Replies

Well put, and I couldn't agree more.

Also, capitalism allows us to differentiate ourselves based on our efforts. Hillary and the rest of the socialism types running for the presidency want to become President as a way of differentiating themselves and proving their personal greatness to the world. Hillary wants to go down in history as the first woman President, and the one who socialized medicine, and the one who took it upon herself to 'redistribute wealth' for the common good, and the one who put the world on the proper course for the 21st. century.. She's grandiose, and a narcissist, but ironically supports policies that will diminish the ability of the rest of us to distinguish ourselves by our efforts. I wonder if she's oblivious to her profound hypocrisy?

From Ludwig Von Mises-almost 60 years ago:

"...If history could prove and teach us anything, it would be that private ownership of the means of production is a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being. All civilizations have up to now been based on private property.

Only nations committed to the principle of private property have risen above penury and produced science, art, and literature. There is no experience to show that any other social system could provide mankind with any of the achievements of civilization. Nevertheless, only few people consider this as a sufficient and incontestable refutation of the socialist program.

On the contrary, there are even people who argue the other way round. It is frequently asserted that the system of private property is done for precisely because it was the system that men applied in the past. However beneficial a social system may have been in the past, they say, it cannot be so in the future too; a new age requires a new mode of social organization. Mankind has reached maturity; it would be pernicious for it to cling to the principles to which it resorted in the earlier stages of its evolution. This is certainly the most radical abandonment of experimentalism. The experimental method may assert: because a produced in the past the result b, it will produce it in the future also. It must never assert: because a produced in the past the result b, it is proved that it cannot produce it any longer.

In spite of the fact that mankind has had no experience with the socialist mode of production, the socialist writers have constructed various schemes of socialist systems based on aprioristic reasoning. But as soon as anybody dares to analyze these projects and to scrutinize them with regard to their feasibility and their ability to further human welfare, the socialists vehemently object. These analyses, they say, are merely idle aprioristic speculations. They cannot disprove the correctness of our statements and the expediency of our plans. They are not experimental. One must try socialism and then the results will speak for themselves.

What these socialists ask for is absurd. Carried to its ultimate logical consequences, their idea implies that men are not free to refute by reasoning any scheme — however nonsensical, self-contradictory, and impracticable — that any reformer is pleased to suggest. According to their view, the only method permissible for the refutation of such a — necessarily abstract and aprioristic — plan is to test it by reorganizing the whole of society according to its designs. As soon as a man sketches the plan for a better social order, all nations are bound to try it and to see what will happen.