Capitalism

Healing Our World

Knowledge and Decisions

Needs zap.htm and capitalism as peace

The fourth book
of the five most important books in the history of America and Western Civilization is about

Capitalism

Capitalism or socialism?

This is the second great question of our age. It is a derivative of the first great question, Theonomy or Automony?

It's all about violence.

If you want to help the poor, can you justify the use of government violence, or must you rely on acts that come from the heart, voluntarily, spontaneously, or as a result of persuasion, education, enlightenment, and faith?

The Wealth of Nations

Many Americans today believe that the government produces wealth. Others want the government to redistribute wealth ("spread the wealth") to special interests -- the most special of all interests, of course, being "ME!"  Such people wouldn't even entertain the idea of abolishing the current tyranny, much less actively work toward that goal, because that which America's Founders described as "tyranny" many in our day would praise as a big benevolent brother. "The government can give us whatever we want if we just vote the most generous and compassionate politicians into office," they believe.

Those who disagree or resist will be wiretapped, arrested, fined, imprisoned, or executed.

Adam Smith would be appalled at such ignorance and immorality. Smith taught ethics at the University of Glasgow and wrote a Theory of Moral Sentiments. In the same year as the Declaration of Independence was written (1776), Adam Smith wrote a book entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, widely regarded as the first treatise on capitalism.

Capitalism is unquestionably one of the most important features of Western Civilization. Capitalist nations enjoy health and prosperity. Socialist nations enjoy sickness and poverty, to the extent they do not receive foreign aid or the fruits of capitalist nations.

"Capitalism" is the opposite of "socialism."

Socialist nations can't spread the wealth, they can only spread the poverty by compulsion and threats of violence. Socialism -- government intervention in the economy -- is not just inefficient and wasteful, it is immoral.

Smith's Wealth of Nations is not easy reading, but Samuel Adams and George Washington would insist that no true American can be without a basic understanding of capitalism and the laws of a free economy. Fortunately, in our day a more recent treatise on capitalism as been written which is wonderfully illuminating and readable:  Capitalism by Prof. George Reisman.

        

George Washington would assign Reisman's text to any American who wanted to become an extraordinary American. Consistent socialism is maximum government. We believe consistent capitalism is the exact opposite.

If you thought "Theocracy" was controversial, please have a seat. The odds are good that you are a victim of

The Biggest Government Lie in all of Human History.

George Washington was the father of a nation "under God" -- a Christian Theocracy. He was also the father of nation of "LIBERTY UNDER GOD." And if he could see the progress (and regress) of the last 200 years, he would advocate

100% pure laissez-faire capitalism

You might not be offended at that idea. Yet.

It means the absence of all socialism. Every trace.

If you think about that for a minute or two, you'll realize that another word for the complete absence of socialism is "anarchism."

That word is explosive. That's because you've been brainwashed. That's because you are a victim of

The Biggest Government Lie in all of Human History.

Pure capitalism is anarcho-capitalism, the absence of government force. Prof. Reisman disagrees with us, but his book will help us prove our point with credibility and impeccable logic. 

Are you a socialist or a capitalist?

You probably haven't even begun to answer this question.

 

"Trust No One"

How do libertarians respond to the accusation that they do not have enough trust in government? John Adams wrote in 1772:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:

Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):

the nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will sooner or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.

Madison added in Federalist No. 55,

[T]here is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust. . . .

Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American.

The British historian Lord Acton put it this way:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

The exercise of political power is problematic. We should assume that "great men" -- that is, powerful men -- men who wield the force of "the government" -- are morally corrupt. This assumption should be considered confirmed if he increases his own power during his time of "public service."

Why Bad Men Rule by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters ... but they mean to be masters."
~ Daniel Webster
Everybody talks about "smaller government." Everybody agrees that some government needs to be cut. How much? When and where do we stop cutting?

In 1776, America's Founding Fathers proposed a form of government which scandalized many. A government with NO KING.

It was unprecedented.

How can a nation preserve social order -- how can a government govern -- with no king? It would be like a headless horseman!

It got worse. America's government would be a government characterized by "the Consent of the Governed."

This turned the entire concept of "government" on its head. When the king has a "divine right" to govern his subjects, the subjects have no right to disagree with the king. Every decree of the king is assumed to be valid, even if the subjects don't like it. But in America, every action of the government would be presumed to be INVALID unless the governed consented to the government's act.

We The People would govern ourselves.

And -- We the People would govern the government.

We the People would tell the government how to govern!

Breathtaking.

It rocked the world.

Only a Theocracy -- a people "under God" -- can be trusted with self-government -- capitalism and a Free Market. And if religion and morality hold sway in a nation, then we can safely criticize America's Founding Fathers for replacing one government with another. They themselves taught us not to trust civil governments for social order, but to trust in religion and morality. If you're having second thoughts about enrolling in PeacemakerCoaching, read the quotes on that page. Take a glance at the linked pages on that page. After reading the Bible, the Westminster Standards, the history of Theocracy and Western Civilization, and Reisman's treatise on Capitalism, you will be ready for the next paradigm.

It will be bigger than "consent of the governed."

If you and I don't follow the lead of George Washington, the next generation will be engulfed in socialism and the darkness of "false religions" (to use the words of James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution").

 

#3 Track 10. Capitalism.mp3 1:43   Liberty  Under God

Many people today believe that the government produces wealth. Others want the government to redistribute wealth ("spread the wealth") to special interests. Such people wouldn't even entertain the idea of abolishing the government, much less actively work toward that goal. "The government can give us whatever we want if we just vote the most generous and compassionate politicians into office." Adam Smith would be appalled at such ignorance and immorality. Smith taught ethics at the University of Glasgow and wrote a Theory of Moral Sentiments. In the same year as the Declaration of Independence was written (1776), Adam Smith wrote a book entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, widely regarded as the first treatise on capitalism. Capitalism is unquestionably one of the most important features of Western Civilization. Capitalist nations enjoy health and prosperity. Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. Socialist nations can't spread the wealth, they can only spread the poverty. Socialism -- government intervention in the economy -- is not just inefficient and wasteful, it is immoral.

Smith's book is not easy reading. A more recent treatise is:  Capitalism by Prof. George Reisman. We will assign Reisman's text. Consistent socialism is maximum government. We believe consistent capitalism is anarchism, the absence of government force. Prof. Reisman disagrees with us, but his book will help us prove our point with credibility and impeccable logic.