There is a very anti-capitalist feeling in America. Just look at both political party leaders. They are sounding more like socialist and fascist. Hillary with her socialized health care and Bush taking away privacy. We need to make sure in the next election we vote in a lover of freedom and a defender of the capitalist sprit that started this country.

When I talk to people about lowering government contorts and taxes on businesses they call me, a “greedy capitalist pig that has no heart.” That is not true at all. I just feel that the government gets in the way of businesses and often makes it an unfair playing field for competition. Here is a good article talking about gas prices and government control.

What should the government do about gasoline prices? Get its hands out of the market–and keep them off. – read more…

People need to understand that in a true Capitalist society they have all the power. If a “big bad company” is charging to much for their product just go to the competition. See how long that “big bad company” last when they have no customers. If you hate Walmart’s business practices, shop at Target. If you hate Exxon for not cleaning up a spill, get your gas some were else. Having the freedom to choose is what give you the power.

“[I]f you wish to fight for freedom, you must begin by fighting for its unrewarded, unrecognized, unacknowledged, yet best representatives—the American businessmen.” [America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 62.]

Capitalism is not just about making money, it’s about having choices and living your life to its fullest.

Share →

10 Responses to Anti-Capitalist in America?

  1. That pinko-commie liberal says:

    Capitalism is anti-privacy too. Many stores only give discounts and sale prices to people who sign up for their “free” membership card–all you have to do is give up every detail about your life. Why does Giant Eagle need to track how many tampons I buy in a month?? And when their psychological advertising tricks fail to get customers, they resort to outright lies. And successful capitalists don’t have any use for individuals–they need people they can program, or they fail. No system is as pure as we’d like to think it is; we merely fool ourselves into thinking there is one right way so that we have hope for the future.

  2. Mosley says:

    You pinko-commie liberal! 😉 hehe

    You dont have to sign up for there cards no one isforcing up to sign up. At the stores you have a choice so how is it anti-privacy?

    If your privacy is worth a few cent off a box of tampon then go for it!

  3. Andrew says:

    I was just going to comment but I say a reply from somebody and wanted to argue.

    Let’s break this down.

    “Capitalism is anti-privacy too. Many stores only give discounts and sale prices to people who sign up for their “free” membership card–all you have to do is give up every detail about your life. Why does Giant Eagle need to track how many tampons I buy in a month?? And when their psychological advertising tricks fail to get customers, they resort to outright lies. And successful capitalists don’t have any use for individuals–they need people they can program, or they fail. No system is as pure as we’d like to think it is; we merely fool ourselves into thinking there is one right way so that we have hope for the future.”

    Most memberships require an address, credit card number, and name, all of which is given voluntarily. You are not forced to join membership clubs. If you feel that the sacrifices you’d have to make/info you’d have to surrender outweigh the membership benefits, DON’T JOIN. If they are truly unjust, then the private sector will not support them and their policies will change, or they will go bankrupt from lack of support.

    As for programming mindless slobs, that is not the fault of capitalism. If you cannot handle taking care of your own mind, you cannot blame others for your idiocy. A successful business (and I use the term as a group of businessmen, not a collective noun that has its own mind) knows that, in the long-term, it will have to be honest and cutting-edge. Your views seem affected by the once-popular misconecption of the common practice of a businessman selling crap products, taking the cash, and disappearing. But capitalism does not allow such men to succeed, because the market they tap into eventually (and probably very quickly) disappears as buyers learn of the lies. A businessman who is honest about his product and who has integrity would be upfront and clear about what his product does, because he needs the buyer base to remain loyal in order for him to reap a profit. (Incidentally, I highly doubt a swindler could take enough money to actually earn a profit, because a man who would lie so blatantly is probably not the smartest spender and would be stuck in debt up to his forehead…but that’s just speculation. Also, Ayn Rand has written extensively on the subject.

    And what’s funny is that, given your aversion to freemarket capitalism, would rather have the government step in and “guard” the citizens from such heinous abuse (sarcstic). To which I say, read 1984, and Anthem, then come back to me.

    What I’d wanted to say earlier was that it’s not only anti-capitalism, it’s anti-reason and anti-individual. It’s really distressing. The only candidate worth any time is Ron Paul.

    Love the Objectivist podcast. Keep it up.
    P.S. I like Peikoff. 😛

  4. Mosley says:

    Thanks for this great comment!

    I agree! That was what I was try to say with my comment. Also is Ron Paul really running for pres?


  5. Andrew says:

    Yeah, he’s set to do the debate with the other Republican candidates in May. I guess he’s got a sizeable internet following (especially on Youtube!)

    Favorite Ron Paul story: When the House was planning on using tax bucks to mint a medal for Rosa Parks (or some sort of trinket, I don’t know the exact details beyond it would cost money), he was the only one who voted no. He went on record saying he’d chip in his own cash to help pay for it, if all the others did the same, but wouldn’t spend govt money.

  6. Mosley says:

    I am going to have to read up on this guy!

    You should try to get on the podcast sometime so we can talk about this.

  7. That pinko-commie liberal says:

    Actually, I’m not against capitalism, Andrew. I exaggerate by calling myself a communist because so many people only see things in disgusting extremes and get horribly worked up if any of their views are challenged, so I like to get them fired up. My original post was done in jest, but as you’ve taken the time to respond, I’ll do the same.

    Why all the labels and forced politics? I see flaws in capitalism, as there are flaws in everything. This does not mean in any way that I am averse to a free market society. I don’t spend my time trying to classify everything; rather, I research and evaluate it. I’m amused by your simplistic analysis: If I believe that people should have a social conscience, then surely I must believe the government has to mandate this conscience, right? WRONG. I’m tired of people hiding behind inaccurate labels to justify not caring about anyone else. Because I envision a society in which people care about the world around them and help those legitimately in need, not only themselves, then I must be a communist? That’s absurd. I don’t need to persuade anyone to my side, but it would be nice if people would take the time to hear other sides and recognize that no government or social system can be perfect.

    I’d love to live in a world as simple as yours–but unfortunately things aren’t that way. And please don’t condescend to me and give me your reading recommendations. The world can’t be summed up in two fiction books–I’d suggest basing more of your views in reality. Don’t insult my intelligence just because we obviously see things differently.

  8. Andrew says:

    The argument you made was that a person should have a social conscience, which I assume means a concern for the people around him, yes? On what grounds? On the grounds that people have needs? If all people have needs, then he must have needs as well. Why not look out for his own needs? It is essential, to me, that his needs take priorty. Altruism, concern for others at the expense of self, is what you advocate. While I only used commie because you did (and I felt it was meant to be sarcastic; who uses pinko if not tongue in cheek?) yours are still collectivist views. You just substitute society for state.

    Also, “in need” needs to be better defined. If by “in need” you mean didn’t apply themselves in high school, now lives with 8 kids on welfare, then I dont agree. Man has the capacity to provide for himself; choosing not to use it does not constitute being in need.

  9. That pinko-commie liberal says:

    Ok, well, I will not continue the debate beyond this last post (because we are both intelligent and clearly very passionate), but I’ve had this same argument with Bacon Boy himself, so I will ask: Where are you getting this inaccurate definition of altruism? All of the primary definitions I’ve seen do not mention “at the expense of self” or anything similar, and the secondary definitions list this aspect only as a possible component, certainly NOT a requirement of altruism. (And no, Ayn Rand is not a valid source for definitions, nor are other political/philosophical writings.) My last gripe is that you think anyone would define a person who is “in need” as one who did not apply himself in high school. I personally am not so naive or limited in my understanding of other people’s experiences to define “in need” in such a childish way. Unfortunately, people do not all start on equal footing (gasp!), and how we do in high school bears no value in one’s success or lack thereof, regardless of whether the state intervenes or has no involvement whatsoever. BUT I am stopping now, only so that I don’t get yelled at by Mosley. It was nice debating with you, Andrew. (BTW, I have read 1984 and even have the movie too, and I’ve just started “Atlas Shrugged” after letting it sit on my bookshelf for a year. Hopefully you will seek out different viewpoints also.)

  10. Andrew says:

    If we’re doing final posts, here is mine.

    A quick wikipedia search gives me the following on Comte, who coined the phrase (which makes him, at least to me, a reliable source of a defintion):

    He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to serve the interest of others or the “greater good” of humanity. Comte says, in his Catechisme Positiviste, that “[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service…. This [”to live for others”], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.”

    Altruism is to live for others. Therefore, one cannot live for oneself, as “others” and “self” are diametric opposites; therefore, the self will be diminished; therefore, altruism comes at the expense of self. Since I shouldn’t go to Ayn Rand, how about Nietzsche, who feels the same. Further, if altruism did not requite the sacrifice of self, it would be no different from goodwill or charity and, hence, would not exist as a concept. As Ayn Rand famously put it, without the sacrifice of self, altruism could be giving someone a Christmas present.

    When I used “in need” in regards to one who did not apply himself in high school, I meant that both literally and in a more figurative sense, that they did not use their minds and any skills at their disposal throughout their adolescent lifetime and did not put forth any effort in their youth/early adulthood to reach any goals. Your argument is that some are born on different levels, therefore some cannot reach heights others can. But why squander what power you have? The human mind has amazing capacities for knowledge. (I add, for kicks, that despite how “simple” and naive my definition may be, you’ve neglected to produce a more nuanced one.) As well, while it is true that a person may be born into a poor family or a rich one, it is not your parents who make you who you are. Your existence precedes your essence (existential viewpoint! HA!). One is born with a mind and a life and the world at his feet. I’ve met many people, and there are scores that I don’t know (an obvious, but amusing, afterhtought I decided to add), who come emigrate to the U.S. and reach the pinnacles of success without speaking English on arrival, without being born with a silver spoon in their mouth. (Here’s a famous one: Sounds like “Mine Hands.”) In the oresent, the economic status you have at birth, much like race, religion, and eye color, do not affect your ability to succeed, especially at this time and place.

    There is a common argument that people use, “I’m overqualified and can’t find work.” The answer to them is simple: deliver pizzas. Not necessarily literally, of course, but take the less paying job until your ideal opens up. If their is ANY chance, any possibility of a person earning a living and you won’t take it because it’s “beneath” them, then you must hold the consequences as your own responsibility.

    Also, the argument that certain people are on a “fixed income.” JOIN THE CLUB! Unless you can show me a person whose income fluctuates on a day-to-day basis, that argument has no legs to stand on.

    As for seeking different viewpoints, I’ve got books by Nietzsche, Sartre, and Marx to the left of my Ayn Rand books(I did not realize the comedy in that until just now!). I’ve a few books on Buddhism and Rastafarianism (which I don’t remember, to be honest). Also, Orwell is a socialist, so his views are different, too. Who’s condescending now?

    That was longer than intended.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *