Capitalism Key to Ending Poverty

FOXNews.com ^ | Wednesday, October 09, 2002 | Radley Balko

[NEWwoman]

At about the same time a hodgepodge of protesters descended on Washington, D.C. last month to protest capitalism, globalization and free trade, the United Nations and the Institute for International Studies released a triad of studies declaring that humanity is, for the most part, in the best condition it

[NEWwoman]

I saw an interview of Bo Derek. She used to be a liberal. When traveling she saw the poverty and disgusting conditions of other countries and wondered what was the difference between those countries and the U.S.A. Then it hit her. CAPITALISM. She converted to a conservative. I give Bo Derek a "10"!

[KC Burke]

Capitalism, a term popularized in the negative by Marx, is simply free markets. Property Rights and the Legal Structure to defend them, are the keys to giving free market economies the effectiveness to lift a society from poverty. Free Trade or a nebulous capitalism alone will not do it.

This has been best explained by De Soto in The Mystery of Capital and you can go here for one synopsis.

[NEWwoman]

Speaking of Marx, thought you might enjoy this Marx joke:

Two retired professors were vacationing with their wives at a hotel in the Catskills. They were sitting on the veranda one summer evening, watching the sun set.

The history professor asked the psychology professor, "Have you read Marx?"

To which the professor of psychology replied, "Yes and I think it's these pesky wicker chairs."

[Mo1]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

Click The Logo DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[NEWwoman]

BTW: Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a good point. What most modern capitalists don't like to admit is that for a system that is not currently "capitalist" to become capitalist, it is often necessary for a large-scale ethnic cleansing to occur. A major problem in many Third World countries these days is that each parcel of land has about 17 different titles. At some point an outside "authority" (with a lot of guns) has to come in and set up a foolproof method of determining which title is the legitimate one.

[KC_Conspirator]

Property Rights and the Legal Structure to defend them, are the keys to giving free market economies the effectiveness to lift a society from poverty.

Hey neighbor! You are saying the same exact thing I have been saying for years. Property rights have been directly linked to the amount of freedoms one has and to economic prosperity as a whole. Although one can go back to ancient times to document this, I say that it began in the western world with the Magna Carta. But the nose ringed rabble in the streets don't realize this when they chant "Property is theft" at one of these protests.

[FITZ]

Property rights have been directly linked to the amount of freedoms one has and to economic prosperity as a whole.

Property and income from your own labor rights. We're in danger here because our government believes it can confiscate any portion of our income in the form of taxes that it needs for Socialist programs and our property can be confiscated through very high property taxes.

[hroolaart]

The response to the study, if I understand the findings, is to point out an obvious error. The world, in its entire history, has never practiced capitalism (as free trade, unecumbered by governmental restraint). Not here in the United States, not anywhere, not anytime. What we practice, is an economic system known as a Mixed Economy...which is a mixture of freedoms and statism.

Worse still, the trend in this bastion of freedom - a.k.a. the U.S. - is to move away from freedoms, and instill even more statist regulation. In the Index of Economic Freedom, found at the Heritage Foundation, you will find that the United States, year by year, though still near the top, is moving lower and lower on the lists of countries regarded as "most free".

So, before we proudly clap ourselves on the back...perhaps we ought to feel the profound injection of adrelinine, when we realize that the war we've been waging in this country, is a War on Capitalism...not a War on Terrorism (aside from the few obvious fraudulent persons indicted). Anti-capitalists are fond of blaming their woes on capitalism. Pro-capitalists, are fond of praising capitalism.

Now, isn't it time that we talk about the real state of this economy? A Mixed Economy...and leave capitalism alone, until we have the courage to practice it?

Harry Roolaart
http://www.harryroolaart.com

[NEWwoman]

Thanks for your well thought out response. "Mixed economy." Learn something everyday.

Yes, I share your concerns. I worry that the U.S. is moving away from the freedom and in the arms of more regulation, even worse.

Though, I can't think of any philosophy, system, whatever that has been practiced in its purist form ever. We're too imperfect. But where there are stark differences in quality of life, some factors seem to stand and give a pausible explanation.

[KC Burke]

I'm afraid I can't agree with a pesimistic viewpoint that only great upheaval can perfect property title. Much of the west had slow gradual change with modest conflict to achieve the same. The modest conflict seemed massive to the Irish, for example, but it falls far short of what passes for the "ethnic cleansing" you cite.

[KC Burke]

I recall a good read by Kirk where he discussed that "human-rights" as opposed to "rights" and individual rights" was largely an invention of Woodrow Wilson and his movement. And as such, it was promoted as the Trump and Antithesis of Property Rights. It became a collective right over an individual right and in utilitarian terms lost to the greater good in their viewpoint.

[hroolaart]

Did some research on this earlier this year, and wrote an essay on it. You can find it here:
http://www.harryroolaart.com/article.php?sid=92&mode=&order=0

[KC Burke]

Property Taxes, Income Taxes all have a difference with the minor fees and Tarrifs invisioned to finance our government at its founding.

The modern state, even one as limited as many conservatives would have it, can't be financed by modest tarrifs. Other taxes became an impossibility to avoid. The real injustice of such takings is in their forever changing and arbitrary application. If a tax is set and fixed, well then the value of the property, improvement, value added, or labor can be calculated by the buyer and seller. In our growing and arbitrary tax world, such is not possible and values decline.

[KC_Conspirator]

I would add that a claim to a "human right" is also totally devoid of any morals based on faith and is in fact, all based on human secularism. For example, Martin Luther King and Ghandi based their claims for "rights" from their understanding that rights were divined from a higher power than them. Is is apparent by the modern "human rights" crowd does not believe that at all, even though they like to align themselves with King and Ghandi while simultaneously ripping religion (mainly Christianity) at every oppotunity.

[Jason_b]

From your web page towards the bottom about the Pledge of Allegiance: "the separation clause which forbids government endorsement of religion in any way.."

You appear to be referring to the specific and particular separation clause that everyone is talking about.

I tried looking everywhere for that clause, including the US Constitution, but all I have been able to turn up is the old familiar "Congress shall make no law" in the 1st amendment. Nothing about separation though. I also observe that the federal government is barred from endorsing religion since that is not one of its enumerated powers. But that is not what you are talking about either.

So I'd like to know where I can find "the separation clause which forbids government endorsement of religion in any way," that you mention. Can you direct me? Thanks.

[NEWwoman]

Impressive webpage! Definitely one to be bookmarked.

My two cents:

I think why are heading down the slippery slope is that we don't want to be responsible for our actions (hence take risks with all the consequences) and want something else like government to take care of us (womb to the tomb) and not have bad things happen to us. It's the easiest thing (and childish thing) to do. Also, it gets politicans elected.

On the other hand, being self-reliant, being responsible, is not easy, but its rewards and benefits (to every one) can be tremedous: Creation of real wealth, innovation, increace in quality of life, ...

[hroolaart]

You won't find it...(but you know that) We've got a constitutional right to a fair trial, but you won't find those words "fair trial" in the Constitution. We have the separation between church and state...even though those precise words aren't in the Constitution. Logical deductions, research, the words of Jefferson and Madison will make the obvious, obvious. And no, the clause wasn't written solely as a response to the creation of the Church of England. The Founding Fathers were a bit smarter than that. Dig a little deeper on my site, and you'll find some interesting stuff about the "soldier and the priest", and why they ought never to be allied.

But all that is moot. Just as we have the freedom to practice the religion that pleases us, so do we have the freedom to "not" practice a religion. No government has the right to pass a law making an atheist swear allegiance to someone's God, let alone a State. That is wholly in contrast to the individual freedoms our government is sworn to uphold.

[Jason_b]

A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to a FAIR trial? Really? Let's see.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It would appear that you have a constitutional right to a JURY trial as long as your crime is committed within one of the states of the Union.

But fair? Please. A jury trial is often a dirty fight. We all hope for fair. But you know as well as I that what you get is a mixed bag of fair and unfair. We all know there have been instances of someone going to jail or the chair because of police corruption, judge corruption, attorney corruption, to whatever degree they are corrupted or have it in for the victim. Once in a while you encounter some honest people in the legal system and you get a break. But it is a mix. No fair anything is a constitutional right; you wouldn't have fairness if it were.

What you do get from the Constitution is a chance. A chance to fight fairly or dirty, it is your choice, but in that trial room you have your chance to prevail. And that is better than other countries that will throw you in the dungeon just for opening your mouth and forget about you.

Logical deductions are fine, as long as you start with valid premises, but your argument begins by referring directly to a specific clause which by your own admission is not there. And that is an invalid premise that will yield an invalid conclusion, which in this case is, "which forbids government endorsement of religion in any way." How do you get that conclusion with fidelity when your premise, the clause, is non existent? If your conclusion is true, you should go find a valid premise and show it to us. Don't make it up! What you are doing is called manufacturing evidence, and that is not well receieved by people who can see what you are doing.

And you hurt your own case because your earn the distrust of people by your own transparent efforts to offer fraudulent, deceptive and defective arguments. Then it no longer matters that your conclusions may be right. Your flawed logic will trash the whole thing.

That said, I agree with your last paragraph. Making people pledge allegiance is something I expect under an unfree government. It smacks of indoctrination. As if to be an antidote for popular contempt bred by injustice suffered by the people. Free people do not need to be indoctrinated. And if the government is just, and the people are free, their allegiance will exist naturally and be expressed in their daily behavior as well as their response to protect their land against threats.

[hroolaart]

First of all, I appear to have touched a raw nerve. My apologies for that.

My premise, however, is perfectly valid. My original point was that paraphrasing legal wording into layman's terms: such as "the separation clause", "or the separation of church and state", for the actual clause in the Constitution is done all the time, by lawyers and laymen alike (a simple search on the phrase will prove that). Most people know what the context is and to what clause this refers to in the Constitution.

Likewise, when I refer to a "fair trial", a paraphrase for the actual clause in the Constitution, than again, it's common sense as to what we're talking about: the right to a lawyer, jury, etc. etc. Whether this is abused or not, is not the point, nor does it have any bearing on this discussion.

Regards,
Harry