Capitalism is peace

Economics and aggression have more in common than most understand. When considering history, it is evident that those societies which endow their governments with the power to “do good” inadvertently and equally empower their governments to cause great harm. Across the spectrum of differing societies, it is clear that those which disrespect the individual rights of its citizens also have a parallel disregard for other societies.

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which property, businesses, and industry are owned by individual people and not by the government. In other words, in a capitalist society people have the freedom to possess and own property without control or possession by any other entity. The more a society values an individuals right to the property they have earned, the more capitalist the society. Of course, those who possess the resources also possess the power. Therefore, in a capitalist society the citizenry possess most of the power, not the government.

Statue of libertyThis is a default result of capitalism because government produces nothing; it only takes from those who produce. When the right of each individual to own the fruits of their labor is prevalent, governments power is limited. Therefore, its ability to initiate force against the individual is severely limited.

Finally, while studying the definition of capitalism, it is evident that it requires government.  As cited, it is an economic system in which resources are owned by individual people and not by the government.  Nowhere in the definition does it imply capitalism requires the absence of government, only that property rights are respected by the government. Read more

Republicans get what they deserve: Election 2012

Republicans must stop nominating candidates with the ethical equivalency of their opponentsRepublicans must stop nominating candidates with the ethical equivalency of their opponents. The election of 2012 is over and the result is indicative of any choice one must make between two marginally different philosophies. At their core, there is no difference ethically between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama, and this lack of distinction resulted in a dismal future for generations to come.

Any common sense analysis of the two candidates in their actions and advocacy makes this apparent:

Equal support of a health insurance mandate

Astoundingly, Republican voters nominated the one person who has no ethical standing to criticize President Obama on the one issue that is his biggest vulnerability, Obamacare. Although Romney tried to separate his advocacy for the Massachusetts law and the federal law, his refusal to admit at a minimum the Romneycare experiment in Massachusetts is a failure, he left people to assume the conclusion that Obamacare will deliver on its promises. Romneycare did not in Massachusetts and Obamacare will not nationally. Read more