A friend of mine was blaming capitalism for destroying the environment. I told him what we have now is corporatism/fascism not capitalism. He responded:
What I call capitalism is clearly capitalism. The term ‘capitalism’ to describe a economic system was first used by Proudhon and Marx. They both clearly defined capitalism as the collusion of business and the state at the expense of consumers and workers. Capitalism is what we currently have, a free market is what I think we ought to have.
So capitalism equates to corporatism, under Marx’s definition. And since he was apparently the first to coin the term, his definition has been the most influential.
My suggestion is we stop using the word capitalism altogether. How about “voluntaryism”?
Voluntaryism is a social philosophy centered on the non-aggression principle. Capitalism is the order of production that would arise out of a widespread embrace of voluntaryism. They are two different things.
I would say that, more or less, about 9 out of 10 people equate Capitalism with free unregulated markets. Your friend just happens to be that 1 out of 10.
If using the word “capitalism” is a problem because it originally meant something very different from how we use it, then modern liberals should be having a lot more difficulty than they are.
The word liberty or the notion of property rights is meaningless to them as well. If these ideas were clear and well known, we would be living in a different world.
People think of the system we have now as being free market capitalism and are often quick to blame problems on the economy directly on capitalism and purposefully ignore that government intervenes. The latest examples being healthcare and the financial crisis.
I’ve been using corporatism to describe our system and it’s stuck though people generally leave out the government part and only focus on the coporation part.
My opening line is usually something like “no one should be judge in their own case” or “don’t attack innocent people”. People don’t have a CLUE about property rights. I have repeatedly asks non-freemarketers on forums where property rights come from. The most sophisticated of them have heard of lockean homesteading, but still think property rights means that corporations can pollute your air.
Sieben I too have hate having to explain things to people like property rights or libertarianism in general to people who dont want to understand it. I would ask what boards you frequent but i’m about to make a topic for that anway lol.
I’m pretty sure the term “capital” pre-dates Marx. Is there a Mises daily or equivalent on the history of this term?
I agree that capitalism has a connotation in usage which is incongruent with the technical usage of economists, which is a shame. I tend to avoid using the term for no other reason than that the political pundits are using it all the time. I prefer “free market” since it is essentially synonymous and in wide enough use that the average person will still understand what you mean when you use it.
I think if I were to explain property rights better to people, then I’d actually have a few people convinced of libertarianism. The only person I know at work who’s educated enough to talk about economics and politics thinks that a business (like a restaurant) is public property.
I told him public property is like a sidewalk, or a library, he agreed but said that a business is still public in a sense. I tried to explain that a business is privately owned like your home. He says, “No because a business can’t disallow anyone they wish like I can in my home.”
I told him, “What I’m trying to say is that they SHOULD be able to disallow anyone they wish, as if it were their property - because it is, they paid for it.” “Since you agree with me that you own your home you can choose who gets to enter, would it be okay if the government forced you to allow everyone who wanted to enter?”
I then went on about how there really is no distinction between the business’ property and my own, why just the other day a friend came over and I sold my xbox. Does that all of a sudden make my home a business where everyone can walk in regardless of what I think?
Greg, I had that exact some conversation and I didn’t know what to say either. It comes down to homesteading and attacking innocent people. The act of building a house or a resturaunt for some purpose is peaceful. Forcing either to be a public place is an act of aggression. Moral questions aside, you discourage future prospects for more houses/resturaunts.
Moreoever, banning outright racism leads to other more awkward attempts at segregation. Raising prices. Changing location to all white districts… see country clubs.
But the burden is really on them to show that anyone would be denied basic services if you allowed discrimination. Businesses don’t want to piss off their customers. The Montg. bus company didn’t want to force blacks to sit in the back because blacks were its main customers. It and many many other businesses fought the law. Why are modern businesses all of the sudden bigger closet racists than 50 years ago?
I third having the same conversation about property like that. Whenever I try to explain to someone that owning a business is no different than owning my own home they always use the same rebuttals “well you’re serving the public” or “that could hurt minorities”,etc…
The newest one is when they start talking about oursourcing and I or someone will ask “should we put up tariffs between states?” and they don’t respond. Lol.
“The newest one is when they start talking about oursourcing and I or someone will ask “should we put up tariffs between states?” and they don’t respond. Lol.”
This guy couldn’t respond either, just blew me off, I guess it’s a good thing?
I think this means your’e at least really giving them something to think about.
I guess so! I guess the best tactic is to slowly plant seeds of doubt in their thinking since it’ll make them question their world view. That’s what happened to me before I became a libertarian as I was a progressive.
The most visceral, cuts to the bone argument I’ve seen/used for the existence and sanctity of natural rights (I didn’t create it, so I can’t take credit for it) goes like this. First, know whether the person even believes in natural rights. Odds are they don’t. Just get them stance of legalization of drugs and you’ll know. More than likely, they’ll oppose legalization on grounds that it hurts children or society and support prison sentences for offenders. Having the anti-drug law pass by majority rule further validates their belief and justifies the State’s actions toward offenders.
Then you ask them if a majority voted to make it legal for me to gang rape you and your children, would you also support this law? If majority rule made this law, would they think it acceptable? That hits hard and to the point. They will always then agree that, yeah, they do have certain ‘natural’ rights that can’t be taken away or violated no matter how many people voted for it. Then I turn it back to the drug example, and ask why they believe they have natural rights but a guy taking drugs doesn’t. How come they demand their rights but happily deny the drug user his? Hypocrite? Immoral? think this cuts through the BS quicker than anything. At least it has whenever I’ve posed it to non-libertarians.