The Economic and Ethical Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie Caveat lector, my object here is to make your minds boldly go to a place they've never gone before, a place of critically questioning one of the most fundamental and virtually unquestioned tenets of your core worldview – the belief that we can and must earn our daily bread, our piece of the pie, and the proverbial cherry atop it. Yes, in that assumptional matrix called common sense resides and is entrenched the normative notion of "earning". And in our capitalist culture it's a notion especially near and dear to our minds. We hold it to be quite the tangible truism that every individual has an unalienable right to exercise private proprietary control over the proceeds and profits, i.e., the earnings of his self-interested efforts, and to earn a measure of wealth superior to that of his neighbor, even if he exploits and impoverishes his neighbor in the process. This, this individualistic and possessive concept of earning and ownership, is the essence of the system and spirit of so-called "free enterprise". It's a system and spirit that we've all been educated from the cradle to embrace and that few of us ever think about in a truly skeptical fashion. However, that an idea is widespread and largely unquestioned doesn't establish it's veracity beyond reproach. Once upon a time no one on earth had any inkling of gravity, the universally accepted explanation for why whatever goes up must invariably come down was the concept of natural place, the idea that terrestrial objects naturally belong on the ground and consequently return there when thrown up into the air. What could be more commonsensical?! But then along came Newton, and physicists began to realize how common sense could and does lead our thinking about the nature of reality into astray from the truth and smack-dab into error. Likewise, the concept that the natural place of wealth is in the purse and coffers of those who supposedly "earn" it is in need of quite fundamental reevaluation and revision. To begin with, the concept of earning is inherently egoistic and runs contrary to and flouts humanistic, ethical, and spiritual principles of equality. In both a democratic and an ethical-spiritual worldview we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all human beings are equal embodiments of the ultimate reality and mystery called creativity. Each of us gives it form as the same species of life and possesses the same intrinsic baseline value, goodness, and entitlement to well-being and joy. Each of us is therefore endued with an equal natural right to the economic necessities and prosperity necessary for a dignified and happy existence. Sure, some individuals give evidence of greater genetic gifts than others, and some individuals actualize more potential than others. In a positivistic and profane, utilitarian and "tough-minded" perspective all men and women are not at all equal. But this flat fact does not take away from, let alone trump, the sociomorally revolutionary truth that we all enjoy the same fundamental,ontological nature and sanctity of life. And yes, this being the case, no one is privileged to be entitled to greater economic security and status than his fellow man; and no one can privilege himself with, i.e., no one can "earn", such a right. Not even through the virtues of hard work and an enterprising spirit? No, being driven harder than your neighbor by a selfish and materialistic desire for wealth, which is often achieved by expropriating the value of his labor, does not mean that you thereby acquire a superior worthiness to enjoy the decent quality of life that we all have an inherently equal right to. To put it in theistic language, everyone's welfare and fulfillment is equally important to God; equally important from a cosmic and metaphysical standpoint, that is. And from a human-equality perspective everyone's needs are of equal validity and concern. A more equitable distribution of society's wealth, reflective of these enlightened viewpoints is what we ought to be striving for, not a capitalistic form of economics that in the name of rewarding hard work places egoistic acquisitiveness before the spirit of egalitarian community. Ontologically and ethically-speaking then, sharing ought to take precedence over "earning", and living on a coequal basis ought to be preferred to existing under a hierarchical power structure in which capitalist plutocrats claim to have somehow legitimately earned their place at the top. And no, this rejection of the concept of earning in favor of socioeconomic coequality and communal sharing is certainly not a denial or infringement of people's right to pursue and attain what they want out of life, it's merely the rejection of the notion that we have a right to behave with the kind of selfishness that leads to 1% of the population enjoying an obscenely opulent standard of living, and 99% coping with poverty or chronically struggling to make ends meet. All of this might sound like insanely radical nonsense to someone who believes that we have a right of some kind to practice a socially-autistic privatism, that the best form of society is one in which we all economically function like atomized individuals edaciously earning, rapaciously reaping the fruits of our self-interested pursuits. But behold the insanity of capitalism, of a system that elevates private ownership and economic egoism above all other principles and produces a status quo in which a tiny elite is disproportionately blessed, and the bulk of humanity is unjustly distressed. Yes, the concept of earning, though it might seem innocuous and right-minded, is in fact a euphemistic conceptualization and a rationalization of self-interest and uncompassion, which recklessly swings the door wide open to precisely the sort of egoistic, dog-eat-dog individualism that has always visited so much cruelty and pain on the poor. The self-justifying idea that I've "earned" what I have allows me to feel okay about being one of the fortunate haves enjoying the good life amidst the suffering of other human beings whose lives are worth just as much as mine and who don't deserve to be consigned to the underclass of hapless have-nots. With my sanctimonious sense that I've entitled myself to live better than the losers struggling in their own self-made squalor I needn't feel guilt or show pity. If I can hide my selfishness behind the concept of earning, well, I needn't feel the slightest pang of conscience! And of course I therefore see no moral imperative to reorganize society and redistribute its wealth along more equitable lines to help give all of my fellow men and women a first-class ticket to ride aboard the capitalist gravy train. Indeed, my attitude will transcend even Marie Antoinette's in callousness, instead of "Let them eat cake" I'll declare in my hardened heart "Nay, don't even let them eat cake, they haven't earned it like me". Thus and so, the "commonsense" concept of earning leads to brutal individualism and the familiar evils of a capitalist economy. Interdependence and solidarism, a recognition that the underlying structure of our existence is relational and social, that we are all individuals within the cosmic context of interconnectedness, and that our mode of economic production and way of living together should actualize this reality, that's the ticket to a genuinely kinder and gentler form of economics and society.
To stand on your supposed right to be an autonomous, utterly autarkic economic actor, securing success for yourself with depraved disregard for the community that has in fact made your success possible is an irresponsibly selfish rejection of the synergistic structure of reality as the best model upon which to base our socioeconomic system, it significantly impedes our growth into a more mutually caring society, it's the height of egoistic hubris, and it makes you morally complicit in the misfortune and misery of capitalist society's casualties. That is, clinging to the concept of earning is contraindicated for the common good and for your personal moral good. Nope, no man is truly an economic, "earning" island, individually entitling himself to an extra large à la mode slab of the ole prosperity pie. He never does alone and independently whatever it is that he thinks "earns" him a middle or upper-class lifestyle. His economic activities and achievements are all intricately involved with the economic doings of the rest of humanity. The notion that one "earns" anything by him/herself is an outright lie that our ego tells our conscience. And the notion that the private enterprise system is merely a meritocracy based on our right to earn our way to affluence is a social lie that we're fed to give it the illusion of being fair – and that our own egoism feeds into and helps to perpetuate. It's not at all hyperbole, then, to say that the putatively commonsense concept of earning is actually a morally and socially catastrophic conceit. It's certainly far from being the valid & sound, right & proper, a priori, axiomatic and absolute principle that it's usually taken to be. Indeed, if excessive egoism and the concupiscent love of personal gain is the root of all human evil, well, then the concept of earning is the beguiling bloom that belies the moral and social danger. And whether you agree with this or not, the sooner that we realize that no one should have to "earn" his exemption from poverty and his right to partake of a rich society's prosperity, the better off will the average human being's lot and life be. As the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau realized, the invention of the idea of private property and earning was the beginning of the fettering of human beings by their egoism, their fellow man, and by social systems geared around these ill-begotten ideas. Embracing Rousseau's realization, and renouncing the rationale for private ownership formulated by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that ideologically underpins the capitalist system, replacing it with a more ontologically and ethically enlightened concept of community property, cooperation, connectedness, and coequality, will be the next great revolution in human history. The most life-transforming since the Agricultural Revolution!
But before the Agricultural Revolution, before the dawn of thinking in terms of owning and earning, Homo sapiens were certainly sapient, wise enough to realize that egalitarianism, not egoism, is where it's at. For the hundred thousand or so years that our prehistoric predecessors spent as hunter-gatherers the egalitarian ethos of one for all, all for one prevailed and was strictly enforced. For instance, when a bison or mammoth hunt was successful the individual who killed the woolly beast did not claim that he had "earned" first dibs on the meat; rather, it was considered the bounty and wealth of the group and divided equally. The beauty of this system was obvious even to Paleolithic primitives. It ensured that no one went hungry, that everyone received his/her portion. It was truly common sense. Alas, common sense that we promptly fell away from when the egoistic ethos of uncharitably keeping what you "earn" for yourself came into fashion. But if we were to abolish the ethic of earning and return to the ancient wisdom of equalitarianism wouldn't that disincentivize productivity and lead to a major "free rider" problem? Well, wouldn't it be logical to expect that we'd end up with a large percentage of the population parasitically living off of the economic productivity of others? If one could share the wealth without contributing to its creation why deign to work? Well, for one thing, if society could insist on full, universal employment for all able-bodied members, being a lounge-about leech would not be permitted. Also, it's a bit cynical and materialistic to think that material gain is the sole motivation that drives people to be productive. There's also the moral desire to do one's part, and the internal need to express our creativity, which would still be in effect after the abolition of our selfishness-based system. At any rate, the values of an equalitarian society would be radically different and arguably just as effective at inducing everyone to be of use to his community. To wrap up, our system geared for the obsessive, insatiable overaccumulation of capital and wealth is the ultimate evolution of the bad idea that we're entitled to earn the reward of being actively self-serving, of following our covetousness and greed. It's a system that doesn't really work very well at all, except to guarantee recurrent recessions and the routine victimization of workers. And it conclusively convicts the concept of earning of having tendencies that are pernicious, corruptive, anti-social, and seriously at cross-purposes with human well-being. "Earning", it turns out, is one of those ideas that at first blush and when not subjected to critical thought might seem reasonable and right, but upon further investigation is seen to be morally and socially crazy and warped. A society explicitly predicated upon the principles of equality and interdependence; that kicks "earning" and economic egoism to the curb of socially-unacceptable motivations; and in which the good of all takes priority over the special interests of businessmen, bosses, and bankers, over their supposed prerogative of grossly overaccumulating prosperity at everyone else's expense; such a prosocial socioeconomic system can be the beautiful destination of human civilization's long journey, if we dare to aspire to it.
Ever watch the National Geographic Channel's new gawk-at-bizarro-people-on-TV (fringe folks who are euphemistically called "outliers") show, Doomsday Preppers ? Well, it features a new 21st century breed of survivalists, people with the psychology of thoroughly atomized individuals (very much like that of right-libertarians) who are preoccupied with the prospect of a financial collapse or the eruption of a supervolcano, and whose mind-set is: "I'm preparing for my own personal survival and that of my little nuclear family, and writ'n off the rest of humanity. If any desperate human beings come around looking to share my supplies, well, I've got my little arsenal and will give them an armed response. No one else is getting in my lifeboat!" These so-called "preppers" epitomize, in a very naked and extreme way, the essentially egoistic mentality that I critique in this post. Mm-hmm, anyone who thinks that the tendency of our capitalist culture to produce an egoistic mentality is merely a figment of my "commie" thinking is invited to view an episode of Doomsday Preppers and have his/her misconception corrected.
You spent way too much time writing that. Thomas Sowell obliterates this in three sentences:
Those who believe that "basic necessities" should belong to people as a matter of right ignore the implication -- that people are to work only for amenities, frivolities, and ego. Will that mean more work or less work? And if less, where are all those "basic necessities" coming from that the government is supposed to hand out?
Well, for one thing, if society could insist on full, universal employment for all able-bodied members, being a lounge-about leech would not be permitted.
And there it is.
Also, yes, our prehistoric predecessors may have had success with a more communal system of rules. But success for them was merely surviving and procreating, and they lived in squalor for millenia until the dreaded Agricultural Revolution. Communities today that try to live by similar rules either still live in squalor or import comforts from capitalist societies (they don't get their khakis and cotton shirts from communal farmers). And, of course, large polities that try to work with that ethical system continuously devolve into totalitarian nightmares, as constant moral pressure to keep people contributing, without recourse to local and self-interest, proves insufficient and requires brutal coercion (and the calculation problem doesn't help). Prehistoric communism may have worked well enough when there were 1 million people spread across the globe, and it may work well enough today in small tribes scattered around the world. We have no reason to believe it could work with a complex economic system sustaining 7 billion human beings of increasingly diverse tastes.
So no thanks. "It worked for our incredibly poor ancestors, who were shorter and died young!" is not a great argument.
EDIT:
To wrap up, our system geared for the obsessive, insatiable overaccumulation of capital and wealth is the ultimate evolution of the bad idea that we're entitled to earn the reward of being actively self-serving, of following our covetousness and greed.
Because of this "overaccumulation of capital and wealth," people are freer, healthier, more numerous and live longer in greater comfort than ever in human history.
brb signing up for the dole
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
Meistro: brb signing up for the dole
Are you getting an Obama phone?
Some random thoughts:
1. Isn't it great that we are the first to see these totally new ideas, never before stated in the history of the world?
2. I'm sure no Austrian has ever written about these novel concepts.
3. I'm just wondering how the OP knows want went on in prehistoric times, since by definition, they left no historical record. In particular, how does he know how the bison or mammoth was divvied up?
After all, in the hundreds of millions of years of pre-pre-historic times, when Earthlings lived on Mars before coming here in spaceships, they had a pure free market system in which everyone was happy and content, and their superpowerful intellects had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no other system was worth trying. Only after severe brain damage suffered by the crash of the spaceships landing here did they start thinking of communism.
The point is, you can make up anything you want about prehistoric times, since nobody is around to contradict you. Thay are all dead, and left no record.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
In socialism you are not only punished if you are ambitious and want to work more, you are also punished if you want to work less. If you don't work hard enough you get a bullet to the back of the head. What if an individual prefers leisure over work, it should be his/her own choice
"The Machinery of Freedom" page 10 and 11
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
"George Bernard Shaw, an unusually lucid socialist, put the matter nicely in The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism:
But Weary Willie may say that he hates work, and is quite willing to take less, and be poor and dirty and ragged or even naked for the sake of getting off with less work. But that, as we have seen, cannot be allowed: voluntary poverty is just as mischievous socially as involuntary poverty: decent nations must insist on their citizens leading decent lives, doing their full share of the nation's work, and taking their full share of its income. . . . Poverty and social irresponsibility will be forbidden luxuries.
Compulsory social service is so unanswerably right that the very first duty of a government is to see that everybody works enough to pay her way and leave something over for the profit of the country and the improvement of the world [from chapters 23 and 73]."
"Well, for one thing, if society could insist on full, universal employment for all able-bodied members, being a lounge-about leech would not be permitted."
What happens if I decide that I want to do less work but willing to take a proportionally lower income? Either we have a return to wealth inequality or you are forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
On the other hand what happens if islands of anarcho-capitalism start forming in your anarcho-socliast world. From what I understand you would probably find this as a threat
And there it is. Also, yes, our prehistoric predecessors may have had success with a more communal system of rules. But success for them was merely surviving and procreating, and they lived in squalor for millenia until the dreaded Agricultural Revolution. Communities today that try to live by similar rules either still live in squalor or import comforts from capitalist societies (they don't get their khakis and cotton shirts from communal farmers). And, of course, large polities that try to work with that ethical system continuously devolve into totalitarian nightmares, as constant moral pressure to keep people contributing, without recourse to local and self-interest, proves insufficient and requires brutal coercion (and the calculation problem doesn't help). Prehistoric communism may have worked well enough when there were 1 million people spread across the globe, and it may work well enough today in small tribes scattered around the world. We have no reason to believe it could work with a complex economic system sustaining 7 billion human beings of increasingly diverse tastes. So no thanks. "It worked for our incredibly poor ancestors, who were shorter and died young!" is not a great argument.
Well, it's simply biology 101 that the formation of what I'll call a social phenotype is determined by the interaction of individual members of a group and by their social environment. Now then, the evolution of the social phenotype of Homo communist (communist man) was promoted by the equalitarian economics and enlightened interdependent interpersonal relations that prevailed in hunter-gatherer bands. And individuals with this socialist social phenotype of course survived and passed on their genes, and individuals who attempted to express greed or a will-to-higher-status were purged and frequently did not reproduce.
The result, the result of group selection and phenotypic plasticity operating over a hundred and fifty thousand years of hunter-gatherers actually living the ethos of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is that our basic social phenotype and makeup is such as to make us fitter for an egalitarian-communalist form of society that cynical pro-capitalists would like to admit. Yes, a socioeconomic system that pursues the equalization of every citizen's welfare is not at all as farfetched a vision as we're conditioned to think. It's actually the atomized individualism of capitalism that's unprecedented and that's proving itself to make for a socially and morally and ecologically unsustainable society. Mm-hmm, our species has been wading through history up to its neck in a gene pool filled by communistic ancestors, repeatedly devising socioeconomically symbiotic and collaborative forms of community that reflect our communist hereditary legacy, humankind most definitely has the right deoxyribonucleic stuff to grow beyond capitalism into a more fraternally equitable, classless, and synergistic way of living together and in the world. We merely need to open our minds, shaped to be cynical as they are by living under capitalism, to such an optimistic possibility. P.S. Now no doubt all of this is going to provoke some here to reply only to tell me what a communist clown I am for entertaining and advocating such an unconventional vision. But consider some of the fringy views being put forth here by some of the pro-capitalists, i.e., that "humanity" and "society" are merely abstract concepts that we should dispense with, that we should think only in terms of atomized and amorally self-interested individuals, that drug dealers should be allowed to ply their trade and perform their service to their customers in a "free market" without being subjected to our moral judgments and interference, that wheelchair salesmen and drug dealers are morally on a par, that operating a motor vehicle on public streets shouldn't be seen as a privilege, etc. Yes, consider these views of some of my "libertarian" libelers who are as far outside of the mainstream of social and political thought as yours truly – of course I'm off on the left bank of the mainstream and so-called libertarians are to be found in their own little kooky corner of the right – and pardon me for saying that if I'm a communist clown, then they're fit to be called libertarian loonies.
Ah, yes, this assumption comes from the logic employed by apologists for capitalism. Behold a right-libertarian egoistic individualist reductionistically dismiss the social-relational nature of human beings and their existence, their social morality, and their capacity for altruism and heroic solidarity as a herd mentality! What a bleakly atomizing & alienated, materialistic & spiritually-philistine "libertarian" lebensphilosophie in which every man is an island entire of itself, cut off from the continent of humanity, untouched by and unwilling to reach out to his/her neighbor, and interested only in being a wealth-overaccumulating junior capitalist.
Capitalism is the organisation of social labour as value, so it necessarily reduces all social production to a single, homogenised abstract, exchange value, and present all social products as packets of value first, and as heterogeneous objects of utility only secondarily. Apologists for capitalism, taking as their axiom that greed and egoism embodies some universal, tranhistorical rationality, assume that any rational form of social production will likewise hinge on a homogenising abstraction. The possibility of such a reduction can thus be employed as a test to determine whether any given historical system is rational. But if the axiom is not valid, and it's not self-evident that it is, then the test doesn't function, and that line of criticisms becomes void. Got a response, gotlucky?
Theoscout:Ah, yes, this assumption comes from the...
How so?
Did you just say that value is organized labor? That in the process reduces all production to a single abstract exchange value? That also the value is first while the utility is only secondary? Yes, if you want to strawman labor as a single value, which it's not. What's the value of labor? Can you say to anyone at any given time? My labor, your labor? It's abstract, enough that it cannot be reduced to single exchange values.
"But what of money?" you'll proclaim. The value of money in relation to labor/service/product is subjective between the two individuals involved in the transaction and how much they value said exchange.
Yet, we're not reducing labor to single values to test whether historical systems are rational, but what is the axiom? Is the axiom subjugating labor to single units, or whether value is subjective and that humans act? What line of criticism is void to an actual accepted axiom (humans act) and not one you've just made up to strawman an argument that doesn't exist?
"Yes, a socioeconomic system that pursues the equalization of every citizen's welfare is not at all as farfetched a vision as we're conditioned to think."
whats astonishing is the conditioning that allows you to consider the idea of a socioeconomic system "pursuing" an end.
The result, the result of group selection and phenotypic plasticity operating over a hundred and fifty thousand years of hunter-gatherers actually living the ethos of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is that our basic social phenotype and makeup is such as to make us fitter for an egalitarian-communalist form of society that cynical pro-capitalists would like to admit.
Nope, that does not follow. Let's say the first part is true: human beings evolved to express communistic sympathies. But again, these were small tribes connected by blood and shared experience. It does not follow that such sympathies function in cities of tens of millions or nations spread over thousands of miles. Rather, as classical liberals have argued since Adam Smith, these sympathies may be innate and work in our local relationships - we will share with our family and close associates - but our sympathies are less, non-existent or hostile for people outside these circles. Civilization progresses and humanity achieves such wealth through this interconnected web, with people relying on their natural conscience locally but bourgeouis values for trade and economic organization. This 'phenotype' still functions, but as one factor of a greater whole. (while, unfortunately, leading some people to think our natural sympathies alone would suffice to manage a modern society)
Your narrative also completely ignores intertribal trading. Tribes did not just run into each other and meld into a larger communistic tribe, sharing whatever each needed. They would often war. If they did trade, they did it according to the self-interest of the group (as a man may choose his job in accordance to the self-interest of his family, not merely himself), not out of benelovence for these weirdos. The success of this system, with groups trading with each other, occassionally warring, specializing in some goods and relying on imports for other goods, etc., suggests that the 'social phenotype' is insufficient for, well, civilization. Hayek builds this narrative very persuasively in The Fatal Conceit.
Thescout: Ah, yes, this assumption comes from the logic employed by apologists for capitalism. Behold a right-libertarian egoistic individualist reductionistically dismiss the social-relational nature of human beings and their existence, their social morality, and their capacity for altruism and heroic solidarity as a herd mentality! What a bleakly atomizing & alienated, materialistic & spiritually-philistine "libertarian" lebensphilosophie in which every man is an island entire of itself, cut off from the continent of humanity, untouched by and unwilling to reach out to his/her neighbor, and interested only in being a wealth-overaccumulating junior capitalist.
Ah, yes, the pseudointellectual completely ignores the questions posed. I didn't see that one coming.
Thescout: Capitalism is the organisation of social labour as value, so it necessarily reduces all social production to a single, homogenised abstract, exchange value, and present all social products as packets of value first, and as heterogeneous objects of utility only secondarily. Apologists for capitalism, taking as their axiom that greed and egoism embodies some universal, tranhistorical rationality, assume that any rational form of social production will likewise hinge on a homogenising abstraction. The possibility of such a reduction can thus be employed as a test to determine whether any given historical system is rational. But if the axiom is not valid, and it's not self-evident that it is, then the test doesn't function, and that line of criticisms becomes void.
Capitalism is the organisation of social labour as value, so it necessarily reduces all social production to a single, homogenised abstract, exchange value, and present all social products as packets of value first, and as heterogeneous objects of utility only secondarily. Apologists for capitalism, taking as their axiom that greed and egoism embodies some universal, tranhistorical rationality, assume that any rational form of social production will likewise hinge on a homogenising abstraction. The possibility of such a reduction can thus be employed as a test to determine whether any given historical system is rational. But if the axiom is not valid, and it's not self-evident that it is, then the test doesn't function, and that line of criticisms becomes void.
Others have already addressed this ridiculous paragraph.
Thescout: Got a response, gotlucky?
Got a response, gotlucky?
Yes, I do. How about you actually respond to Sowell's questions. I'll repost for your ease:
Maybe you can stay on topic this time, but I won't hold my breath.
dude that obama phone video is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time
Maybe he should read How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter Schiff.
A critical thought for Clay, gotlucky, Malachi, and others. Ours is most certainly not a system of beautifully paternalistic plutocracy, geared for benevolent "job creators" looking out for the welfare of the workers whom they use and commodify. Rather, it's quite distinctly a system oriented toward profiteering and the empowerment of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. Rudely strip away all of the free-marketarian rhetoric and ideology that you use to rationalize your support for capitalism and this is indeed essentially what you're defending, a system that's fundamentally and entirely about capital accumulation and capitalist supremacy, and whose crass attitude is democratic and humanistic values be damned. Well, this is precisely the "commie" rudeness that I'm guilty of, and precisely why you find me to be such an annoying bete noire. Be this as it may, and despite your open detestation of my constructive efforts at sharing a critical point of view, my hope for you-all is that one day your intellectual and life journey will take you to an honest awareness of the unlovely nature of capitalism, and of the subconscious psychological motives behind the staunchness of your support for such a thoroughly unlovely system. Mm-hmm, as I'm fond of saying, hope springs eternal, and I will always continue to sincerely hope for your enlightenment, regardless of how much petty ad hominem invective you spew in my direction.
can you condense all your commie nonsense into like 15 words or less? It's not that I'm against hearing what you have to say, per se, but I don't really want to invest a serious amount of time to parse it all. Can I get the coles notes version of your rant?
He fails to realize that by creating wealth and satisfying the needs of others the business owner is satisfying his own needs. He seems to not understand that in a transaction everybody wins. Everybody is better off. Maybe he is confusing free market capitalism with crony government (otherwise known as the misnomer of "crony capitalism").
Irwin Schiff in his book "The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing you" made a good point that even in a socialist society it would still be capitalism because capital is needed to produce things.
Think about it. In a socialist society the central planning board would be striving for capital accumulation but there would be a total disconect with the subjective value judgements of the consumers.
It needn't necessarily be a total disconnect from the demands of consumers - although this would no doubt frequently occur as the consumption preferences of bureaucrats were deemed more important than the consumption preferences of the proletariat at large - because these demands are displayed through choice. An increase in demand for, flour, is shown in the depletion of flour from the common store. The problem lies in capital goods industries.
Thescout: A critical thought for Clay, gotlucky, Malachi, and others. Ours is most certainly not a system of beautifully paternalistic plutocracy, geared for benevolent "job creators" looking out for the welfare of the workers whom they use and commodify. Rather, it's quite distinctly a system oriented toward profiteering and the empowerment of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. Rudely strip away all of the free-marketarian rhetoric and ideology that you use to rationalize your support for capitalism and this is indeed essentially what you're defending, a system that's fundamentally and entirely about capital accumulation and capitalist supremacy, and whose crass attitude is democratic and humanistic values be damned. Well, this is precisely the "commie" rudeness that I'm guilty of, and precisely why you find me to be such an annoying bete noire. Be this as it may, and despite your open detestation of my constructive efforts at sharing a critical point of view, my hope for you-all is that one day your intellectual and life journey will take you to an honest awareness of the unlovely nature of capitalism, and of the subconscious psychological motives behind the staunchness of your support for such a thoroughly unlovely system. Mm-hmm, as I'm fond of saying, hope springs eternal, and I will always continue to sincerely hope for your enlightenment, regardless of how much petty ad hominem invective you spew in my direction.
Okay, I'll just repost Sowell's questions and patiently wait for your retort: