Aug 17 2008
Capitalism Best Way to Help Common Good
I believe in utilitarianism. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t always live that way but I think it’s the right way to live. The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the one or the few. For instance, eminent domain is a good thing. Private property is great; I want to have plenty of it. I’m not a hermit though. I don’t live in a vacuum. I wouldn’t complain if my city wanted to buy some of my property one day for fair-market value in order to build schools or highways to benefit the greater society. To be a part of a successful group, some sacrifices have to be made by each individual. Otherwise, anarchy reigns.
In athletics, that’s called thinking about “we,” not “me.” In business, that’s called being a team player. When it’s your house, that’s called un-American. That’s why you hear the cry NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard, so often.
That said, I don’t believe in communism or socialism because there’s no way to make people happy about working hard in order to benefit strangers who choose not to work. Karl Marx said that each person should contribute based on his ability and each should take based on his need. It’s a noble concept, especially when you consider the tremendous gaps between rich and poor in capitalist countries. Then again, as Winston Churchill said, capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised—except for all of the other ones.
True Marxism has never been implemented. Lenin and Stalin mutated an economic system into a political, anti-American structure. It’s very possible to have socialist democracies or capitalist dictatorships.
The problem is people are generally selfish. You heard about Mother Teresa’s selflessness because she was an exception to the rule. For a socialist system to function, people must care about others at least as much as they care about themselves. There can be no “looking out for number one.”
People can be coerced by the government for a while. However, the people in every country where socialism has been implemented have drastically curtailed it—if not overthrown it outright—through economic, military or social means. I don’t think it’s a coincidence the children of the ’60s hippies became money-obsessed in the ’80s. Attempted coups, black markets and defections were commonplace in the Soviet-bloc countries. Whatever problems the U.S. has, I haven’t heard about too many Americans trying to get asylum in Cuba, Iraq or Sudan.
Rebecca, you are correct that eminent domain is used often. A casino isn’t a school or a highway so it’s not quite the same thing. I am assuming the city or county in question is paying fair market value to the woman you described for her house. In that case, some money for moving expenses and an allowance for her wheelchair seems appropriate also.
If that’s done, the town leaders have a decision to make: Let one 80-year-old woman keep her house or help the economic prosperity of the entire town. Studies show that casinos aren’t in the highest-rent areas. You won’t find casinos in Beverly Hills, Miami’s South Beach, New York’s Upper East Side or next to Seattle’s Pike Place Market.
A town considering a casino is a town in need of money. I don’t suppose the woman in question has any idea how to replace the money the town won’t get if the casino isn’t built. Probably no idea how to support the local police, fire, libraries, roads and schools. Casinos are a town’s last option, not the first. The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the one.
Interesting phrase. I like it. However, I remember a lot of historical dynasties, such as Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, Catherine the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Leaders get power a little at a time. Like the sun slowly setting while you’re not paying attention. Before you know it, it’s dark.