Libertarian Home

Blog archive from the golden age of London libertarianism

Strategy for Establishing Capitalism

Archivist

What is the status quo for the correct set of economic policies? What is the typical response of the ordinary person if they are asked about the minimum wage, import tariffs, subsidies, competition law etc.? For those of you who frequently discuss these issues the answer is of no surprise; it is interventionism. Most people are of the opinion that if we do not have government intervention then the rich/capitalists will exploit the poor/employees, businesses will act predatorily and unethically and all sorts of other problems and shortcomings will occur which could easily be solved by some sort of government intervention.

© Duncan
© Duncan

Why is interventionism the status quo? Human history exists because humans intervene and take control of nature to make their lives better. It is intuitive for human beings, therefore, to act and take control of the economy in order to make it better. However after the fall of communism, due to its complete and utter failure, we know that we cannot take total control of the economy and make it ideal. Having said this, leaving the economy totally to market forces is still extremely counter-intuitive. So most people today are of the opinion that market forces work to some extent but we must intervene where it is supposedly necessary and where markets supposedly fail. Because of this idea even the freest economies in the world today are mixed economies. However, we have had the mixed economy for a relatively long time now and it has not solved our problems and recently serious problems have emerged which have not yet been solved and are in fact likely to get worse. Interventionists keep changing their budgets and regulations but the problems persist and continue to get worse.

What has been the effect of the recent economic crises and problems on the status quo? The counter-intuitive nature of free-market policies has meant that most people are still reluctant to embrace those types of policies. As a result, they are only left with two options: they either delve into a critique-only analysis of the current economic system (inequality, inflation etc.) and blame it on capitalism since it is conventional wisdom- obviously and incorrect one- that the current system is capitalist or they argue for an alternative approach of intervention.

This current political atmosphere is perfect for those who espouse a capitalist economy. As time goes by it will become more and more certain that, just like communism, intervention will not work. Since the central planning alternative is out of the picture, the only group that can come up with real policy alternatives in the face consistent failure of the mixed economic system is the capitalist alternative.

Therefore, there are three main strategies if a capitalist advocate wants to capitalise on the current political climate and push for economic freedom. The first two are already known and implemented but the third is seldom applied and without it the first two are futile.

1. Educate people to understand why non-interventionism works despite it being counter-intuitive
2. Propose policies that will fix current socio-economic problems (not forgetting the first strategy of educating as to why these policies would actually work).
3. Give those who are educated about how capitalism works a way to mandate it.

The first two strategies have both been taken by the various pro free-market organization so why the relative ineffectiveness? The problem is that the free-market policies are not put on the table in any meaningful way. This also renders the first two strategies to be futile as most people are not interested in just learning when they cannot actually make any changes or be heard and most politicians are anti-free-market because they are unpopular and limit politicians’ power. To make this point clearer, ask yourself who do you know who has proposed free-market policies in a real way where the general public could actually learn and vote for their proposals? The only person who will come to most of our minds is Ron Paul; I cannot think of any in Britain. In addition, to those mentioned above, another big advantage of offering a vote for capitalism is that it will be in the side lines constantly criticising the mixed economy system and slowly grow as interventionism fails until the time arises for it to take over.

Tags:

Date:

Up next:

Before:

6 responses to “Strategy for Establishing Capitalism”

  1. Simon Gibbs Avatar
    Simon Gibbs

    There are regular readers of this blog who have put in considerable effort to establish a voting option for Libertarians. Of those that are viable, the one with the most commitment behind it – the Independent Libertarian Network – has in fact closed since I last stopped by. So when you say that “free-market policies are not put on the table in any meaningful way” I see what you mean, but it is worth noting how much passion and energy have gone into such projects already.

    I have said before that any new attempt really needs to hit the ground running, that is, to spring into life with several thousand members and a large pot of money.

    https://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/04/a-new-libertarian-party-must-hit-the-ground-running/

    There are specific economic reasons for this – reasons which make me sad – but that is that.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Paul Marks Avatar
    Paul Marks

    De facto (if not legal) bankruptcy is inevitable now – it can not be prevented (it is too late). Both the bankruptcy of the credit bubble financial system and the Welfare States, in all large Western nations.

    The “mixed economy” where government spending takes up about half the entire economy (mostly on the Welfare States), and the financial system is based on credit-money expansion from the Central Banks, not REAL SAVINGS, will have been seen to fail – because it will have collapsed.

    So what then?

    The left are ready – they will denounce “capitalism”, “the rich”, “the corporations” (and so on) and push for envy ridden policies of Class War.

    So an alternative to the left must be presented, if civilisation is to survive, and that intellectual (not necessarily party political) alternative must be presented now – not after bankruptcy has taken place.

    As for party politics – in a “First Past the Post” political system Libertarian Parties are worse than useless (if anything they help the left, the forces of Envy, of Class War, by splitting the anti left vote).

    So “what is to be done?” (sorry – for those who spot the reference).

    In the United States it is clear – in every opinion survey the vast majority of Republican party supporters (not politicians – ordinary people) support the idea that people should keep their own money, that the government does NOT have the right to “redistribute” it, for “public services”. That gives libertarians a real opportunity…..

    They do not have to change the fundamental beliefs of people (a rather difficult task) – they just have to show that certain policies (such as major things Central Banking – or minor things such as the Export “bank” government subsidies for General Electric and so on) are not consistent with these beliefs – and, therefore, that the polices need to be changed.

    Bankruptcy will provide the urgency to fundamentally change policy.

    Bankruptcy (de facto – not legal) is not the end – it is the beginning.

    I will be optimistic for once.

    I will say that as early as 2017 we will see a fundamental change in policy in the United States for the BETTER (in a more libertarian, roll back government, direction), in response to de facto bankruptcy and the election of more liberty friendly Republicans (as opposed to RINOs) in line with the basic opinions (shown in survey after survey) of ordinary Republican voters.

    As for Britain…….

    I would rather not talk about Britain at this time.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Tim Carpenter Avatar
    Tim Carpenter

    To me it is not about pushing capitalism per se, but working to stop an interventionist, partisan govt. that takes sides. Currently we have a govt that, by conniving with various interests, ends up against the middle. It courts power and buys mass votes.

    Paul’s comments echo a post I almost made on another thread regarding welfare last night – soon, the choice to have the kind of big govt will be taken away by force.

    What will emerge from the rubble is unclear.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Simon Gibbs Avatar
      Simon Gibbs

      Will it be “taken away by force” or will the private entities loaning western governments money now simply decline to volunteer?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Tim Carpenter Avatar
        Tim Carpenter

        I think declining to loan is a bit of a gentle term, and my “by force” a bit strong, on reflection.

        I first used “without a by or leave”, before events interrupted my posting. That would be more fitting.

        Lending could dry up, but money printing could go on for a little longer, with the central bank exchanging one form of paper for another, possibly with Cypriot “bail ins”. The scary thing would be a globally orchestrated synchronized leap off the fiscal cliff, with everyone falling in concert, so deluding for a while longer.

        I see no proof to support the notion that the state would never resort to a distracting war and/or deep sequestration, Nationalization and totalitarianism, cheered on by those who cleave to state power.

        Like

  4. Paul Marks Avatar
    Paul Marks

    Two sorts of “force” – the force of reality (such as gravity – the credit bubble financed Welfare State goes de facto bankrupt, even if not legally bankrupt).

    Or actual force – violence?

    Some government people seem quite capable of resorting to violence – in order to maintain their “Social Justice” ideology for a bit longer.

    I fear Mr Obama may be one of these – and there are many others.

    For example leader the of the Hispanic caucus in Congress clearly sees himself as a Revolutionary Leader (burning down the big farms of the rich – or whatever).

    I have always assumed, by his accent, that he actually is from Latin America – but it turns out that he was born, and spent most of life, in Chicago (although he spent a few years in P.R.).

    So his accent is more likely to have come from imitating bad Hollywood films about Latin American Revolutionaries – in many ways “ethnic identity” is (as the left say) a “social construct”. People decide what they want to be – and make themselves into it.

    Being American is a state-of-mind and, at some point, this man from Chicago decided he did not want to be American – he wanted to help destroy America.

    In theory the process can happen in reverse – someone born and bred in (say) Chile can decide to be American (or British) and make themselves so, by absorbing the cultural principles and making them part of themselves.

    Numbers – it is always a question of numbers.

    How many people (regardless of “race”) have an American state-of-mind and how many do not?

    If most people are Americans (if they reject Class War – reject Envy) collectivists will find they do not have sufficient support for their desires – remember the population of the United States is armed.

    As for Britain – again I have nothing to say about Britain just now.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Simon Gibbs Cancel reply