Best way to spread the good word (Capitalism).

I've never sat down with someone in order to have a serious conversation about the merits of Capitalism.

But, I bet some RoR members have or, at least, have encouraged some of the virtues associated with Capitalism (I'm looking at you, Jules.)

As stated in the title, I'm looking for the best way to explain Capitalism in a one-on-one, civil confrontation.

For a clearer understanding, imagine sitting down with someone who has very little idea as to what Capitalism is. Someone who may even be a little antagonistic toward Capitalism. Let's say, someone who was raised by the public school system :).

How would you begin? Would you start with the basics? Would you learn of the other person's goals (say: helping the poor) and explain why Capitalism is the best system for the poor? Would you explain its superiority to Socialism in production, morality, etc.?

In what order would you do these?

If I were to sit down with such a person. I would begin by telling the person that I am pro-freedom. I would then explain from there what being pro-freedom entails. I wouldn't mention the term "Capitalism" right off the bat because it may turn off the listener (when many people think of Capitalism they think of sweatshops, children working in coal mines, and even slavery).

I'm still working out the details, but this would be my general plan.

So...Any ideas on how you would talk to someone about Capitalism?

Post 1

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - 11:17pm

I'd say that capitalism is misunderstood. It is a system where people aren't permitted to use force, fraud or theft to take anyone's life, liberty or property. When a government's purpose is to have laws and institutions, like courts, that are there just to protect people in this way, then people can make their own choices - they are free. When you don't have enough government, then people are threatened by thugs, thieves, con artists, or foreign military forces. When you have too much government, it is that government that threatens them, takes their property, denies their liberties, and con's them into thinking they have fewer rights than they do.

Every possible human interaction, every human interaction that has ever happened is one of two kinds: voluntary or forced (which includes threats, theft and fraud). The proper function of government is to create the optimum environment for voluntary association. When it does create this kind of environment, even if it isn't perfect, it is called capitalism.

People keep coming up with things that they think should be enforced by government, like taking some money away from those who are rich to support those who are, say disabled children. But that violates the basic function of government. It shouldn't be engaged in stealing from anyone, not even when they are claiming it is for the best of reasons. In this way it is like freedom of speech. If we are to have freedom of speech, it must go along with tolerance for speech we don't like or agreement. We choose to value the principle of free speech above having to hear hateful or stupid things.

Capitalism is looked at as an economic system, and it is. It is looked at as a political system, and it is. But more than anything it is the simple result of allowing people to be free, to act on their dreams and desires as long as they don't attempt to get what they want with force, fraud or theft.

It will rarely help to argue capitalism in the usual terms because people's minds are usually frozen in those areas. If they suggest that we need to help disabled children, just say you agree, but that it is done far faster, more efficiently, and more completely when it is done with private, voluntary charity instead of having government steal from some, run the money they stole through bureaucracies, then give out what is left in ways that rarely work very well.

Post 2

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 9:32am

Kyle:

I think you are on the right track, painting capitalism as a consequence of freedom; it is free association applied to commerce and industry, to be contrasted with the forced association of the state acting in a constructivist manner, as if individual humans were tinker toys that needed control by elites.

When humans interact as peers living in freedom, trading value for value as peers, the result is capitalism. Dispersed power, collecting up only under the rules of free association, without coercion. It is the proper role of government in that model to be the chief enforcer against coercion and forced association-- especially and most importantly by itself. (Our present government is a failure in this regards.)

When some humans leg lift themselves over others for whatever reason(including 'their own good')the result is some flavor or variant of totalitarianism; the unfettering of the state, including its heavy handed lurching into commerce and the free association of free people.

Smokestacks and wingtips in a totalitarian political context does not make it 'capitalistic.'

Got to run, I have to go freely participate in some tiny remaining slice of capitalism in our current tribal mess.

regards,
Fred

Post 3

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 6:36pm

Make an island with some families on it:
Farmers: plant seeds, irrigate, pick crops
Hunters: keep rabbits and other rodents off the farmers' land, and hunt the forest for bigger game
Craftsmen: make tools like chairs, bows, plows, and more
Miners: find strong metals for making strong tools, and mint rare metal coins for market value storage & trade
Inventers: use their imagination on their understanding of reality and big problems to create new tools and processes that had never existed before.
Plumbers: maintain water supply by charging usage by the kiloliter of a freshwater lake
Beggars: beg people to give them stuff because they need (and they are lazy or lame)
Priests: damn people to horrible death if they don't give them stuff
Politicians: suggest people are no good unless they give their stuff to the beggars (shhh and to politicians)
Thieves: take stuff from others without permission, and run away if confronted
Murderers: like the thieves, except they fight to the death for whatever they are after

Who should choose how the crops the farmer picks are used? How about the game the hunter brings home? The crafts? The metals? The water? The inventions?

Post 4

Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 5:35am

On Hannity last night, there was someone from the ACLU using the phrase 'forced association' -- repeatedly -- to describe the Right To Work issue.

Need to blow some air on those faint embers...but Hannity was his usual on air deer in headlights, did not register with him at all.

But there is hope when people start to see these issues in that light.

Really faint hope.

Post 5

Saturday, December 15, 2012 - 8:15pm

Thanks for the comments folks.

When introducing Capitalism to someone, I will go the pro-freedom route. I will stress free association and cooperation. I'll likely proceed to individual rights; however, this may be a dangerous area due to some people's mistaken ideas about rights. Like the word "Capitalism" I probably won't say "individual rights" immediately. Instead, I'll talk about the different human capacities that lead to rights: volition and reason. Here, another danger presents itself, the subject becomes "dry" and I may lose the attention of the listener, if I haven't already.

This brings up a new question. How does one introduce (and have accepted) "dry" ideas to a population concerned mostly with fashion, the latest gadget, etc. i.e. a population not concerned with ideas based in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, etc?

I once attempted to explain the proper relationship between men to my mother. She didn't get it, well, not fully. Her reply to me was: "I got this far without knowing about those ideas". Can't disagree with that, but could her life have been better had she understood these ideas? I think so.

To overcome this barrier ("dry" ideas), I could attempt to relate those ideas to the listener's interests. I guess I would be explaining why philosophy is important to the listener's life. If someone likes the latest technology, I could explain how citizens living in a Capitalistic society produce the greatest technology. There is ample evidence of that.

It may be tougher to relate the ideas of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics to the listener in a way that is meaningful to them. Freedom without a strong foundation won't last long.

I still need to give this a lot of thought...

On Hannity last night, there was someone from the ACLU using the phrase 'forced association' -- repeatedly -- to describe the Right To Work issue.

Sounds like you're getting out there, Fred.

Post 6

Sunday, December 16, 2012 - 8:17pm

Some like concrete examples more than abstractions. So for epistemology you can point out how its better to think for yourself using evidence and reason rather than have some mystical preacher guide you into doing something that harms yourself that could easily be avoided. Particularly when the preacher says "You just have to have faith" or "Believe me" or any kind of argument/persuasion to skip over critically thinking for yourself... warning sirens should go off. I'm sure you can find some good examples. Cheers.

Post 7

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 9:54am

We need good music.

Steve's point is too easily acceptable as a negative. "Capitalism is not force and fraud." What is it in a positive sense? I think that we got off track in the earliest of times. Benjamin Franklin's "Way to Wealth" expressed bourgeois virtues back in 1758. But we did not build on that for 200 years until Atlas Shrugged --- which is still largely negative, about the destruction of civilization, rather than its reconstruction. (Read Francisco's "Money Speech." It is mostly about what money is not.)

I agree with DMG that different people have different modes of learning and understanding. So, there is no one best way.

Look at commercial society, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Taco Bell, Subway,... PF Chang's... Last weekend we at a new Bravo Brio. A lot of money went into it and the place was packed. I have no idea how they do it, but they do, so the formula - if it exists - is known. But the same recipes seem not to work in philosophy or politics.... or maybe they do... Maybe the complaint is that we want a larger market share but do not know how to find our consumers.

McDonald's does not seek to convert vegetarians. ... in fact, just the opposite: they sell salads now! I watched two promotional DVDs for Scientology. They were very slick, very nice, telling people who are confused, uncertain, and unsure of themselves that they can liberate their potentials and be as happy (and good looking) as the people in the video.

The Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, even the Hoover Institute ... George Mason University, The Ludwig von Mises Center ... a lot of people are marketing the ideas. At some level, you have to accept reality. If you think everyone else is wrong - and what Objectivist does not? - then build the mousetrap that will bring the world to your door. You really do not need to convince people of something they want.

Post 8

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 11:40am

Michael, you mischaracterize what I wrote in post #1, when you say my point was only that "Capitalism is not force and fraud."

I described the needed structures, the relationship to laws, the purposes imposed on government, the description of capitalism from the fundamental level of human interactions, and that it can be viewed from political, economic and moral perspectives.

Post 9

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 2:49am

Re"spreading the good word"
MEM knows nothing of capitalism, he is..a security guard.
Lol finally saw him admit he is a pragmatist though!!(cant rememberxthe thread!!

Post 10

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 7:00pm

You see, now I'm leaning toward Dean and Michael (whereas before, in another thread, I was in Steve's corner, cheering him on).

I like what both Dean and Michael said here and, importantly, do not take Michael's words as an attack on what Steve said. To stick up for MEM, Steve, he didn't say that you described capitalism in the negative sense -- he said that some types of thinkers out in the world would easily accept it in the negative sense. When Rand titled her book: The Virtue of Selfishness, some people warned her that some types of thinkers out in the world would easily accept that in the wrong sense. It is not because it is wrong, it is only because it can be easily mistaken -- by a mediocre thinker -- for being wrong.

Rand didn't care to pander to the unvalidated prejudices of mediocre minds, or else she would have renamed her book:

Living for yourself isn't really all that bad.

:-)

I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself there. It's something that needed to come out of me at the moment. Where was I? Oh yeah, there is the issue of whether you are right or wrong, and the issue of whether you will be perceived by a select group of people as being right or wrong. Here is the grand moral question:

If 51% of the people who will ever read your writings will walk away with the (mistaken) impression that you are wrong, should you pander to their prejudices in order to bring more people into the correct line of thinking?

My answer is "yes." The first criticism of this answer has got to be that it involves a lack of integrity. If I am so willing to water-down something I said in order to tip-toe around the sensitive and oft-mistaken feelings* of others, if I treat potential peers with kid gloves all of the time, then aren't I sacrificing or subverting my own values?

Enquiring minds want to know.

:-)

As a teacher I learned that it is important to have the truth in your hands -- to know and understand reality -- but that perhaps the second-most important thing in the world is to be able to get others to a vantage point where even they can see that truth, so that when you go about your business of living really, really well, you do not have to fight against the whole world in the process. It's also very cool to witness a mind grasp truth, especially really important and meaningful truth -- such as, say, the virtue of selfishness or the value of capitalism.

Ed

*Feelings aren't usually thought of as things that can be "mistaken" -- but feelings come from thought, and thought is very often mistaken. Someone who hates capitalism, for instance, is having a "wrong feeling" -- for the same reason as if they hated "food and water and shelter" but expressed that hatred while personally benefitting from those very things. Note: It is usually not productive to shout at such a person: "Your feelings about the subject matter are wrong!" People tend to take something such as that much too personally.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/20, 7:13pm)

Post 11

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 8:14pm

Ed, I said that Steve defined capitalism in a negative sense: the lack of force and fraud. He is right; it is. It misses the wider and deeper truths.

I do not have a one-line definition for capitalism. I think that the attempt is an example of the damage done by public schools.

In Orwell's 1984, the horror was not the arrest, torture, and execution of Winston Smithm bad as that was. It was Newspeak. the reduction of human thought to mindless grunts, to become a doubleplusgood ducktalker. So, we seek memorizable word strings, often not even sentences.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the individual's right to property." Well, ok... Is that all? Lots of societies have that - a feudal society, or ancient Rome, for example. They were not capitalist. Even in a capitalist society, the right to property is not absolute: your property can be confiscated by law or even leveraged away extra-legally. I agree that the right to property is important as one parameter in the determination of whether and to what extent a society is "capitalist."

Can people be property?
Can ideas be property?
Can spoken words be property? Publishers go crazy when authors have characters using scotch tape and kleenex. But you can say the words without being sued, apparently. Is that capitalism? or not?

I think that a book-length definition of capitalism might be required to be complete and correct.

We have a mixed economy, part capitalist, part socialist because we have a mixed-premise society, part individualist, part altruist. Our society is a consequence of the fact that most people live compartmentalized lives, applying reason and the evidence of their senses to some things - driving a car, working a job - but not in other areas such as philosophy, which most people seem to ignore entirely.

So, is a capitalist society one in which most people recognize the primacy of existence? Indeed it is. But it is more than that. That cannot be the definition.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/20, 8:16pm)

Post 12

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 8:54pm

Mike,

But can't we just say that capitalism is ... ?:
a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
... and ...

the only system consonant with man�s rational nature, that it protects man�s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

... and ...

It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man�s nature�the connection between his survival and his use of reason�that capitalism recognizes and protects.

... and ...

Corresponding to the four branches of philosophy, the four keystones of capitalism are: metaphysically, the requirements of man�s nature and survival�epistemologically, reason�ethically, individual rights, politically, freedom.

... and ...

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships.

... and ...

Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth�capitalism does not tell men to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit�capitalism does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance�and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned. In all human relationships�private or public, spiritual or material, social or political or economic or moral�capitalism requires that men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle of justice.

Source:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

That seems to cover the gamut.

Ed

Post 13

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 9:30pm

See, Ed? Michael was mischaracterizing my statement, and continues to. (p.s., Your quotes from Rand were excellent.)

I discussed Capitalism in terms of the two basic kinds of human interactions: voluntary or based on force. I mentioned the need for a government whose purpose was to create the environment that supports voluntary association. I mentioned that capitalism as an economic system, and as a political system, but these are just views of the deeper issue from a limited perspective. The deeper issue is people being able to act towards their own goals in all their interactions - without force, fraud or theft blocking those attempts.

My post was clear about getting to that heart of capitalism as the system that suits human nature.

Michael is throwing up flawed arguments. First with his mischaracterizing of my post, then by asking if people can be property, as if that was a serious question.

Michael doesn't seem to see anything wrong with doing away some forms of intellectual property. Would it be okay for someone to open a McDonalds without an agreement with McDonalds - just stealing the value associated with that name?

Michael wrote, "Even in a capitalist society, the right to property is not absolute: your property can be confiscated by law or even leveraged away extra-legally." The right to property is always absolute. The fact that some, no most, Hell, all governments, violate some property rights doesn't mean that the rights don't exist, aren't universal, inalienable and absolute. The fact is that we judge a society as capitalist or not by the degree to which it respects the individual's rights. Contrary to what Michael might imply you aren't going to find societies that respect individual rights that aren't capitalistic, and you won't find societies where rights are mostly violated, but that you can call capitalist.

I have no idea why Michael is nibbling around the edge of separating rights from capitalism... but clearly, he is. He said that there is are wider, deeper truths about what capitalism is. He is right, but only in that capitalism is the expression of man's drive to seek his values in exchanges with others. But that isn't a state of being that grows on trees - it needs understanding and implementation of protecting structures. And those structures and that understanding is quite simply the effective outlawing of force and fraud.

Post 14

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 10:11pm

Alright, alright, I concede the point: I was wrong about Mike being right.

I think what's going on here is a difference in focus. Mike likes to focus on the details, and probably remembers more of them than others do. Steve and I appear to like to focus on the fundamentals. It's like we are all looking at a tree for the first time. Let's look through my special looking glass [reaches into back pocket, pulls out a magnifying glass much to big to have been able to fit in the back pocket] and see what we would say to ourselves or others while doing that ...

Mike: Hey, look at all these cool leaves up there. They are sticking up from that woody thing below them. More to the point, if viewed from one angle, they resemble a fish and if viewed from way over here, they resemble a rusty 1967 Pontiac Bonneville. I'm willing to bet you that there are over 1000 of those leaves up there.

Ed: Hey, look at this living thing right here. I'm willing to bet you that this tall woody cylinder has extentions that run into the ground, or else -- integrating what I know from physics -- or else it would tip over. Also, regarding all those leaves up there, I'm willing to bet you that nutrients are shunted up the long woody part and sent into the leafy outgrowths at the top. In fact, I'm willing to bet you that if you cut the trunk in the middle, then those leafy tips at the top would die -- the whole thing being just one complex organism with a specific organization that would give rise to all of that fancy detail at the top. It starts from the ground as a base, grows up from there, branches out from there, and terminates in those frail leaves. I'm willing to bet you that those leaves also serve a function for the thing, maybe to catch water or sunlight or something.

:-)

One of the above views is foundational, the other is "perspectival."

Ed

Post 15

Friday, December 21, 2012 - 2:45am