Posted on 12/25/2013 11:45:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Are you for or against capitalism? Doesn't that depend on how you define it? If any reader of this publication believed capitalism were an evil, greedy, law-breaking corruption of society, similar to abuses in Pope Francis's native Argentina, he would be against it.
Conservative do not tolerate crony capitalism (that is, government intervention in business).
Most voters -- who cancel out your vote -- have very different ideas than you do. Buried assumptions and widely-varying definitions are being exposed by a recent debate over Christianity, socialism, and capitalism. Controversy sparked by Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation and Rush Limbaugh's criticism has revealed enormous differences in people's assumptions about what the words "capitalism" and "socialism" actually mean.
Your author asserts at the outset that the true definition of a capitalist is anyone who places his capital (money, tools, equipment, property, real estate, etc.) at risk, with no guarantee of making any money or even getting that capital back, in the hopes of earning enough money to pay back the cost of the investment and then go on to earn a profit for his troubles. It can also mean an advocate for such behavior as a preferable national system.
Capitalism is the only approach that can bring prosperity to humanity, especially the poor and disadvantaged, because in free enterprise, businesses cannot force anyone to buy their products or services. Companies must offer products or services that benefit society more than the purchase price or the capitalist will go out of business. This discipline of the marketplace is why government bailouts are poison.
Only transactions which produce a net benefit to society will occur -- others will be blocked by consumer choice. Freedom is the essential ingredient in this magic "invisible hand." As soon as government bails out bad actors or plays favorites,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You have state-controlled capitalism (aka communism, collectivism, et al) and individual, free enterprise capitalism. I prefer the latter.
ObamaCare is the precise opposite of capitalism. We now have crony capitalism paired with all the inefficiency of bureaucracy and the arbitrariness of rules that are changed at whim whenever a single petty dictator so dictates. I adore real capitalism and despise slavery.
That is a pretty good working definition of "Fascism." They promised to run the trains on time, but did they?
I’ve always wondered what kind of capitalists they had at Krapital Records that advertised on Rush’s show.
Pure Capitalism, is the purest expression of human nature.
It can’t be denied.
It can only be, suppressed by force.
True, but it’s better expressed with the words “the free market” or “free enterprise” IMO…..which in an of itself does not require copious amounts of “capital” to play…..
I contend that capital in the context of capitalism is “root” or “seed” ..capitalism it’s talking wealth and creating more wealth..it is farming..plant your seed (capital) and with much effort it produced more then you put it..it’s the way of life....the thing is for the crop to be valid it must be consumed a farmer must produce something people want .this it the free market.
"Freedom of individual enterprise" was the Founders' phrase for describing such economic activity, and as they understood and implemented it, their efforts brought America from the crude tools of ancient Europe to the most free and prosperous destination for oppressed peoples. See the following essay excerpted from "Our Ageless Constitution," a 292-page history of the ideas of liberty in America, again available after 20 years of being out of print.
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson
"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison
America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.
The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.
The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:
|
|
Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
What has happened since the so-called "progressives" have taken the reins of government can be described in the words of Winston Churchill, as follows:
"The difference between what is seen and what is not seen was often noticed by the old economists. What is not seen is the infinite variety of individual transactions and decisions which, in a civilized society, within the framework of just and well-known laws, insure the advantage not only of the individual concerned, but of the community, and provide that general body of well-being constituting the wealth of nations. All this is blotted out by an over-riding State control, however imposing some of its manifestations may be. It is the vital creative impulse that that I deeply fear the doctrines and policy of the socialist Government have destroyed, or are rapidly destroying, in our national life. Nothing that they can plan and order and rush around enforcing will take its place. They have broken the mainspring, and until we get a new one the watch will not go." - Winston Churchill, speech, House of Commons, October 28, 1947.
It’s the free market /net befit the left locks on to..someone can produce thing that the free market will consume but you or I do not see as a net befit. .say drugs or alcohol. .but Progressive expand on this and want to totally control the market ..Both the producer and consumers..you cant make this..you must buy that Be it Obama with health insurance ..the ny mayor with soda pop ..or greens with cars
These are the two terms which bring clarity to the word games the collectivist/progressives/communists/socialists/fascists play.
Sadly, the word Capitalism has become “derogatory”.
We seem to have conditioned a number of people into believing that a simple expressed word is a dead end to further thinking.
Our recent history, in media and education, is attempting to redefine human nature. For the greater good.
The banning or re-defining of certain words/concepts as evil, heartless or judgmental is creating both a huge divide and a huge conflict.
Both the divide and conflict are growing.
That is one of many reasons I don't see much practical difference between national socialism and soviet socialism - the rhetoric changes a little but the brutal actuality is almost identical - nor do I care very much where on that totalitarian spectrum Obama really falls.
I do agree that the word capitalism has become derogatory, and now often means anyone who does anything for money…ie….that idiot from Homeland Defense who said the Somali Piriates were merely “capitalists” and had a “business model.” Damn, they were not businessmen…they were CROOKS.
As for me, I always liked free markets better anyway….as did Miltron Friedman, Walter Williams, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin….it’s a better description actually…..and of course there’s always the hybrid term “free market capitalism” which is also good.
Two French words that the French now hate. How things have changed.
Real capitalists put their own money at risk goods and or services in hopes of making a profit. Scum bag criminals invest their money in politicians who will then give them other people’s money for nothing.
I agree.
Unfortunately, we still have a boat load of people on the left that thinks “Fascism” belongs to the Right/Conservative/Republican/Tea Party.
They have no clue.
And as some of them realize this, their heads will explode.
Most will attempt to avoid this internal conflict by seeking a safe place among their peers, bathing themselves in the distractions of uncertainty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.