Embracing Markets, Opposing
Quote from Article
My mind has been blown. I am a conservative libertarian, and yet I think there should be safety regulations and I think there should be anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws in our Constitution, but on the whole I am for capitalism and mostly free markets.
What do you all think?Contributors to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, commentators on Faux News, and (other) spokespersons for the political and economic elite may continue to use “capitalism” for whatever it is they say they favor. They’re not libertarianism’s natural allies, and there’s no reason for libertarians to emulate them. Support for free (or freed) markets is quite consistent with enthusiastic anti-capitalism.
“We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell”-Oscar Wilde
We're all hellbent on destruction... black days begin.
Capitalism is just a set of natural forces which enable us to work within our environment in a certain way, facilitated by certain inventions. There is nothing primal or magical about it, it comes about as a result of certain logical constraints and realities. Change those and you change it. There is no logical reason why we should think of the free market as having the delicacy of butterfly wings; we can tweak and alter it for the common good, in ways the raise the sum of human happiness. Once Capitalism entailed people chained to work-stations in hell-like factories where little children worked beside their parents. We changed that. There are other things that can be changed as well. Of course everything must be considered I'm not saying we should rush in, but every system can be tweaked, altered, transformed, why should the free market be especially exempt from human inventiveness and progressiveness being applied to it in order that it foster a more fair system? Certainly I don't think anyone would posit that capitalism is a fair system. There is a certain illusion of parity in it yes in that everyone works within the same rules, but certainly not within the same conditions. If we can promote equity, and if we can promote a more equal distribution of available wealth between various parties why would anyone suggest avoiding it. One truth is in a world with finite resources and a constantly growning population capitalism is not a system that is ever likely to see the whole of humanity not only fed, clothed and able to work, but to do so within standards which we (first world citizens) consider conducive to human dignity. If that is the case I feel it is incumbent upon us to consider how it can be made into or replaced with such a system, but only a viable system. Any such system may, unfortunately, be incompatible with our current social and moral level of development I understand this. If that is the case then we should try to raise the zeitgeist and promote education so that we can at least look foreward to a time where everyone alive has the oppertunity to work for fair compensation, rest, eat well and meet their basic needs socially and environmentally. Until then make the best with what we have, and what works best for the largest number of people; this is probably capitalist democracy, but certainly not in a 'pure-bred,' form with an unrestricted free market. So long as your economy can remain competetive (a sometimes fine line) I think it is best to limit the markets ability to exploit and profiteer for the greater good. There is no reason why we should allow individuals to accrue sums of wealth that are so vast it ensures poverty and hopelesness elsewhere, there is nothing to be gained for society in doing this. A man does not need to be able to own as much as a small country in order for wealth and prosperity to motivate hard work.