In the current economical climate, people’s anger towards capitalism is well known. Be it from having lost money to banks, or be it from having read left-leaning publications, it is hard to be an open supporter of liberty and capitalism at this time. I would like to discuss my views, the opposing views, and the views in the middle.
In brief, I hold man’s liberty to be of the highest priority in human relations. I believe that there is no shame in striving for one’s own beliefs, and I believe that no man should cater for another, against his own will. A point to be made here is that this should apply for everyone. The opposing view is that man’s equal access to resource is to be held as the highest priority. In one we have liberty, in the other we have resources. I cannot let myself hold a man wrong who fully adheres to the opposing view.
Of course, there is the view in the middle. That which our current Western society has named as liberalism. I believe that it is a complete misnomer, but I can’t comment on where it originated. People who profess to be liberals, will frequently express anger towards selfish capitalists who do not care for the needs of others. I find two things wrong with this attitude. Firstly, the word “selfish” is used in the sense that it is bad to be selfish, in other words, that it is bad to strive for one’s own needs. We must remember that it is from competition that products are improved, and that new products arise, but I don’t want to discuss this. My second second contention is that liberals, while claiming that it is bad for selfish capitalists not to care for the needs of others, forget that these selfish capitalists probably do care about the less able people’s right to their own property, and will not demand that they surrender their property to satisfy their own arbitrarily asserted rights, such as education, a place to live, and healthcare.
I do not believe that it is correct for a liberal to claim that a libertarian is immorral for not catering to other people’s so-called rights. In this, a “liberal” supports the theft of property, in the name of another’s right. Firstly, has this liberal forgotten that some people believe that a person’s property is that person’s right, and secondly, if he does not believe that property is a right, who is he to name a person immorral for not adhering to his self-declared rights? Surely, for any reasonable person to declare another as immorral, his set of rights should apply to everyone, irrespective of a person’s conditions and situation. The issue that I have with liberals’ attitude is that their set of morals is half-way. They hold that humans should have certain rights; but these rights can only be satisfied at the expense of other rights, namely rights such as the right to property, and the right to self-defence, which really follows from one’s self being one’s own property. Of course, I must point out that the right to property is a right that I, myself, declare to hold for everyone, but this is at an extreme that makes no exceptions, the other extreme being communism, that is, equal resources without exception.
I would like any liberals reading this, to reconsider what they think of a man who is against stealing from one to provide education to another. I would like liberals to realise that nothing is free, that resources given by the state to one person had to be coerced from another. I would like it that liberals, after having realised this, do not claim libertarians to be immorral.