Monday, September 22, 2008

Capitalism - the other "C" word

Conservative Ideals need to be defended on the intellectual level or we are doomed to failure. As implied by the title of my blog too many conservatives base their convictions on faith. The term 'compassionate conservatism' has arisen recently out of an undeserved sense of guilt many conservatives have in the face of an onslaught of finger wagging from liberals. As much as we feel firm in our convictions there is a nagging doubt inside that constantly asks- "are we really a bunch of big meanies?" This is an admission that we feel there is something fundamentally wrong with capitalism, that at its core it is a corrupt principle and a 'necessary evil' that we must accept until we find a better way.

It is this very notion that capitalism is inherently evil that we must do away with entirely. We cannot defend a principle that we feel is morally flawed, because we are already defeated before we enter the debate. Rather than evading the fundamental arguments against capitalism let us meet them head on, one at a time. Let's level with our critics.


Capitalism is a system where purely selfish activity is rewarded. I'm a business owner and the time, energy and creativity I pour into my business is for purely, indiluted selfish motives. There is nothing more engaging and satisfying than working on something that is completely your own, to have complete control of your own success and to be able to reap the rewards of it. I make enormous sacrifices in terms of the time and money I've invested in this venture. I've spent the last six years of my life on this and have had many months where everyone in the company gets paid except me. I have spent months where the 72 hour week is standard, and I've liquidated my savings and maxed out my credit on numerous occasions. I've risked financial ruin with nothing on my side except the conviction that what I was doing was of value and that it must succeed. There was no guarantee, no safety net. The risks and the rewards were mine alone.


There were years when my company showed a profit but the government has swooped in and taxed away any opportunity to grow my business by hiring sales and support staff. Yet I can honestly say without a hint of sarcasm that I did all of this selfishly. I did all of this because every experience, every failure and every victory is mine. This is at the heart of the spirit of entrepreneurship. The profit motive is a fundamental part of this, but it pales in comparison to the feeling of ownership. To know that this company is mine and that every dollar earned is truly earned is central to the morality of the entreprenuer. I would rather earn 1 dollar as an honest business owner, than two dollars as a salaried employee or ten dollars as an executive with political pull, or a 100 dollars as a worthless heir.

Also fundemental to this motivation is the fact that there is no limit to how much money can be made. If I can provide millions of dollars worth of value to clients who choose my product over others without deception or coersion, then I deserve the millions of dollars that they pay me - period. I want to be rich - and I want to earn it.

Let's stop apologizing for wanting to be rich. There is nothing vulgar about it. It takes courage to be honest with one's self and truly strive for what your want. Is there any wonder we are scorned by those who choose mediocrity and achieve it? I am an entrepreneur for my own selfish reasons - not for the betterment of society. The fact that my company benefits society by creating jobs, paying taxes and providing a needed service is great, but it is not the reason that I do it. I am not the government's "partner in the private sector". I am not a resource for them to draw upon to help bureaucratic bigshots repair social ills. I am not doing this to 'give back' to society.


Liberals view corporations as some kind of natural resource that has sprung into existence as if from nowhere - like oxygen or water, and should be 'reigned in', tamed and controlled by the government for the greater good. From the point of view of the entrepreneur this is a vile and offensive notion. It is this viewpoint that sparked the bolshevik revolution allowing the state to nationalize private enterprise and murder millions of middle class business owners. Marx's use of the term 'owners of the means of production' made it sound like the business owners were appropriating a resource for themselves that belonged to all, like the fat kid in grade school taking too long at the water fountain.


Corporations are private property, created by the productive work and risk of capable individuals. Some corporations rise to power through a grotesque relationship with government where special laws and favours are granted to certain parties effectively creating a monopoly and destroying competitors. This is not free enterprise, though free enterprise always takes the blame for such monstrosities. This is not the fault of the corporation, but an illustration of the evils of government intervention. Only governments can create laws. Private individuals (and corporations) do not have ability to create a law to do things by force - so the only way we have of dealing with people is through mutual consent. To paraphrase Ayn Rand - money is not the root of all evil, money is a contract between two honest parties to exchange something of value. When given the alternative to achieve one's goals through mutual consent (trade) or brute force (government & laws) there is only one moral option.

- Bromby

3 comments:

Unknown said...

If I'm a free-market capitalist, I should be a Republican and always vote Republican. In truth, I hate both political parties. They have completely opposing economic rhetoric, but they all vote the same way. As politicians, they are part of the government, and it is in their best interest to increase the role of government and make stronger ties to corporations. The only hope is to elect politicians who have a genuine desire to improve the country and the world rather than those who only desire money and power. It is difficult to find such individuals in either party, but when I see this quality, I give them my vote, regardless of their political affiliation.

bromby said...

I agree that both parties are in the business of government and both have interest in expanding their power. Democrats pay more lip service to civil and social liberty while Republicans pay more lip service to market and economic liberty.
I think Obama will be good for the US in that he is a very dynamic, likable public figure and will do wonders for the profile of America abroad. However, I feel that he is a socialist at his core and the philosophy of 'spread the wealth' is very close to his heart - and with a Democratic congress - I think there are going to be some startling changes.
Either way - I'm a Canadian and I have no vote.

Iain said...

I'm a secular republican also, but I I disagree with Emily. Don't vote democrat or they'll spend 4 trillion dollars in a couple of months. That's my 2 cents. It's easy and simplified.