The Moral Case for Capitalism

Dr. Wanjiru Njoya's recent article, published by the Mises Institute, offers a concise yet powerful defense of capitalism while decisively condemning socialism. If you believe that capitalism's success is inevitable and socialism's failure is a given, it's worth taking a closer look. You can read the full article at this link:

Presenting the Moral Case for Capitalism-capitalism

Here are some of my favorite excerpts from the article:

There is a widespread perception that capitalism is a system designed to encourage greed, envy, selfishness, and other moral failings to flourish...No economic system, no matter how efficient and productive, can flourish if it is widely regarded as the root of all evil.

The assumption of many capitalists is that the demonstrable benefits of capitalism ought to speak for themselves – people will enjoy the material comforts that only capitalism can produce, and that will suffice to make the case for capitalism. Add to that the fact that socialism is invariably accompanied by tyranny, deprivation, and ultimately death, and it is reasonable to suppose that there is no need for debates about morality – the facts will speak for themselves.

While the facts to a large extent speak for themselves, socialists who cling to their ideological interpretations with a cult-like devotion have now achieved dominance in most schools and institutions of higher learning. They offer an interpretation of history that seems superficially attractive – the rich are rich because the poor are poor, wealth comes from theft and exploitation, those who oppose wealth redistribution are motivated by hate, socialism only fails because the wrong people are put in charge, and the like.

These arguments are central to the “decolonize the curriculum” movement that has swept universities in the last few years. Underpinning this ideology is a commitment to egalitarianism, and the belief that inequality of income, wealth, or circumstance is wrong. The notion that inequality is presumptively evil, and that capitalism is therefore immoral because it produces inequality, persists.

We therefore defend the morality of capitalism by highlighting the importance of capitalism for liberty, and in turn emphasizing the importance of liberty for justice and peace. We argue that whether people have the same amount of wealth or different amounts of wealth is neither moral nor immoral. The moral debate concerns neither equality nor inequality, but people’s natural right to live in peace and liberty. Liberty is the foundation of morality and justice.

We defend capitalism not because we think systems of free exchange are inherently moral, but because we understand free exchange as an attribute of self-ownership and property rights. In a wider context different foundations for morality and justice may be held by different people, based on moral philosophy or religion, for example, but such foundations would not be objective or universal. Self-ownership and property rights are the only moral foundation of justice in an objective and universal sense.

A moral defense of capitalism is therefore premised on our inherent and inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.

Dr. Njoya's remarks bring to mind one of Milton Friedman's well-known quotes:

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice

A recent article from The Objective Standard, Vol. 7, No. 1 by Craig Biddle is a very well written and detailed examination of the basic political issue of our time.  I have copied the introduction and conclusion to this article below but there is so much depth to this article that I can not provide an adequate summary.  Please take the time and effort required to read the entire article at the following link:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

Introduction

The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?

Conclusion

Such is the state of politics in America today, and this is the choice we face: Americans can either continue to ignore the fact that collectivism is utterly corrupt from the ground up, and thus continue down the road to statism and tyranny—or we can look at reality, use our minds, acknowledge the absurdities of collectivism and the atrocities that follow from it, and shout the truth from the rooftops and across the Internet.

What would happen if we did the latter? As Ayn Rand said, “You would be surprised how quickly the ideologists of collectivism retreat when they encounter a confident, intellectual adversary. Their case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair. Take the side they dare not approach; appeal to human intelligence.”

Top Three Common Myths of Capitalism

The following 3 minute and 38 second video from LearnLiberty.org debunks three myths about capitalism:

• Is being pro-business and pro-capitalism the same?
• Does capitalism generate an unfair distribution of income?
• Was capitalism responsible for the most recent financial crisis?

Dr. Jeffrey Miron at Harvard answers these questions by exposing three common myths of capitalism.

http://youtu.be/KGPa5Ob-5Ps