The Pithy Capitalist

Two Means

There are two ways to get things - work and robbery. We can define these further in this way:

• Work -- the "economic means"
• Robbery -- the "political means"

(see Franz Oppenheimer, The State)

Protectionism

There are two essential points in thinking about protectionism rationally

• protectionism means force in restraint of trade
• the key is what happens to the consumer

(see http://www.mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp)

Equal Opportunity does not mean Equal Outcome.

The difference between these concepts is essentially the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Overheard in regards to the "problem" with the rich/poor gap:

The success of others does not hurt you; your success does not hurt others.

And here is the same thought put another way.

If you give power to a leader you like, on average, it will only be eight years until that power will pass on to a leader you hate.

(thanks to this article at ReadJDM for sparking this pithyness)

Why is it a bad idea to give YOUR party's politicians more power?

Bretigne Shaffer elucidates something I've been struggling to make pithy.  Thanks! (and apologies for paraphrasing below)

You think you can do a deal with the devil?
You think you can use the power of the state to get what you want?
You think that it’s never going to turn around and use its power against you?
You think it will never use its power in a way you don’t approve of?
The more power you give the state to do your bidding, the more power it has to act against you.
 
see her article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/shaffer-br1.html

Need -- Wanting someone else's money.
Greed -- Wanting to keep your own money.
Compassion -- When a politician arranges a transfer of money from the greedy to the needy.

(derived from Joseph Sobran)

Stolen from an interview with MF:

There are four ways in which you can spend money.

1) You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
2) You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost.
3) I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm sure going to have a good lunch!
4) I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it is, and I'm not concerned about what I get. And that's government. And that's close to 40% of our national income.

The burden of proof must always rest on those who seek to restrict freedom, and never on those who wish to retain it.

Overheard: If people cannot own the fruits of their labor, then why labor?

Capitalists want governments to behave more like corporations.
Socialists want corporations to behave more like governments.

The Abortion Wager

Three people are talking about murder, abortion, and rights. They each try to demonstrate their points through a combination of science, philosophy, and logic.

Person X: Suppose person P1 performs action A1, which results in the death of person P2. In some cases, person P3 has the right to use force against P1 to prevent the death of P2. In those cases I classify A1 as a murder.

Person Y: Abortion falls under this classification for reasons R1, R2 and R3.

Person Z: Abortion does not fall under this classification for reasons R4, R5 and R6.

Person Y and Z reject each others reasoning, and offer additional reasons. Neither one changes their minds, or admits to having faulty reasoning.

In walks Pascal, who offers another angle.

Pascal: It is clear that neither Person Y or Z is able to convince the other through reason. Let us then make a wager. There are 4 possible outcomes of the wager.

Outcome 1 - We wager that abortion is not murder, and later discover we were correct.
Results from Outcome 1 - Net positive result - No murder, no wrongful incarceration (did not force the woman into a 9 month obligation)

Outcome 2 - We wager that abortion is not murder, but later discover it is murder.
Results from Outcome 2 - Net negative result - A murder, no wrongful incarceration

Outcome 3 - We wager that abortion is murder, but later discover that it is not.
Results from Outcome 3 - Net negative result - No murder, a wrongful incarceration

Outcome 4 - We wager that abortion is murder, and later discover we were correct.
Results from Outcome 4 - Net positive result - No murder, a rightful incarceration

Based on these 4 possible outcomes, we can now weigh the risks of the two wagers.

Wager 1 - Wager that abortion is not murder.
Results from Wager 1 - Net negative result - Worst case is murder, best case is no wrongful incarceration.

Wager 2 - Wager that abortion is murder.
Results from Wager 2 - Net positive result - Worst case is a wrongful incarceration, best case prevents murder.

Based on these results, it is clear that the better wager is that abortion is murder.

The degree of freedom is inversely proportional to the weight of bureaucracy.

Rights of Business Owners

Liberal: There is a reasonable scientific basis for believing that second hand smoke can cause cancer. When I go to a restaurant, I am forced to breathe second hand smoke. That is an assault on my rights. Smoking should be banned in restaurants for the health and safety of the public.
Capitalist: Let's talk about exactly what rights are at stake here. You as a restaurant patron have the right to choose which restaurants to patronize. I, as the restaurant owner, have the right to establish the type of clientelle I want, and provide a particular dining experience for those clients. It is not your constitutional right to walk into any restaurant in the country and find a smoke free atmosphere.

Responding to Forced Altruism

Liberals aren't used to having capitalists defend their principles when it comes to altruism. This is because most capitalists don't know how to respond without looking cruel. Here's a conversation full of pithiniess.

Liberal: If taxes are lowered, public schools are going to suffer.
Capitalist: Perhaps that's a good thing, as private schools do a better job of educating.
Liberal: But if all we're left with is private schools, then poor people won't be able to get an education.
Capitalist: Just because I have more money than you doesn't mean I should be legally required to give you some of my money. That's the foundation of communism, and this is a country based on freedom, not communism.
Liberal: Even so, there is a moral responsibility to take care of your neighbor.
Capitalist: First, we both agree that government shouldn't regulate morality. Second, everyone should be free to spend money on programs they believe will work, rather than being forced to financially support a program they believe is a failure.

We All Want The Same Things

A point that is very rarely brought up when discussing politics is one of the most important things to remember in those discussions:

If you look closely enough, we all want the same things.

Take an example like welfare. What do liberals and conservatives both want?
For every person who wants one to have a fulfilling, meaningful, profitable job.

We just differ on how to get there.
Most debates end up being fruitless because both sides consider the other side to be the "enemy," when in fact there's always some very important common ground.

How and Why Capitalists Lose Money To Liberals Constantly

Socialist: I need your money to enact some programs I've come up with.
Capitalist: I don't believe your programs will work, so I choose not to fund them.
Socialist: Ha, ha, while we were talking, the government took a large percentage of your income, and I'll be using that money to enact my programs.
Capitalist: Oh. Well, at least I have more where that came from..
Socialist: Good.