|What’s so bad about ‘dog-eat-dog’? Aren’t they adorable?|
There’s always the statist argument that a free market, being oriented towards profit, leaves out certain people in society who just don’t have the capacity to fend for themselves, due to illness or other bad circumstances.
But how is such a situation resolved, or reduced? It is believed that if you are ‘socially oriented,’ you would have the government handle things since it acts for ‘public service’ and not profit. And if you leave ‘social assistance’ to the dog-eat-dog world of laissez-faire, poverty will persist and even grow.
GIVING TO THE POOR SATISFIES THE GIVER AS OTHER CONSUMPTION GOODS DO
Contrary to common notions, the satisfaction of the desire to help others is an action inseparable and unclassifiable apart from the market.
But as it is consumption-based (directed towards ‘giving fish for a day’) rather than capital-based, it is not a maximal allocation of resources. Using charity as a means of ‘spreading the wealth’ hinders the regeneration of capital by which more sectors would have been able to provide employment and produce goods.
less consumption now, the more jobs now, |
and the more goods later
I use the term “maximal allocation of resources.” Of course, ‘maximal’ is subjective. Apparently, at present, proponents of charity gain greater utility in their giving as opposed to accumulating capital or increasing their ‘mere’ material satisfactions. It is not for others to redirect such a subjective preference that helps the poor in such a fashion.
CHARITY CAN BE RENDERED OBSOLETE BY FREEING OF MARKETS
But these same proponents of charity may eventually recognize, at least we hope, that even without charitable acts, the simple freeing of choices among consumers and producers makes for conditions of greater utility and scope than obvious showings of ‘beneficence’ or ‘social assistance.’
Increasingly long-term views will lead to a drastic reduction in charity. Replacing it will be greater entrepreneurial opportunities among a wider scale of entities.
Whatever charity remains will be completely private and competitive, and limited to serving the small percentage of invalids and disabled.
MIXED ECONOMIES ARE NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE
We have to remind statists that the present economy is not one of laissez-faire. If it were, we wouldn’t have as much involvement of government in our lives, be it in regulation of commerce, or outright monopoly of certain ‘public utility’ sectors.
So the present poverty is not one created by ‘cold capitalism.’ If anything, it is the state which we have to blame for poor economic conditions, and which needs to be shunned.