It is not only that Free Market Capitalism has raised our level of comfort and given us enormous product variety, but also that many people throughout the world have come to depend on these technological innovations for their very existence. The wealthier society sees technology as luxurious but unnecessary and superfluous. The poorer society sees technology as an oasis in a vast desert.
Tag: capitalism
Capitalism for Dummies (and Socialists)
The whole notion of capitalism is that those with capital are incentivized to invest it in order to obtain a profit. If profits are outlawed or significantly reduced through confiscatory taxation, the incentive to invest is reduced or eliminated. If profit is forbidden, I have no incentive to invest rather than consume. Why would I delay gratification and take on risk to plant a field or build a factory if I don’t stand to make a profit by doing so?
A Common Sense Foundation for Liberty
“The foundation of my libertarianism is much more modest: common sense morality. At first glance, it may seem paradoxical that such radical political conclusions could stem from anything designated as “common sense.” I do not, of course, lay claim to common sense political views. I claim that revisionary political views emerge out of common sense moral views. As I see it, libertarian political philosophy rests on three broad ideas.”
A Brief Response To The Critique That Capitalism Is A “Zero-Sum” Game
“A zero-sum game is a game where if the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum games since the sum of amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of the others.” So does capitalism fit this definition?
If Men Were Angels
Although I admit that the outcome in a stateless society will be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious in the extreme, I conjecture that the outcome in a society under a state will be worse, indeed much worse, because, first, the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state and, second, by virtue of this control over the state’s powerful engines of death and destruction, they will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state.
Is the Non-Aggression Principle Self-Negating? You Decide!
A person named Jared emailed me out of the blue about a week ago with the following letter. It contains a request for feedback followed by an argument that the Non-Aggression Principle as made popular by Murray Rothbard was self-negating on the grounds that the creation of private property is an act of aggression. What ensued were several letters back and forth in which we both flesh out the other’s argument and offer our critique. In the end we understood each other better, but alas no consensus was reach.
The Violence And Justice Monopoly
Almost all of us hold two beliefs which contradict a third near-universal belief. The first is that a state, however else defined, is a geographic monopoly of security and justice. One cannot appeal a ruling beyond the state, and whatever private providers of security and justice may exist, they do so in pronounced subservience to and supervision by the state. The second is that monopolies invariably cause high prices and low quality.
Why Anarchy?
In the few years since deciding the label “anarchist” most accurately represented my own political philosophy, I’ve learned of other, powerful, confirmatory and congruent philosophies as well, that have helped to grow my own anarchism further outside the political realm. In other words, I may have started as a political anarchist, but ultimately, my own brand of anarchy has stretched beyond solely politics.
Property Feuds
The one (and probably only) criticism which communists are correct in making is that simply claiming or sectioning areas does not create property. Rothbard also took this stance, and it is the logical stance stemming from Lockean property concepts, self-ownership, etc: Production is the basis of rightful ownership, for how can someone own something which has not been produced, or has not been “touched” by labor? I have had discussions with advocates of capitalism who do not follow through with this. They often believe simply declaring something is yours makes it true with no labor (when it comes to land), but this makes no sense. It’s the same logic as the state claiming open expanses are their “jurisdiction.” More of a continuation of feudalism than Lockean property rights.
The Role of Capitalism in Anarchy
Anarcho-capitalists have a tendency to fancy themselves as too far outside the normal sphere of anarchy when we are actually just anarchists who understand both economics and human nature. In a free society devoid of the fiction that is authority, some people would indeed acquire, improve, and trade natural resources. Ergo, capitalism. This would happen not because a system of capitalism was established but simply because no one was stopping production and trade from occurring.