Re: capitalist religion (was: NANO: _Forbes_ cover story)

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Thu Jul 19 2001 - 04:41:14 MDT

$8a85ecd> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Miriam English wrote:
> At 01:37 PM 18/07/2001 -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >Tiberius Gracchus wrote:
> > > flawed: with no govt, the rich/ the professional
> > > associations/corporations/lobbyists will just buy squads of goons to
> > > get their way.
> >No, we don't expect a government to enforce law and order. I suggest you
> >read David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" first to get a more
> >accurate perception of libertarian arguments. Most of what you are
> >saying will go away.
> [groan... I was going to lessen my involvement in this thread]
> I don't expect that anything I say will affect you Mike, but here goes...

I don't expect anything *I* say to have much affect on you Miriam, but I
will, at least, try....

> I have a friend from the Phillipines. She told me about how things worked
> over there. It is slightly less of a problem now, but much of it still stands.
> The extremely rich have their own private armies. Most of the poor have
> absolutely no chance of getting out of poverty to become more useful
> members of society; they are born into slavery and will spend their lives
> that way. There were no controls upon the rich and powerful... there still
> are few.
> Again with the disclaimer: I don't think capitalism is bad. I think
> excessive power too often leads to abuse of that power. One natural
> outgrowth of capitalism is concentration of power into fewer and fewer
> hands... just like most political systems. Use of capitalism as a
> substitute religion encourages uncritical acceptance of such a fate.

The first flaw in your argument is your assumption that the conditions
in the Phillipines are the result of capitalism. They are not. The
Phillipinos may operate in a capitalistic manner, but the degree of
freedom individuals have there is a direct consequence of their
government, NOT their economy. The pattern in the Phillipines
politically is very similar to the pattern in many other countries
colonized by Spain, thus is indicative of the political culture fostered
by Spanish feudalism, and therefore, is not, by definition, a
capitalistic system. Feudalism uses a form of patron/client peony, and
not free market capitalism.

As a result of this, your conclusions about capitalism based upon what
someone has told you about the Phillipines are entirely basless.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT