GerardÆs posting "Labels arenÆt important" has great potential for violence, hence it can be labeled as "socialist." One becomes militant just thinking about what he said: "taking the land from the rightful owners", "outlawing" personal ownership of industrial and commercial companies, "compulsory membership in unions," and "state appointed militias." This is not the freedom and liberty of the individual which I had in mind.Socialism, in my opinion, is a state-imposed doctrine. It has little to do with efficient production of goods and services. Its goal is to change human nature and impose on a human the preternatural qualities, viz. to be his brotherÆs keeper, to love his neighbour as himself, and to strive to be equal to others. This requires violent means, bloodshed and social upheaval. Thus socialism is a violent doctrine which does not leave a person alone, or permit him to define his own personality and his goals in life, as "capitalism" does.
Why is it futile to try to change the human nature? Because it is onerous enough to tolerate people around oneself, without resorting to violence. Witness for instance the events in Burundi, Serbia, and Algiers. A peaceful coexistence is about the highest ideal we can achieve in this life, but to love and to take care of even oneÆs nearest relative is too idealistic and totally unnatural and unrealistic. Christianity, with its proselytizing, its crusades, the inquisition, and weakly sermons, has failed dismally in this respect. Socialist doctrine will face the same fate.
On the other hand, it is incongruous for the socialist system to produce top quality goods and services, efficiently, speedily, and at affordable prices, and it should never try to do it. This is where capitalism succeeds. Under socialism the private initiative and creativity is stifled by centralized bureaucracy and everything comes to a standstill. Shortages of consumer goods and long lineups become evident and more violence is required to stimulate economy and "the good will" in order to take care of peopleÆs needs.
Capitalism, in my opinion, is a misnomer for what is excellent about it. It got its bad reputation from the fact that money can buy personÆs body and soul, and that money can induce person to do evil, e.g. to destroy rain forest, to exterminate the endangered species, to subjugate other nations, to torture and kill other people, etc.
Also, capitalism in my opinion is not a political system. Rather, it is a process whereby the private enterprise expresses its vitality and creativity in a free and unobstructed way. As an entrepreneur I am free to invent and implement things without regulatory obstacles placed in my way by the bureaucrats above. I am also free to dispose of the object of my creation on a free market for the prices which the market can bear. While manufacturing e.g. a better mousetrap I should not be burdened with making the workers happy or to take care of them at the time of sickness or in their old age. I should not be concerned about their maternity leaves, vacations, medical and dental care. I should not be mandated to pay them any specified amount of wages, and see to it that the investor gets a good return on his investment. My concern should be confined solely to manufacturing a better mousetrap.
As a free entrepreneur I should be free to discriminate with extreme prejudice against any employee whom I do not like, for any reasons. Thus there is no alternative to capitalism in the form described above. Social considerations ought to be governmentÆs sole responsibility, and not those of mine. The state ought to see to it that its citizens are well fed, healthy, properly housed, educated, and protected against violence. Politically it would be called a government with social conscience, analogous to the well irrigated and well fertilized farm, with the unbridled free enterprise (call it capitalism), analogous to the crop to be harvested, flourishing within it.
The Prepaid Universal Food Staples Plan, combined with the Prepaid Shelter, Health, Education, and Transportation Plans, would permit the separation of these two functions: producing goods and services and taking care of its people and, at the same time, free a person not to be involved in activity contrary to his conscience. In a nutshell, a country can not be run smoothly and justly either by the free enterprise or by social conscience alone. Both are necessary since both serve a different purpose.
Walter Prytulak
None.
