I came across this interesting article through Jerry’s blog; the article was making a moral case for capitalism. Anybody who seeks to know what capitalism really entails or has anti-capitalist sentiments on irrational grounds should read this article. I have been reading a lot of Ayn Rand’s works and i must say that her take on capitalism being the correct politico-economic system is by all means a correct belief, not by whim, but by reason.
These are the most frequent questions that anti-capitalists or skeptics of capitalism ask me: (1) Don’t the poor deserve healthcare, education, and reservations in universities and in the private sector? (socialists) (2) How can one be completely selfish as to think of making profits and not distributing their profits to those in need? (altruists) (3) What will happen to the environment because capitalism encourages the destruction of the earth and causes pollution? (environmentalists) Obviously, there are many more questions that I come across from different people, but these are the most frequently asked.
In my answer to the first question, there is a clarification to be made. The clarification is that historically poverty is not a direct consequence of capitalism, but that evils like injustice, force, fraud, and sometimes laziness lead to poverty. Take the example of the slums in Bombay. The activist would claim that because of capitalism, industries forcefully evict people from their lands because these people, originally farmers or tribals, cannot defend themselves because they don’t have legal deeds to their land or that the industries use force to evict them. They maintain that basic human rights are not respected and that this is a direct consequence of capitalism. This standpoint is not only false but also misguided. For one, in India, the individual’s right to liberty is only on paper written in some feeble page in the Indian constitution. Second, our courts and government do not serve the purpose of protecting the individual’s right to liberty and property. Thus, when the rule of law is replaced by the whims of the majority and the right to liberty is nothing but a mere concept, the reason for the sorry state of the slums is not capitalism but the evils of a corrupt government that does not recognize the right to property. And if this right is violated, the farmers or tribals can’t look to the law and order system for justice because the courts are either too clustered with work or they are so corrupt that the decisions made in these cases are biased and unprincipled.
My answer to the second question is an excerpt taken from an article that I hyperlinked earlier:
Doesn’t everyone deserve an education, health care, and a basic income? Isn’t it unjust that some people get wealthy while others have little? Shouldn’t we aim for a system that empowers the government to remedy such disparities?
Capitalism answers: no. There is only one alternative to the capitalist model of voluntary interaction–force. Every government policy that grants entitlements to some citizens does so, and must do so, by violating the freedom of others. To entitle citizens to things like education, health care, or public transportation necessarily requires forcing someone to teach or treat or drive, or forcing someone else (the taxpayers) to pay. In other words, to establish the “right” to education or health care is to establish the “right” to the time, energy, and wealth of those who must supply such benefits. When America’s Founding Fathers spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness, rather than the right to happiness itself, they recognized that one is rightfully entitled only to what he earns or gains by voluntary consent from others–success and happiness are to be sought and earned, not expropriated from others by force. In this sense, no one is “left behind” under capitalism: every individual has the same unrestricted freedom to pursue what he needs and wants.
Criticism of capitalism stems from the ethical ideal of altruism, the idea that morality consists of sacrificing for those in need. To selfishly pursue one’s own ends, on this view, is to shirk one’s moral duty to others. Capitalism rebuffs this notion by upholding and protecting each individual’s right to act in his own interests, in opposition to those who demand he sacrifice his time, effort, wealth and happiness for others. The altruist morality is inherently anti-capitalist because its implementation in politics requires the violation of freedom. Those who choose not to voluntarily sacrifice their interests for others must be forced to do so.
The third question was regarding the environmentalist’s concern that capitalism is anti-earth. Most environmentalists place earth before man. They regard industrial activity as immoral because it pollutes and believe that it will ultimately cause the earth’s destruction. While it is industrial production that has improved the standard of living and technology that has resulted in the eradication of many diseases thus creating longevity, they believe that capitalism, which supports industrial production, is hurting or destroying our “sacred earth.” Little are they concerned about the flourishing of humans. First of all, capitalism propounds the right to property and that humans are free to do whatsoever they choose to on their own property even if it is polluting their property. But if the actions of a person in his own property amount to violating another individual’s right to liberty and property, that person must be punished. For example, the Coca Cola factory was shut down in Kerala because they were releasing effluents in the river that was a source of drinking water to the villagers in the areas near the factory. Coca Cola thus was impinging on the villager’s right to survive and they were fully aware of this fact. Their shutting down by the government was justified since the rights of the individual were protected.
Further, humans have the right to the pursuit of happiness. And a large part of this happiness depends on the use of earth’s natural resources. If these resources when completely depleted could lead to the self-destruction of humans, then they should work to protect these resources, not because earth is sacred but because its preservation is necessary for the survival of humans. In other words, we should preserve our natural resources only if their depletion would adversely affect human life. That is let us work to preserve earth to preserve ourselves, not to preserve earth for itself. If respiratory diseases such as asthma are a consequence of the pollutants emitted by cars and industries, humans should work to make more fuel efficient cars and industries should make their processes better so as to decrease pollution. Being an asthmatic myself with pollution as its cause, I would still respect the man who strives to reduce harmful emissions through technology and innovation rather than someone who holds on to a tree to prevent it from getting cut for a highway project on the grounds that trees help in reducing pollution.
As quoted by Ayn Rand, capitalism is indeed the unknown ideal.
