Freedom is more Valuable than Money

I wrote this post several years ago. My father was alive at the time, and, I think, I was more under the influence of my antichrist issues at the time, too. Anyway, I think it is still worth reading although I’m not sure I agree with everything in it – well, I think I do, just maybe not as strongly. Anyway, read on…

This post is about the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. Back when I was in college, one of my roommates was a Democratic Socialist (DS). He was a nice guy, who sincerely believed in the cause. I wasn’t really into politics or economic systems at the time (still am not) but we were good friends through college and he left me with a positive outlook on DS. The older I get, though, the more alarmed I get by DS. Count me in the Capitalist camp (CC).

Why?

Because Freedom is far, far more valuable than money. DS strives to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness.” But suppose one man wants (or even needs) a boat, and another wants (or needs) a car. The best way to fulfill these wants and needs is to let the two respective men make their own choices and buy their own boat or car. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing goods for its people. Okay, so maybe the government should just supply each man with the money he needs and let him make whatever choice he wants. Okay, but why can’t one man have two boats, if he wants, and leave the other with but one car? Because that would mean they would have disparate wealth. But if the first man was willing to put in twelve hours a day, instead of eight, or find a more efficient way to make money, or maybe even build his own boat … why can’t he keep it? He should be allowed to pursue the acquisition of whatever goods he desires to whatever extent he wants. The second man might not be too into material things. He might be perfectly content with his one car. Maybe that permits him to get by on a thirty-hour work week, half of what the first man works. He finds time to be more valuable than any boat. Why can’t we just let each pursue their own goods without interference from the government? I certainly feel that I am more capable of determining what my material needs are than the government. Forcing someone to purchase a product against their will (cough, Obamacare) is anti-freedom. As for just giving money to this person and that person, that gives the government undue control over each person, because sooner or later, the government will cut off the spigot for whomever displeases it. Then, where are you? Someone must divide the money. Are you suggesting that the division be perfectly equal? Then the guy who wants to work 12 hours a day to get a boat is treated the same as the guy who just wants to work 6. I’m not judging either man, I’m just pointing out that wealth distribution is not something readily amenable to simplistic rules.

Generally speaking, massive centralized governments are a bad idea. They are clumsy, inflexible, and unwieldy. They are also weighed down with inertia. It is true in the private economy that it is the small new businesses that can most readily adapt to and respond effectively to new developments in the market. I see no reason why government wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

For those that want to use government to care for the poor via socialist policies, that too is a bad idea. Dollar for dollar private charities are far more effective. The last time I checked, for every dollar given to government to help the poor, about $0.35 actually reaches the poor person. The rest of the money is consumed by the bureaucracy. That number is likely to get worse as the bureaucracy grows. As I recall, charities average around $0.70 for every dollar. The really good ones get $0.90 or $0.95. Still, I’m kind of up in the air about whether or not government should have any social welfare programs at all (I benefit from two, personally – actually, three, now). Sometimes having a great size has advantages. But I just see the danger of them becoming huge money-sinks that will consume wealth with a rapacious appetite. With that in mind, I think, if we are going to have them, they should rely on voluntary contributions.

Speaking of bureaucracy, the more dealings I have with the U.S. Government, the more I dislike it. Just one example to consider, I recently got medication for my elderly father. Obtaining the medication was delayed because the hospital ER failed to provide a Diagnosis Code. I mean, really? I’m not going to blame the ER for a trivial paperwork error when God-knows how much paperwork they have to deal with. No, this problem came straight from Medicare. You don’t delay medication so you can cross a “t” properly. That’s just stupid.

Speaking of paperwork, let’s talk about its source: the multiplication of Laws. We have more Laws, thanks to the bloated bureaucracy, than we know what to do with. I mean, the Tax Code, is tens-of-thousands of pages long. And Obamacare was like 4000 pages or something stupid like that. I’m a pretty smart guy but I know I can’t keep track of that many laws with my poor mortal brain. When are we going to learn to give the people closest to a situation some leeway based on their own best judgement? I say we get rid of most of the legal code, except the really critical Laws like those against murder, rape, and child molestation. Yes, the antichrist is against excessive laws. Wasn’t I referred to by St. Paul as the Lawless One?

In considering Capitalism and Socialism, my instincts tell me this (like I say my “instincts,” I’m not sure how these would fare under scientific analysis) that Capitalism will “lift all boats”, but perhaps some at different rates. Socialism might lift all boats but far, far more slowly although I am more inclined to think it will sink them in the long run. Last I heard, the United States, the beacon of Capitalism, is responsible for something like 50% of the innovation on the planet. And yet, it has only 5% of the population. From my own experience, in 2009 I traveled to another small city to get access to an MRI machine. About 8 years later, I had three MRI machines as options in my own city. The technology had become more common and more readily accessible, thanks to, I think, Capitalism. I’m inclined to think that in Capitalism, the cutting edge technology is first available to the rich, who, in some ways offer themselves up as guinea pigs to use it. Then, 5 years out, the middle class get access to it. Then, 10 years out, even the poor get access to it. In a socialist system, the cutting edge technology likely advances more slowly and more often than not, is accessible only to those in power. That means, 10 years out only the rich can access the latest technology from 10 years prior; 20 years out, the same. 50 years out, maybe it will reach the poor, but I doubt it. And if this is the situation, which I am inclined to think it roughly is, count me with the Capitalists.

Also, a problem with socialized medicine is that it makes my lifestyle everyone’s business. Can I eat Doritos? Sane people would say it is up to me. But with socialized medicine, everyone else is paying my medical bills and they have a vested interest in keeping me from eating junk food like Doritos. Bite me. I want my friggin’ Doritos when I want them. If they kill me, fine. Blame it on  me.

For my final warning (and Christians won’t like this) against centralized government I will point to Jesus. He was offered control of the planet by Satan, and He turned it down, because He knew it would destroy Him. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Me, the Antichrist, the Socialist Tyrant

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Okay, so my central premise is that Satan wanted to use me as the Antichrist in his final bid to unseat God and ascend to the Divine Throne (which I don’t think really is a throne). Why me and how did it happen? What led me to that train of thought?

Abortion and the Antichrist

Well, I must confess that part of it was the abortion issue. I’ve been pro-life my whole life, but in my college years I grew awfully quiet about it as the majority of people I ran into were largely pro-choice. I was too cowardly to speak up about the issue itself. Well, that’s not entirely true. Instead of speaking out about abortion, I retreated. To the issue of “Truth.” As a philosophy major, the pursuit of truth became my religion. And I, certain of the existence of truth, did, at least, argue vociferously on its (truth’s) behalf. Yet, I never took the further step to come out and argue against abortion, largely because I figured it was impossible to convince someone that abortion was grotesquely immoral if they didn’t first believe in moral truth. Anyway, I was adamantly pro-life within. Well, I admit, that when I thought about the issue, there was some confusion; I wanted a knock-down argument, but often times I’d just find myself going around in circles. Emotionally, I was pro-life and I was looking for the perfect intellectual argument to support the inclination of my heart. It took me a few years, but I think I came up with a pretty strong argument by the name of Moral Minimalism.

Moral Minimalism and the Antichrist

Moral Minimalism is basically the claim that there is a minimal acceptable standard of moral behavior that a government can demand of its citizenry. I remember the Moral Majority of years past which, from what little recall, wanted to inculcate in the populace the moral standards of the majority (mostly Judeo-Christian values). Moral Minimalism isn’t that. The difference is the difference between sex and abortion. I don’t think anyone today thinks it’s a good idea to pass laws against something like, say, sex outside of marriage or even cheating on one’s spouse on moral grounds. I know I don’t. But abortion is different. To pro-lifers, at least, in terms of severity, it seems to be closer to being on par, morally, with rape, murder, or slavery than simple acts of indiscretion like cheating on one’s spouse (not to minimize that particular mistake—it is very bad, but it pales compared to abortion). Of course, the sexual act tends to be causally linked to pregnancy which is necessary for an abortion to take place, but it seems clear to me that an abortion is a far more weighty act than simply having sex is. The legal parallel is the difference between a felony and an infraction. Where, legally, a felony is a severe violation of the law, misdemeanors and infraction are far less significant. I’m hardly an expert on the Law, but people get serious jail time for felonies and mere citations for infractions. Moral minimalism amounts to basically, when it comes to personal morals, the government probably shouldn’t be giving out citations for moral “infractions,” but it does have a vested interest in doing something about moral “felonies.” Basically, Moral Minimalism was/is my response to the “There is no absolute moral truth” argument often used to support the pro-choice position.

Democracy, Moral Minimalism, and the Antichrist—The Rise to Power

Anyway, sometime around March of 1997 I declared myself the antichrist and I, cogitating in a cesspool of hypocritical self-righteous moral condemnation of everybody but myself, began to contemplate a political career based around the concept of Moral Minimalism with the express purpose of getting into power and banning abortion on those grounds. I so despised the no-truth movement, I wanted to get in power and cram truth right down everybody’s collective throat. I do wonder, how far I would have gotten with the concept of Moral Minimalism. I think, with the reality of Satan discretely pulling my strings, I would have gotten pretty far. Anyhoo …

Socialism, Science, and the Antichrist

Back at that particular point in time, I had quasi-socialist leanings (how I could square socialism with the pro-life crowd, I don’t know. Shows how much I understand politics) because I had, in college, kind of come to agree with the labor-theory-of-value because of a brief discussion with a socialist friend (I no longer adhere to that position, but that’s another story). Anyhoo, I would have imposed socialism on the United States and would have been very pro science. I would have had a cabinet of amazing scientific minds. In the case of the coronavirus, if I, as my 25 year-old self, were in power, I would have done the mandatory lockdowns thing, mandated covid vaccinations, all sorts of “science backed” stuff. Which makes me think now, that most of those ideas are wrongheaded, at least, without informed consent they are. Anyway, then, in love with the notion of Moral Minimalism, I thought it was such a good idea the whole globe should be subjugated to it. Basically, I wanted a global standard like … “For the sake of moral truth we must establish a global principal of Moral Minimalism.” I may have been more poetic about it at the time. But, as I saw the no truth movement spreading across the globe, I prepared to start a “Philosopher’s War” for the sake of truth. It, likely, would have ended in disaster. I imagined some countries resisting the standard of Moral Minimalism. This, of course, would lead to real physical wars. In my mind (at the time), a series of morally justified necessary wars.

Nuclear Weapons and the Antichrist

I imagined myself using nuclear weapons. Yes, I would have used nukes. Dead is dead. It doesn’t matter whether you are killed by bullets or hydrogen bombs. You still wind up dead. So, if you do go to war, why arbitrarily limit your arsenal of weapons? Of course, once I imagined that I, as the Dictator in Chief of the United States, used nuclear weapons, it was easy to imagine another country like, say China, using their nukes in reply. And so on. And so on. And then you have what was more or less a dead planet and the bloodiest war of known human history assuming anyone survived at all. Those who survived The Philosophers’ War, The War for Truth, I imagined would no longer believe in Truth of any sort at all. No morality of any sort. It would leave us without conscience struggling to survive on a desolate planet. When I reached this point, my memory gets a little fuzzy, but I started spiraling into insanity and my eventual confrontation with Satan, a confrontation from which I am still recovering.

There’s more, of course, concerning my encounter with Satan and stuff, but that’s enough for this post. Actually, before I part, I am now convinced that the no truth movement is the handiwork of Satan aimed (along with other of his efforts) specifically at me. He wanted to goad me, a Platonist, into the political arena (Plato sucked at politics. So do I). And believe me, if Jesus of Nazareth came down from Heaven and said to me that there is no moral truth, I would have argued with him about it, even with a backdrop of smoking ruins behind me. (And he shall even stand up to the Prince of Princes.) But I really don’t think Jesus would take that particular position. Do you?

Later.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Freedom, Capitalism, and Socialism

I wrote the bulk of this post about a year or so ago, but I never got around to publishing it. So, I’m posting it now, because I think it makes some good points.

Capitalism and Socialism

This post is about the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. Back when I was in college, one of my roommates was a Democratic Socialist. He was a nice guy, who sincerely believed in the cause. I wasn’t really into politics or economic systems at the time (still am not) but we were good friends through college and he left me with a positive outlook on Democratic Socialism. The older I get, though, the more alarmed I get by Socialism. Count me in the Capitalist camp.

Why?

Freedom in Capitalism and Socialism

Because Freedom is far, far more valuable than money. Democratic Socialism strives to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness.” But suppose one man wants (or even needs) a boat, and another wants (or needs) a car. The best way to fulfill these wants and needs is to let the two respective men make their own choices and buy their own boat or car. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing goods for its people. Okay, so maybe the government should just supply each man with the money he needs and let him make whatever choice he wants. Okay, but why can’t one man have two boats, if he wants, and leave the other with but one car? Because that would mean they would have disparate wealth. But if the first man was willing to put in twelve hours a day, instead of eight, or find a more efficient way to make money, or maybe even build his own boat … why can’t he keep it ? He should be allowed to pursue the acquisition of whatever goods he desires to whatever extent he wants. The second man might not be too into material things. He might be perfectly content with his one car. Maybe that permits him to get by on a thirty-hour work week, half of what the first man works. He finds time to be more valuable than any boat. Why can’t we just let each pursue their own goods without interference from the government? I certainly feel that I am more capable of determining what my material needs are than the government. Forcing someone to purchase a product against their will (cough, Obamacare) is anti-freedom. As for just giving money to this person and that person, that gives the government undue control over each person, because sooner or later, the government will cut off the spigot for whomever displeases it. Then, where are you? Someone must divide the money. Are you suggesting that the division be perfectly equal? Then the guy who wants to work 12 hours a day to get a boat is treated the same as the guy who just wants to work 6. I’m not judging either man, I’m just pointing out that wealth distribution is not something readily amenable to simplistic rules.

Government Bureaucracy

Generally speaking, massive centralized governments are a bad idea. They are clumsy, inflexible, and unwieldy. They are also weighed down with inertia. It is true in the private economy that it is the small new businesses that can most readily adapt to and respond effectively to new developments in the market. The big guys stick around because they have massive resources, but they don’t readily adapt to change. I see no reason why government wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

Government versus Charity

For those that want to use government to care for the poor via socialist policies, that too is a bad idea. Dollar for dollar private charities are far more effective. The last time I checked, for every dollar given to government to help the poor, about $0.35 actually reaches the poor person. The rest of the money is consumed by the bureaucracy. That number is likely to get worse as the bureaucracy grows. As I recall, charities average around $0.70 for every dollar. The really good ones get $0.90 or $0.95. Still, I’m kind of up in the air about whether or not government should have any social welfare programs at all (I benefit from two, personally). Sometimes having a great size has advantages. But I just see the danger of them becoming huge money-sinks that will consume wealth with a rapacious appetite. With that in mind, I think, if we are going to have them, they should rely on voluntary contributions.

Speaking of bureaucracy, the more dealings I have with the U.S. Government, the more I dislike it. Just one example to consider, I recently got medication for my elderly father. Obtaining the medication was delayed because the hospital ER failed to provide a Diagnosis Code. I mean, really? I’m not going to blame the ER for a trivial paperwork error when God-knows how much paperwork they have to deal with. No, this problem came straight from Medicare. You don’t delay medication so you can cross a “t” properly. That’s just stupid.

The Growth of Government and the Growth of the Legal Code

Speaking of paperwork, let’s talk about its source: the multiplication of Laws. We have more Laws, thanks to the bloated bureaucracy, than we know what to do with. I mean, the Tax Code, is tens-of-thousands of pages long. And Obamacare was like 4000 pages or something stupid like that. I’m a pretty smart guy but I know I can’t keep track of that many laws with my poor mortal brain. When are we going to learn to give the people closest to a situation some leeway based on their own best judgement? I say we get rid of most of the legal code, except the really critical Laws like those against murder, rape, and child molestation. Yes, the antichrist is against excessive laws. Wasn’t I referred to by St. Paul as the Lawless One?

Observations on Medicine in a Capitalist System

In considering Capitalism and Socialism, my instincts tell me this (like I say my “instincts,” I’m not sure how these would fare under scientific analysis) that Capitalism will “lift all boats”, but perhaps some at different rates. Socialism might lift all boats but far, far more slowly although I am more inclined to think it will sink them in the long run. Last I heard, the United States, the beacon of Capitalism, is responsible for something like 50% of the innovation on the planet. And yet, it has only 5% of the population. From my own experience, in 2009 I traveled to another small city to get access to an MRI machine. About 8 years later, I had three MRI machines as options in my own city. The technology had become more common and more readily accessible, thanks to, I think, Capitalism. I’m inclined to think that in Capitalism, the cutting edge technology is first available to the rich, who, in some ways offer themselves up as guinea pigs to use it. Then, 5 years out, the middle class get access to it. Then, 10 years out, even the poor get access to it. In a socialist system, the cutting edge technology likely advances more slowly and more often than not, is accessible only to those in power. That means, 10 years out only the rich can access the latest technology from 10 years prior; 20 years out, the same. 50 years out, maybe it will reach the poor, but I doubt it. And if this is the situation, which I am inclined to think it roughly is, count me with the Capitalists.

Socialism, Socialized Medicine, and Jesus

Also, a problem with socialized medicine, and socialism in general, is that it makes my lifestyle everyone’s business. Can I eat Doritos? Sane people would say it is up to me. But with socialized medicine, everyone else is paying my medical bills and they have a vested interest in keeping me from eating junk food like Doritos. Bite me. I want my friggin’ Doritos when I want them. If they kill me, fine. Blame it on  me.

For my final warning (and Christians won’t like this) against centralized government I will point to Jesus. He was offered control of the planet by Satan, and He turned it down, because, I think, He knew it would destroy Him. I think  it was a decision similar to Gandalf’s when Frodo offered him the Ring of Power in the Lord of the Rings. To paraphrase, “Do not tempt me so, Frodo. For I would long to take the Ring and try to use. I would try to use it for good, but in so doing it would bend me towards evil and I would become a monster like the Dark Lord himself.” I’m sure Tolkien said it better, but it was something like that. As they say: power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Socialism vs. Capitalism: Questions and Comments

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Okay, this post is going to be a little bit different. I’m interested in the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. However, I’m not going to write a well-structured essay on the topic. I’m just going to list a number of relevant questions, and observations/comments and list which side that supports.

If Paul works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for 30 years, should he earn more than Sam who works only 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 30 years?–point to the Capitalist

Paul, the CEO, of the massive corporation CommiesRUs with 200,000 employees, cannot run the corporation by himself no matter how hard he tries or how fast he works.–point to the Socialist.

If Paul has worked at the same company for 30 years, and Sam has only worked there for 1 year, should he earn more than Sam?–point to the Capitalist.

Invisible theft–If Paul is the CEO of CommiesRUs and he uses his power in a draconian manner to “squeeze” his labor force to produce more while at the same time reducing their pay, is he not “stealing” their labor and the fruits thereof from them?–point to the Socialist.

If Paul just makes smarter economic decisions than Sam, shouldn’t he naturally earn more money than Sam?–point to the Capitalist

For that matter, if Paul has developed the ability to make decisions and Sam has not, shouldn’t he be rewarded for such?–point to the Capitalist

Shouldn’t the use of different skills earn different rewards? If 5000 people have one skill and make their living from it, but only 5 have another skill; shouldn’t the 5 be making more money?–point to the Capitalist

How do you account for things that don’t equate to labor stuff like: jewelry, real estate, I’m sure there are others.–point to the Capitalist.

Should a teenager just starting out be paid as much as a forty-year-old with a serious skill set and resume.–point to the Capitalist

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Predictions of the AntiChrist

In the spirit of the previous post, here are several predictions I’ll make as the antichrist. I hope I’m wrong on all of them:

No truth—the no truth movement (a.k.a. moral relativism, post-modernism) will gain the upper hand and begin persecuting and ultimately executing religious individuals as they (the no-truthers) will have the backing of “science”. I am most confident in this prediction.

No more gun rights—the Left is going to win the gun-control debate in the United States.

Electronic money—the United States, and the rest of the world, will ultimately embrace electronic money.

Success of socialism—the United States will eventually become a socialist country. This will likely lead to widespread poverty across the globe.

Civil War in United States—the Constitution won’t go easy. Gun-rights activists and other capitalists are going to have it out with the socialists and environmentalists.

Global economic collapse when America falls—when America goes under as a result of civil war and the rise of socialism, the whole globe is going under with it.

Super AI will arise, spread into the Internet, and will attain power exceeding any corporation or government, and will be answerable to no one.

Transhumanism advances will begin. Those participating will becomes slaves of the Super AI when it eventually turns on us.

Global War will occur, probably started by SAI, although that may not be realized at first. There will be multiple factions fighting across the planet.

I’ll specify a time period: I expect all this to occur by 2032—(4 yrs of Trump, + 8 Democrat). Note: I’m not a seer. I had no vision of this. I’m just predicting this on the basis of how I perceive the level of discontent in the current populace and how I expect AI and Transhumanism to go. I hope I’m wrong. I probably am.

None of these are exceptionally unique to me. Oh, well.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Freedom

Time to ruminate on capitalism and socialism again. To be honest, I’m probably not the best person to talk about this: I’ve never studied economics. But I’ve been living in a capitalist country for nearly fifty years now and like to think I’m good at thinking things through (and yet, I think I’m the antichrist).

Anyway, on too my discussion. I had a socialist friend in college—a good guy and a good friend. He was always railing against capitalism. One day he mentioned the “labor theory of value” and I finally understood why he was angry. Basically, in a capitalistic corporation headed by a CEO, etc… the low level workers are the ones primarily responsible for producing the product, and yet they are the ones who reap the least benefit. I think that’s basically true. And, I agree it is an injustice. I just don’t trust the government to fix it.

But let’s return to the problem. There is more to monetary value, though, than labor. Smart decisions, for example: responding to markets, making wise investments, and a plethora of other things I don’t understand. To be fair, though, I think there is an injustice when a factory worker for a corporation pulls down 30k a year, while the CEO pulls down 30 million—and it is those at the top who decide how much each individual earns. The corporation would cease to exist if all the workers vanished (unless replaced with automation—which is coming). Likewise, I’m sure a poorly-skilled CEO will quickly lead the corporation to destruction.

I remember one of my philosophy professors many years ago saying that he didn’t like working in committees because nothing gets done. They go back and forth, back and forth, and take forever to agree on a course of action. Committees (or other groups of people) are democratic in nature; individuals are more capable of efficiently making decisions. We should keep this in mind in terms of the capitalism/socialism debate.

A moment’s reflection will show that this is a critical distinction between the two systems—in theory. A capitalist system incorporating a well-defined hierarchy will be more efficient at making decisions and seeing them through. A socialist system purports to be more democratic (in real-life socialist countries, I don’t think this actually bears out: socialist leaders invariably benefit more from a country’s wealth than capitalist one’s—until the capitalist ones leave office. I’m inclined to think our leaders, whether democratic or socialist, will, in general, over benefit some). So the conflict between capitalism and socialism can be seen as a struggle between decision and democracy. So, a capitalistic company with a hierarchical structure likely is probably more efficient in terms of decisions. Those at the top will likely have a disproportionate amount of power and resultant money from business. A socialist company could have a level structure, but if they are set up to be democratic decision-making efficiency will be lost. All of that is “in theory.” Like I said, socialist leaders usually have an inordinate amount of wealth while their people very little.

What is missing, though, in this discussion, is the notion of FREEDOM. Which system nurtures the greater degree of freedom? To date, I think that victory belongs to the capitalist, but this is stretching my knowledge base now. Sure, in a capitalist society you may be able to chart your own course, but how “free” are you if you lack the money to buy even a cup of coffee? Socialism promises (but rarely delivers) a greater share of the wealth to all. And, so they say (or should say), wealth is used to cultivate your freedom. However, if we are interested in freedom, must we choose between capitalism and socialism? Is it not possible to have a company based on capitalist principles with a hierarchical structure, etc… and a company based on more socialist principles operating side by side in the same economy? I think it should be. Both should be allowed in a FREE society. And if the socialist company can’t compete with the capitalist one, that’s not the capitalist one’s problem. Or vice versa. So, I’m inclined to think that the more important feature of an economy is not socialism or capitalism, but FREEDOM.

Capitalism is usually equated with freedom, but perhaps it is possible for a socialist system to incorporate more freedom and make itself more attractive. If I retain control of determining what products I purchase, what jobs I pursue, where I live, etc… in a socialist system, it might be worth looking at.

Lastly, I like Doritos and I don’t expect the capitalists will ever try to take them away from me. I am not so sure of the socialists.

Invisible Theft

I had a thought. I’m not really sure which category I should place this post in, but as I don’t have an “Economics” category, I’m stuck putting it in my “Politics” category. Basically, I want to say that, for the most part, I am a capitalist. Capitalism has its faults and weaknesses, but I believe it has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system out there. Is it perfect? No. But I think it is the best economic system our species has developed to date.

That said, I think it is worthwhile to point out … limitations or errors or weaknesses inherent in the system. Back in college I had a friend who was a dedicated socialist. One day, we were just talking and he said something like, “Locke gives you the ‘Labor Theory of Value’ and he takes it away, just like that. And I can show you where, too.” That’s when the light bulb went off for me. As a philosophy major I never studied economics, so the term ‘value’ had a different meaning for me. But after a moment’s reflection, it became apparent to me that my friend wasn’t referring to anyone’s hierarchy of goods or anything like that; instead, he was focused on money. Basically, he was saying that money is backed-up by labor. Money is labor, and labor is money. Or so my friend might say. I don’t think I necessarily agree with that in its entirety for a number of reasons, but it is worth reflecting on at least for a few moments. I call it the socialist point.

Basically (remember: I am not an economist, so I could be flubbing this point entirely), the socialist believes that the real currency that runs our economy is labor. The money you are paid for when you work is meant to compensate you for that labor. Hence, money represents labor. And that does seem to have some merit. After all, it would be exceptionally difficult for the economy to run without any labor. Without labor, nothing is done, and ultimately, everyone starves.

Once you make that connection, the socialist’s problem with capitalism should be easy to recognize. Pick the CEO of any major company. He is paid far, far more than any person in the lower ranks; yet, if you remove the labor from the company, the company ceases to exist: It cannot exist without labor. The socialist says that the company produces only what its labor force produces. Hence, its labor force is responsible for all of the company’s profit. Yet, it is the CEO who reaps the greatest reward.

How is that possible? The simple answer is that the CEO has power. The rank-and-file do not. The CEO benefits from a better strategic position in the company than does the average laborer. As a result, he can fire laborers who complain and there is little the laborers can do about it. So, the CEO—who seeks his own self-interest first—earns a big salary because the laborers produce a valuable product that earns a substantial amount of money. From that money, the salary of the CEO and the laborers is taken, and excess profit is put back into the company or maybe paid out to shareholders (who contribute nothing to the actual product of the company—their only value is that they provide monetary fertilizer to fuel company growth from time to time). The socialist is basically saying that the laborers are directly responsible for the profit the company makes, and yet, they never see a dime of it. Their labor has been stolen to produce it. Since, labor does not constitute a visible thing, such a theft is an invisible one. The labor/money taken from the worker is never seen.

So, the socialist feels fully justified in using the government to “steal” the money back from the wealthy.

I’m not sure I wrote that clearly enough, but I think it encapsulates a critical component of socialist thinking. For myself, I think socialists win a point, but not the argument. There are a number of counter-points to be made, none of which I have space for. Things like money shouldn’t represent labor, but rather accomplishment (I think—and only in a macro-economic sense). Intelligent decision making should be rewarded. Freedom should be promoted. And individual choices have consequences. And I’m sure there are many, many more, but, like I said, I don’t have space for them all.

Connections

I have a brother who is very passionate about politics. One of the relationships he often brings up in political debate is the relationship between the individual and society. Personally, I studied analytical philosophy in college. I studied the relationship between the individual and properties (think Plato’s bifurcation), not the relationship between the individual and society.

Anyway, my brother is always arguing that individuals do not exist on their own. They are connected to other individuals; that is, they have a relationship with society. According to my brother, Capitalism suffers from an extreme form of individualism without acknowledging a connection to society, and is, therefore, flawed. On the other hand, Communism is flawed in the other direction by placing too much emphasis on society (i.e. the collective) over the individual. According to my brother, the reality of the situation is something more of a hybrid. People are sometimes drawn toward the collective, and sometimes drawn to be by themselves. According to him, this is the root of the problem with the American way of life.

I’m not sure if the American way of life is any more problematic than it has always been. Capitalism has, I believe, produced more goods for more people, and lifted more people out of poverty than any other system ever tried. But it is not perfect. Indeed, the human condition is probably imperfectable. Regardless, I want to go down on record that I tentatively agree with my brother’s notion of a hybrid-like relationship between the individual and society. To that end, I wish to point out a few examples of things that connect me to others in ways I can’t control. Basically, there are items and practices that are imposed on me because the rest of society accepts them without a second thought.

Health insurance. Once upon a time, when life was much more rugged and doctors made house calls, there was no such thing as health insurance (at least, I don’t think so). Yet, people lived and prospered and thought nothing of it. Now, if you fail to get health insurance you are considered irresponsible. Why? Because everyone else is getting health insurance; they are paying into the health insurance system, and if you skimp, they pay for your care. So, you really are sort-of connected in this regard. Similar arguments can be made for car insurance, home insurance, etc…. My point is not that insurance is a bad idea (in fact, it is a good idea and, currently, I am fully insured), but rather, that the existence of insurance implies a connection between the individual and society such that the individual is compelled to follow the preferences of society.

Smart phones. These really aren’t a luxury; they are becoming a necessary part of our lives and our economy, so much so, that the person who does not own a smart phone will suffer significant disadvantages in our current economy.

My favorite type of cereal no longer exists. In high school, I adored a cereal called “Crispy Wheats and Raisins.” I haven’t had it in years, because, I think, “they” stopped producing it. Basically, the invisible hand of the market determined that my favorite cereal is not profitable enough so it was removed from the marketplace. In other words, the cereal preferences of the majority of other Americans aligned against my own. The collective evaluation of my favorite cereal resulted in that cereal’s disappearance; so, we are kind of connected.

Those are three examples. I’m sure there are more.

I’m not sure I had a central point to this post; it was more of an intellectual exercise analyzing the connection of the individual to society.