Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What makes our definition of capitalism the correct one?

Rate this topic


happiness
 Share

Recommended Posts

How do we justify the claim that capitalism is the separation of economy and state? Is that the meaning intended by the person who coined the term, or is it just that that is the only meaningful definition possible? The meaning many on the left seem to ascribe to the term is something along the lines of "the action of rich people." What makes me right, and them wrong?

Edited by happiness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The term was probably originally coined by some economist(s), who was/were likely not thinking about economic freedom from any interference by the state, but a specific observed resulting activity which occurs in a free-ish economy.... 

 

It so happens that economic conduct free from interference exhibits a great deal of "capital accumulation".  Although this is an important activity which occurs in a completely free economic system it by no means is the only way to describe the totality of all economic activity free from interference by the state. 

 

Other things such as invention, intellectual labor/services, lending/credit etc. are major activities exhibited by free economies.

 

And after all it would stand to reason Capital need not be "accumulated", nor is it the most important thing... for human productivity to be fully engaged. 

 

 

So, in answer to the people on the left... the issue is not what you CALL the only just and proper economic "system", the issue is the fact that you and they disagree on a fundamental level what that system is, and in YOUR case, it is laissez faire... and you call it laissez faire capitalism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the industrial revolution, wealth was often bestowed on those who could offer protection, or often seized from those who could not protect themselves.

 

After the industrial revolution those who do not understand its underlying cause came to proclaim themselves the defenders of the poor against the rich, while evading the fact that the businessman does not become rich by taking from the poor—and the defenders of the weak against the strong, while evading the fact that the strength involved was not the strength of brute muscles any longer, but the strength of man's mind. [partially paraphrased from FTNI, pg. 41]

 

Capitalism, as an abstraction, projects an ideological integration of economic principles under a proper system of government based on the moral principle of individual rights—the right to act on the independent judgment of ones own mind—in a society where others respect each others right to do likewise as well; where the government is tasked with upholding and protecting individual rights from those who would initiate physical force and/or fraud against another.

Edited by dream_weaver
grammatical corrections.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we justify the claim that capitalism is the separation of economy and state? Is that the meaning intended by the person who coined the term, or is it just that that is the only meaningful definition possible? The meaning many on the left seem to ascribe to the term is something along the lines of "the action of rich people." What makes me right, and them wrong?

The fact that your definition doesn't contain the phrase "something along the lines of". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Dreamweaver above, again.  Then realize, there is a concept (an idea) in the category of the economic relationships between the members of a community, and between the members and their elected representatives.  This organizational idea is based on a recognition of the truth of the best in human characteristics.

 

This idea anticipates that the humans who seek values they can create without interference with the desires of others are the ones who act reasonably, and that a politico-economic system should be based on these people.  This idea recognizes that people with other ideas about life do exist, but their lack of values is not a consequence in our formulation of the idea.  This idea recognizes that some people fall on hard times of varied origin and supports those who choose to assist these victims of negative chance, but will not require the community to assist them under the threat or implementation of force.

 

Under this system/idea, force is only legal when applied by the agents of the elected representatives, and only applied in response to the initiation of force or fraud against the citizens.

 

It's capitalism and how could you disagree with the above?  I'll tell you how.  If you decide that individual reasoned values should be dropped in consideration, below an idea that all human/animal/environmental/thoughts/whims are equal in nature; that anything humans can imagine is equal to anything else they imagine.  Judgment is unnecessary because any idea is valid without reference to the nature of the entities involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...