Capital-isn't

For some time, I've been thinking about the unfairness of attacking "capitalism" as a system that must defend itself. Capitalism really isn't an ideology or a system at all; it's just letting people do what they want with their money and their property. No one has to "enforce" capitalism; it just happens, at least if property and contract rights are relatively secure. But how to explain this to my lefty friends who don't like some of the "results" of capitalism and therefore argue for what they view as competing ideologies (and what I view as artificial constraints on freedom by the powerful)?

Once again, Thomas Sowell comes to the rescue with this passage on "Capitalism" from "Vision of the Anointed":

"Since capitalism was named by its enemies, it is perhaps not surprising that the name is completely misleading. Despite the name, capitalism is not an 'ism,' It is not a philosophy but an economy. Ultimately it is nothing more and nothing less than an economy not run by political authorities. There are no capitalist institutions; any number of institutional ways of carrying out economic activities may flourish under 'capitalism' -- that is, in the absence of control from above. You may get food from a restaurant, or by buying it from the supermarket and cooking it yourself, or by growing the food on your own land and processing it all the way through to the dinner table. Each of these is just as much 'capitalism' as the others. At any given time, caravans, supermarkets, or computerized shopping methods may be used, but none of these is anything more than a modality of the moment. They do not define capitalism but are simply one of the innumerable ways of doing things when choices are unconstrained by authorities.

"Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain carbohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrelevant standards. Yet no one regards this as making calculus invalid or illegitimate. Once again, the selective application of arbitrary standards is invoked only when it promotes the vision of the anointed."

That's an interesting point about capitalism being named by its enemies. Kind of like puritanism, Methodism, the nicknames for each of the Spice Girls, and I'm sure plenty of other labels that were coined by enemies but were eventually embraced by friends. Go capitalism!

Ouch!

"There is much discussion of the haves and the have-nots, but very little discussion of the doers and the do-nots, those who contribute and those who merely take."

--Thomas Sowell

Useless Labels; Improper Arguments

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy", a 1995 book about the lack of logic, reason and analysis behind the political and cultural views of the "anointed". Who are the "anointed"? The term "cultural elite" probably has more currency today, but to get the idea, just think of anyone, whether a public figure or not, whose main concern seems to be to show that he or she "cares" or even "really cares" about whatever issue you're discussing. the implication, of course, is that anyone who disagees with this person doesn't care, or at least doesn't care as much. Either that or he is a fool.

Anyway, Sowell, as usual, does a masterful job of skewering the mostly left-of-center ideas put forth by the anointed. But more importantly, he demonstrates the almost total lack of thought and reason behind much of what they espouse. And he recognizes that the problem is that the anointed have a different vision of reality. Since they start with different assumptions, they immediately go in different directions from everyone else. Where the traditional or "tragic" vision of reality and human nature stresses the difficulty of obtaining useful knowledge, the intractable corruption of human nature, and the constant difficulty of unforseen consequences of legislative solutions to human problems, the anointed view most problems (think poverty, pollution, corporate corruption, political campaign finance corruption, or global warming, just to name a few examples) can be solved by the right application of knowledge, most of which the anointed already have and the rest of which they will surely be able to obtain if we will just give them enough government funding. And, of course, they need to be in charge and have all the power to prevent its misuse by us poor benighted souls who just don't see the big picture like they do.

I haven't finished the book yet, and I'm not ready to attempt a full-scale review of a Sowell book in a blog entry, so let me just note a couple of gems:

"Everyone is a 'progressive' by his own lights. That the anointed believe that this label differentiates themselves from other people is one of a number of symptoms of their naive narcissism." Watch that word "progressive" -- there are good reasons to think it is about to displace the discredited label "liberal" in American politics. Sowell was ahead of his time with this insight. (Yes, there were progressives before, but the term ceased to be a meaningful label in American politics sometime around the Second World War; it's now making something of a comeback.)

And here's my favorite: a great technique to permit you to win any argument about policy issues. If you favor the existing policy or situation, you say that it is "here to stay" (as in "all this talk of privatization is useless; Social Security is HERE TO STAY"). If you oppose the existing policy, you say that it is "outmoded" (as in "the individual rights view of the Second Amendment -- that every person has the right to keep a gun -- is OUTMODED because it is based on an eigteenth century view of what a 'gun' is and its destructive power"). If you favor a proposed policy, you say it is "inevitable" (as in "same sex marriage is going to be a reality sooner or later whether you like it or not, so you'd better get used to it; gay people aren't going away, after all. Same sex marriage is INEVITABLE."). Finally, if you oppose a proposed policy, you say that it is "unrealistic" (as in "school choice or voucher programs make sense in theory, but that are UNREALISTIC because they don't address the root causes of failure in our schools -- things like poverty, lack of social support for struggling families, and cutbacks in funding for the public schools").

Try it the next time you're in an argument; this technique really works. Unless, of course, you're debating Thomas Sowell. If you find yourself in that position, my advice is to make a preemptive surrender.

Incidentally, for an illustration of the fine art of "debating" without actually using rules of logic or argument -- and for plenty of good laughs -- check out the movie "Thank You for Smoking". Just saw it last night and was impressed with how well they pulled it off for the most part. Pretty salty in parts, and Katie Holmes just didn't fit the part of the reporter, but the movie almost lived up to the book by Christopher Buckley.