I’ve just completed reading an excellent book about Capitalism, the economic system of laissez faire, individual rights, and freedom. The full title is: “Capitalism Unbound: The incontestable moral case for individual rights” and for such a short read I must say it does fulfill that promise. While I did find some errors with the historical [...]
I’ve just completed reading an excellent book about Capitalism, the economic system of laissez faire, individual rights, and freedom. The full title is: “Capitalism Unbound: The incontestable moral case for individual rights” and for such a short read I must say it does fulfill that promise. While I did find some errors with the historical aspects covered in the book, the overall argument made is fully accurate, and the message contained is of utmost importance to anyone who cherishes liberty and happiness.
Capitalism is a lost idea in the modern world thanks to statists who demonize it at every turn and self-proclaimed “conservatives” who refuse to defend it because of things like “focus groups” who deem the term unpopular. I fully believe that if we are to save ourselves and save our country we must turn all of our attention to the study of Capitalism as well as the failed systems of Socialism and Fascism. In Capitalism Unbound, Andrew Bernstein sets out to initiate such a study.
The book’s stated purpose is to lightly cover the main ideas and the moral issues surrounding Capitalism, giving the reader enough knowledge to understand the subject and enough references to do deeper dive research on topics that they find are important to them. To that end, it is arranged in three parts:
- The Historic Superiority of Capitalism
- The Moral Superiority of Capitalism
- The Economic Superiority of Capitalism
Personally I think this was a very effective method for presenting the author’s thesis as it broke the subject into three easily discernible areas. I will proceed to review each subject as it was covered:
The Historic Superiority of Capitalism
Bernstein’s first task in his discussion of Capitalism is to set out the historic record of economic systems and to compare them to the historic record of Capitalism. In a unique exercise, he lays out the economic conditions and systems of the pre-industrial world, from about 500 to 1500 A.D., and contrasts this with the rapid advancement and increase in the human condition seen during the industrial revolution. It’s a fascinating dive into the economics of the dark ages, something that I have not seen before.
Unfortunately, in describing the economy of 19th century America, Bernstein takes the “official” objectivist stance on the issue: that while not perfect, America’s government supported the free market and it was the lack of a philosophic base and the advent of the progressive movement that caused the government to shift toward fascism and thus create the disastrous mixed-economy that now burdens us. This is something that I’ve read several times in Ayn Rand’s works, that is universally accepted by the organizations devoted to the study of objectivism, and that has recently gotten me kicked off of a list of bloggers covering objectivist topics. It is as if Bernstein and Objectivists reject every statist myth about the American economy post 1870, but accept every statist myth about America pre 1870. It saddens me that this author and such a distinguished group of intelligent people have taken the wrong position and maybe some day soon I’ll do a post on this issue alone.
The reality of the situation is that the American government instituted by the Constitution is a Mercantilistic system modeled after that of Great Britain, where the government hands out favors and regulates free enterprise to accomplish the whims of politicians. This is clearly seen with the “Whiskey Rebellion” that occurred under our very first administration after the federal government decided to place a tax on alcohol – a move that was unjust, amoral, and totally the opposite of capitalism. The United States of America was never setup to protect individual rights and the degree of economic freedom and therefore prosperity that we have enjoyed is simply inversely proportional to the size and scope of the government.
America was founded by rugged individualists who fully believed in their rights to their own lives and their own freedoms. These are the men who carved out prosperous towns and cities from the uninhabited wilderness, the men who fought in the Revolution, and the men who were enslaved by the second handers in Philadelphia at the constitutional convention; only they did’t know it. The only reason we had so much economic success as a country is that our people were forced by nature to live as rational egoists and our government was simply slow to catch up.
That being said, Bernstein argues correctly that it was capitalism in rudimentary forms in Britain and in America that dragged the entire world out of drudgery and backbreaking daily labor. This is the only section of the book that I don’t think is fully accurate, but it is still very informative.
The Moral Superiority of Capitalism
The second section of Capitalism Unbound is devoted to laying out the moral justification for the system of freedom in practice, something that is not often accomplished by modern writers on the subjects of politics or economics. This justification is central to the entire debate though, for all arguments against Capitalism are made on moral grounds. Even the most staunch enemy of freedom will say that Capitalism does “work” (by increasing the standard of living for everyone) but that it is “flawed” in that it doesn’t care for “those in need.” They use this line of thinking to justify every single rule, regulation, or otherwise fascist imposition on the freedom of individuals. “Unrestricted Capitalism,” they say, “can only lead to an oligarchy of the wealthy and the destruction of the common good.” What is the common good? Whatever “they” say it is.
Bernstein absolutely shatters this flawed morality by setting forth the explanation of Rational Egoism and the side effects of defending the individual against the initiation of the use of force. He explains that only through self esteem and individual rights can we actually achieve goodwill towards others and honest, fulfilling charity. For example, is it “good will” that impels you to pay your taxes, which are then used for the “common good,” or is it the barrel of a gun? I know I wouldn’t pay them if I wasn’t forced to. Is an act of charity actually charitable if it’s not done voluntarily? Of course not. This chapter is very thorough and is extremely important if one is to understand just why the morality of the world is so backwards and why it is driving our economy in the same direction.
The Economic Superiority of Capitalism
In the third and final section of Capitalism Unbound, Bernstein performs a qualitative comparison of varying forms of economy, from socialism (or communism) to fascism to the modern calamity known as the mixed economy, where elements of freedom are arbitrarily mixed with elements of socialism and fascism.
He starts by studying socialism and its obvious and massive failures throughout history. He sheds light onto the inner workings of the Soviet economy and its slaughter of millions of innocents in the name of the “common good.” Again I learned something I’d never heard before in this section, when Bernstein outlined all of the massive amounts of aid, assistance, and intellectual property the USSR received from the western world, and mainly from America. I never learned about
this at school of course, but the fact of the matter is that Communism would have collapsed much earlier if FDR and other Americans hadn’t worked so hard to prop it up. If you already had bad feelings toward the American Progressives of the early 1900s, take a few deep breaths before you read this part of the book, but do yourself a service and make sure you read it.
Next Bernstein moves into the failure of the mixed-economy, the current system of American government that has led to the never ending boom-bust cycle that creates wealth for second handers and destroys the businesses and the life savings of honest Americans. In a relatively small amount of space he manages to pull together a wealth of information from Austrian economists that explains the economic chaos we have all seen in recent history. If you’ve read books like “Meltdown” this section will be nothing new for you, but it is refreshing to see an Objectivist at least honor the works of such esteemed libertarians.
Finally, in the last section of Capitalism Unbound, Andrew Bernstein offers us a “modest proposal” on how to right this ship and save our economy and our freedom:
- Let the United States move to full laissez-faire capitalism, assiduously protecting individual rights in all arenas of human life, including personal morality, as well as economics.
- Let every other nation, without exception, if they so choose, move to partial socialism, to whatever degree each country’s populace wishes.
- Open the borders of all countries, so that every honest person – but not criminals or terrorists – can emigrate to the land he prefers.
- Over a period of decades, even centuries, conduct a “Great Laboratory,” honestly studying the progress of each nation, emigration patterns between nations, and levels of fulfillment/happiness among individual citizens of each nation.
To be honest, I was a little bit disappointed in this conclusion to an otherwise excellent book. The reason: it’s just not rooted in reality. Step 2, for instance, has already happened and will continue to happen no matter what we do here in America. What we need to do is STOP sending foreign aid to countries who decide to do such things. Step 3 would be fine, but we can’t control the border policies of other nations, so it’s moot. Step 4 has already been done. All we need to do is look at history, as in the first part of the book, to learn what freedom will do for the prosperity of individuals.
Most importantly, Step 1 is simply out of the realm of possibilities for America. We are too far gone down the road to serfdom. Hell, we’re already there. The government will never relinquish its power, no matter who we elect or what resolutions we pass.
The proposal that I would have hoped for is simple: peaceful secession of every state from the Union. Have the different states run their own governments as they please, and see which ones are the most prosperous and the most happy. Fight like hell to have your state be one of the few that establishes a truly Capitalist system, having the government perform only one strict role: to protect individuals from the initiation of the use of force, either foreign or domestic.
In summary, Capitalism Unbound is an excellent book and I recommend everyone read it. It’s only about 130 pages and takes a couple of hours to read, and it is extremely informative and insightful. I learned a lot from reading this book and I think you will too.
In “honor” of Lincoln’s birthday, we should take this opportunity to remember the most horrific decision ever made by any President of these United States—Lincoln’s waging war against the right of our States to a government of their own choosing. Despite turning history on its head to recast a tyrant into a saint, it’s undeniable [...]
In “honor” of Lincoln’s birthday, we should take this opportunity to remember the most horrific decision ever made by any President of these United States—Lincoln’s waging war against the right of our States to a government of their own choosing. Despite turning history on its head to recast a tyrant into a saint, it’s undeniable that Lincoln was the one most responsible for the tattered and torn Constitution we have today.
link: Secession University
That’s right, Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and he absolutely destroyed any semblance of liberty that was left in this country. In the name of “freeing” the slaves (more on this later,) Lincoln enslaved all of us to the federal government. In today’s climate of state’s rights resolutions and threats of nullification, it is important to remember that Abraham Lincoln fundamentally transformed this nation from a voluntary federation of states into a fascist empire. State’s rights resolutions and nullification are absolutely powerless and when it comes down to it the federal government will step in an force states to abide by its laws, thanks to Abraham Lincoln.
To do my part in honoring Lincoln, I thought I’d post a few informative links so that people can learn about the real man, not the myth. One of the most prominent historians on this matter is Thomas DiLorenzo:
- Lincoln was in fact the anti-Jefferson. Jefferson’s famous “Principles of ’98,” including his Kentucky Resolve of 1798, establish him as the foremost American architect of the states’ rights philosophy. Lincoln commanded an army that killed 300,000 fellow citizens to assure the destruction of that philosophy.
- Jefferson opposed central banking and the use of tax dollars to subsidize corporations, especially the hated Bank of the United States; Lincoln championed the Bank throughout his political career, resurrected it with his National Currency Acts, and spent thirty years of his life battling for corporate welfare subsidies to his political supporters in the railroad and road-building industries.
- Jefferson was the author of America’s first declaration of secession – the Declaration of Independence – a declaration of secession from the British empire. Lincoln denied that such a right even existed and waged war to destroy the most important principle of the Declaration of Independence.
- Jefferson championed the view that the citizens of the states were sovereign, that the central government was merely their agent, and that the union was a compact among the states. Lincoln denied every one of these facts, and waged the bloodiest war in history up to that point to “prove” himself right and Jefferson wrong.
- Jefferson’s philosophy of government was one of decentralization; Lincoln did more than any other human being to bring to America the centralized, bureaucratic leviathan state that we all slave under today.
- Jefferson was a great champion of free speech; his Kentucky Resolve of 1798 announced that not all American citizens intended to comply with the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize the federal government. In his First Inaugural Address he said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Lincoln, on the other hand, was the First Amendment’s worst enemy, orchestrating the shutting down of literally hundreds of opposition newspapers in the northern states during the war, along with the destruction of printing presses and the imprisonment of newspaper editors and owners.
link: A President’s Mission To Destroy the Press by Thomas DiLorenzo
As you can see, Lincoln was the antithesis to the liberty movement of the founding fathers. He centralized all power and silenced any dissent, and he did it all to collect taxes from the oppressed people of the South (the large majority of which were not slave owners.) In the years leading up to the war, the North was basically pillaging the South, charging ridiculous tariffs on Southern agricultural exports, serving two purposes: 1) To control prices for the resources the northern manufacturers needed and 2) to raise money for building all of the infrastructure in the north. It was direct wealth redistribution and like always it hurt the average man more than it hurt any slave owner. The poor white tenant farmer in the South or just the average white person in the south who didn’t own a plantation or a slave ended up losing their jobs, their economic freedom, and their prospects for the future so that the North could build their cities and their railroads.
If you’d like some more specifics and you have some time to spend, here is an excellent video about the causes of the war against Southern Independence (again featuring DiLorenzo)
Now, when it comes to slavery, this is an issue which has been discussed and propagandized in thousands of books, magazines, classrooms, etc and it’s doubtful that anything I say here will change someone’s mind who has been fully brainwashed. However, I’ll refer you to an article by Tibor Machan of the Cato Institute:
Lincoln, oddly enough, apparently shared some of these views. In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862).” And in 1858 Lincoln had written: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
link: Lincoln, Secession and Slavery | Tibor Machan | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
Indeed, Lincoln held no ill will towards the institution of slavery. Perhaps this is why he never made slavery illegal in the United States, or why he permitted the slave trade under the USA flag during and even after the war. That’s right, companies out of Massachusetts and Rhode Island participated in the transportation of slaves out of Africa at a time when the other major maritime nations had outlawed the practice. In
fact, non-American ships would often hoist the American flag when approached on the high seas so as to avoid prosecution.
Also, Lincoln introduced another direct form of Slavery in the form of conscription, where he took Irish men literally off of the boat in New York and forced them to fight in the Union Army. A common practice of the Union generals was to capture slaves in conquered Southern lands and force them to serve, mostly as cannon fodder. Even the black 54th Mass regiment which consisted of free northern blacks was treated as inferior, and finally sent to their certain deaths at an ammunition depot off the coast of South Carolina. Then there is the next 100 years of black suffering, fulfilling Lincoln’s wish that no black be treated as a man of equality and certainly not given any voting rights.
Finally there is the lasting legacy of Lincoln in which we are now all slaves. The all powerful federal government which Lincoln created has the power to control our money supply and value, the power to steal from us through a vast array of taxes and fees, the power to regulate our every move and action, and the power to imprison anyone under an impossibly complex and confusing system of laws.
The good news in all of this is that the spirit of freedom and secession hasn’t died. Millions of people in the United States today would rather their state secede than to have to continue to suffer at the hands of the federal government. Many state legislatures have passed state sovereignty resolutions, bans on possible federal legislation, and promises of nullification should such legislation arise. There are even some major candidates who are promoting nullification of current federal law, such as Debra Medina who has come out of nowhere to be a contender for governor of Texas.
There are also several websites that are exploring the avenue of Secession for freedom:
- DumpDC
- Abbeville Institute
- SLMNews Blog
- Rebellion Blog
- Secession and Nullification
- Liberty Defense League
- Tenth Amendment Center
The History Channel is running a special series called “World War II in HD” and I’ve caught a couple of episodes this week while trying to catch some Z’s. It’s a great show and History Channel has done a great job on this. However, it just makes me sad and angry to watch these episodes. [...]
The History Channel is running a special series called “World War II in HD” and I’ve caught a couple of episodes this week while trying to catch some Z’s. It’s a great show and History Channel has done a great job on this. However, it just makes me sad and angry to watch these episodes.
We’re all taught that America was this great hero in entering World War II and we fought an evil dictator in Adolph Hitler and an evil Empire in Japan and we saved the world from their evil. Little to no time is ever spent on what actually caused this war. People just skim over Hitler as if he alone with his charisma was able to turn millions of Germans into Jew hating world conquering madmen. This is simply not the case.
The fact of the matter is that the “progressive” movement in the early 1900′s caused World War II, and we as a nation were forced to send off our best, bravest, most valuable men to fight and die as a consequence. We sacrificed our best resource because of the misguided ideas of fascism, socialism, communism, and every other statist manifestation that came from these progressives. What did we get for it? Our own watered down Fascism in the form of the Income Tax, The Federal Reserve, Anti-Trust laws, Social Security, and a hole host of other New Deal monstrosities.
So how did this happen? Woodrow Wilson declared in 1917 that “the world must be made safe for Democracy” and so we had to go over to Europe and defeat Germany for the sake of others. So we did, we sacrificed our lives and treasure and after we “won” we setup a new democracy in Germany and a new League of Nations to keep this kind of thing from happening again.
So what did that accomplish? The German people “freely” elected Adolph Hitler, who promised them all of the great luxuries of socialism including free healthcare, jobs for all, equal distribution of wealth, etc. Sound familiar? As soon as none of this actually materialized, Hitler blamed the Rich and aggressively targeted them. He also blamed the Jews, the gays, and basically anyone that had any sort of irregularity at all. Midgets, handicapped, people with autism, everyone was blamed for Germany’s woes. So what was the solution? Hitler sold the German people a two pronged approach:
1) Conquer other nations and loot their wealth (or as he put it, “take back what is rightfully ours.) and
2) Loot and Imprison all of the “undesirables” who are “the true cause of our problems.” (which eventually led to enslavement and then death camps.)
Statism can only lead to this. Socialism, Fascism, Communism can only lead to this. Those systems simply do not produce any wealth or any prosperity, they simply loot it from the most able within them. When that revenue runs out, they are forced to go after someone else to loot their wealth, that means the rest of us.
Ayn Rand illustrates this point perfectly:
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens—there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact—and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.
In a statist economy, where wealth is “publicly owned,” a citizen has no economic interests to protect by preserving peace—he is only a drop in the common bucket—while war gives him the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts from his master. Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the same state.
The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders—for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as “selfish” and conquest as “noble.”
Loading ...
Recent Comments