...on being a virtuous capitalist

"When people don't spend their own money, they don't care what health care costs." -John Stossel

Capitalism is not perfect. Sir Winston Churchill described it as, "the unequal sharing of blessings." But Churchill's portrayal of socialism as, "the equal sharing of miseries" not only hits the mark but, in my mind, makes capitalism the better option.

To understand this, one must understand the essence of government. I've said this before, but it bears repeating that the history of government can be boiled down to the taking of money from one group and giving it to another group. In other words, wealth redistribution.

The principal I would put forth here is that those who do the work should enjoy the fruits of their labors. If this is moral, then it is not virtuous for the government to take away one man's hard earned money and give it to another man. Sure, this will lead to inequalities. In the free market, competition is king and those who can deliver high-value goods and services will be rewarded far more handsomely than those who cannot.

The onus, then, is on each individual to prepare themselves to be able to provide the goods and services that the market demands. The end results, though unequal, are a product of individual choice--the opportunity being generally equal. And equal opportunity is virtuous. Guaranteed equality of result is not virtuous because it overwrites choice and consequence by forcefully taking from one person and giving to another.

Imagine the 100 meter dash. All eight runners line up side by side and start at the same time. That's equal opportunity. By mid-race, the runners begin to separate, as some take the lead and others fall behind. This separation usually increases until the race ends with the runners crossing the finish line at different times, one through eight. The top finishers are rewarded and given medals. The late finishers are not. This is inequality of result, it's overtly fair and it's exactly what socialism seeks to overcome and undo.

I realize that there are and should be exceptions in all this. Mentally or physically disabled individuals, for example, may not be able to compete with those without disabilities. But such exceptions are just that--exceptions. The principal underlying the free market remains sound. It does so because it is based on free agency. Those who choose to work hard, educate themselves, take risks and find innovative ways to satisfy market demands deserve to be rewarded. The converse is also true.

Socialism exists because, simply put, everybody wants to be handsomely rewarded, but not everybody is willing to pay the price necessary to earn that reward. In a free market, the lazy, unskilled and uneducated will be financially punished because their goods and services are generally not valued highly.

Enter government. In a democracy, everybody gets one vote. And while school and ingenuity are difficult, electing representatives who will take the financial rewards from the hard working educated man and give it to the lazy, under-skilled man is easy. So, what socialism lacks in virtue it makes up in popularity.

Unfortunately, where the free market is ruthlessly efficient at wealth distribution, government--which takes a huge cut off the top to pay for its own bureaucrats and politicians--is horribly inefficient at income redistribution. And the bigger government gets, the more expensive and less efficient it becomes. Forced income redistribution is immoral; being forced to pay for the lackeys who are redistributing your income is pathetically immoral.

In the end, "pathetic" and "immoral" are perhaps the two words that best describe socialism. Whether you agree or not depends, I suspect, on where you've chosen to fall in the free market system of rewards and punishments. If you're reasonably well rewarded, then you probably view capitalism favorably. And if you're not well rewarded, you probably view socialism favorably.

But if you fall into the latter category, I have one question for you: Why do you think you deserve my money?


Post Script: I realize that native intelligence and talent have a lot to do with success in a free market economy. This highlights the need for gratitude, empathy and charity (none of which can or aught to be legislated). That the wealthy should be intelligently charitable with their largess is both practical and virtuous. Failure to do so not only offends the Giver of intelligence and talent, it exacerbates market inequalities and increases the chances that socialist governments will come to power and attempt to legislate equality of result.

So, even though we should never be required to give, we must give nonetheless. In the immortal words of John Milton, "Our voluntary service God requires."