Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 11)

This series featured a while back in Saturday Learning Series, but this recent John Stossel video has to be included if not for the title alone, then for the content.

For previous episodes, follow this link.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 10)

In this incredible, easy to understand lecture, Prof. Antony Davies explains that if you really want to understand how the world works today, you need to rethink almost everything you’ve been told about inequality.

This should be shared with everyone you know who does not understand basic capitalism and why it is a good thing. It's brilliant.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 9)

Capitalism is humane, deal with it.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 8b)

Continuing with the idea that socialism is evil, let's look at why it fails.

Ben Shapiro explains why socialism fails every time.



He also explains why it fails at being fair and moral:



Follow Ben's logic and you cannot help but conclude that socialism is serfdom.

Reason TV also explains that socialism fails where it is tried:



And yes, it is evil.


And Steven Crowder explains why democratic socialism is still socialism, in case you were tricked by their renaming it (like they did with global warming):


And oh ya, it still doesn't work:

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 8a)

Another sidebar here from the main thrust of defending capitalism; the argument today is that socialism not just flawed, it is evil.

Dave Rubin tones it down and explains in reasonable terms why socialism is just not cool (I've shared this one before).

Steven Crowder starts from the position that socialism is indeed evil:



Yaron Brooks explains why it is evil:



But socialism leads to poverty and violence, as it has in Venezuela:



Socialism leads to an unhealthy type of selfishness:

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 7)

How do you know capitalism is the right way to go?  Look at the list of those who seek to discredit or destroy it.  To know someone (or something), know it's enemies.

Osama Bin Laden:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

If you never believed that power doesn't corrupt, her pronouncements about being the boss should convince you that power does corrupt, and since socialism centralizes power and power corrupts, advocating socialism is akin to advocating corruption. But I digress.

All of communism:

communists, continued:



Envy:



Atheism (since it's aligned with communism):

It's an odd mix, I know.  But there are a lot more enemies of capitalism: there's a long list that consists of dictators, entitled sensibility people, and a whole host of useful idiots.  With all of that aligned against capitalism, it must be right, right?

Well, a list of detractors (negative negatives) does not prove the positivity of capitalism, even though it doesn't hurt.  In fact, many of the biggest positives about capitalism are what capitalism is not.  It's not authoritarian. It's not sloth-inducing.  It's not inhumane.  In a way it's a list of negative rights as former president Obama said, which is to say it enumerates what the government is not allowed to do rather than things the government must do.  But that's not the whole story - capitalism enables the opposite of those things; freedom, drive to succeed (along with the opportunity to do so where not impeded by government regulation) and through the invisible hand, selfishness as a tool to serve the greater good.  In the latter example in particular, it is absolute brilliance.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6b - the Hitler sidebar)

Continuing our sidebar on Nazism being socialism and expounding on the fallout that remains to this day of the lie that Nazism is a right wing ideology.  As a sidebar to the sidebar, it dovetails precisely with Democrats trying to (and succeeding) convince African Americans of the lie that the Republicans are the party of slavery and racism.  The left lies and it lies often enough to make the lie seem like it is the truth.  The purpose of this series is to share the truth, and the truth is that Nazis were socialists.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian

Jordan Peterson explains the pathology and dangers of national socialism (Nazism):

Nazism is socialism, and socialism is evil. But don't you dare confront them or you will be met with righteous indignation despite the truth:

Clearly the truth hurts their feelings and the EU parliament is supposed to be a safe space for socialists. Isn't it?  Kamall should not have apologized, he was right.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6a - the Hitler sidebar)

A brief sidebar in our defense of capitalism, to point out to the socialist Utopians who need to be educated, that Hitler was a socialist and that fascism is rooted in socialism.

Here are some explainers to share with your socialist-craving friends:

1.  Steven Crowder:

2. PJ Media:


3. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr:


4. Tom Woods:

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 5)

A lot of arguments have already been shared about why capitalism is not only good, it is the greatest good and provides the greatest good to the greatest number of people.  But that does not do much to contrast against other systems.  Let's take a look.

Ayn Rand offered a comparison to communism.

But let's face it, the craving of the public today is for socialism not communism.  They are essentially the same thing but for the sake of discussion, let's look at a broader comparison as propounded by Ludwig von Mises, explained in this Patrik Schumacher lecture.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 4)

Unfortunately we have to go short again this weekend on our ongoing defense of capitalism. Yaron Brook offers a lengthy lecture on Ayn Rand's moral defense of capitalism.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 3)

A short episode defending capitalism unlike last week, however the video itself is quite substantial. Capitalism is not about greed. In defending capitalism, Jeffery Tucker argues that capitalism is about love.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 2)

Individual rights depend on a free society.  As we saw last week, capitalism is a moral system. It is also an enabler of individual rights. The American governmental system is supposed to be an enabler of freedom and individual rights.

Ayn Rand explains:

Rand continues:

Ayn Rand was an atheist. But that does not mean her objectivist views on liberty and morality are incompatible with Christian belief. Certainly if Friedman's assertions are correct that capitalism provides the most benefits to the most people, then self-interest also serves altruistic purposes the most effectively.  The Christian tenets of self-sacrifice can be viewed through a different lens; the sacrifice of your own time to create value, and therefore wealth for yourself, also serves a greater good.  

Furthermore, if individual liberty is important for capitalism, it is also important for Christianity.  From a Christian perspective, God gave humanity free will.  Part of the reason for that free will no doubt was to allow humanity to come to God, not by force but by choice.

When you abdicate choices (i.e. your free will) to the government, you are abdicating your decision making process.  I've argued in the past that in that case you are abdicating your altruism (charity) to a forced system and worse, you are forcing others to do the same. You are stealing away their free will along with abdicating your own.  The only alternative to free-market capitalism, is government control.

Government control also is anti-God because, as is discussed in the conversation that follows, you are replacing God with government:

Christianity further argues that you should follow the rules because it is the moral thing to do. It teaches that you should work hard as well (at least the Protestant work ethic used to do so).  These are foundational to capitalism working properly.  If people subvert the rules, capitalism is corrupted, and corrupt capitalism (e.g. hegemonic crony capitalism) is not capitalism.

To be continued.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 1)

So many people in America today seem to be clamoring for socialism.  So many have propagated the idea that capitalism is evil.  That notion stems from a complete lack of understanding of capitalism.  Plenty of people have stepped up to defend capitalism and done a terrific job, so I am not going to tread on new ground here.  Instead what I am doing is providing a repetition of what has already been said by many great thinkers, because this message is getting lost.  It needs to be ingested, understood and repeated to those who clearly do not understand the vast array of benefits that they have benefited from by living in such a system.

One of the greatest thinkers was Milton Friedman.  Here are some of his relevant discussions .  As a preamble, the interviewer Phil Donahue puts capitalism in the context of greed.  Friedman did not take exception to the term, but I do.  There is a difference between acting in your own self-interest (which might be termed selfishness) and outright greed.  Greed implies covetousness, hoarding and potentially a willingness to break laws to become wealthier and/or more powerful.

Greed

 noun

   intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

   "mercenaries who had allowed greed to overtake their principles"

 synonyms: avarice, greediness, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity, graspingness, cupidity, avidity, possessiveness, materialism

Selfishness  noun

   the quality or condition of being selfish.

   "an act of pure selfishness"

 synonyms: egocentrism, egotism, egomania, introversion, self-seeking, self-serving, self-obsession, self-absorption, self-regard, self-interest, self-love

 antonyms: unselfishness, altruism, generosity

Those two words are clearly not the same. 

Milton Friedman explains the benefits of self-interest, as (opposed to greed) for society.

Walter Williams explains why this is actually more moral than other systems:

Marxism and the Pope

Bitter clingers?

The Pope says he's not a Marxist, but he's defending his criticism of capitalism according to The Guardian.  Great. I would contend that the Pope wasn't asked the right question.  

Pope Francis has rejected accusations from rightwing Americans that his teaching is Marxist, defending his criticisms of the capitalist system and urging more attention be given to the poor in a wide-ranging interview.

In remarks to the Italian daily La Stampa, the Argentinian pontiff said the views he had espoused in his first apostolic exhortation last month – which the rightwing US radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked as "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong" – were simply those of the church's social doctrine. Limbaugh described the pope's economics as "pure Marxism".

"The ideology of Marxism is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don't feel offended," Francis was quoted as saying. Defending his criticism of the "trickle-down" theory of economics, he added: "There was the promise that once the glass had become full it would overflow and the poor would benefit. But what happens is that when it's full to the brim, the glass magically grows, and thus nothing ever comes out for the poor ... I repeat: I did not talk as a specialist but according to the social doctrine of the church. And this does not mean being a Marxist."

He's not a Marxist, Marx decried religion so that would make no sense.  The Pope should have been asked if he was a  socialist.  If he has a political worldview that is informing his political views rather than the reverse, people should know about that.  

The Pope wants to reform the Catholic church.  That can be good and bad.  His focus on the poor is not a bad thing.  That focus would certainly help attract new people to the church.  But there is a difference between recognizing a problem and the prescription applied to it as a cure.  The Pope has decried capitalism but it has often been applied in a way that is as twisted as Marxists claim communism was applied in Soviet Russia.  In other words, capitalism has seen many flawed applications and it has still managed to lift millions of people out of poverty.  Perhaps what the Pope might be seeking is socialism.  Perhaps tempered capitalism.  He has been less than clear.

The danger for the church, particularly in the United States is that if he is taking a socialist approach, he risks turning off a lot of people.  While he may gain converts to Catholicism around the world, he could certainly lose the passion or even the faith of followers in America (and elsewhere). It's not clear if the Pope believes that to be the case and is taking a calculated risk, or doesn't know, or doesn't care.  The Catholic church  has a big pulpit.  If the pontifications coming from that pulpit espouse increased government control, the church may have lost its rudder.

Rush Limbaugh drinks the Romney Kool Aid

99.7% of the time?

There's a lot of things going on in the Republican race right now, and a lot of surprises are going to occur - that's to be expected.  However, the one thing I would never have expected is Rush Limbaugh aligning with Mitt Romney.  In going after Newt Gingrich he has done exactly that.

Rush Limbaugh is a paragon of conservative values, particularly when it comes to the issues of individual liberty and free market capitalism. . If Mitt Romney were not leading and likely to win the Republican nomination, I'm not sure Rush Limbaugh would react to the Newt Gingrich attacks on Romney as he did.

James Fallows defends the indefensible

James Fallows in the Atlantic has taken the position of defending Chas Freeman - the Obama appointee who (1) is too close to the Saudis (2) seems anti-Israel and (3) thought the Chinese were too lenient in their crackdown on the students in Tiannamen Square who were engaged in a peaceful protests and attacked by TANKS.

His rationale for defending the Obama selection, besides blind allegiance to a leader who made a dubious and questionable selection?

Freeman's longstanding contrarian inclination to challenge conventional wisdom of any sort, far from being an embarrassing liability, was exactly what a president needed from the person in this job.

Overriding any sense of international justice, since it wasn't perpetrated by the 'Bush regime', Fallows throws his weight behind someone who thinks what? More students should have been killed? More arrests should have been made? The suppression of free speech should have been more brutal?

The students were looking to make democratic reform. They were not burning and looting the city. But perhaps that is the precise problem. The people on the left, just as they pay lip service to the men and women in the military, seem to have developed a stance of paying lip service to democracy, all the while despising it. To them there is only one real truth and it is theirs. Socialism is good, capitalism is bad.

Using the most twisted gymnastics of logic seen in some time, James Fallows defends his position;

...For any of those roles, a man like Freeman might not be the prudent choice. But as head of the National Intelligence Council, my friend said, he would be exactly right. While he would have no line-operational responsibilities or powers, he would be able to raise provocative questions, to ask "What if everybody's wrong?", to force attention to the doubts, possibilities, and alternatives that normally get sanded out of the deliberative process through the magic known as "groupthink."

The problem with his logic is that some things are still black and white - cracking down on a sit-in by sending in tanks is a brutal and tyrannical response based on the retention of power, and it has no place in the modern world. This is not China of the Emperor Qin era. There is no 'what if' in this case. And the self-defeating argument of avoiding "groupthink" strays beyond the hypocritical into the realm of absurdity.

Fallows also argues that having contrarians is a good thing, in that they serve as a check and balance to an otherwise established view. True. The problem in this case is that the views he espouses don't seem to be all that contrarian with the President's pro-socialism stance on everything, and that means that Freeman is in fact marching in lock-step with the rest of the far left and therefore offers no alternative viewpoint that

The decision to select Freeman was a bad decision. Admit it. It's something liberals, in their arrogance seem incapable of coming to grips with. While conservatives are not always immune from that, there are plenty of instances where we can take issue with our leaders - Harriet Meyers, and amnesty for illegals spring to mind. Liberals however seem incapable of admitting their guy made (another) bad call.

An open letter to the GOP leadership

Having suffered electoral setbacks in 2006 and 2008, it is incumbent upon the leadership of the Republican Party to develop a recovery plan for the reinvigorating of the party and the preservation of the conservative principles we espouse.

Perhaps you are not aware of the reasons for your declining presence in Congress, the Senate and the White House. It’s been ascribed to many things – poor candidates, being too moderate, being too conservative, being too focused on re-election instead of governance. But it really boils down to a few simple factors that it seems, unfortunately, need to be outlined for you as a reminder of what brought the GOP to the heights of Ronald Reagan, and later during the era of the Contract With America.

The Republican Party has gotten away from what’s been referred to as first principles. You don’t need a second Contract With America, although it would be a nice marketing tool, and probably help clear up some confusion. It could also serve as a motivator. But here’s a more basic laundry list to consider. It isn’t actually all that long, but it is pretty specific. The points are really pretty simple, and by following them, you don’t need to worry so much about specifics on how to win. The pieces will end up falling in place by themselves.

Firstly, lead by example. You have been railing against the absurd levels of Democrat spending since the election and the Inauguration. But that doesn’t come across to America as more than partisanship, political posturing, or even worse, whining. What do you stand for, rather than what do you stand against? You don’t think banks and automotive companies that have been poorly run should be bailed out? Then neither should the government.

Promise fiscal restraint, and then deliver it. If you’re going to make a Contract 2.0, or however else you wish to promote your own vision (which you MUST do), you have to guarantee that if your party is returned to power, you will no longer submit deficit budgets. All budgets submitted will be balanced. If the Democrats intend to filibuster it, stand your ground (a point to be elaborated on below). On drilling for domestic oil – participate in grass roots efforts to promote domestic drilling – if you have to do it at a state level, do it. Leading by example often means being on the front lines.

Second point – live your beliefs. You believe in a strong national defense? Defend people like Rush Limbaugh when they are unfairly portrayed or attacked by the mainstream media. You want the private sector innovation to solve the economic crisis? Innovate yourself – don’t rely on a tired playbook to get your message out. Don’t get comfortable in the D.C. mindset – it keeps you distant from your supporters.

Don’t be hypocritical about how you live versus what you say – think Ted Stevens corruption. How can you be in favor of fiscal restraint yet be accepting bribes and accepting pork for your state? That’s a black eye on the party. If you believe in conservative ideals then live them. If you don’t believe in them then you are in the wrong party, get out.

To sum it up in a sentence: Be true to your faith in the Constitution and free market capitalism.

Thirdly, Don’t hide from the fight or wither under criticism. You should know by now the media are not your friends. They may be friendly towards you but those are crocodile smiles they flash. At the first sign of a fight, they will not only abandon you, but they will rip you to shreds like a wounded wildebeest. You want a recent example? John McCain. You want an example of how they are when there’s blood in the water? Sarah Palin. George Bush. Compare the treatment of Larry Craig with that of “Cold Cash” Jefferson – frenzy versus a yawn.

So if you can’t get a fair shake from them, don’t try to win them over. Instead, stand your ground. Stick to your guns. You’ve got nothing to lose. It might help to talk in short, but clear sentences so that things don’t get taken out of context. And maybe instead of ‘I hope he fails’ go with ‘I hope he changes his mind on his policies’.

Which leads to the fourth point – Communicate your ideas and accomplishments effectively, and often. Conservatives don’t trumpet their achievements from the rooftops – it’s not our style. But in politics salesmanship is important. You need people to know what good you’ve done. Most politicians are comfortable with selling themselves, but you need to be doing it constantly in order for the message to sink in. In politics, with only half an ear listening by much of the public, repetition is important. It's the only way to get people to retain the message. Why do you think you see the same piece of junk mail every month or the same commercial dozens of times a day?

The other part it, is to communicate effectively. You can’t rely on the mainstream media to promote your points, to publicize your points or to even not try to twist your points through a liberal filter. You have to control the conversation and when they own the microphone, you can’t do that. Do an end run like Reagan did. Take your message directly to the people. How many Republican leaders turned out for the Tea Parties across the nation? Perhaps a few well placed Congressional Representatives sprinkled across the country would have gotten a little more attention for the effort. Certainly you can leverage the work of others to help accomplish this – Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh. They share your beliefs, so don’t be afraid to embrace them and leverage them to help spread your word.

But go beyond that. You’ve got to be masters of community outreach. You’ve got to take our message to the uninvolved, because they won’t come to you if they don’t know you’re speaking. And the message certainly won’t be delivered, or delivered fairly, by the press. So go to churches, go to Union meetings, go to the NAACP, go to Hispanic citizen’s groups (perhaps not La Raza, but others). Go everywhere. Many people in these ‘groups’ have conservative values but don’t even realize that they are voting against their beliefs when they vote Democrat. Conservative principles are not gut-level principles. They require discussion. They require that “a-ha” moment. Where are you doing that? Where are you promoting that? Where are you defining what conservatism is and what we as conservatives believe? Just do it! The existing model for winning is clearly broken, or simply beaten. Why stick with it?

Fifth – know your friends, know your enemies. As a corollary- pick your battles accordingly. It needs to be spelled out. Your enemies are the mainstream media. Your enemies are the weak Republicans who side with the Democrats when there needs to be a unified front – either you believe in conservative principles or you don’t. Your enemies are the Democrats. These people are working against your purpose. Be aware and act accordingly.

Conversely your friends are people to be defended and supported. Be forgiving of friends’ errors, and ruthless in taking advantage of the errors of enemies. Don’t be ashamed to be that way. The Democrats do it, and they often do it brazenly and shamelessly. Guess what, they’re winning the culture war.

For too long Republicans, conservatives have fought with one arm tied behind their back. You’ve tied it there yourselves with kow-towing to the media, with drifting away from conservative values. But you can maintain your principles and still fight. In fact, if you don’t maintain your principles, why bother fighting? And if you don’t fight for your principles, why bother having them in the first place? You have to ask yourselves if you still believe. And if you do still believe, then why aren’t you being fierce in your dedication to preserving and defending the Constitution and the free market?

If you can answer both of those questions positively – you still believe and you are still fighting then you deserve to be a leader in the party. If you can’t answer both questions positively, you need to retire. It’s that simple.

Democrats drunk with power

Caroline Kennedy wants to be a Senator. That's her Christmas wish I guess the Democrats will deliver. No special election for Obama's vacant Senate seat seems likely. President-elect Obama is Man of the Year. Media bias is in high gear. What else could go wrong for conservatives? Plenty. President Bush has abandon any pretense of capitalism. Conservatives both moderate and real conservatives are eating their own. There's potential for a declaration of an Al Franken victory in Minnesota. There's going to be a Democratic Senator from Alaska (yes, Steven's could have let it stay Republican, had he stayed clean). A massive infrastructure spending is being proposed. Abortion legislation is going to be changed. New SCOTUS appointees are likely in the next few years, at least maintaining the status quo there, but possibly also pushing it left. And reporters are apparently being instructed on what to not ask of Mr. Obama;



The newly elected Executive and Legislative victors have not even been sworn in yet. How are things going to look in 2 months time? Or 12 months time. Different I expect. But how different is the real question. The fact that Obama has selected a good number of Clintonistas, and appears to be headed to the middle of the road, is no comfort. The Democrats have solid majorities in both the House and the Senate. They will want to push their own far left agendas. Obama will likely fall in line with them more often than not. Just like the Illinois go-along-to-get-along approach that served him so well in the past. And Obama himself is still has all of those radical associations in his closet.

Democrats are not likely to look for bi-partisanship now. They have no need to build bridges to conservatives. nor are they so inclined. Democrats are now where they were for a good portion of the 20th century - in power in at least 2 (in this case 3) of the 3 non-judicial pillars of government. In solid control in both legislative houses, and complete control of the executive. What do conservatives have to oppose them? The filibuster. Well you can't break that out on every single issue. It can't be part of every debate. We've got to pick and choose where to resist.

And in doing so I'd argue that where it is most needed are things that alter the playing field for time lines beyond 2010 and 2012. For example the Fairness Doctrine has far-reaching implications to Republicans. And the public probably doesn't care too much about it. It needs to be stopped if put forward. Illegal immigration and paths to citizenship - illegal immigrants are more likely to support Democrats than legal immigrants. That's another game changer. And that could be a positive one if framed right by the GOP and then the reasons for the position disseminated quickly, broadly and effectively.

As for the Democrats, they are likely to become more drunk with power over the next 12-16 months. What we can try to do to stop them, or hold them at bay, is not going to influence their decision to plow forward with every radical legislative idea they think they can get away with. The GOP has to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and be resolute in defending that line in any legal way possible. The battles are coming, we'd better be prepared with our resolve and get some tactics in place to support the strategic battles we need to fight.

We're on defence - it's not a pretty picture, but it needs to sink in that it's a siege and we have to hold the fort until the cavalry starts to arrive in 2010. Then again, we'd better get the cavalry suited up and armed PDQ as well.

I'm just saying.