Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

It is amazing how absolutely expectations shape belief.  When we expect something to be "normal", "proper", or "appropriate", it can be ridiculous and still accepted.  When we expect something to be "abnormal", "inappropriate", or "different", the person speaking becomes crazy and is shunned.  Of course, most of the ideas we accept began as crazy.  Whether they are fantastic like people being able to fly, or ordinary like the idea that we are all equal regardless of appearance, these ideas were once considered insane.  It was only those few willing to question accepted reality who changed that.

I think we live in a world of invisible boxes.  We accept what we "should" do or be at the cost of who we are and who we want to be.  I see this in politics all the time.  We vote for lesser candidates because we convince ourselves it is necessary, and they know better.  We trade logic for superstition and pat ourselves on the backs for our good sense.  That is nonsense.

I will tell you what I wish, and see who agrees with me.  I wish we made decisions based on the ideas we like, and an open and honest discussion.  Maybe we shouldn't vote always for the person who has the most money.  Maybe we shouldn't always consume the name brand.  Maybe we should wake up and realize the only thing preventing us from getting what we want is our own faulty expectations.

If you reach beyond your invisible box, I think you'll discover that the air is the same and you can do anything you want.  I am doing my part to open people's eyes, as so many others are doing with facts and reason as their arsenal, and I ask you to do the same.  Don't believe me; believe yourself.

Have you noticed that whenever you have some global summit, that there are certain nations that just use this as an opportunity to bash the evil capitalist powers that be?  Case in point:  Look at the comments by Venezuela's Chavez this week.  It's even more interesting in light of the fact that he is trying (and is likely to succeed) to become a dictator over the wishes of his own people.  Let's leave the news aside for a moment though, and talk about what capitalism is.

There is a common misconception that capitalism is corporatism.  This is categorically incorrect.  Capitalism is a system where markets allow people to voluntarily determine the value of goods and services and free trade and exchange create growth and mutual prosperity.  Corporatism, by contrast, is where corporations use their size advantage and connections within government to exert monopolistic tendencies, ruining competition and innovation, and exploiting a population.

The bailout, for instance, was corporatism.  A series of businesses that were over-capitalized (read:  too big to fail) were given subsidies by the government (read: the taxpayers) which enabled them to continue their practices which were unsuccessful for good reasons.  Not only were they inefficient, they were corrupt, and served no greater financial benefit than the pockets who were being lined on Wall Street.  But they had clout, they had Congress, and they used their position to have government support them.

Most capitalists I know would recognize that risk is part of the process of making wealth.  Risk and reward come from making assessments about what people want, with the opportunity (but never the guarantee) of becoming successful.  When a business chooses well, it justly earns its profits.  When a business chooses poorly, it fails, and is replaced with something that makes better decisions about the needs and desires of the consumer.  Capitalism, like markets, is smart.  It is based on voluntary exchange, and the simple idea that whoever best gives you what you want will be able to generate economic growth and wealth because that is worth something to you.

In this, corporatism is fundamentally different from capitalism but remarkably similar to socialism.  Whereas capitalism puts the emphasis on the desires and actions of individuals, corporatism and socialism both require the intervention and presence of a strong state to redistribute wealth.  Whether that goes up, or down, what it does mean is that money is removed from productive enterprise, and instead of wealth being created, it is being distributed.  The genius of capitalism is that it actually focuses on creating wealth, and as much as other nations and systems complain, history proves the point.

Capitalism does not create equality, nor does it intend to do so.  But it does create material wealth, it seeks to understand the wants of the people through the market, and all it asks is effort and thought.  By contrast, socialism explicitly asks for nothing from the individual, simply asserting that the designated needs must be provided for a just society to exist, with limited regard for how they are obtained. It is just one reason why I am proud to be called a capitalist, and why I think the system itself, just like liberty, is a positive to ask people to utilize their natural skills and abilities.

Finally, my assertion is that a true capitalist cares about people more than socialists do.  A capitalist must care about what a person thinks, believes, and does with their life.  A socialist, by contrast, cares only that the system provides that they have basic needs met.  The dignity of being considered as an individual is a precious thing and one that I hope everyone keeps close to their thoughts.  Otherwise, we would all just be another number.

I know many will agree with what I write, but for those who might think I am being too harsh, here is what I would say.  Help people, care about them, but not at the price of making them into less than human beings, in their full and wondrous complexity.  It is something we must do as who we are and not because someone or some entity tells us, either for the good of the poor or the greed of the rich.