Since politics concerns the nature of government, and the essence of government is force, the full politico-economic application of property rights is a system in which government protects an individual's property rights from violation by others, but does not itself violate them. Capitalism is the politico-economic system of private property rights. It connotes a system whereby property rights (and hence, the other rights) are respected objectively and completely.
Capitalism is perfect...
Assaults on capitalism are rooted in a crybaby metaphysics, and they rely on obfuscations, equivocations, and an attitude of militant evasion. One trick is to make inappropriate demands of capitalism, then stomp and pout and denounce capitalism when those demands are not met.
One of the irrational demands made on capitalism is to provide infinite abundance, usually in some particular object of the demander's whim. The world has finite resources, and man has limited time and is not omniscient. There cannot be an infinite abundance of anything. This is not a flaw in any proposed politico-economic system (especially capitalism, which provides the greatest abundance of all of them), and in fact has nothing to do with systems qua system at all. It is a feature of reality.
A corollary demand is the erasure of all poverty, suffering, and, by logical extension, inequality among man. Appealing to an irrational sense of guilt, this trick ascribes to political systems an implicit, incompatible mission: Make it so that absolutely everyone is healthy, educated, happy, and has all the resources he wants (or some do-gooder wants for him). It then pronounces capitalism as flawed when such conditions do not materialize. Some degree of economic malady exists and will continue to exist under any system, including capitalism. It is not the responsibility of capitalism to eliminate, and it is not a feature of capitalism, but of a special facet of reality: Man's free will
Read the rest here.
1 comment:
OK, Milling: "crybaby metaphysics, and they rely on obfuscations, equivocations, and an attitude of militant evasion." Let's consider the militant suporters of 'capitalism.' How about you defend those who subscribe to the individual rights, responsiblity and accountability but who own stocks in corporations and fail to advocate the aboition of the corporate form of business. Please pay close attention to and address the fact that corporations were created for the purpose of shielding investors from individual responsiblity and accountability. Once you have finished with this, please offer a detailed plan for implementing a fully voluntary support of government and explicitly address the problem of those who don't donate but choose to benefit free of charge.
I won't hold my breath. I don't think you or anyone in your 'philosophical' group has an answer. Philosophical gets the ' ' because it is to Ayn Rand's fictional works as "the force" is to star wars...marketing. If you have a rationale that can obviate my argumnents under the 'my neighbor's wealth is not mine' blog, I'm all ears.
Anonymous1
P.S. So far you guys are batting a thousand on not addressing my questions. Likewise, you are batting a thousand on repeating the things you have been told. It's very intellectual, advanced, and rational an logical and oh so superior of you of you all. Try stooping to my level and actually responding to my questions and challenges instead of ignoring them and bloviating on? Sorry I have to call you out on your evasiveness, but I really want to hear your ideas as opposed to your whining.
PPS feel free to go back through my posts to find the questions I have asked about how you intend to implement your utopia and make it practical, and answer them.
Post a Comment