Timothy Birdnow

What is Capitalism?  The Left pushes this term (I prefer Free Enterprise) because it then makes the idea of a free market an "ism", a theory among many, one which they claim has somehow "failed". But it isn't just one among many, but is rather the way people behave when given their choice i.e. it is a form of Natural Law. People labor for their own welfare, or the welfare of kin and clan. They do not labor for the benefit of others unless they themselves choose to do so (charity). In the end, the individual reserves the right to decide.

Which is precisely what all alternative economic systems subvert. Take the old 17th century idea of Mercantilism. This was a "free enterprise" system to a degree, in that the State did not own the means of production and there were private businesses. But how did it work?

During the early colonial era the pickings were slim, and a given commodity was generally only found in certain places. Take sugar cane; it was primarily grown in the West Indies, and that was that. So if you wanted sugar you had to trade for it - or you had to own territory that produced it. That is what started the great period of colonialism; the desire to maintain empires in which every commodity you would need or want could be obtained, thus preventing a trade dispute from cutting off your supply. It was an artificial system, one imposed by government, one not designed to encourage growth but to manage the economy. What happened? Any given field of endeavor sought to maximize profits and so pressured governments to pass laws preventing purchase of foreign goods, or passing heavy taxes to make other businesses buy your product. This was very obvious in America, where a lively smuggling trade developed to circumvent the sugar tax (John Hancock made his money as a smuggler). People devoted more time and effort to circumvent the law than to grow their business. The end result was an economic system of scarcity.

That can be seen in Charles Dickens Scrooge. Scrooge is first taken by the Ghost of Christmas Present to the market place, where he is made to see the enormous bounty that kept arriving from foreign ports. Why was Scrooge shown this? Because he grew up in the Mercantilist era and did not understand economic growth but rather managing a limited economy. Scrooge believed wealth was stagnant, and if he didn't take it from someone else they would take it from him. He never understood, because of his upbringing during a period of powerful governmental regulations, that wealth can be grown and there is plenty for all. That was the sad legacy of Mercantilism.

And it is the sad, depressing legacy of human history, which has seen a monotonous parade of government control and regulation over what people would do naturally. The end result is never good, because Capitalism aka free enterprise is an expression of Natural Law and not an artificial thing, as these other systems clearly are. When people are free to pursue their own interests they create more than they need, and even the poor are brought along with them.

We saw the failure of primitive communism in Jamestown and later in Plymouth; in both colonies it was trend and failed, replaced by free enterprise. In the Soviet Union under Lenin's New Economic Program Kulaks (independent farmer) were allowed to profit from some of their own labor, since the collectivizing efforts were failing. The Kulaks prospered to an embarrassing degree so when Stalin took over he murdered them by the millions. People only produce when there is something in it for them.

But human history is full of hope to socialism and it's many forms, primarily because most people don't want to work and seek to take that which isn't theirs. Also, many people fear the uncertainty of life under a system where you have to sink or swim. So there has always been a strong desire to create a system where the rich have to pay to maintain a happy life for the poor. It's not a bad deal for the poor, although it winds up making them dependent and unproductive. But overall it simply stifles growth.

This is Biblical; the Book of Genesis has God cursing the ground to force Adam to eat of the sweat of his brow. Anyone who has a problem with Capitalism has a problem with God Himself.

Suffice it to say that what Adam Smith did was simply describe the natural order. Smith did not invent some fancy new system. Fortunately for America, we came along when Smith was riding high and were able to use his work as justification for what most immigrants to the New World wanted anyway; a place where they could profit from their own labor, rule their own lives, and live according to their own ways. American prosperity came because of this, not because of rich land or luck in war or any of the other things modern liberal historians try to ascribe to it.

And in such a system of prosperity the poor and destitute could always find welcome and help. America was and is the most generous, most charitable nation on Earth. Our charity is private, rather than public. We are often accused of being stingy because we do not have a big welfare state to care for the needy, but the reality is we care for the needy far better than do the Europeans or Canadians, who turn the matter over to government, and the taxes that they are forced to pay. Like Scrooge asked "are there no prisons, are there no workhouses"? I had feared something had happened to stop them from fulfilling their useful purpose"; see Scrooge paid for these with taxes, and figured he was paid in full. A capitalist system doesn't work that way, and everyone pays out of their bounty in thanks for what has been provided.

But all this essentially changed with the Civil Rights Act of 1064. While America retained the image of a free market system, it made a fundamental shift, where the customer had control of the business and the State could tell the business owner who to serve, how to serve them, and what they could offer. The economy shifted from a free market to a National Socialist economic scheme, a corporatism that profited the wealthy and established but hurt the small businessman - what G.K. Chesterton called Distributism - and stifled the fundamental right of the individual to determine his or her own destiny.

Dana Mathewson, Jack Kemp, and I have been discussing the Masterpiece Bakery case. Here is a clear-cut example of how America is no longer a free market system. Below is a portion of our discussion:

Dana Mathewson has this to say about the Masterpiece Cake Shop case:

"I'll only say that we can only hope SCOTUS establishes (I haven't followed up on this, obviously, having been away from the computer and the TV all day) that private businesses have the right to decide who they will serve, and who they will not serve, period. If this is no longer the law of the land, then America is dead and gone.

It's very simple: if I am a businessman and cannot serve you when you come into my shop, or refuse to serve you, then I can no longer say that I run my own business"

A THIS FROM TIM:

That was the trouble with that "public accommodation" rule that was instituted; no matter how noble the intent, it fundamentally redefined the relationship of the individual and the State. Businesses were considered an individual effort and subject to the will of the business owner until this came along. Now society makes rules that must be obeyed by the owner, so he's not really an owner at all but a caretaker. It's exactly what the Nazis and Fascists did in Germany and Italy. National Socialism says you can own your property but must subordinate it to the will of the State, unlike the communists who ended the pretense and simply had the state own it outright. Either way it's a brand of socialism, and America has been a socialist entity since that Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you own a business in a capitalist society you have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you don't like their tie or their pants or something you can say "no soup for you". It may rankle, and the businessman who does that sort of thing will probably not prosper, but it is still a right. It's fair, too, insofar as if you are the one discriminated against you can simply start your own business and ban that guy. In the end it's about the freedom of individuals, of those who sweat and labor and risk their money. The customer does none of these things and so has no actual rights other than to not be cheated or poisoned. The owner has a right to run his business as he sees fit, the customer is a guest, or used to be. Now customers have all the rights and the owner is an employee.

We've flipped this on it's head. In a natural system, one where the force of law does not impose, the owner runs the show. What we have is an artificial system where customers can use law to impose their will. It's a violation of Natural Law and our traditions. But of course socialism is an unnatural system of religious belief backed by the might of the state, and as I said, we are living in a socialist system and have for some time.

Funny how the "no Irish allowed" signs never bothered anybody. It was understood that the business owner had that right. Now we not only say anyone is allowed into a "public accommodation" but that we can force people to perform labor that offends their protected religious beliefs based on that same accommodation. Sadly, they are not really wrong in asserting this, either, as it is a natural outgrowth of a system run ultimately by government and not by the individual. When government has the authority to tell you how to do things you have no right to complain.


End.

It has been attributed to Alexis De Tocqueville the saying "America is great because America is good, if she stops being good she will stop being great>"

If this is true than America is no longer Great, because there is no goodness in bullies compelling a private little business to accommodate an immoral desire. That is the ultimate in oppression, but an inevitable act in a society where whoever is able to manipulate the Law and the force behind it to their benefit can compel those simply trying to live their lives quietly , to bend them to their will, will eventually do so. An economy run by government, one where the business owner must obey the Will of others, is not free and ultimately will not produce. People see no point in bothering, when they can simply take a job working for a big corporation or take money from their neighbors via unemployment and the like. Starting a business is a natural act. Keeping a busyness when you cannot run it as you see fit is stupidity.

That we even have to have a Supreme Court hearing over this shows how degenerate America has become.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1936 words, total size 11 kb.