In my last column, I digested the anti-Objectivist piece by Andrew Boldt. It's dinnertime now, and Hogan's article, "In Defense of Capitalism" [The Dartmouth, Oct. 9] is on the menu. Like Boldt, Hogan chooses to distort capitalism in order to refute it. It is my belief that one should present one's readers with the truth and then allow them to make a judgment. I will now present you with the truth. The truth ultimately needs no one to speak for it -- it speaks for itself, and you can discover what I have to say on your own -- but sometimes it needs a microphone. I am that microphone.
Without further delay, let us now shine the light of truth on Hogan's sarcastic piece (if it has not become obvious by now, Hogan is not my "comrade-in-arms" as he claims). The first lie about capitalism that Hogan tries to sell readers is that it is some kind of dogma, to be taken on faith. Again, this couldn't be further from the truth. As you will see if you refer to my Declaration of Principles on my website or any book written by Ayn Rand, the "merits of capitalism" can be logically proven and do not need to be taken on blind faith. The conservative requires you to have faith in God, the liberal replaces "God" with "the state" or "society." The capitalist says, "Don't take MY word for it. You can prove it to yourself."
Hogan eventually goes on to define what he sees as "Suttonian economics." As he had feared, he has failed -- miserably and intentionally -- to represent my views. I agree that all traces of the welfare state must be eliminated, but not simply because its beneficiaries have "little to contribute to society." I oppose welfare and all other government-run hand-outs because I do not believe, as Karl Marx did, that one man's need gives him a moral claim on another man's ability. Every Thidwick should be free to work for his own sake and to support the life of every parasite hanging off his antlers.
I do not, as Hogan suggests, advocate the abolition of all religion. A capitalist society would be characterized by government relinquishing its control over ideas, not by seizing control and indoctrinating people with my own brand of morality. While I am an atheist and think that most religion is a superstition invented to control people by guilt, I know perfectly well that I cannot force people to believe or disbelieve something. The one thing a government cannot force people to do is think. The only way religion will ever be eliminated is if it is made to compete in a free marketplace of ideas. It is only there that people will choose the most rational way to live their lives -- a government has no place in making that choice for them.
I do not move to abolish all attempts to alleviate "social problems," only the government-sponsored attempts. There is nothing wrong with private charities or organizations seeking to help people who deserve that help (as opposed to those who are paying for their own irresponsibility).
Further, I recognize the right of a private institution or business to operate any way it wants, provided it does not violate anyone's right to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness. Since there is no "right to be hired" or "right to a good parking space," a private organization has the right, if it chooses, to give excessive parking priority to the handicapped or to implement racism as an admissions or hiring practice. Such an organization would soon change its policies once it found that it was losing customers and high quality employees to businesses that did not offer handicapped parking for the merit-impaired (Handicapped parking and Affirmative Action, in today's context, are usually implemented by law or by government arm-twisting, and not willingly by private businesses).
Hogan's last gripe about capitalism is that it would eliminate the minimum wage, allow for child labor and remove health regulations. He's completely correct, but I would argue that all of those things would be beneficial. The minimum wage does not benefit the "lower classes." If businesses are forced to pay higher wages, while productivity remains the same, they will raise prices and make the cost of living more expensive anyway, negating the benefits gained by the increased wages. Moreover, the need to pay higher wages to newcomers will make businesses much less likely to hire people, making it far harder for those on welfare or unemployment to find jobs. Hogan, the humanitarian, does not seem to object to this, though.
Nor does he mind thousands of children starving because of child labor laws. Before the industrial revolution, parents could not support all their kids, and as a result, less than 50 percent of children reached the age of ten. However, as factories sprouted up, and more jobs became available, these children were able to find jobs to supplement their parents' income. The hours were long and the wages low (although the job itself often involved little more than changing a spool of thread in a textile mill), but without those wages and jobs, several children would have simply starved. Eventually, parents' real wages rose (such is the nature of capitalism), allowing them to support their children. Child labor ended, not because of some law, but because families no longer needed it. The fact is, none of Hogan's child labor laws will end the "exploitation" of children: at best, they would force children to work in black-market jobs, at worst, they would allow children to starve. But Hogan is a humanitarian.
As to unregulated food processing industries, I think they would actually turn out higher quality goods. Without even looking at the multitude of viral and bacterial outbreaks that government health inspectors have missed (or been bribed into overlooking), it stands to reason that a free market food system would be much healthier than the one we have now. Right now, the quality of food is dictated by nothing more than some bureaucrat's arbitrarily chosen "minimum standards." Since there is little financial incentive for a food producer to exceed the minimum standards, he will simply do what he must to get his food on the market. In fact, it is often cheaper to bribe a government inspector than to meet the government's "minimum standards."
Without government regulations, food (and drug) companies would have to rely on one thing to sell their products: reputation. A company with a reputation for superior products will gladly pay a higher price of production, because this quality will translate into more customers. Notice that a company that wants to remain in business has no reason to rip-off customers. It might fleece them once, but its reputation would fall, and it would not get many "repeat customers." By eliminating the concept of "reputation," government intervention in food and drug markets, as in all markets, has only made things worse.
I hope that my words have shown you the merits, both of Objectivism and of capitalism. If you still have any doubt as to why capitalism is the "only moral system of government" (Aly Rahim's gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding), I shall gladly address them. Otherwise, "don't come around here selling 'crazy': we're all stocked up."
