28 February 2011

This is Not Rocket Science

Unbelievable.  The other day I quoted OneSTDV, who correctly claimed capitalism will inevitably result in a race to the bottom, as it will eventually market to man's most base desires.  In this case, those base desires are a woman's base desire to throw out her beta male husband and seek hypergamous self-actualization as a sexual free agent, freshly loosed from the somewhat restricting tethers of marital fidelity, rationalization hamster spinning into ludicrous speed along the way. Such an enticement for women to engage in frivolous divorce just so they can get their freak on is but one example of how our culture can stop subsidizing misbehavior such as this.

I’ve addressed the claim that capitalism is a race to the bottom, and demonstrated that it is false.  (NB- I assume that Elusive Wapiti and OneSTDV both use the word “capitalism” as an equivalent to “free market.”  The two terms are not similar, let alone synonymous, but that’s for another post).  To recap:

First, social failure is nearly always the result of rampant immorality.  Only loony atheists with no grasp of reality or morality argue otherwise, and their arguments are always wrong.  When enough people start behaving immorally, society is toast.

Second, most immorality stems from government subsidy.  To state it another way, it is not the free market that encouraged the rise in illegitimate births, nor is the free market responsible for the subsidy of non-workers.  The state subsidizes these things, which is why they have increased in the last several decades.

Third, if anything, the free market tends to encourageconservative behavior.  In a perfectly free market that is anchored on property rights, all participants bear the moral hazard of their behavior.  Once you remove direct and indirect government subsidies of counterproductive behavior, you will see a lot less of it because it will literally become unaffordable.

Fourth, the state is not an argument.  It can distort reality, but it cannot change it.  Any moral failures that occur will not be fixed by the state.  They can only be fixed by other people who take the time to change other people’s minds through rhetoric in light of reality.  When the government stops distorting reality, people become more inclined to listen to people that already have a good grasp of how best to handle reality.

Finally, the implicit assumption that the free market will lead to or not discourage immorality (“a race to the bottom”) is ludicrous on its head.  Does EW really think that the rampant immorality of the last few decades is tied to the free market?

If one were to take an historical perspective of government scope and size and compare it to relative social decay, one will find that as government increases in size and scope, so, too, does immorality.  As we all know, correlation is not causation.  However, it is clear that immorality is not correlated to the free market, let alone caused by it.  Why then would anyone think that free market will be the cause of any problems that later arise?

In sum, the free market will not lead to social decay.  It may not eliminate it in its entirety, but it will not cause it, either.  To combat social decay it is necessary to eliminate the government subsidization thereof, which forces people to bear responsibility for their actions.  If that cannot save society, nothing will.


  1. Nah. People behave immorally when there is no authority to check their behavior. Your refrigerator keeps that bottle of milk drinkable, but that fresh chilled milk contains all of the chemical and biological ingredients needed to go bad. If you pull the plug on the fridge, game over.

    The key question...chicken or egg...who, how and why did the plug get pulled on our social fridge?

  2. I agree.

    On a family scale, if the parents pay for everything a child needs, the kid will not be inclined to grow up (think for his/herself and take individual responsibility)

    On a group scale, if one person does all of the work, few will be inclined to offer work (think for themselves and take responsibility)

    On a national scale if one group does all the work, few groups will be inclined offer work or value (few groups will think for themselves and take responsibility)

  3. "People behave immorally when there is no authority to check their behavior."

    People also behave immorally when there is authority in place to check their behavior. Morality is internal, not external. That is why the state is not an argument.

  4. I have this argument all the time with peop0le. They just don't get.

    People behave morally when it is in their interests to do so, and immorally when it is in their interests to do so.

    Howewver, the drives to immorality don't change simply because a law says though shalt not.

    The welfare programs reward immorality and no amount of trying to make it illegal is going to change it (How many people still don't get the result of Prohibition? More crime, everyone still drank, and more corruption. Apparently the lesson with that was never learned).

    In a world without subsides then divorcing your husband results in economic privation. No government subsides means your family, your community and your church are your safety nets. All three of those have very real consequences for bad behavior.

    At some point a family kicks you out, a community shuns you and a church tells you to repent.

    The churches pushing "social justice" through the governments (I'm looking at you catholic church) completely undermined their power, authority and ability to guide their followers by doing that.

    End the subsides, ends most of the immorality (and the remaining immorality eventually leads to very real object lessons for those that follow the rules).

    As for the milk going sour, that analogy is flawed.

    Because all milk goes bad eventually. Fridge on or off.