Why am I defending capitalism? Is the Zeitgeist the starting point for our freedom? Many people believe that this is the case. Unfortunately, he is probably wrong.
I came across one discussion post in which the author stated that he thought that capitalism needs to be replaced by something. And that the films in the series "Zeitgeist"They opened their eyes. As far as Zeitgeistu and hatred of capitalism, it's a fashion cliché - and that's why it is necessary to defend against it. I defend capitalism. I therefore have several (for me) fundamental reasons.
Capitalism is a system private property and the free market. We don't have either de facto here today: your property often decides state officethereby regulating the market so not free. There is no one without the other.
However, 'free market' and 'private property' sound a bit foreign, I admit. Let's face it - what the signs mean.
I hope we agree on that we each live our lives. I'm mine, you're yours. I don't live your life, you don't live my life. It's a bit impossible. I have always lived in the belief that this is the case, that I live my life and not the life of my neighbor, for example. And conversely.
One of the things I own is a computer. You will probably also have a computer (if you are reading this text on the web). I bought that computer for the money I got for my work. I spent part of my life working to make money on a computer. Therefore my computer, my ownership today, represents the part of my life I spent working on.
Me today's property represents my past life. If people live their lives, this conclusion must clearly apply.
Now imagine that in a world without private property, you buy a computer for the place you live in. You will live in that place only you. Suddenly someone else comes whom you have never seen in your life and the computer picks up and leaves. You can't defend yourself - the computer is not yoursbecause private property does not exist. Apparently you came to the computer as well - because without ownership there is no exchange. If anything I don't own, I can't trade it for something else.
I can't work like that, get "money" for it or maybe bread, because money and bread are not destructive, they are all. You can come to the field and collect food. On the contrary - anyone can come to the field you farm and pick up food. You don't have to have anything left, it's not your field, it's not your food. And you have nothing to exchange for, because nothing is yours, you can't exchange anything - you can't demand consideration for nothing, because you don't decide on anything.
In a system without private property, you pass on your past - your life - to others and it is not your life. You don't live your life. You are not you. You are the collective and the collective is you. You do not have "your" interests. You have no interests. The team has interests, the team has its own.
But who declares the interest of the collective? Only a real owner who lives his life can have his thoughts and his words, which he can say with his mouth and his voice. He thus has his interests, which he elevates to the "interest of others".
Interest the collective is declared by a dictator. The only owner.
To own means to make sovereign decisions about one's life - about oneself. At least owning your life - living your life - means being free. To own means to think and be a decision-maker.
In capitalism, in the "market," people often mind selfishness and anonymity. It is said that the people "alienate" us from the market, people are not in solidarity and do not help each other. Opponents of the market basically have two starting points.
Some argue that the lack of solidarity is due to the "unfettered market" that needs to be shown who the lord is: and through "elected policies" expressing the "will of the people", the market needs to be regulated.
I have a few questions:
Who elected the ruling politicians? How many people voted for them and how many people do they decide? What is the will of the people - which peoplewhich team? Who is Mr. Lid? The team is interested - who declared it? The people by their will in the elections? So are the current reforms the will of all people? Why do trade unions strike if reforms are their will?
It is not "everyone" who declares the interest of the people. The team is not interested - if someone pretends to have, then they are talking about of interest dictator. The owner is interested - in a system where, at first glance, the "collective" owns the interest of the dictator, the only one who actually owns it. There is no interest without a dictator.
We can't even imagine such a world.
Which dictator wants to regulate the market and what leads him to it? That is what you need to ask.
But what is the unfettered market?
The market is a system of voluntary cooperation. I do not know an environment where people are closer to each other and more solidary than in the market: people voluntarily give up their useful things for the benefit of other people! Shift is an act where some people want to help others!
A market system is a system where people voluntarily, at their discretion, freely choose the means to achieve their own goals, while exchanging, that is, giving up useful things for the benefit of other people.
The solidarity of the market can be seen most clearly in the insurance industry - a lot of people volunteer to help the victims of horrific events, where people often lose their whole lives. A lot of people consist of paying for a new home to people who may have burned down. And it voluntarily - You know more solidarity system? I don't.
And you know what? The best part is that the "market system" it is not fictional, it is not prescribed. Yippee spontaneous - People went and started exchanging things they had because it was better than everything else. This is the whole market system. There is no need for a revolution, there is no need for laws, no need for enforcement, no change of people. There is no need to say what one should do, what goal one should pursue, what means to choose in order to "create a market". If people own and exchange, the market is. People come to each other and help each other. That means the free market.
Why am I defending this?
Thinkers of various forms of new "social orders without capitalism" who oppose private property (living their own lives) and the free market (voluntary decision-making and cooperation) simply argue that it is necessary to come, change people, tell them what "right" goals and what "right" means to choose.
It's as if someone came and told you, "Sorry, boy, you've wanted to study law all your life, but the collective interest says we need tiles, so you're going to tile. Yeah, we know your rights go, you read, you care, but you're not interested, you don't live your life. The team needs you to pave. ”
You cannot refuse. You don't live your life.
I don't need to supply more.