If the right had a selfish bone in their body, they wouldn't be afraid to bring up the idea of abolishing the welfare state. Or minimum wages. Or other examples of government coercion that make the needy the beneficiaries of productive peoples' actions. Because they dare not look like they they're opposed to serving the needy.
The fight between the left and the right is mostly non-essential. The Left just wants to make us serve the collective. The Right just wants to make us serve God. They both want to make us serve something other than ourselves. The more they put aside their differences, the worse off America is. Observe how Romney wants to repeal Obamacare after having created Romneycare. It's because he thinks socialized medicine should be implemented on the state level rather than the federal level. Also observe how Obama's religion at least partially informs his ideas that the rich should "give more" or whatever his wording was to justify taxing the rich more. There's no principled defenders of Capitalism anymore, because there's no politicians out there who start from a moral premise of rational self-interest. They're all altruists duking it out to try to implement the social system that they think is the most right, squabbling over petty differences when the essence is the same. The only radical Rightists are the religious ones, and they'll pay lip service to rights because they're "god-given", but then they're violate them the instant God tells them to. The others have no moral leg to stand on, so they slowly, inexorably concede ground to the Left.
You see, when you leave people to rot hopelessly in poverty
In a free society, people were not left to rot hopelessly in poverty. Even if unemployment was a problem (it would only be temporary if it did crop up, due to some correction in the market to meet shifting demand), there used to be charities that people could turn to. People used to get together and form "cooperatives", an early form of insurance where the members of the cooperative would make payments into the cooperative to pool their money in case they had financial trouble. If one of the members of the cooperative suddenly had financial trouble, the cooperative would support him with their pooled money while he got back on his feet. And if they didn't turn to a cooperative, friends and family and neighbors would be willing to give him a job or even support him for a little while. Since the establishment of the welfare state, cooperatives have disappeared and people have turned to the safety net that others are forced to hold up. And as taxes on the productive, regulations, etc, make it harder on those who do produce, the economy has been getting worse and more people have been getting poor and losing jobs. The cost of living has gone up, so even with the support of others, it's still much harder to get back on your feet nowadays. I remember when I was a kid (I'm 26 now), people used to be able to get a job and live in an apartment by themselves. Now everyone everywhere has to share apartments with other people and split costs because the economy is worse now than it was then.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that capitalism is a religion.
Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Morality is simply the branch of philosophy that examines what is good and evil, right and wrong. Capitalism is the right social system for every individual.
Funds granted to PG&E, by whom? Was it a government subsidy? If so, that's wrong. When the gas line exploded, was PG&E prosecuted? Did they go out of business for willfully endangering their customers? That's an example of a business behaving immorally and violating the rights of its customers. Its failure to act resulted in a destruction of other peoples' property and the loss of other peoples' lives. Ideally, they were severely punished for that. If they weren't, then that's not a failure of Capitalism. It's a failure to uphold Capitalism. A failure to enforce the protection of inalienable individual rights.
I fight for Capitalism the same way you right against it. By arguing in favor of it. Showing how it's good and how it works. It -is- good and it -does- work, so I guess it's wrong to say I'm fighting for it exactly the same way you're fighting it. You have to rely on context dropping and misdirection to make Capitalism appear to be impractical. But if you start from a morality of rational self-interest, the moral is the practical.
No idea what those books are about. But if they're going to talk about big businesses bribing politicians to gain advantages or monopolies, or big business otherwise getting in bed with the government, that's not Capitalism, that's Corporatism. Or to be more clear, that's Statism. When politicians are your masters, you have to scramble to win their favor before someone else does. Because if you don't win a handout from the politician first, someone else will, and it might be a handout that destroys your business. In full-on statisms, this power struggle takes the form of bloody coups. In our mixed economy, it takes the form of lobbying. A free society where nobody can coerce anyone else would eliminate this power struggle completely.
If the right had a selfish bone in their body, they wouldn't be afraid to bring up the idea of abolishing the welfare state. Or minimum wages. Or other examples of government coercion that make the needy the beneficiaries of productive peoples' actions. Because they dare not look like they they're opposed to serving the needy.
The fight between the left and the right is mostly non-essential. The Left just wants to make us serve the collective. The Right just wants to make us serve God. They both want to make us serve something other than ourselves. The more they put aside their differences, the worse off America is. Observe how Romney wants to repeal Obamacare after having created Romneycare. It's because he thinks socialized medicine should be implemented on the state level rather than the federal level. Also observe how Obama's religion at least partially informs his ideas that the rich should "give more" or whatever his wording was to justify taxing the rich more. There's no principled defenders of Capitalism anymore, because there's no politicians out there who start from a moral premise of rational self-interest. They're all altruists duking it out to try to implement the social system that they think is the most right, squabbling over petty differences when the essence is the same. The only radical Rightists are the religious ones, and they'll pay lip service to rights because they're "god-given", but then they're violate them the instant God tells them to. The others have no moral leg to stand on, so they slowly, inexorably concede ground to the Left.
In a free society, people were not left to rot hopelessly in poverty. Even if unemployment was a problem (it would only be temporary if it did crop up, due to some correction in the market to meet shifting demand), there used to be charities that people could turn to. People used to get together and form "cooperatives", an early form of insurance where the members of the cooperative would make payments into the cooperative to pool their money in case they had financial trouble. If one of the members of the cooperative suddenly had financial trouble, the cooperative would support him with their pooled money while he got back on his feet. And if they didn't turn to a cooperative, friends and family and neighbors would be willing to give him a job or even support him for a little while. Since the establishment of the welfare state, cooperatives have disappeared and people have turned to the safety net that others are forced to hold up. And as taxes on the productive, regulations, etc, make it harder on those who do produce, the economy has been getting worse and more people have been getting poor and losing jobs. The cost of living has gone up, so even with the support of others, it's still much harder to get back on your feet nowadays. I remember when I was a kid (I'm 26 now), people used to be able to get a job and live in an apartment by themselves. Now everyone everywhere has to share apartments with other people and split costs because the economy is worse now than it was then.
Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Morality is simply the branch of philosophy that examines what is good and evil, right and wrong. Capitalism is the right social system for every individual.
Funds granted to PG&E, by whom? Was it a government subsidy? If so, that's wrong. When the gas line exploded, was PG&E prosecuted? Did they go out of business for willfully endangering their customers? That's an example of a business behaving immorally and violating the rights of its customers. Its failure to act resulted in a destruction of other peoples' property and the loss of other peoples' lives. Ideally, they were severely punished for that. If they weren't, then that's not a failure of Capitalism. It's a failure to uphold Capitalism. A failure to enforce the protection of inalienable individual rights.
I fight for Capitalism the same way you right against it. By arguing in favor of it. Showing how it's good and how it works. It -is- good and it -does- work, so I guess it's wrong to say I'm fighting for it exactly the same way you're fighting it. You have to rely on context dropping and misdirection to make Capitalism appear to be impractical. But if you start from a morality of rational self-interest, the moral is the practical.
No idea what those books are about. But if they're going to talk about big businesses bribing politicians to gain advantages or monopolies, or big business otherwise getting in bed with the government, that's not Capitalism, that's Corporatism. Or to be more clear, that's Statism. When politicians are your masters, you have to scramble to win their favor before someone else does. Because if you don't win a handout from the politician first, someone else will, and it might be a handout that destroys your business. In full-on statisms, this power struggle takes the form of bloody coups. In our mixed economy, it takes the form of lobbying. A free society where nobody can coerce anyone else would eliminate this power struggle completely.