Why capitalism is the truly moral system
For today’s topic, I want to talk about why pure, laissez faire capitalism is the moral system. This is common knowledge in some circles, but doesn’t get any where near enough attention in mainstream discussions. I attribute much of this to a misunderstanding (or in some cases, ignorance) of some important philosophical fundamentals.
We frequently hear about how capitalism works well in terms of economic efficiency, and providing innovation which improves our standard of living.
However, many advocates of socialism, democratic socialism, or even a mixed economy (that leans towards capitalism), claim that their systems hold the moral high ground.
I’m going to make the case as to why this is all wrong. I will start off with the necessity of private property, and rights to protect it.
“Why private property rights?”
The importance of private property is often severely downplayed. It’s either assumed to be a “tool of the rich”, or just taken for granted by many, who, whether they realize it or not, adhere to it in their daily lives. (Think of children not wanting to share their toys, and you wouldn’t let anyone into your home!)
But the reality is, that a successful civilization is dependent on private property rights, and economies collapse when the property is either held in common, or the government fails to uphold property rights. (For a real world example, let’s compare the former Soviet countries of Georgia and Moldova. Georgia’s government enforces property rights and the rule of law, Moldova does a very poor job in this area. The former has a quickly growing economy, the latter is a Third World country in Eastern Europe!)
It begins with self ownership. A person has the right to decide what to do with their own body, which includes what they want to put in it, on it, and take off of it. We may personally reject the decisions a specific person makes in this area, but what is the moral case as to why someone (or a group of people) should be able to decide this for others?
Secondly, the reality of scarcity. We don’t live in a world of unlimited resources where people can have whatever they want, whenever they want. This includes natural resources, land, water, time, etc. Demands for all of these are near infinite, meaning not everyone is going to be able to get all of what they want. (For example, most of us living here in New York City would all love to live in bigger places. But there are many here, many who want to come here, and there is only so much space available. Clearly, not everyone is able to have as much as they’d like.)
“What about resources and land that haven’t been claimed?”
For this case, something know as “homesteading” is advocated. That is, the first person (or group of people) to arrive has a right to it.
This stems from the self ownership talked about above. As the philosopher John Locke said centuries ago, this is accomplished by the person “mixing” their labor with it. This could mean farming the land, mining minerals, building a building on the land, or hiring someone (or a group of people) to do this.
I think we can agree that this is the moral solution. The only other alternative to this would either be a fight for it, or to have a government dole it out based on political considerations (and that gets into how those political considerations are reached).
The moral question in either of the above scenarios would then become: “Why do some people have the right to the land (or resources) over others?”
“So once the resources and land are claimed, what is the best way to decide who gets what and how much?”
As the philosopher Franz Oppenheimer once said, there are two main ways a person can acquire what is necessary for their sustenance; trade and force. I will add a third:
- Trade
- Force
- Charity, or gifting
The first is a consensual, agreed upon interaction which both parties submit to for mutual benefit. When a person buys something, it’s because they want said item more than they want the money they pay for it (or in the case of barter, the item they’re giving up). Vice versa for the seller. If there is a solid moral objection to this, I’m willing to hear it.
For the second method to be moral, the case has to be made as to why some have a right to use force on others to acquire what they want, and others do not.
The third can work in certain cases, and in special circumstances. But the whole world clearly can’t function in such a manner, as producers are needed for charity and voluntary contributions to even be able to exist.
Attempting to reconcile selfish capitalism with altruistic Christianity
Despite the fact that Christianity is on the decline, its morality has lasted into the present day.
Many don’t understand the connection between Christianity and socialism.
“How could this be?” you may ask. Aren’t socialists atheists, or at least supposed to be?
It’s important to look at the morality stressed in both systems:
- Self interest is bad, you should do things for the good of others.
- Self sacrifice is a noble goal.
- If you self sacrifice for others, you will be rewarded. In one case, it’s here on Earth, in the other, it’s in the afterlife.
- Both attack reason, and defer to authority.
- Both require leaps of faith.
- Both have an “end times” prophecy in which the evil will be punished, and the good will be rewarded.
- After the end times in each scenario, mankind will leave in peaceful bliss for eternity.
This is a somewhat long conversation in of itself, but the argument can be made that socialism was borne out of many of these ideas adapting to the advances in science that occurred during the Enlightenment. This is in contrast to the earlier “Utopian socialists”, who were in fact Christians. Immanuel Kant, GW Hegel, and Karl Marx were all Christians (at least for a time), and you can see many of the themes in their philosophies, despite the fact that the third man claimed to be an atheist.
Marx and company just believed that heaven wasn’t coming, so instead the goal was to create Heaven on Earth. Just replace “sacrificing for God” with “sacrificing for the people, the race, the nation, the working class, etc.”
I hope that I have made it apparent that the weak-point in the debate between advocates of capitalism and its opponents is when religious people are asked how they can reconcile their religion with capitalism.
They’re usually met with these objections:
“If we should put others above ourselves, how is the profit motive moral?”
“Why should we work for our own gain, when there are so many worse off than us that need our help?”
“Doesn’t the Bible contain many quotes criticizing the rich and attacking wealth itself ?”
“How can there be so many poor people, when we live in a world with so much?”
Etc.
Many of the advocates of capitalism then become philosophically defenseless against these objections, because they’re still arguing from the standpoint of Christian morality.
The answer to this is not a rehashing of Christian morality, but an Aristotelian philosophy of rational egoism. That is, man is the end in of himself, and his well-being and happiness on Earth is the most noble goal . Man has the right to do what makes him happy, as long as he doesn’t violate the right to life or property of others.
For the atheist advocates of socialism who object to what I’m saying, I would posit these questions:
“Why does someone have a higher claim on what someone works for and earns, than the person themselves?”
“Why can’t a man live for his own benefit, and is expected to sacrifice for the people, the nation, the race, the working class, etc.?”
“If a religious person cites their text as the reason for self sacrifice and putting others above their own self interest, it’s consistent. Where are you getting this notion that a person is ‘supposed’ to do this from, if not a holy book?”
“What defines ‘fairness’? I like what Scott Adams said on this; ‘the word fairness was invented so children and fools would have something to argue about for eternity.‘”
“Why is equality an admirable goal, and is it even an attainable one? The same man isn’t even equal to himself all days.”
“Why do you assume automatically that the people who would redistribute wealth and usher in this supposed fairness won’t be self interested, and use their power to enrich their own well-being?”
“Why is greed a bad thing? We all want more and better for ourselves, no exceptions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.”
Okay, that about wraps it up. Thank you all for reading!
-STK
