Morality, Logic, and Voluntarism
To the socialist, as long as you are pursuing a moral ideal,
destruction is OK and paradise is pointless without a clearly defined
"moral ideal" (as they say is the case with capitalism).
Although it could be argued that capitalism is moral (as argued by Ayn Rand).
But I don't think this has as much to do with morality as it does logic. Is 2 + 2 = 4 moral? The answer is irrelevant. Most people would say that economics does not work this way, but I disagree. Does not the human life work this way? Me + killing you = imprisonment for me? Why is this not up for debate? It is this same answer that will provide you the answer to why capitalism works.
We don't not kill people simply because it is immoral. Many would argue that lust is immoral, but we don't imprison people for it. Why? What is the difference between lust and murder if they are both immoral? Therefore, the reason that murder is against the law is not simply that it is immoral because otherwise, a lot of other things would be against the law like cheating on your wife, etc. There is a different reason as to why murder is against the law, and for whatever that reason is is the reason as to why capitalism is better than socialism.
Cheating on your wife is a voluntary decision between yourself and the person you are having an affair with. Your wife is an externality. You don't need her consent if you are going to cheat on her (legally. You can't be punished for that), even if it is immoral. Therefore, why is murder against the law? I think the biggest reason is because you don't have that other person's consent. This is one of the reasons why capitalism works and socialism does not: there is never any violence used to convince you to buy something in a capitalist system nor if you refuse to, but in a socialist system, the opposite is true: violence can be used against you when you decide to either buy something illegal or when you choose to not buy something that is required of you.
People say that you shouldn't have to buy things that you need, but that is precisely why you should have to buy them.
Why should I produce something if I don't get something in return for it?
Why should I be told how much my own property is worth?
The fact that I have more property than you does not necessarily mean that I have stolen it. If you think that buying something is theft, then you clearly don't understand what theft is because it is not theft: it is an exchange.
Therefore, when I buy something from Walmart, Walmart gets my money. This means that they have my money. Keep this in mind: they get no money unless it is given to them. Now, why is this important? Because it means that all of the wealth that they have was voluntarily given to them. Once again, most would argue "Cody, it's not voluntary if you have to eat." Who made you go shop? Was it Walmart? Was it the government? Who? You made the decision to. Why did you shop at Walmart? Why do you not grow your own food? Why do you not shop somewhere else? You made a voluntary decision to shop at Walmart, therefore, they should not be forced to give the money that you gave them back to you simply because they have more money than you. That is the pure definition of theft.
Although it could be argued that capitalism is moral (as argued by Ayn Rand).
But I don't think this has as much to do with morality as it does logic. Is 2 + 2 = 4 moral? The answer is irrelevant. Most people would say that economics does not work this way, but I disagree. Does not the human life work this way? Me + killing you = imprisonment for me? Why is this not up for debate? It is this same answer that will provide you the answer to why capitalism works.
We don't not kill people simply because it is immoral. Many would argue that lust is immoral, but we don't imprison people for it. Why? What is the difference between lust and murder if they are both immoral? Therefore, the reason that murder is against the law is not simply that it is immoral because otherwise, a lot of other things would be against the law like cheating on your wife, etc. There is a different reason as to why murder is against the law, and for whatever that reason is is the reason as to why capitalism is better than socialism.
Cheating on your wife is a voluntary decision between yourself and the person you are having an affair with. Your wife is an externality. You don't need her consent if you are going to cheat on her (legally. You can't be punished for that), even if it is immoral. Therefore, why is murder against the law? I think the biggest reason is because you don't have that other person's consent. This is one of the reasons why capitalism works and socialism does not: there is never any violence used to convince you to buy something in a capitalist system nor if you refuse to, but in a socialist system, the opposite is true: violence can be used against you when you decide to either buy something illegal or when you choose to not buy something that is required of you.
People say that you shouldn't have to buy things that you need, but that is precisely why you should have to buy them.
Why should I produce something if I don't get something in return for it?
Why should I be told how much my own property is worth?
The fact that I have more property than you does not necessarily mean that I have stolen it. If you think that buying something is theft, then you clearly don't understand what theft is because it is not theft: it is an exchange.
Therefore, when I buy something from Walmart, Walmart gets my money. This means that they have my money. Keep this in mind: they get no money unless it is given to them. Now, why is this important? Because it means that all of the wealth that they have was voluntarily given to them. Once again, most would argue "Cody, it's not voluntary if you have to eat." Who made you go shop? Was it Walmart? Was it the government? Who? You made the decision to. Why did you shop at Walmart? Why do you not grow your own food? Why do you not shop somewhere else? You made a voluntary decision to shop at Walmart, therefore, they should not be forced to give the money that you gave them back to you simply because they have more money than you. That is the pure definition of theft.
No comments:
Post a Comment