Reclaiming the Moral High Ground for Capitalism

Review: Morality of Capitalism

Through the publication of The Morality of Capitalism, Students for Liberty is sharing essays from individuals around the world who promote free market capitalism. Most importantly, this collection of essays reclaims the moral high ground for the economic system—and given that they have added so much to my ever-growing intellectual foundation as a classical liberal, I strongly recommend reading them.

I was very intrigued by the virtues of entrepreneurial capitalism. There are several incorrect, mainstream opinions regarding capitalism. One, for example, is that capitalism facilitates “survival of the fittest” competition that undermines human rights. It is true that competition is a component of capitalism; however, it is competition towards providing value to customers. Successful companies tend to be headed by creative and innovative individuals who can be labeled as “fit” or "survivors" as a result of these qualities. With this better understood, I contend that competition is a great thing! It enhances the quality of products and services while simultaneously reducing prices.

I have a personal experience with competition that I would like to share.

I took a challenging class my senior year of my undergraduate career called Psychobiology. In this class, there were two individuals who were biology graduate students. These individuals had a clear advantage over the rest of us, who were only psychology undergraduate students. Why? They had already taken many classes in biology and chemistry—knowledge regarding theses two subjects was essential to Psychobiology. These graduate students had a strong foundation, to say the least, demonstrated by the fact that they never scored lower than 100 on all the exams!! This bothered the majority of the psychology undergraduate students because the majority had little hours of chemistry and biology classes under their belt if any. My minor in biology had required me to take 18 hours on the subject of biology, but I had only had 8 hours of chemistry classes, so I was sort of in between. 

I was devastated because I really wanted an A in the class. I knew that if those individuals had not signed up for the class, I would not have to work extra hard for the A. But there I was faced with two choices: drop the class to ensure my GPA would not drop or try harder.

When my professor said he would replace the first exam grade with the second exam grade if, and only if, I received a B or higher on the second exam, I did what any determined student would do. I prioritized my time and perfected my study habits. I read my textbook, recorded the lectures (listened to each lecture twice), took diligent notes, and recited everything aloud to anyone who allowed me to. All of this helped me retain the information better for the next exam. I ended up getting an A on the second exam, surpassing my expectations! Most of the other students still failed the second exam though. In a class that started out with 60 students only about 15 remained past the drop deadline.

I am proud to say that I ended up getting an A for a final grade. However, what I value most about the aforementioned experience is the knowledge and lesson I took from it. Those individuals, by virtue of pursuing their own self-interest, unknowingly motivated me to push myself beyond my limits. In addition, since my professor refused to hand out unearned A’s, I was also motivated to study a lot more than I had intended on. Is it not amazing how competition and self-interest can lead to positive results?  

Moreover, I would like to share my understanding regarding what free market capitalism is and is not. A true free market does not contain government interference. The mainstream evaluation of the free market is based on a fallacy—that it favors the rich and suppresses the poor. However, it is understandable that individuals would confuse true free market capitalism with crony capitalism or corporatism. The government bailouts are a prime example of what should not be done in a free market. Through government bailouts, politicians are basically choosing the winners and losers. It is definitely not fair that a company should be saved by taxpayer dollars while another is left to fail. That is not to say that companies will never fail in a true free market. Reality check: failure is an essential part of life. But at least failure in a pure free market would be as a result of the voluntary choices made by consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and workers—not the government! Do not worry, though, since failure causes individuals to innovate.

William Edward Hickson said it perfectly:

'Tis a lesson you should heed:

Try, try, try again.

If at first you don't succeed,

Try, try, try again.

This leads us into another component of free market capitalism: cooperation. In order for a free market to work, individuals have to cooperate. Consumers must cooperate with entrepreneurs in order for transactions to occur. For example, Steve Jobs (R.I.P.) created products that many people consider to be valuable—worthy of paying a lofty amount to acquire. What some do not understand is that consumers determine the price Apple charges for its products. Individuals are willingly purchasing Apple products at the price they are being sold. Is this not cooperation? No one is forcing anyone to purchase Apple products. If people were not willing to purchase Apple products at the current price, then Apple would either have to lower its prices or go out of business. Peoples lives have been made easier, and once you insert competition into the equation they also pay less. That is the way the free market works. If entrepreneurs are wealthy, it is through their ability to create products of value to the consumers—not because they are evil and greedy (not all of them). Not only did Apple create a product that is valuable to consumers, it harbored an environment for healthy competition. How? Apple released an attractive smartphone—the iPhone—which caused other manufacturers to create similar smartphones. This essentially lowered the average price of smartphones, making them accessible to a broader array of individuals, and enhancing the quality of smartphones every passing year. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Another common misconception is that most wealthy people nowadays have inherited their wealth, not worked for it. That may be the case in some situations but not all cases. It should not matter even if it were the case. Envy is not healthy for the soul. Take me for example—I am the daughter of two first generation immigrants. My parents both grew up in relatively low income families in Mexico. My grandparents sought to provide the best for their family, so they immigrated to the United States back in the late 1970s when my parents were in their late teens. Why? Because free market capitalism provides opportunities and upward mobility in general, especially for those who are willing to work hard. My paternal grandfather was a cook at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, and my maternal grandparents sold vitamin. Neither side became extremely wealthy but they built a foundation for their descendants. My mother is a psychology instructor at a junior college, and my father is a medical technologist. My elder sister is the market research analyst at a local credit union, and my younger brother is studying physics at the university level. Me? Today, I am trying to promote economic freedom. Tomorrow? Who knows.

As a daughter of first generation immigrants, I am essentially learning American and Texan culture (I love Texas!) from scratch—even though my parents have assimilated quite a bit. I come from a culture that tells me to put my family above my career. This could be considered a disadvantage. At the end of the day, though, I have the freedom to make the choices I want to make. I can evaluate what I want and prioritize my time so that I can achieve my goals. 

I am not denying the fact that some individuals have a relatively easier life than others because of financial freedom (more money). Life is not perfect. However, if we want to allow people to have more income mobility and move upward, free market capitalism is the perfect tool. There will always be a wealth gap; however, capitalism has allowed the United States to become richer as a whole. The average poor person today is many times wealthier than the average poor person 100 years ago. 

Milton Friedman said it perfectly, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” Let us give true free market capitalism a chance.

What is a feminist and why is birth control relevant to female equality?

What is a feminist?

According to a couple of sources, “a person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism” [1], and/or someone who advocates “social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men” [2].

I have been called a feminist before. I’m not too sure why but based on the latter definition I can see the parallels between a so-called feminist and myself. However, I have never considered myself a feminist because of the issues attached to feminism nowadays (e.g., pro-choice abortion advocates and free birth control). If you know me, I clearly do not champion most of the mainstream issues the modern feminist does.

However, though, I recently had a conversation that made me take a second look at feminism. I spoke with a professor who told me she considers herself to be an individualist and ‘traditional’ feminist. What does that mean? According to her, it is a female who believes men and females should have equal rights; however, she pointed out, there is a clear difference between being equal and receiving special treatment. She went on to say that the leaders of the feminist movement today have highjacked the movement using victimization of women in order to further their agenda. Hmmm.. I don’t like to use the word ‘agenda’ because it’s overused and often an exaggeration. Regardless, I agree with her. There is no pride in victimizing women in order to attain a particular goal. How is receiving entitlement birth control equality? As ‘independent’ women who champion equality, shouldn’t we want to be able to take care of ourselves? After all, we are capable and successful.

I would also like to address the infamous ‘War on Women’ supposedly lead by the Catholic Church and Republican Party.  In my opinion, we shouldn’t be having this conversation because there are more pressing matters (i.e., our country is on the verge of an economic collapse as a result of our national debt and endless spending habits). But people are shouting about this from all angles (e.g., feminists, religious freedom advocates & Democrats), so I am going to acknowledge it. The ‘War on Women’ is just a bunch of propaganda used to get women riled up about their equality. If you want to see inequality, go to some areas in the Middle East where women are mutilated and treated like criminals if they disobey men. Women have it made in this country! When did ‘special privileges’ become ‘equality’? When did religious freedom no longer matter? Why should the Catholic Church be obligated to provide free birth control in their insurance plans for employees if it violates the teachings of the Church? The First Amendment is pretty clear about religious freedom. As for the Republican Party, well they are the Republican Party and of course they are going to oppose anything that violates the Bill of Rights. 

And, no, I do not believe individuals are ‘entitled’ to health care. I believe there are three things an individual is entitled to in a free society: life, liberty, and property. So, you won’t sell me on that argument. Sure, free healthcare would be nice but what are the consequences? If the government forces citizens to use its health care via a particular insurance company, there’s no competition. Competition is good because it provides products or services of value for the best price. I’m not even kidding.

Check it out. Do you remember how they sell overpriced hotdogs and water bottles at football games, movies, or any type of event that is enclosed? The ones where you’re not allowed to bring outside food or beverages? Things are overpriced mainly because there is no competition. The people selling food and water can charge whatever prices they want because people have no choice other than to purchase it or stay hungry/thirsty. If there were additional vendors that charged less, people would purchase their food and water with the additional vendors. Then, the original vendors would have to lower their prices in order to get people to purchase their food and water. It’s actually really simple. The aforementioned example is not even that bad of a scenario because at least people can choose not to purchase these overpriced items in the absence of competition. Obamacare takes it to another level and forces citizens to purchase health insurance or else... taxation. Come again? This is in the land of the free? Aha. Anyway, do you see what I am saying? Competition is a good thing because it allows for reasonable prices.

So, it’s not the end of the world if you do not have health care. Back in the day, churches and other ‘individuals’ helped each other out. The government’s role is actually intended to be very limited according to the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for helping one another. I just believe in doing it through individual, voluntary efforts. Force should never be used in a free society. People make fun of Romney because he infamously said, “Corporations are people.” Well, I do not agree that corporations are people but I would like to point out that governments are not people either. So, how is it that government is going to do something that only people can actually do? Who is specifically accountable for the efforts of the government if it fails at providing ‘free’ stuff? (Nothing is free, for the record). The taxpayers will surely feel the consequences because the government uses taxpayer money to fund government programs. And guess what, government has a record of being inefficient and ineffective at doing things. For example, ‘No Child Left Behind’ is a total failure. Need I say more?

Anyway, what I'm basically trying to say is that I know it is possible to live without free birth control (i.e., the pill). In fact, I was told to get on the pill for health reasons but I declined. Why? For one, I don’t like the thought of taking in additional estrogen. Second, I don’t like to take things that are unnatural. So, whatever did I do? I did some research on the Internet (so convenient sometimes) and found out that regular exercise and a healthy diet would actually do the trick. Who would have thought? I also found minerals that helped out too. See, there are alternatives to the pill in the scenario of health. Sometimes a little research will do the trick. Now, I am no medical doctor but I am certain that there will be a condition out there that does require the pill. Obviously, if it’s life or death… I’m sure you will make the right choice. But that's the beauty of freedom. People like me don't have to take the pill and others can if they choose to.

I'm aware I have digressed.

So what is my point? My point is that feminists do not have a case for free birth control. I also hope that you realize victimization of women, and minority groups for that matter, is not empowering at all. Let us stop grouping ourselves and just live life as individuals who like freedom FOR ALL. Sure you might experience sexism or racism. But guess what, there are ignorant people in the world. Be very thankful that you are not prejudice. Moreover, you may believe you are being a good person by supporting Obamacare but wouldn’t it make you an even better person if you actually did something at to help out personally? Just putting that out there. 

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feminist

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist?s=t

Where should the Ron Paul Revolution go after the RNC?

Where should the Ron Paul Revolution go from here? I have often said I would write in Ron Paul if he did not win the Republican nomination. My rationale? When else would I get the opportunity to vote for such an amazing person that I agree with on almost every issue? Now that I am faced with reality, I am not so sure that would be the wisest move.

It is Ron Paul himself that made me realize governments are not supposed to tell us what to do. Individuals are perfectly capable of being autonomous and living out his or her own life. I am not an anarchist because I believe government does have a role. Its role is to protect our life, liberty and property. Simple. See, the reason Washington is so corrupt is because it has so much power. Lobbyists lobby because they have something to gain. If they had nothing to gain, why bother? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Anyway, there is speculation amongst the liberty movement about where we should go and what Ron Paul would suggest for us to do. What does our wise leader suggest? That’s a good question. As Ron Paul has said many times, “Do what you want.” If you want to write-in Ron Paul, then do it. If you want to support Mitt Romney because you think four more years of Obama will be detrimental, then do it. If you want to vote for Obama to spite the GOP, then do it. If you want to vote for Gary Johnson to make a statement or because he is the closest candidate to your political philosophy, do it. It would be inconsistent of Ron Paul if he were to tell us what to do next. And we all know he is Mr. Consistent. As liberty minded individuals, we need to make up our own minds. We are all free to do what we desire. However, I would like to point out that going in separate directions will definitely not help us move forward. That’s certain.

What am I going to do? I have decided to look into Gary Johnson because this movement is about our liberty and Gary Johnson sympathizes with the message. Ron Paul did an amazing job of delivering the message to masses of people, but the movement is not about him. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Ron Paul but I know that voting for Gary Johnson will help me send the message I want to send, which is that I am not content with either Obama or Romney.