Posted on 02/02/2007 5:37:44 PM PST by shrinkermd
A writer calling himself "Adam Smith"--you'll see the irony in a moment--nuked me recently on my Forbes.com daily blog. He wrote: "You are too much of a materialistic person to understand the purpose of life. [You big mouths at magazines] find followers who want nothing but money, which they think buys happiness. It's not too late for you to drop your crap and look for the meaning of life--it is certainly not in making money. I wish you luck."
Sorry, Mr. Smith. I do not consider moneygrubbing the purpose of life. Never have. The use of God's gifts comes closer for me.
Still, moneygrubbing--a.k.a. the search for profit--has its purpose. Money (profit) is a tool. It is capital. Without capital there is no capitalism. Innovation starves. Prosperity weakens. Societies stagnate. God-given gifts wither. This is especially true for humanity's wonderfully zany outliers: artists, inventors, entrepreneurs. They need capitalism more than anyone.
Money is good, therefore, because capitalism is good. It delivers the goods, literally, and better--broadly and individually--than does any other system. Hugo Chávez would argue that point, but he's nuts.
Can we go even further and say that capitalism is good because it is moral? Following that logic, can we say: The purer the form of capitalism, the more moral it is? Is capitalism perfectly moral--enough to sustain itself over many generations?
Yes, say Ayn Rand's followers. But most of us would not go that far. We think a capitalism that lacks outside moral influences and pressures, restraints and safety nets would, sooner or later, fail.
Bill Ziff, a successful magazine capitalist who died last year, spoke for most of us: "[Capitalism] is not in itself sufficient to create values. It depends on what human and religious values we, ourselves, bring to our affairs. Insofar as those values fail, we would all descend toward a lawless, inhumane, cutthroat society that will no longer harbor our civilization."
Good Works or Redistribution?
Conservatives and liberals agree on little these days. But most agree on this: Capitalism works, but it is insufficiently moral. Conservatives--allow me to paint them with a broad brush--believe capitalism works best when it is spun with golden moral threads, when it weaves in those old values learned in church, charities, service clubs and the like.
Liberals are more skeptical. They know capitalism will produce losers as well as winners. They feel the winners must be forced into helping the losers. Forced help hurts everyone, say conservatives. Redistribution discourages winners from producing and losers from trying. It leaves everyone bitter.
Such is the national debate we find ourselves engaged in as the Democrats take power in the Senate and House. The minimum wage is a form of redistribution. It forces employers to pay workers more than their productivity merits, puny as those paychecks may be. Higher payroll taxes are also redistribution. Who believes higher payroll taxes will show up as higher monthly payments for the employee's retirement?
Restrictions on free trade are yet another form of redistribution, although you may not think of them as such. Tariffs imposed by the U.S. are usually countered by tariffs from other countries. That's what trade wars are all about--retaliation. Trade wars force American companies that are winners in the global economy--the IBMs, FedExes and Citigroups--to give up some of their winnings so that struggling domestic tool and textile manufacturers can stay in business. Trade protectionism asks California to subsidize Ohio and South Carolina.
Generally, Democrats favor forced redistribution more than Republicans do. Republicans--again, in general--would prefer to fix capitalism's shortcomings through good works and giving. This forces Republicans to higher standards of conduct, by the way. Bad people, in power, can redistribute as easily as good people. Only good people can inspire us to good works and giving.
Have Republicans succeeded in holding themselves to this higher standard? Hah! The top two Republicans in the House, John Boehner (Ohio) and Roy Blunt (Missouri), can't summon enough moral courage to say no to "earmarks"--a sneaky form of redistribution. Demo-crats are proud of redistribution. They have no need to be sneaky about it. Democrats will always play the redistribution game better.
Paging Adam Smith
What did Adam Smith--not my blogger critic but the real one--say about capitalism and morality?
The great Scotsman seemed to say two contradictory things. In The Wealth of Nations (1776) he wrote these famous words about self-interest: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." This sounds like selfishness: Greed is good.
But Smith never believed that. In his earlier book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Smith defined self-interest not as selfishness or greed but as a psychological need to win favor within one's society. Smith revised The Theory of Moral Sentiments after he wrote The Wealth of Nations. He did not change his belief that moral sentiments and self-interest are the same thing.
Let's not forget our Adam Smith. When we do, capitalism loses its moral authority, and the redistributionists win.
For you and me that is a rhetorical question. With an automatic answer of "NOT AT ALL".
Liberalism is a ploy, a trap, a rhetorical quicksand. It leads straight to poverty and enslavement.
Or, as in the case of many, use it to crush others.
I am humbled. You have reminded me of the Power of Reagan.
Well done.
Having travelled through Scotland a bit and being of Scottish ancestry, I noted that the Scots are a very tribal bunch.
I would argue for a capitalism with a bit of regard to 'helpin mah wee mates in the clan'.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, [emphasis mine] including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." [Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, "Theory And History, 1. What Is Capitalism?"]
"'Rights' are a moral concept [emphasis mine]—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
"....
"The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
"The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.
"....
"The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life." [Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, "Appendix: Man's Rights"]
I become very impatient by those who presume to defend Capitalism as thought it needed some other "moral" basis; this kind of defense is worse than a direct attack. The American Capitalist system is the most moral system in history and all its faults are in those aspects which have compromises the principles of individual liberty and property rights on which it is based.
Hank
Although that's not what I had in mind I agree that in that case, crushing the Soviet Union, it was good. I was thinking more along the lines of the use of super-capitalism to crush small businesses and hostile take overs.
Capitalism can be ruthless. Capitalists, who use capitalism ruthlessly, are just as destructive as socialists and communists.
The key is that the caller illustrated one of the greatest differences between conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives believe that one should live by higher standards, and they trust people to do the right thing. Liberals believe that people are just talking apes, and are unable to rise above their base, animal instincts. And therin lies the key difference. Conservatives believe that people can be trusted to do the "right thing," as long as they subscribe to a general morality. Liberals believe that people will never do the right thing on their own (with the exception of THEMSELVES) which is why they have no problem with telling people how they should live, and more importantly, why they need to live a certain way, and they depend on the government to ensure that people are forced to do just that.
Mark
"To eat, and be eaten. It is the nature of the beast."
This article is moronic. It is not well thought out, other than the concept that everyone should have everything and no one profits. Why produce anything then? Simplistic socialism, communism,liberalism.. whatever. Name one place this works other than in the liberal's dreams? this writer would be dumpster diving if Forbes wasn't a profit making operation. How this halfwitted socialist gets paid is beyond me.
Well, at least you admit that capitalism is a beast. ;^)
I admit nothing. I deny that you exist. 8)
Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
So long as someone is willing to pay, there will always someone willing to collect...
A sucker is born every minute.
You are absolutely right, and not as eloquently as yours, is the point of my own post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1778391/posts?page=25#25
It is a shame most Americans do not know that their own Capitalist system is the only moral system in the history of the world and are too ignorant to defend it as such.
Hank
You are absolutely right, and not as eloquently as yours, is the point of my own post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1778391/posts?page=25#25
It is a shame most Americans do not know that their own Capitalist system is the only moral system in the history of the world and are too ignorant to defend it as such.
Hank
And, let's see now, what's the simplest, most robust mechanism you can build into an intelligent organism to measure "favor with one's society"?
It's difficult to accurately read others' perceptions of you, and even harder to predict how those perceptions will be affected based upon your actions. Self-regard is easier to measure and monitor, and actions that improve self-regard will generally also improve societal regard and standing within the community. So the simplest mechanism to advance favor with one's society" is to have a "conscience".
BTW, one very important way that capitalism advances morality which the author doesn't happen to mention is in teaching humans to vastly expand the scope of cooperative behavior and trust. Of course there are simple profit motives encouraging cooperative behavior, but psychological experiments indicate that such behavior becomes more deeply ingrained, and is more readily extended beyond the family or tribe to include strangers, in individuals from capitalistic societies versus individuals from traditional societies.
This has been demonstrated with simple games where players can get the highest overall rewards only by cooperating with other players, but at the same time opening themselves up to betrayal and exploitation by other players. In such games capitalists consistently cooperate more than non-capitalists.
BTW, this is about the only argument regarding capitalism and morality that I've ever found to make any headway in arguments with lefties.
Of course I've always thought the argument regarding increasing wealth and opportunity was by far the most compelling, but no matter how forceful lefties just can't seem to grasp (or refuse to accept) that one. I don't know if it's ingrained "zero sum" thinking or what. Mystery to me.
Anti-liberty systems do not permit individuals to exercise personal morality through their conduct - excessive laws, regulations, and compulsory redistributive practices act to usurp individual morality. That I pay taxes that go toward feeding the hungry does not make the paying of those taxes a moral act. It is merely a compulsory act I must perform to remain lawful. Similarly, forcing someone, at gunpoint, to pronounce the "Our Father" does not make his (nor my) action a moral one.
In the Abrahamic religions, one is taught that God bestowed upon mankind free will, and that with this free will one can either go with God or go against God. By replacing these moral choices with institutional regulations, many questions of morality become questions of legality. This is true even when such institutions claim to weave moral doctrine into their institutions - conduct at the threat of the gun, the prison, or the fine loses all moral definition.
The absence of government regulation, unfortunately, does not equate to the absence of agents that limit moral choice and liberty. Individuals and groups of any size are also capable of warping (by sword or other threat) liberty and moral choice. It is a system of limited government acting as an agent to protect our negative liberties that constitutes the system under which our liberties and potential for moral choice are maximized. A government operating under such commission is a government that, as a critical component, endorses capitalism. (This is not meant to be an endorsement of all US trade policy, much of which is not capitalistic - and no, I do not mean this in the sense of the True Scotsman)
Less related to the topic of morality, capitalism is a system that yields optimal results in the presence of our "flaws" (innate elements of the human condition that will always be with us despite any attempts at social engineering - greed, selfishness, sloth, envy, pride, deception) as well as our merits. To endorse it is to bow humbly to reality and at least put our flaws to work to generate some benefit.
And then there is the ridiculous proposition that a bunch of lawyers are beter qualified to run the nation's energy biz than the pros at EXXon.
Some things, like truth, exist apart from popular opinion.
At one time everyone knew the earth was flat.
Gravity exists whether or not you believe in it.
So do Mack Trucks.
Step in front of one and disbeleive all you want, it will still flatten you.
Capitalism works whether or not you beleive in it.
There is a strong case to be made for the intrinsic morality of capitalism. Anyone who wants to go into this arena in some depth would be well repaid to go to Acton Institute and acces the Journal of Markets and Morality at the link below.
http://www.acton.org/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.