My last article (https://globallibertymedia.com/the-logical-failure-of-socialism/) dealt with the illogical nature of Socialism vs Capitalism. Now, I’d like to expand that comparison to the morality prism. Let’s dig.
The moral argument for Capitalism is rather simple: you earn what you get. Yes, there is a ‘societal cost’ deducted from your pay—taxes. Most non-anarchists understand that there are costs associated with living in a civilized (gulp) society. We need governmental operation to do some things individuals and businesses are not suited to perform themselves. Local, county, and State governments provide many of these services, funded by non-Federal taxes, usually sales taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and in some States, State Income Taxes. The services paid for by those taxes include operating local police and fire departments, maintaining State roads and highways, maintaining K-12 school districts, maintaining State-sponsored junior colleges and universities, maintaining water and sewage treatment centers, and a myriad of other things. At the Federal level, we fund things via tariffs, fees, and, predominately, business and individual Federal Income Taxes. The Federal outlays finance things that are usually beyond the scope of State ability: maintaining the branches of the military, funding international relations via the State Department, maintaining Interstate highways, funding our social safety net (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc.), maintaining healthy food and drug standards, and many other facets. Included in both local and Federal tax structures are the funds spent to assist or even support those deemed incapable of supporting themselves. This group consists of handicapped folks, permanently injured people, the elderly, children, and, unfortunately, some that are able but unwilling to work. Whether local or Federal funds are well-spent, or even necessary, is a separate article. The only point here: taxes are a given—they may vary from State to State in how they are collected, but they WILL be collected. The Net Pay of individuals (Gross Pay, less taxes and other deductions) is largely spent at the discretion of that individual. Note that any taxes collected in excess of those agreed upon, necessary functions are subject to quite vigorous debate.
In a Capitalistic framework, the majority of funds earned are spent by the earner. In Socialist frameworks, the equation is quite different. In many Socialist countries, less than half of an earners Gross Pay is actual Net Pay—the tax burden is much greater. The reasoning is that those funds are necessary for a much larger social safety net than most Capitalist countries—usually including such items as health care, college, and the actual cost to administer such a system (central planners are not free, whether they are effective or not). In effect, workers are paying for the expanded safety net whether they actually use it or not.
The moral argument for Socialism is a bit more complicated. It assumes that ‘all people’ should work towards the benefit of ‘all people’, pooling their resources in such a way as to make life ‘better’ for everyone involved, regardless of productivity or even effort. The phrase ‘common good’ appears frequently. Socialists claim their system superior to Capitalists since there are fewer individual failures than Capitalist societies. Individuals are assured a baseline level of sustenance, with the costs of that level spread out over the productive population.
The other necessary tenet of Socialism is a ‘planned’ economy. Central planners determine what will be produced, and at what quantities. The net result of this is a lack of choice for most items: whatever the planners deemed necessary to produce are the only goods available for the common consumer. Shortages and overages are common, as the Central Planners NEVER have enough information quickly enough to optimally organize such a complicated thing as an entire economy.
A third tenant of Socialism is the absolute requirement of force to administer it. The reason is simple: it is difficult to get productive people to willingly fund everyone else upon their own labor. It is not a natural occurrence for most workers. They will gladly work for their own benefit, and for that of their families, but are not nearly as philanthropical as necessary to support everyone else. This requires the brute force of government (and, by extension, military and police) to accomplish. Another pertinent point: the very definition of ‘charity’ is that it is something VOLUNTARILY given to others; that is exactly opposite of coerced taking of funds from one person and giving them to another.
So, in its most elemental sense, the moral argument is: who should benefit from the labors of an individual—the earner himself (Capitalism), or everyone else (Socialism). I propose that the most evil word in the entire English language is ‘unearned’, so it is rather obvious where my opinion lands. Is it more moral to support idle able people, than to have them feel the pain of lack of sustenance that such idleness should create? Human nature would push for the latter, as most will not change their lifestyles until the pain of not changing is greater than changing. Providing an artificial floor of resources only serves to enable poor choices (the same dynamic appears in the Welfare state in Capitalism). Hunger is a strong motivator, but only when allowed to occur.
In summary, I think Capitalism is a MORE moral approach to organize an economy than Socialism. Capitalism inspires competition and choice, which benefits all consumers. If you don’t feel that you got value for your cash, having another vendor is a great alternative. That ‘voting with your cash’ is a wonderful incentive for producers to satisfy consumer demands. That Capitalism also seems to reward innovation, planning, self-improvement, and working smarter is merely a bonus. I am hoping that the United States remains a mostly Capitalistic country—yes, we have our flaws (political cronyism, government-blessed monopolies, etc.), but on the whole, Capitalism has improved the standard of living for literally BILLIONS of people—much more than any other system devised by man.
Thank you for taking the time to read my article! Feel free to add comments (good or bad) in the box below. In addition, there is a link at the bottom of the article to view other items I’ve written at Global Liberty Media. Enjoy!
