In my previous blog post, I talked about how human rights should be the basis of law and policy making. I stated, however, that capitalism, and not communism or socialism, is the desired economic state. This will no doubt cause confusion to myriads of those whom have been deceived from birth into believing that capitalism is the cause of our socio-economic woes. As I noted in said aforementioned blog post, the cause of our socio-economic woes is the total disregard for human rights, and thus, by extension, a total disregard for human freedom and liberty. A lot of people often throw around the term capitalism without understanding its proper meaning, and so it is understandable for them to be so confused. In this blog post, I shall explicate upon what precisely capitalism is, versus what it is perceived to be, and contrast it with alternate economic models, namely those of communism, socialism, and keynesiansim. As I have already mentioned, human rights should be the basis for law and policy making. Human beings, being autonomous, free agents, created in the image of God (I accept evolutionary theory, so please don't accuse me of me of being a 'creationist'), are thus endowed with certain objective, intrinsic rights. All human life has objective worth, and so it follows that all human beings have the same equal rights. Those who disagree, well, what can I say about them other than that such views are totally antithetical to human prosperity, and are an anathema that must be opposed by all and any means necessary (providing, of course, that human rights be upheld at ALL times.) Essentially, human rights are exclusive claims, that require no action on the part of others to be upheld. Chief amongst these rights is the right to freedom. We are free to do as we wish, providing, of course, we are not infringing upon the rights of others. We should be free, both socially, and economically.
I mentioned briefly in my previous blog post that capitalism is an economic system of economic freedom. What this essentially means is that the economy is market driven, NOT government driven. This is important to understand since government driven economies, which is the very definition of left-wing economics, have been the standard economic system for much of the 20th century, and the entirety of the 21st. Every time I hear someone complain about capitalism or right-wing economics, when pressed to give an example, they can only ever provide examples from nations with government-driven economies. For example, in an econically free market driven economy (i.e. capitalism), the government would not be permitted to bail out and subsidise large corporations. Such corporations would be subject to market forces, and would be forced to compete with other businesses fairly, instead of lobbying for the government to pass legislation favourable to themselves but disadvantageous to their rivals, small businesses, and working people. In an un-free government-direct economy, the government is free to impose its arbitrary standards as it sees fit, passing legislation favourable to the highest paying corporations. In a capitalist economy, businesses unable to compete fairly are left to fail, whereas in a government-directed economy, they can be saved from failure at the expense of the working tax payers, free to coninue making the same palpable errors that led to their being bailed out and subsidised in the first place. Such a vicious cycle, left to continue, will slowly drain away the national resources, until the only ones left with money are those in power, and their corporate pals who, because of government intervention and regulation, have been able to craft a hegemonic monopoly over the market.
Such control over the market is NOT the government's responsibility. History has shown that when the government intervenes and regulates, it inevitably leads to poverty. Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal' extended the American Great Depression for decades, Hitler's economic policies, whilst achieving temporary success for Germany, inevitably led to Germany running massive deficits and, fortunately for us, losing the second world war. Stalin and Mao's economic policies were so disastrous that they led to mass famines, claiming the lives of untold millions. In the modern age, the last vestiges of communism are dying, but socialism nonethless remains, and we sit back and watch as our world leaders drive us into poverty, whilst they laugh and grow fat. Such government control over economy is no different from government control over social policy. Thus, to be consistent, we must embrace social and economic freedom. Think on this, our governments continue to print money from centralised national banks, greatly devaluing our currencies, and rapidly driving hyper-inflation. Our governments continue to bail out and subsidise not just banks, but big business and corporations. They pass legislation that allows for these festering halls of corruption to continue making the same bad decisions, which are many and considerable. If neither government nor corporations can be trusted, why give the government MORE power over the market system? Such government control is precisely what these corporations want, and such control is the polar opposite of capitalism.
Capitalism is solely an economic system, one of economic freedom. You are not required to embrace social authoritarianism, since the two are logically incompatible. Indeed, my argument for the embrace of economic freedom is based upon the very notion of social freedom, since both stem from human rights, specifically, the human right to freedom. You also don't have to believe in the Christian God, or, indeed, any god at all, in order for you to accept this. That is where my belief in freedom originates, as does my belief in objective morality, and objective human worth. Though it is my personal belief that such beliefs can only logically follow from the truth of theism, you do need to share that belief, nor do you need to share my other beliefs. Just as long as we agree on social and economic freedom, I would be content. It is my greatest wish that, even if only for a short while, and even if only limited to one specific region or area, that freedom be realised. Those who choose to work together can do so, and band together and unite under a common cause. Whereas those content to do ill can suffer the consequences of their actions. Alas, I fear that humanity will never realise such a state, and will instead sink into the hole it has dug for itself. Still, I continue to do my best to combat stupidity and ignorance, even if my best is to post long rants on the Internet.