Celebrate capitalism on May Day

by Edwin A. Locke, Libertarian Party

May Day will once again be celebrated by left-wing and environmentalist protesters united by a single emotion: a virulent hatred of capitalism, especially global capitalism. Why the hatred?

The advantage of a global economy based on free trade and capitalism is so obvious and so enormous that it is difficult to conceive of anyone opposing it. The benefit is based on the law of comparative advantage: every country becomes more prosperous the more it invests in producing and exporting what it does best (in terms of quality, cost, uniqueness, etc.), and importing goods and services that other countries can produce more efficiently.

For example, let us say that Nigerian companies can produce T-shirts for $1 a piece whereas U.S. companies can only produce them for $5 a piece. Under free trade, Americans will buy their T-shirts from Nigeria. This division of labor benefits people in both countries. Nigerians will have more money to buy food, clothing and housing. Americans will spend less on T-shirts and have more money to buy cell phones and SUVs, and the investment capital formerly spent on T-shirts will be put to more productive uses, say in the area of technology or drug research.

Multiply this by millions of products and hundreds of countries and over time the benefits run into the trillions of dollars.

How, then, do we reconcile the incredible benefits of global capitalism with the anti-globalization movement? The protesters make three claims repeatedly.

First, they argue that multinational corporations are becoming too powerful and threaten the sovereignty of smaller nations. This is absurd on the face of it. Governments have the power of physical coercion (the gun); corporations do not; they have only the dollar -- they function through voluntary trade.

Second, anti-globalists claim that multinational companies exploit workers in poor countries by paying lower wages than they would pay in their home countries. Well, what is the alternative? It is: no wages!

The comparative advantage of poorer countries is precisely that their wages are low, thus reducing the costs of production. If multinational corporations had to pay the same wages as in their home countries, they would not bother to invest in poorer countries at all and millions of people would lose their livelihoods.

Third, it is claimed that multinational corporations destroy the environments of smaller, poorer countries. Note that if 19th-century America had been subjected to the environmental legislation that now pervades most Western countries, we ourselves would still be a third-world country. Most of the industries that made the United States a world economic power -- the steel, automobile, chemicals and electrical industries -- would never have been able to develop.

By what right do we deprive poor, destitute people in other countries from trying to create prosperity in the same way that we did, which is the only way possible?

All of these objections to global capitalism are just rationalizations. The giveaway, and the clue to the real motive of today's left and their hangers-on, is that all their protests are against -- they are anti-capitalism, anti-free trade, anti-using the environment for man's benefit -- but they are not for anything.

In the first third of the 20th century, most leftists were idealists -- they stood for and fought for an imagined, industrialized utopia -- Communism (or Socialism). The left's vision was man as a selfless slave of the state, and the state as the omniscient manager of the economy.

However, instead of prosperity, happiness and freedom, Communism and Socialism produced nothing but poverty, misery and terror (witness Soviet Russia, North Korea and Cuba, among others). Their system had to fail, because it was based on a lie. You cannot create freedom and happiness by destroying individual rights; and you cannot create prosperity by negating the mind and evading the laws of economics.

Furious over the fact that their envisioned utopia has collapsed in ruins, the leftists now seek only destruction. They want to annihilate the system that has produced the very prosperity, happiness and freedom that their system could not produce. That system is capitalism, the system of true social justice where people are free to produce and keep what they earn.

The fact that free trade is now becoming truly global is one of the most important achievements in the history of mankind. If, in the end, it wins out over statism, global capitalism will bring about the greatest degree of prosperity and the greatest period of peaceful cooperation in world history.

We should scornfully ignore the nihilist protesters -- they have nothing positive to offer. We should not only allow global capitalism; we should welcome it and foster it in every way possible.

It is time to rephrase Karl Marx: Workers of the world unite for global capitalism; you have nothing to lose but your poverty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edwin A. Locke, a Professor Emeritus of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California.

Rich people good, poor people bad.

Libertarians weak, anarchy real.

Anarchy weak, conservatism real.

...having lost the debate on the other thread with the same article we resurrect it?

Hint: If you lose the debate you can run and hide but that does not change the truths you are trying to avoid.

Corporations good, poor people bad.

no brains and nothing of substance to say? Silly mocking comments are not an argument. They merely betray your abscence of anything intelligent to say.

Abolish the EPA! Abolish unemployment insurance! Abolish Pell Grants! Only the rich deserve higher education!

Take somthing from somebody else and give it to me. I have a right to a Government supplied Pacifier.

I posted the above response. Aren't I clever?

Can we box together libertarian views together to "mock" Mayday?

Probally not.

http://www.libertarian.org

Why do libertarians feel so strongly about freedom? Where are they coming from, fundamentally? Are they idealists with a utopian vision of humanity living harmoniously and enjoying total personal freedom? Are they spiritualists committed to the morality of freedom? Are they materialists, utilitarians who studied economics and concluded that freedom is the best way to build wealth? Or are they just skeptics who worry that people cannot be trusted with power?

The truth is, libertarians may fit any or all of the descriptions above. Trying to neatly categorize libertarian individuals and organizations is like trying to herd cats.

WHo has Mr Locke worked for?

Consulting Work  

* Wakefern Foods

* U. S. Civil Service Commission

* Life Insurance Marketing and Research Association

* Defense Intelligence Agency

* International Personnel Management Association

* Inhilco, Inc.

* Blue Shield of Maryland

* U.S. Post Office

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

* U.S. Red Cross

* IBM

* Kodak

* Washington Gas Light Co

* National Retail Merchants Association

* McDonnell Douglas

* Douglas Aircraft

* Westinghouse Corp.

* Marriott Corp.

* Pet Foods, Inc.

* Army Research Institute

...libertarianism is not some homogenous monolithic group, unlike the Doctrinaire Totalitarians, opinion and debate is robust and widely divergent in many areas - as one would reasonably expect among people who actually do believe in freedom.

Of the Libertarians I have known personally and have spoken with politically, most of the things involving less government interence and such I can agree with. I just think they go a little further than I personally feel comfortable with. From the impression I have received so far from Libertainins, it seems to me they believe that life can be lived in a vacuum, that actions that people personally make effect only them and not others around them. The largest issue I have is the legalization of drugs that best explains their postion on such things. Libertarians will tell you that its that persons body and therefore their decision. but when someone uses drugs, it involves more than them. There is family, friends, and loved ones to consider and how their lives will be affected. There are people at their workplace and those driving on the road and many other considerations. Like i said, I think they mean well, it just goes further than I believe to be prudent. Civilized society is just that because we recognize that certain limits need to be in place in order for all people live and interact with one another on common ground.