Capitalism is local

Posted on November 15, 2010 in Governance Policy Context

Source: — Authors: – news
November 14, 2010.   By David Warren, Ottawa Citizen

In my recent Sunday natterings on “what is to be done” — my attempt to think positively, about the direction we should take as the bankrupt Nanny State collapses over us — I have stressed the need to start with education. In the longer run, but even in the shorter, recovery means overcoming the power of state indoctrination; means learning to think independently again.

It is the moral order we must first reclaim, if we are to stand as the grand Ponzi scheme of the welfare state comes tumbling down. This begins with re-instilling the classical virtues in our children; with preparing them to assume personal responsibility. For in a system which no longer offers to infantilize the citizen from “cradle to grave,” they must be prepared to take adult responsibilities. They will need the moral stamina to cope, directly and personally, with the fallout from the long “progressive” project of turning the moral order upside down; to overcome “fair is foul and foul is fair.”

This view makes me a “social conservative.” We are naturally allied with economic libertarians, for we share one large ambition: getting big government out of our faces. There is an instinctive belief on both sides, that with freedom a society will self-organize; that the natural order of things never required central planning. It does require moral spine, however.

My own concerns are thus more spiritual than material; I think we should seek “the good, the true, the beautiful,” in civic life. Libertarians tend to yawn at these, and move directly to: what is good for business? (Of course this is a generalization; there are many kinds of libertarians.)

But “business interests” cannot be what we live for. The primary purpose of life cannot be the accumulation of wealth — every other end being some hobby we are welcome to indulge in our spare time.

“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God,” but money.

Still, wealth trumps penury. And, capitalism feeds, whereas socialism starves. I don’t think anyone who has looked over the history of the last century can doubt that. Scope must be provided for the trial and error of individual enterprise.

Capitalism tends to open society, socialism to close it. There is no reason to wonder why those who lust for power are drawn to the left; or why the left has been consistently “chic” among the intellectuals, continuously for much more than a century. Socialism may impoverish and enslave, but it is the means by which the intellectual can hope to become the enslaver: through the creation of bureaucracies to advance and perpetuate fashionable progressive agendas.

Free markets create conditions of plenty, in which starvation does not become an issue; socialism imposes material constraints and dysfunctions which finally necessitate “population control.”

Indeed, the idea of phasing out the human race entirely is at the cutting edge of current environmentalist thinking; and in the end the issue is life or death.

Yet the critique of capitalism is not without merit. Free markets are also, in the strictest sense of the word, a “de-moralizing” force; and big business, like big government, is a levelling agent of extraordinary power.

< >

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, November 15th, 2010 at 11:11 am and is filed under Governance Policy Context. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply