Capitalism Works, but does that Argument?

Share

On particular issues, I can find common cause with conservatives. For example, when Houston sought to implement zoning in the early 1990s, many conservatives opposed the measure, and they were valuable allies in defending property rights and capitalism. However, with few exceptions, their argument consists of “capitalism works.”

Of course, this is correct. There is ample evidence—nineteenth century America, East Germany versus West Germany, communist China versus Hong Kong, etc.—that demonstrates the practical benefits of capitalism. But that hasn’t stopped America from steadily moving towards socialism/fascism. The reason lies in morality.

Faced with a choice between what is considered moral and what is practical—what works—individuals choose what they regard as moral. And most Americans, including conservative talk show hosts, have embraced altruism—the belief that morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others.

The free market is founded on the premise that each individual has a moral right to act according to his own judgment in the pursuit of his own values. It is a system based on rational self-interest, in which each individual is free to take the actions he deems appropriate to achieve his own interests and happiness (so long as he respects the mutual rights of others). This is, of course, the antithesis of altruism.

If morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others, if we must place the welfare and interests of others before our own, if the needs of one man supersede the rights of another, then morality demands that practical consequences be cast aside. It doesn’t matter that capitalism delivers the goods. According to altruism, capitalism is immoral.

Certainly, it is important to address the practical benefits of capitalism. But such arguments will not win the battle for freedom and capitalism.

Until conservatives reject altruism, they will not be able to defend capitalism. Until they defend capitalism on moral grounds, they will continue to win battles and lose the war. And if you disagree, just consider this fact: Over the past 100+ years America has moved steadily towards socialism and away from capitalism. If the “capitalism works” argument works, then why are conservatives losing the war?

“Deregulation” and “Privatization” that Isn’t

Share

Virtually every time government “deregulates” or “privatizes,” it is a complete misnomer and intellectually dishonest. For example, supposedly the electricity market in Texas was deregulated, yet the website for Texas Public Utilities Commission states: “What We Do: The Public Utility Commission of Texas regulates the state’s electric and telecommunication utilities, implements respective legislation, and offers customer assistance in resolving consumer complaints.” If electricity is deregulated, then why is the PUC regulating electric utilities?

The truth is, deregulated doesn’t mean unregulated. It just means that there are different regulations. The same is true of “privatization.” Generally, “privatization” means that government grants a monopoly to a private company to provide some service. But other companies are prohibited from competing and government regulates the prices and other aspects of the business.

The operative word in “free market” is “free”—the absence of government coercion. “Deregulation” and “privatization” as it is practiced today has nothing to do with the free market. It is fascism—those with political connections get the contracts and other special favors. It is a pretense at a free market—private companies are providing the service under the control and direction of government. And when something goes wrong, it is the private company that takes the fall, not the government. “Deregulation” and “privatization” are slammed, while the government’s continued meddling and intervention is overlooked and ignored.

I am certainly in favor of deregulation and privatization, but I mean something entirely different from most politicians pushing such policies. I mean the complete separation of government and economics—laissez faire capitalism. I mean no government monopolies, no government favors, no regulations, no government involvement in economics.

A Lesson from History

Share

Between 1870 and 1889, wages for non-farm labor decreased from $1.57 per day to $1.39 per day, a decrease of 10.2 percent. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index decreased more than 23 percent. Even though wages for unskilled labor fell by more than 10 percent over twenty years, prices fell by two times as much, that is, a dollar bought a lot more. Further, there was much more available: canned goods became widely available in the 1880s, which provided a much more varied diet, such as fruits and vegetables that were not in season; refrigerated railroad cars made it possible for urban residents to eat fresh meat, grapes, and strawberries more frequently; improvements in the sewing machine enabled manufacturers to mass produce clothing at low prices; department stores offered consumers wide selections in clothing, household goods, and more. In short, the unskilled worker’s life was immensely better in 1889 than it had been in 1870, even though he was paid less.

It wasn’t government programs that improved the lives of Americans. It was increased productivity, and that was made possible by economic freedom.