Skip to content

VIDEO: The Moral Case for Capitalism

July 17, 2012

I always believe that free market capitalism should be defended, not on utilitarian, but on moral grounds. Every society that embraces and values freedom should adopt capitalism not merely because it produces material wealth that human beings need to survive, but most importantly because it is the most moral system. Capitalism is undeniably on the side of morality because it is a political system that protects and cherishes human life, rights, freedom, and individualism.

The video above is a encapsulation of Arthur Brooks’s recent book, The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise. For those of you who didn’t have time to watch the video or read the book, the argument goes like this:

  • We all know that some things are right and other things—eating dogs, for instance—are wrong, and no logical argument will change our minds.
  • If we believe that a political policy is immoral or unfair, therefore, we won’t be swayed by a rational argument saying it’s really okay.
  • This is why free markets are eroding and government intervention is growing: Everyone knows that free markets lead to prosperity, but the left offers us emotional sob stories and the right merely cites GDP stats. Morality beats materialism every time.
  • We need a moral argument for free markets, one based on three principles:
  1. Free markets promote earned success
  2. Free markets promote real fairness
  3. Free markets best help those in need

Brooks believes that capitalism must be strongly defended on moral grounds, and its defenders must not merely focus on facts, statistics, and rational arguments. In defending capitalism, it must be stressed that it is the only system that protects man’s rights and freedom, values individualism, and helps the poor.

Advertisements
28 Comments leave one →
  1. GabbyD permalink
    July 17, 2012 3:38

    there is much to parse from that video.

    but lets talk about the grades redistribution=wealth redistribution analogy. The argument is that grades shouldnt be redistributed because they reflect hard work. it would be unfair to do so.

    Are grades only determined by hard work?

    • July 17, 2012 3:38

      Answer it yourself. Unless you’re operating on the premise that wealth and success is not merely determined by hard work, but also by other factors like luck and corruption… 😉

      • GabbyD permalink
        July 17, 2012 3:38

        those are the only 2 other factors? luck and corruption? thats all?

        what about initial asset distribution? what about discrimination? what about business networks? illiquidity?

        for grades? would proximity to the board matter? having educational materials? teacher quality? peer effects?

      • July 17, 2012 3:38

        So because of those factors you’ve mentioned, can you honestly say you’re very much happy to share your wealth and achievement with those who achieved less in life? If yes, how much (or what percentage) would you like to share?

    • GabbyD permalink
      July 17, 2012 3:38

      “So because of those factors you’ve mentioned, can you honestly say you’re very much happy to share your wealth and achievement with those who achieved less in life?”

      ah, so now its impt to determine what the difference between grades and wealth. wealth is fungible, and can be converted to many things– especially tools to even have more wealth.

      grades are alot different. grades arent fungible in the same sense as assets. grades are a highly specific asset, whose value is tightly wound with the individual holding it.

      so, if you were to redistribute grades, it would be useless for the person receiving it as that person doesnt have the ability to back it up. related to fungibility, you cannot use grades to improve your ability (i.e. it has no function as an investment vehicle.

      fungibiity is a key characteristic as to how redistribution may improve outcomes for everyone.

      • July 19, 2012 3:38

        Mr. Out-Of-Context, that’s not the focus of the video.

      • GabbyD permalink
        July 19, 2012 3:38

        oh. i guess you didnt watch the video. shame.

      • July 19, 2012 3:38

        LOL! That makes me think you’re really a brainless twat. What’s the video all about? About grades? Your small mind is not enough to understand principles…

        Speaking like a brainless moron: “so, if you were to redistribute grades, it would be useless for the person receiving it as that person doesnt have the ability to back it up. related to fungibility, you cannot use grades to improve your ability (i.e. it has no function as an investment vehicle.”

        LOL-worthy!

        Mr. Out-of-Context,

        Would you like your professor to redistribute grades to help those who received lower scores?

        If that’s analogy is not appropriate to the case in question…

        Would you like your employer to redistribute salary to help those in the lower ranks?

      • GabbyD permalink
        July 19, 2012 3:38

        “Would you like your employer to redistribute salary to help those in the lower ranks?”

        so i guess you dont understand the concept fungibility i explained above.

        ok. thats cool. i cant expect you to understand if you dont want to.

        also, “twat”? 🙂 ‘ello governah! haha…

      • July 19, 2012 3:38

        Well, I don’t think you have a brain to understand your fungibility and apply it to the issue in question.

        Your response makes me think you have some ‘mental’ problem. Are you suffering from autism? I’m serious.

        I know you still don’t get it…

        To make it clearer for you since you’re simply a brainless twat:

        Would you like an entity (government) or someone (a dictator) to take away a portion of what you earned (whether your monthly salary or inheritance) or what was given to you (whether you earned it or not like grades, fungible or infungible, MORON) in order to help the needy, the lazy, or the least advantage?

      • GabbyD permalink
        July 19, 2012 3:38

        a key issue IS fungibility. sadly you dont understand it. its ok. don’t feel bad about your lack of vocab.

      • July 19, 2012 3:38

        LOL! Explain that idiocy then… Let’s see whether you understand the purpose of the book or the video.

      • July 19, 2012 3:38

        Here’s a related video that you should see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss

        As to the “grades” issue, MORON… It is whether you’re willing to have your “high” grade (supposed you’re one of top class performers) proportionately cut or deducted in order to help those who got lower grades. It is immaterial or unimportant whether you got your grade thru favoritism or you didn’t actually EARN it, or whether your grade is fungible or infungible (according to your UTTER IDIOCY).

      • GabbyD permalink
        July 19, 2012 3:38

        fungibility does matter. but if you dont want to understand, its ok. really it is.

        but if you really want to have a serious discussion, just say so. until then, i can accept that you dont know what the word means.

      • July 20, 2012 3:38

        Again, know why the book author conducted that study. He found out that most students are unwilling to surrender a portion of their grades in order to help their classmates who got failing grades. The point point of the book and the video is the morality of self-interest and that students have unequal capabilities. That’s the point. Thus, your funny “fungibility” is utterly idiotic and out of context.

        The issue is whether you are willing to surrender anything you earned (whether it be your monthly salary, grades, monetary value of your achievement, etc.) or what was given to you (whether it be your inheritance, gift, donation, etc.) to a cause in order to help the lazy, the incompetent, the least advantage, or the poor. That’s the point, Mr. Out-of-Context.

  2. GabbyD permalink
    July 20, 2012 3:38

    oh, well if you are going to help the LAZY, of course not!

    i love how you love labelling people just to avoid making an actual, factual argument. good job!

    • GabbyD permalink
      July 20, 2012 3:38

      i also love how “lazy”, “incompetent” and the “poor” are equivalent in your view! good job!

    • July 20, 2012 3:38

      You are the lazy and clueless idiot here… No use arguing with a moron really. Your fungible idiocy is utterly moronic. That’s worse than straw man fallacy, comrade.

      • GabbyD permalink
        July 20, 2012 3:38

        i love how, when at the end of your rope, you call someone lazy and clueless idiot. excellent job!

        would you like to have an actual counterargument? why would you, since u are clearly having so much fun with the name calling.

      • July 20, 2012 3:38

        Your idiocy is not just incidental; it is inherent. You’ve been too consistent with it.

  3. GabbyD permalink
    July 20, 2012 3:38

    what we havent heard from you is an actual counterargument.

    but then again, this is a MORAL justification. so i guess it fits. a moral argument need not reason with logic, but with feelings.

    so name calling certainly fits the bill.

    • July 20, 2012 3:38

      I think you’re not just a moron; you’re lunatic as well. Try to review your comments and my replies here. My so-called name-calling is justified because you’re indeed a moron or a lunatic.

    • GabbyD permalink
      July 20, 2012 3:38

      still no counterargument… cmon, sleep on it and come up with something good!

      • July 21, 2012 3:38

        You must be deluded! Counterargument to your “fungible” idiocy?

  4. GabbyD permalink
    July 25, 2012 3:38

    still nothing? i thought of a counterargument already, and you just keep saying the same things again and again, never stoping to question your assumptions and their implications…

    • July 26, 2012 3:38

      LOL! You can stupidly equivocate, play up, and embellish your “fungible” idiocy all you want… Go on.

  5. john permalink
    August 5, 2012 3:38

    lol, this Gabby D sure is stupid as sh*t. The point of the vid is whether you are willing to surrender your grades, forcibly or voluntarily. If the professor forcibly redistributes the grade of the top student and he doesn’t approve of it, then it certainly isn’t fair to that person.

  6. monk permalink
    November 16, 2012 3:38

    Capitalism doesn’t operate on moral grounds. Also, capitalism actually works against free markets, as with the former, concentration of financial power gives control to only a few.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: