The Morality of Capitalism

[Hanyou]

The questions at work in this topic are: Is Capitalism moral? Are its alternatives moral? To what extent would you be willing to support Capitalism?

Questions of morality are different than questions of empirical value, at least for some moral opinions, and so I would like to draw a distinction. I am concerned, in my own post, less with the results than with the a priori legitimacy of capitalism as an economic system.

I have divided my post into sections so that it is more readable.

I. Definition

I would first like to establish my definition of capitalism, and what I believe to be the proper definition. A capitalist system is an unfettered free market. The fewer regulations placed on an economic system, the more capitalist it is. This does not preclude certain ground rules meant to keep members from cheating each other (such as laws against fraud and burglary), but that is generally the extent of regulation in a free market.


II. Pure Capitalism

If I were forced to choose between all extreme economic systems, of course I would choose capitalism. It is by far the most ethical, drawing in large part from man's essential, natural rights (life, liberty, property), which I honestly believe exist and form the basis of the very best secular moral systems (no, not all capitalists believe in natural rights). The right to make private contracts without taking from others' source of wealth, the right to enjoy or freely distribute the fruit of one's labor, the right, yes, to discriminate (we all discriminate when we make individual judgments), the right to give to charity without worry that one's money will be confiscated for purposes selected either by the tyranny of a pure democracy or an oligarchy, is nothing but ethical. And the core principles of the near-inverse, communism, which demand that an independent man be consistently bound to the whims of his society, I find to be reprehensible.

Pure capitalism is about the sovereignty of the individual, and as such, it is the closest thing we have to a pacifist economic system.

I will cover this issue later, but I believe the alternatives often posited--socialism and communism--are driven by envy and violence, inherently, and restrict morality.

III. Reasonable Restrictions

However, I am a classical conservative, not libertarian. I do not honestly believe in an unfettered free market, meaning it would be dishonest to call myself purely capitalist. The free market is not the solution to every problem. Basic environmental regulations which, for example, keep individuals or businesses from polluting rivers can be reasonably expected to be necessary; so, too, with copyright laws (most libertarians seem opposed to this) which protect the intellectual property of artists; so, too, with distribution of videos of abuse over the internet, which repeatedly violate the victims' natural right to the property of themselves. Environmental regulations would have to be enforced by the federal government by default where the issue crossed state lines, and as for the latter two, those sorts of things are only enforcable by the federal government. But they are protections, not positive rights.

As I see it, all these laws deal with issues of morality that are separate from economic issues, and as no reasonable human being (and certainly no libertarian) would argue there should be a legal market for sale of human beings, so I submit that on issues of conscience, reasonable men can differ about what markets are inherently unethical and not allowed (yes, this does leave open the door for drug regulation, which I am against, but at the very least it forces the populace to be more thoughtful about their objections). Insofar as something is legal, however, there should not be a "sin tax" on it. And the issues should rarely be regulated by the federal government, except in the aforementioned cases and perhaps some other entirely necessary ones. Where it can intervene should be constructed exceedingly narrowly.

The federal government should not hinder free, peaceful trade. It should have nothing to do with education or health care. If these things must be regulated, they should be regulated only by the states--and yes, I think the states have the constitutional levity to regulate much more heavily than I would support, provided that the systems are determined either by legislature or by referrendum, can just as easily be repealed, are Constitutional (which shouldn't be hard, as the Constitution gives states ample levity) and that the citizens' right to leave is not encroached.

As I see it, every bit of this is constitutional. These are fundamentally American ideas. However, as things stand right now,

IV. America isn't Capitalist

Just as I admit that I am not purely capitalist, but only support most of the principles far above other economic systems, so it should be conceded by everyone who participates in modern economic discourse that America is very far from capitalist as of now. This makes America itself a contradiction of sorts; capitalism makes the most sense given the moral principles embraced by most founding documents, but we have abandoned those principles and hailed the change as progress (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR are all seen as great presidents). There are hints of capitalism left; but in truth, we are corporatist, so that our government makes alliances with and gives incentives to businesses.

This could be termed economic fascism. One could say that this policy has been, in the past few decades, overtly supported by Republicans, where more socialist policies have been supported by Democrats for a much longer time. The true nature of corporatism has become increasingly clear, as supported by George W. Bush and (ironically) Barack Obama, and it was so blatant in nature that most people didn't buy it as capitalism. But as a rule, it is confused with capitalism.

I do not mean to build up a straw man here, or suggest that all the detractors of capitalism argue against is corporatism. Most academics are smarter than that. A lot of non-academics who inadvertently support or oppose corporatism (by saying they support or oppose capitalism) simply don't know the difference, and they can hardly be blamed for it. Different people have different priorities. The pundits, professors, and politicians, however, can be blamed for not admitting the difference, of which they are well aware.

Any arguments that bash capitalism and base their claims on the current American system are invalid, even moreso than arguments against Marxism that cite the Soviet Union. These are straw men.[1]

V. Capitalism and Greed, Socialism and Envy

Here's an argument I hear often against Capitalism: it promotes greed.

There are legitimate questions to be asked about whether greed itself is ethical. I'm compelled to think, because of my religious views, that it has problems, because it requires the person in question to be self-focused. But it is also my belief, partly due to religious views, that the best philosophies are individual-focused, and, as these philosophies influence politics, the best political systems simply cannot restrict purely individual thoughts and conduct. It would be inane, for example, to suggest that we should restrict all free speech, overhaul our entire first amendment, just because neo-Nazis might take advantage of it. We may propose reasonable regulation (which, yes, opens up slippery slopes of its own), but to declare free speech a morally bankrupt principle because of this is right out. We recognize that the merits of free speech are worth preserving, even if the motives of people who may utilize it are reprehensible. If capitalism allows greed to exist, that simply means it allows for basic humanity that, if anything, is a matter of conscience.[2]

So it's somewhat irrelevant. But even supposing Capitalism did facilitate greed, it wouldn't require it. Capitalism is based on private transactions and contracts. This would require a greedy person to harness his greed for the good of others if he wants personal benefit, and it would do so without violating any of his rights (meaning, it is entirely voluntary). And in this voluntary system, no one is required to be as rich as possible; they have the right to voluntarily enter communes or simply make the amount of money required for them to live comfortably.

And what of socialism? If you accept the conclusion that Capitalism is premised on greed, you must also accept that Socialism is often premised on envy--on the belief that the property of the rich is the property of all, that people should be forced to be altruistic (a paradox) and that if there is any inequality in the benefits reaped relative to efforts, this ought to be remedied. If greed is bad, envy is worse--it rests not in the thought and actions of an individual, but in the aggressive (negative) actions one must make against another. Taxation is inherently aggressive. Where it is used to restrict wealth, and the wellbeing of one individual is secured at the involuntary cost of another, it is not legitimate. This is the nature of envious pursuits--the nature of burglary, which a free market does not recognize.

One could argue that so long as the member of a country has the right to leave, socialist policy is acceptable, because living within that society implies consent to the contract. I agree, when the government and population are small enough for sufficient representation. But democracy has its own problem and can be a tyrrany just as easily, so for the most part, I disagree with such a system. Even given the right to leave, I would not defend unreasonable reductions in gun rights.

Which system allows for a greater degree of both charity and self-determination? Socialism, in confiscating wealth AND redistributing it to ends selected by external authorities, tramples on both. Charity is still possible, of course, but so long as one is forced to contribute to preselected social programs (even the oft-supported public education), one has less money to contribute to social programs of one's own choosing. I have no interest in health education programs, Planned Parenthood, or public networks and radio stations. Not only is it impossible for these programs to be unbiased (restricting my right to place my wealth elsewhere when I disagree with a program), there are so many programs to which I would rather contribute my money. And why should someone who has the opposite of my views contribute to, say, abstinence-only education? The more socialism you create, the more governance "the populace" and bureaucrats have over where your money goes, the less freedom you have, as a principle.

Capitalism does none of this. Which is precisely why it allows for more a more individually selfless, charitable type of human being.

VI. Conclusion

I have little more to say. I feel as though this post is a bit weak, and has only been proofread once, but I have already spent a great deal of time on it and if anyone wishes to critique all or part of it, I can elaborate in my response.

As things stand, I see most alternatives to capitalism as nothing less than immoral, and, from what I have read of the justifications (including Marx and Keynes), understand none of them.

----------------------------------------
[1]: Ron Paul expressed this point more artfully than I ever could:[]
[2]: Consider Milton Friedman's defense: Greed simply exists! []

[noodles]

[Maxine MagicFox]

[noodles]

but there is no argument

[Hanyou]

[noodles]

part of me would gladly die on foreign soil to protect America, the original free world

another part would love nothing more than to live in a satellite and just watch with fascination as the workings of the world go their course below me

[Sampson]

Is this a case of detached scientific noodles vs empathetic emotional noodles?

But, on subject, I believe capitalism to be moral and I can't see myself living in anywhere but a capitalist society. It allows for freedoms and growth not possible in Socialism or any other economic system.

I really don't like having my ideas shot down and dismissed and weak or ridiculous...which is why I haven't posted here! Besides, I wouldn't have much to say other than: "yeah, what he/she said."

[Hanyou]

[Kinokokao]

[Hanyou]

[AwesomePreußen]

Well, then you have people who are homeless and aren't lazy and people like Romney who are filthy rich jackasses. And communism is power for the working man, breaking the shackles of oppression. So...yeah.

[PLA]

^ Successful societies in the real world employ interventions and rules as needed, rather than following their D&D-alignments.

[Riseatrance]

[PLA]

^ Pure laissez-faire and pure planned economies are rare. The USA is capitalist-flavoured, but full of restrictions on what may be bought or sold, and how it may be bought or sold. The government also claims a portion of most profits, and generally keeps a diverse set of tools for manipulating the flow of currency, goods and services.

And it would be dumb for a group with some common interests to not have any of that.
While the alternative might be possible, at least for the time before somebody amasses enough influence to unilaterally set up some rules anyway, it wouldn't be much of a cooperation.

Maybe a pure planned economy could work out, somehow. It's hard to say, since it seems to need an absurd amount of effort to either micromanage or set up to keep itself in check. I don't know.

[Riseatrance]