I have yet to meet a single person who read Atlas Shrugged and was not converted, in at least a minimal sense, to real free-market capitalism… not many who go all the way to anarcho-capitalist or even hardcore libertarian, but everyone walks away at least a Classical Liberal. Good enough, IMHO.
That is surprising to me. Many of my philosophy-major friends in college claimed to have read it, and then dismissed the ideas in it – it seemed to be almost fashionable among philosophy majors to do so.
It is disappointing to me that so many people think that Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead are primarily about advocating capitalism. The theme of the book is about the role of man’s mind in his life, and the presentation of a new morality based on self-interest. That theme is far more radical and original than the advocacy of capitalism itself.
I was already a capitalist and an egoist when I read it, so for me the message of the book was the last sentence from this excerpt:
“Free market capitalism” is either redundant or contradictory.
If it was merely redundant then you wouldn’t feel the need to use it. What does that make it then?
Btw. It didn’t really “convert” Alan Moore.
False dichotomy. It could merely just be descriptive considering that many people define capitalism in many different ways. To me it means private property rights and the absence of interference in markets. To others it may mean the current American system which to someone like me is not capitalism.
Words are for communication. “Free market capitalism” is the best way to communicate his ideas. You bring this up in way too many threads.
Exactly, so adopt a word such as capitalism about which there are so many misconceptions? Although, same goes for anarchism so I think we should lose that one too. Voluntaryism is the most suitable.
To me, black olives mean rabbit feet.
[8-)]
No. It really isn’t. It doesn’t compute with people. That’s the problem with contradictions; they’re hard to grasp.
The fact is, you’re wrong on any level you attempt to define capitalism as.
Not only do most people define capitalism as the American system today, but they’ve always defined it that way - whether it be the American system or the British one.
Whether by history or by language, you’re wrong to use the word capitalism. Unless you really do like state backed capital and the current system, in which case you’re just despicable.
Thanks for making my point. What most people define, is more often than not, particularly on matters of liberty, incorrect.
State backed capital is mercantilism or fascism. There are already a plethora of words to cover the various shades of statist corporatism. The issue is that anti-capitalists are merely playing word games, trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Mutualists, so eager to ingratiate themselves with the left (like Carson now playing footsie with Glen Greenwald) that they will actually dumb down and turn their back on libertarian verbiage to “fit in”.
Which is fine if you guys are hypocrites. That’s your business. However, I’m not going to stand by and watch you tear down what the rest of us are working for. There is a reason why some left-libs and mutualists shout in an echo chamber. No one else wants to listen to what makes little to no sense.
Yeah, I read your (Ante Simtapalic) writing at STR. The comments in the STR forum about your article are pretty revealing.
See, here’s the thing though. You don’t really have a point. You hold on to the use of the word capitalism for no other reason than that you’re a conservative.
It’s such a team mentality. Completely unobjective.
Well, you can go ahead and say that, but you’re just wrong. That’s something you’re good at being though, so…
Btw the term Mercantilism was created by you conservatives in the 20th century for the implicit purpose of masking the true identity of capitalism. Talk about newspeak.
That’s funny because I could say the same thing to you. I think in the context of a Mises Institute forum my definition makes more sense than yours.
20 little Rockwellians > 7 billion others?
Most people could not offer a coherent definition of the system if they were pressed to. So why, exactly, should one take and use their definition of the word?
-Jon
Thank you. Precisely the point I have made numerous times.
Okay Niccolo,
Shouldn’t you call yourself a liberal and not a left libertarian. After all isn’t the historical definition of a liberal what many of us would call libertarian. Most people in the world today also use the historical definition. Just a thought…
Because that’s how language works. Try going into a room where every person speaks English, but speaks it very poorly. Now just speak in perfect Spanish.
The fact that you speak perfect Spanish and they speak terrible English will not mean that you will be understood.
Because I’m not a liberal. I’m an Anarchist - i.e. a libertarian.
If you define the term, where is the problem? Most individuals have contradictory definitions of the term, which if you ask them to elaborate on will involve both state involvement in the market and unregulated markets.
-Jon