From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:33:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov3.163611.25075@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:

>isn't perfect.  Messy things like racism and such tend to make the system
>less fair, and we have all seen how multinational corporations can become
>defacto governments in themselves.  But I see no need to throw out a
>perfectly good system simply because of these flaws.  We work to fix the
>flaws, don't we?  It's not like capitalism is on its last legs and the
>workers are ready to revolt like Marx warned.  It is my belief that, of the
>existing economic systems, free market capitalism does provide the most
>good for the most people in the fairest manner.  If that's a leap of faith
>on my part, then so be it.

Multinational corporations become so huge for one (or even possibly both)
of two reasons

1) They serve the consumers the best.

2) They get governmental privleges.

Free market advocates are all for the first, against the second. 
Capitalsim may be on its last legs, but not for the reasons Marx gave--
it is slipping away because of governmental policies.

Free market capitalism doesn't require a leap of faith. When countries are
the most free, they are the most productive and most wealthy.

> 
>>However if a serious commitment was made to VOLUNTARY
>>non-propertarianism, we might have a system that far exceeds capitalism
>>in OVERALL quality.  Emotional as well as material quality.  Voluntary
>>non-propertarianism is not an economic system that is enforced top
>>down like communism.   It is purely based on individual choice, and
>>is possible under all systems.  It doesn't mean you have to give
>>all you own away today,  it's a gradual thing, where people
>>come to value themselves more for thier contribution toward meeting
>>the needs of everyone, rather than on how much wealth they can
>>hoard.  It would be similar to charity under a capitalistic system,
>>but there would be far more commitment to other people.   It's a
>>gradual shift from cutthroat competition to compassionate cooperation.
>>The thing I like about this most of all is that it doesn't attack the
>>government, it simply makes the government IRRELEVANT.

Contrary to popular beliefs, capitalism doesn't necessarliy generate
cutthroat competition. It quite often will generate bad feelings between
competitors, but as far as business-consumer relationshipd it generates
good will. I would say the best way to generate compassion is to reward
each individual according to ability. This person will gain self-esteem
and pride from success, and will probably be more willing to help others.

Egalitarianism is doomed from the beginning. Eventually you will have
some working harder than others while everyone gets rewared equally.
There will then be a tendency to work less, and consequently there will
be less to redistribute. Of course, it becomes all the worse when the 
government forces this on people.

Frank Zappa said it best in his autobiography: (paraphrase) Communism
won't work because people like THINGS. One of the first words a child
learns is "MINE".

The free market, with its underlying principles of non-coercion, private
property, freedom and responsibility channels this quality best:

You will gain the most for yourself by trading goods and services with
others. 

Capitalism IS voluntary social cooperation. Capitalism doesn't guarantee
that everyone will like everyone else though. I don't think its a good
idea to try and force this on people, either.

The worst thing that capitalism does is breed envy. Some people attain wealth
faster than others. Many people hate this, but they fail to see that they
are still better off than they otherwise would be. Sure we have poor people
here, but aren't there more people living in poverty in China, South
America, India, the former Soviet Union, etc. If people would only
think, they would see that the rich in a capitalist society have become
rich by serving they the consumer best--would anyone deny Sam Walton his
millions if it meant no Sam's or Wal-Marts?

It is important to remember that the true wealth of a nation should be 
measured by the amount of goods and services per capita, not comparative
nominal wage rates. The rich in a capitalist society have earned their money
by serving you the consumer best. Isn't that what you want?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)



Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1766 alt.politics.marrou:2180