Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: caseinpoint
It means being a slave. A country is defined by its form of government not its economic system. Economic systems don't have borders and do not have citizens. That's what makes the idea that the ‘capitalist system’ is like a ‘loving parent’ so ludicrous. The system is parent to whom? Clearly there is no place for self-governing individuals in the minds-eye of this author. The idea that a ‘system’ treats human beings like its children is communistic claptrap. This article is agitprop for anti-Americansim, IMO.
26 posted on 08/01/2008 11:15:00 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: hedgetrimmer

I don’t see capitalism as a “loving parent” so if that is what the article implies, you’ll get no argument from me. As to whether economic systems have borders, well, yes and no. It transcends borders but only where the governments within those borders allow it to do so. If you are looking for some form of pure capitalism, or even pure socialism, you won’t find it anywhere. Governments are the antipathy and corrupter of both, even though they are also the enablers of the economic systems. My point is that one a local scale, real capitalism means people looking out for their neighbor (because that’s the only way to make money for yourself), as opposed to real socialism where the people look out for themselves and demand the government look out for everyone else.

On an international level, clearly abuses happen but I still argue that “slave labor” in these days in more a matter of perception, or comparison, than truth. As another post pointed out, 82% of America’s wealth is attributed to its non-material wealth, i.e., education, attitude, rule of law and so forth. That kind of wealth cannot be handed out like loans from the IMF. It has to be developed from within, and sometimes that takes struggles like our forebears went through, including what we might consider now slave labor. Tough times builds tough people, and tough people build tough societies that can sustain and control capitalism. The question on international capitalism abuses is not whether the capitalist is getting a good deal in labor wages but whether the workers are getting a good deal, given their options. It might make anti-globalists feel good to drive Nike out of third-world countries but should it do so if it causes Nike’s former employees to starve to death, or sell their bodies to avoid it?

Actually I am getting into a little bit of my rant about exporting a lot of what we have here in the United States. We look at what is nice here and figure it would be nice for everyone in the world. Ideally, it might be but pragmatically, it might literally kill. Too many Americans, especially the radical types, think that what America has is a simple, reproducible phenomenom. Instead it is a system and society built upon a very substantial foundation of constitutional freedoms, education, culture, language, history, work ethic and rule of law, not to mention our common Judeo-Christian philosophy. You cannot take this mansion of America and set it up without the same sturdy foundation unless you are willing to watch it collapse at the first instance of adversity. All you can do is show the world how to set up the foundation and let them build their own mansions.


27 posted on 08/01/2008 11:44:36 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: hedgetrimmer
You have it backwards: an author who argues that "[p]overty is the default human condition" is not simultaneously arguing that capitalism is a sugar-daddy.

I think you took his analogy in the beginning one or two steps too far.

28 posted on 08/01/2008 12:22:48 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson