problems with medical care are the fault of the people who want the results of capitalism while instructing their leaders to install more socialism.

All Power to the Post Office
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4981

During a recent interview, a talk radio host told me that all private health insurance should be eliminated in order to give us all a reason to work together to make sure the government runs a good health care system.
A better analogy would be that conditions in our prisons might be expected to improve if we were all required to live in them. Socialists and some Liberals would find this level of government-enforced uniformity to be a noble sacrifice to which all citizens must submit. Many Conservatives would reluctantly agree—but suggest a voucher system that would allow us each to select the prison cell of our choice.

Health Care's A Mess--So What's the Solution?
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4980

It's better to consider the possibility that the market didn't fail us in medical care...but it was never allowed to function. If you don't want more of the same, which universal government coverage and control will provide, then consider something radically different: freedom in health care.

Freedom and Benevolence Go Together

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/freedom_and_benevolence_go_tog.html

I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge...

Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

This is textbook socialist thinking - first, that government control is the best solution to the society's ills, when lead by the "right people"; second, that because it is right to do something, people should therefore be forced to do so. While people will argue about the results (charity doesn't cover everyone / civilized society should be like this / etc.), they ignore the moral contradiction of being compelled to do what's right. The first attack on those who stand on principle and advocate individual freedom and responsibility is that such people are cold-hearted and unsympathetic of other's suffering. They champion the "charity" of their forced programs and claim the lover of liberty has no love for his fellow man. Unfortunately, many people believe this rhetoric and end up believing that to advocate freedom is to be against charity. Nothing could be farther from the truth...

Health Care Is a Business - or Should Be

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4948

Ultimately all health care is paid for by business activity. Business provides the wages, the return on investment, the insurance, the taxes that pay directly for health care, and the insurance and taxes that fund government programs. When the government manages to provide services at all, it can give you nothing that it does not take from you or others, or from your employer and other employers. The total added value the government creates for your benefit is nothing.

The government now uses your money to pay for 50 percent of health care. That is up from less than 10 percent, forty years ago. The increase in health care costs that has accompanied this process is largely caused by government—the actual origin of the "health care crisis," discovered and proclaimed by Richard Nixon and Edward Kennedy in 1971. Their proposed solution was more government. They got it.

The "crisis" was created by government, not just through its own reckless spending, but through the consequent destruction of much of the free market.

Socialism, Free Enterprise, and the Common Good

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2007/05/

In chapter 21 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus proposes a moral dilemma in the form of a parable: A man asks his two sons to go to work for him in his vineyard. The first son declines, but later ends up going. The second son tells his father he will go, but never does. “Who,” Jesus asks, “did the will of his father?” Although I am loath to argue that Jesus’s point in this parable was an economic one, we may nonetheless derive from it a moral lesson with which to evaluate economic systems in terms of achieving the common good.

Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good and social betterment, the other with profits and production. But let us keep the parable in mind as we take a brief tour of economic history.

This essay is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 27, 2006, at the first annual Free Market Forum, sponsored by the College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.

It makes a thorough argument about what I have often observed in the struggle between capitalism and socialism - that of the difference between the public perception of a philosophy and the actual consequences of the same.

Security and Liberty

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html

... The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

... Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

After the Virginia shootings, the age-old debate is once again on the front page: "if we would just ban the guns, these things wouldn't happen" vs. "if the people had been allowed to be armed, they could have defended themselves". Every tragedy brings the same argument of state control vs. self-control (both for the criminal and the victim). Ron Paul makes a great statement here about the true definition of Freedom, and the unseen risks that come with ceding our responsibility to the state.

Nonsense Ideas About Economics

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4927

Some U.S. companies have been accused of exploiting Third World workers with poor working conditions and low wages. Say that a U.S. company pays a Cambodian factory worker $3 a day. Do you think that worker had a higher-paying alternative but stupidly chose a lower-paying job instead? I'm betting the $3-a-day job was superior to his next best alternative.

Does offering a worker a wage higher than what he could earn elsewhere make him worse off or better off? If you answered better off, is the term exploitation an appropriate characterization for an act that makes another better off? If pressure at home forces a U.S. company to cease its Cambodian operations, would that worker be worse off or better off?

It might be a convenient expression to say that the U.S. trades with Japan, but is it literally true? Is it the U.S. Congress and President George Bush who trade with the National Diet of Japan, the Japanese legislature and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe? Or, is it U.S. and Japanese private parties, as individuals and corporations, who trade with one another?

Let's break it down further. Which comes closer to the truth: When I purchased my Lexus, did I deal with the U.S. Congress, the Japanese Diet, George Bush and Shinzo Abe, or did I deal with Toyota and its intermediaries? If we erroneously think of international trade as occurring between the U.S. and Japanese governments, then all Americans, as voters, have a say-so. But what is the basis of anyone having a say-so when one American engages in peaceable, voluntary exchange with another person, be they Japanese, Korean, British, Chinese or another American?

Walter Williams gives some good examples of common misunderstandings about economics. The term exploitation is thrown about today without any thought to its accuracy. There can be no exploitation without force, and last time I checked, the only party using force in any of my commercial transactions was the government. Any interference in the free exchange between individuals results in misery and poverty - ironically, the very conditions the socialists claim to be preventing by interfering.

It is this presumption of need to protect people from their own choices that is central to socialist thought. It's the very reason our society is plagued with victimhood, helplessness, and a lack of dignity. How would someone learn to be responsible for their own actions in an environment where the elite (even those democratically elected) are given a mandate to protect us from ourselves? Is it any wonder there's so much legislation governing how men should do business with each other, far beyond the basic premise - that no man should use force against another (either physical or the force of deception).

Why U.S. tax policy makes saving a sucker's game

http://www.slate.com/id/2164050/

If I said to you, "You can have $10,000 to spend now—or $9,500 to spend in 10 years," which would you choose? Probably the $10,000 now. And in doing so, you would be making the same choice many Americans make when deciding whether to save or spend their hard-earned cash.

The problem is how we tax investment gains. Over the past 80 years, the average annual return on Treasury bills (a proxy for savings accounts) has been 3.7 percent per year. Inflation, meanwhile, has averaged 3.1 percent per year. This combination has produced a "real return" of a paltry 0.6 percent per year. If you got to keep that 0.6 percent, you might still have an incentive to save: A $616 real gain on $10,000 in 10 years wouldn't be much, but it would at least be $616 more than you have now. Unless you're so poor that you're exempt from taxes, however, or so flush that you can afford to lock up cash for decades in a tax-deferred annuity or retirement account, you won't be keeping that 0.6 percent. You'll be giving all of it—and probably more—to the government.

I thought this article did a good job of demonstrating just one of the consequences of our current tax system. Having just tried to explain to my wife our tax return this year, I'm extremely frustrated - not at the amount I have to pay, but at the lunacy of the system that has been perverted repeatedly by politicians and the brain-off constituency that clamors for more tax revenue and more exceptions at the same time.

Of course, such negative consequences are not the reason we must overhaul our tax system - they are the symptoms, not the disease. Our tax laws violate natural laws, and the result is tyranny.
(see principles 12+13)

"A true capitalist is a steward over all the resources put in his power.
A consumer denies stewardship and thinks ownership is a license to destroy"

-- Rick Koerber

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

-- Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
State Tamperings with Money Banks

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American."

-- Dean Alfange