Capitalism and the art of love

(How stupid we were)



This nasty image reflects the cruel concept that a large majority of humanity has about Capitalism as the culprit of poverty and inequality in the world.

Nothing more unfair: Poverty does not exist, it is only the absence of wealth. As poverty is actually the natural state of man if he is stripped of goods and services he produces. Without these goods and services produced (by men) and shared (traded) in modern societies, we are at the mercy of the strong and inimical forces of Nature and reality, which we know well all we that ever found ourselves suddenly isolated from these goods and services either lost in a forest at night in the Winter or with the car accidentally broken in the middle of some solitary nowhere.

This wealth that we share and that protects us from poverty/nature (medicine, technology, food, shelter, transport, leisure, culture. etc.) is not generated spontaneously nor by "The Society" neither by God nor grows on trees, it is produced by men like us.
This wealth which we value so much explicitly or implicitly has grown extremely slowly in all the millennia who preceded us in the history of mankind and has multiplied exponentially only in the last 200 years specially starting from the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism.

Before it and just 300 or 400 years ago Man as species still struggled in disadvantage against hunger, pestilence, distances and all the powerful forces of Mother Nature, because the growth of wealth goods and services was so small that it was much easier to get them by force: stealing.
For hundreds of thousands of years the formula to get better in life was very simple: Take an ax and crack the head your neighbor, the tribe next door or whoever had what you wanted, all which was called "conquer." Slavery, permanent warfare, rape, torture, exploitation and death were massive and general commonplace for us as a species until only 200 years ago. Even today there are large segments of the global population fighting in disadvantage against those same forces of Nature, experiencing firsthand the living conditions of that ancient past, these are all parts of the World where the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism have not arrived yet, or where for a variety causes they have arrived only partially.

Why then Capitalism is blamed for the historical ills it is actually healing?

Here are my guesses:

1- Philosophical and historical inertia:
Philosophers, intellectuals and leaders of the mankind (and along with them most of the population) have not yet grasped this relatively new historical phenomenon and continue analyzing the reality with parameters of the previous historical period, the feudal era where wealth was obtained by means of force and man was still the master of man. The "bad guy" was the rich because he had quite sure stolen his wealth somehow from others. He or his predecessors had to exploit, kill or torture many men weaker than them to acquire or preserve prosperity.
So many people still apply the same obsolete logic to the capitalist entrepreneur who not only do not steal by force the wealth form others but is the real hero of society because he produces the wealth, goods and services other men eventually enjoy. Capitalism is the only political-economic system that allows the free action of these modern heroes, who in turn do not produce that wealth guided by altruistic purposes, but do so for their own sake and here comes another reason why Capitalism is blamed:

2-Christianity and its inverted model of values:
2000 years ago a man named Jesus of Nazareth came up with a philosophy that says that it is wrong to do things for the benefit of your own but it is good to do things for the benefit of others. Why?
There is no logical explanation for this idea and it would take too long analyze the causes in this brief post, but the truth is that this position have become widespread ever since affecting the thinking capacity of a large majority of humanity promoting altruism as the ultimate ideal of nobility.

3- There is in all of us some primitive desire to return to be "Children"
So someone take care of us, so we don't have to pay for our mistakes, so we make decisions that have no significant impact on our lives because someone or something will forgive us and finally save us. The Catholic Church and many other religions exploit this feeling through a "pastoral paternalism" and divine figures appealing to our lost childhood: "God Father" and "Mother Mary" for example. The atheist collectivists instead favor a "paternalistic society" to whom we owe who we are and always ensure that our needs are satisfied not matter how good or bad children we are: We are all "Equals"

The explosive combination of these 3 concepts are mixed in the following reasoning:
If someone has more than others is bad because surely he took it from other people in some obscure way, plus it is also wrong to have when others do not have.
Someone has to be guilty of the plight of the less fortunate, a good Father does not make difference between his children

The nasty picture shown at the beginning is a living reflection of this thought, the chubby child with a McDonald's cup in hand and a western cap on his head signaling a hungry child probably from Africa, both under the words "enjoy Capitalism" written in letters of the logo of Coca-Cola represents more or less the following message: The "fat" Western society is guilty of the African hunger together with multinational business usually identified as a bulwark of "Heartless and stateless capitalism" that has plunged humanity into a nightmare of inequality and cold, materialistic injustice.
When it is quite the opposite, no one has done more for the poor (and every) men in the history of the human race that capitalism and "heartless" entrepreneurs who have progressed under its protective umbrella of individual rights.
Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men of the world has indeed and unwittingly done (while generating his own wealth) much more for the men of planet Earth than the already holy Mother Teresa of Calcutta and all missionaries in history together.

But why "the art of love"?
I was reading last week a brilliant essay of Nathaniel Branden in the book "Capitalism: The unknown ideal'
Branden critically analyzes there in depth the ideas of the German philosopher Erich Fromm who wrote "The Art of Love" book that I read many years ago and thankfully forgot.
Fromm belongs to the obsolete large group of twentieth century philosophers who longed for Feudalism and the Middle Ages and the alleged and glamorized harmony between their fellow man and Nature that was "lost" in the industrial era, probably because his aristocratic ancestors did not die young working the land of the master or in one of the frequent famines or in an epidemic of cholera. He and all the modern stupid (and ecologists) that despise so much the advances of modernity and technology should be given a dose of their own medicine and left to live alone in the middle of the Brazilian jungle where they will quickly reach before 30 that "lost" harmony they long for... in heaven.

The Self-Help Guide to Living in a Free Society

(By Gen LaGreca from "The New Individualist" magazine)



Too many Americans are losing the ability to take care of themselves and are instead looking to the government to run their lives for them, in the tax-gouging, liberty-killing system called the welfare state.

Too many Americans seem willing to replace the life of a proud American eagle, flying alone and free, with that of a hapless chicken penned in a coop, waiting to be fed. The welfare state has all but squashed the essential skill of our survival: the skill of taking responsibility for our own lives.

Although we are besieged by self-help guides of every kind - from how to train a parakeet, to how to cook pasta, to how to combat addictions to alcohol, or obsessive 'Net surfing, or other disorders - there is one guide to personal improvement that is conspicuously absent from today's cultural scene. It's a guide that statist politicians and the groups that support them do not want us to discover. It's a guide to curing the worst dependency of all: the urge to satisfy one's needs by dipping his hand into the wallet of his taxpaying neighbor.

To combat this affliction and to rediscover the meaning of freedom we need a "Self Help Guide to Living in a Free Society." It might read something like this:

1. If you don't go to school and don't work hard to get ahead, don't expect the same rewards as those who do. You haven't earned them.

2. Don't expect others to pay for your foolishness. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, be more careful next time. Don't sue the restaurant that served you or push for a law to regulate the temerature of coffee. And if you're on a jury, don't award people huge sums for being irresponsible.

3. If you coose to live in a hurricane zone, then buy insurance or take your chances. Don't expect the taxpayers of Minnesota to cover your losses.

4. Drop the communal mentality that aims to force one course of action on everyone, paid for by one cosmic bank account: the taxpayers'. Don't ask, "Should we go to Mars?" If you want to go, go - as a private venture and stake claim when you get there.

5. Don't meddle in others' affirs. Don't ask, "Should we ban this drug for arthritis because it has side effects?" Consult your doctor, not the government, and let others decide for themselves how severe their arthritis is and the risks they're willing to take. Other peoples' joints are none of your business.

6. Don't expect the government to look after your health. If you think certain foods will clog your arteries, then don't eat them. Don't call for a battalion of bureaucrats to control other people's blood vessels

7. Don't try to force your personal living standards on everyone by pushing for the government to ban harmless activities. If you don't approve of gambling on the Internet, then don't do it. Leave others alone if they choose to gamble and are causing you no injury.

8. Don't try to get a home for free. It's not free. Get a job and pay for it. Don't force others to pay a premium on their homes so that you can get yours at their expense. If you want affordable housing, then support the deregulation of the industry, which will lower prices for everyone.

9. If you default on a loan, accept the consequences, lick your wounds and avoid making the same mistakes again. Don't expect the government to bail you out with money fleeced from the taxpayers who made a more prudent lending and borrowing decision.

10. Don't try to get ahead by forcing people to give you special privileges. Your sex or race doesn't qualify you for a degree or a job. Only merit does.

11. Don't look for a risk-free life. There is no such thing. If you buy a malfunctioning toaster, return it for a refund. If it is truly harmful, seek redress in court. But don't unleash a squadron of inspectors to regulate every toaster on the planet, just to protect you from one defective cord.

12. Don't instigate laws to stifle your competitors or to give your business special governmental favors. If you can't win customers by offering them the best products and services in a free market, then close up your shop and get a job working for a competitor who can.

13. Don't force people to support your pet causes. They are entitled to use their money to support their own causes. Look for private funding - not government grants - to find a cure for a disease, to produce a play, or to preserve an old mansion. The government has no business giving you charity with money that it uncharitably seizes from other taxpayers.

14. Don't support laws to control your employers. They're covered by the Constitution, too. They have the right to decide whom to hire, what to pay, and how long a lunch break will be in the businesses they own. If you don't like the terms, go elsewhere - and work to loosen the regulatory noose around business's neck, so you'll find better job opportunitites.

15. Don't expect any guarantees in life. There are none. You can lose your job, your investments can fail and your fiance can leave you. You have the right to pursue happiness, but no one ensures you'll attain it. Stop trying to use the government to shield you from life's risks.

16. Stop shouting, "Tax the rick!" The rich are also citizens whose rights are protected by the Constitution. The rich have the right to pursue their own happiness, not yours; and they are entitled to the fruits of their labor, just as you are to yours. Instead of chipping away at the rights of the rich, redirect your engery to creating wealth and joining their ranks.

17. Don't campaign for the government to give you things for free. If it pays your medical bills, then it controls the treatment you'll get or wont get. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but there is such a thing as being swallowed by a shark.

18. In short, recognize that every person - not just you - has an absolute right to his own life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. Being a good citizen is like being a good neighbor: You live your life privately and you respect others' rights to do the same. You keep what you make, and they keep what they make. You don't force your opinions, causes, needs, or problems on your neighbors, and they don't force theirs on you.

To live in a free society, each person must embrace the responsiblity for his own life that comes with freedom. To defeat the creeping tyranny of the welfare state, we must rediscover the founding principle of America: the power, the moral rightness, and the glory of the individual as the master of his fate and the captain of his soul.

Politics: Capitalism

("Give me liberty or give me death.")



In the following post I will analyze some concept/s of the essentials of the classical Objectivism as published in the ARI pages proposing expansions, complements and/or new thoughts about them.

Traditional Objectivism:

Politics
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force—i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.


Expanding the concept:

As I said in my previous post I was born in a country with a "mixed" quite socialized economy and I am a product of its public education and health systems without which my middle-low class family probably couldn't have had the possibility to afford my education and proper grown up when I was a child...

If I unreservedly support the Ayn Rand's doctrine of a full laissez-faire capitalism, am I going against my own historical survival as living organism?
It is probably a question that I will never be able to answer in the same way that nobody knows if Ayn Rand would have been the same person if she wouldn't have been educated in the Leningrad State University of the disappeared USSR. And when I say "the same person" I mean the same rational mind and the same hate against the socialism which she was a product of, the same hate that latter in her life impulsed her mind toward individualism and finally created the conditions for the discovery of Objectivism.
Destiny exists: It is what already happened...

Needless to say that in the big picture I support capitalism as (until now) the only political system capable of fully defending individual rights, and the freedom to grow based of your own effort and intelligence

But there is a detail in which I have some doubts about a full totally unregulated laissez-faire capitalism: Children
Almost every book, essay and principles of Objectivism are addressed to "persons" to men, to a man or better "the" Man, you, I.
Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels there are almost no children?

So my central question is: Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?
Are they free to choose? Are they capable of bearing total responsibility for their acts? Can they be left to their own effort?
In any case at which age?

From my very personal point of view a person doesn't born as a person, it takes a process to become a person
This is by the way the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.
Anyway at some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of the birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.
In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.
In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So it is reasonable letting these "persons-to-be" only in the hands of their parents? Are potentially bright children "guilty" of the eventual low capacity, poor educational level, or laziness of their parents?
On the other side it is reasonable that parents are full "proprietors" of their children? That they decide all about them from type of education to diet? I don't know if it "reasonable" but it seems to be fair, since children are born only by their decision, their desire, their sole responsibility and right. And after the children are born and for several years parents are the only supporters of their lives with their own effort hope and sometimes sacrifices. So it seems parents have earned the right and freedom to decide over their children's future, but for sure in modern societies this freedom shouldn't be the same unlimited kind of freedom that people have to decide about any other of their properties, since children are potentially and progressively persons, men.

What can then do a capitalist system or government in order to balance this delicate equation? And first of all should the government do anything at all about this?
In my opinion yes: Government should find the way to guarantee to these persons-in-formation gradually the same individual rights that must guarantee to grown men, including the fundamental right of freedom and defense against unjustified aggression of others.
But what freedom could there be in modern societies without education? I have always associated very closely freedom with knowledge. So I deeply believe that government should encourage an facilitate (not guarantee by law) the access of children to knowledge and education that from my point of view is probably the best form to guarantee their future freedom, and the best bet in order to ensure the continuity of the free capitalist system itself over the centuries

I am sorry...

(Apologize)



It is sad to suddenly discover that I was somewhat stupid most of my life.
Almos all my existence I was close to Objectivism in some basic vital attitudes and thoughts, specially those concerning to Metaphysics (Objective Reality) and Epistemology (Reason), but when it came to Ethics and Politics my mind was a strange mixture that I now regret and even when it could be quite worthless I have to confess my sin: I was more close to the "left wing" in most political and ethical points of view when I was young and even later. I have to say however in my defense that they were inherited ideas and concepts from my family and not from my own intellectual harvest, which doesn't necessarily redeem me from my responsibility anyway.

Over the time I questioned those ideas more and more and my points of view were gradually moving to a more realistic perspective, as long as I confronted myself with questions like: Why being rich "has" to be bad? Why socialist countries were falling one after other? Why the masses "have" to be always right? Where come the wealth from? How I would like to live? Who am I in reality and what I want as values?

So for all that I did and said wrong before, for al the ideas I repeated without deeper researching or getting more first-hand information, for all the people I despised and blamed, for all the thing I "thought" without really thinking: I apologize

But then some day, some time ago, it came to my hands a book from Ayn Rand (Thanks to my friend Daniel for this) and since then I finally found myself reflected in a coherent philosophy, my soul found a home.

But a question still arises inside me:
If I am now Objectivist, but I come from a family (and a country) very far from this philosophy, if I am a typical product of a "mixed" quite socialized economy and I have to be grateful to the public education and health systems of my country without which my middle-low class family probably couldn't have had the possibility to afford my education when I was a child...
What about totally laissez-faire capitalism as the ideal political system for a country? It would have been possible for "me" to exist in such a context? If I deny my roots and totally support Ayn Rand's thought in this particular matter (even when she herself said that it has not been yet fully implemented in any country) Would I be in contradiction with the basic principle of Objectivism that is defending my own personal survival as living organism? Including of course my mind?

I will analyze this in my next post about "Politics: Capitalism" the last remaining of the four basic principles of Objectivism stated by Rand "while standing on one foot"
Stay in tune! :-)