Capitalism: Government Welfare is NOT Capitalism

Capitalism: Government Welfare is NOT Capitalism

The argument on capitalism seems to fall on
deaf ears. Capitalism is an individualist system and individualism defines the free
market economy, it defines the separation of the economy from government. Despite stating
the very fact that capitalism is about the market that regulates itself, voluntary exchange
in the marketplace and not about government taxation. And I had this recent comment going
on about welfare and saying, well, if benefits are such a problem, what about those politicians
and the so-called capitalists that take on their welfare. Political entrepreneurs are
not those who live by capitalism, in other words, they don’t support the free market,
they were against it and in the 19th century of history proves that. And again, you could
compare that to, of course, market entrepreneurs who do support the free market, who do support
capitalism. The difference between the market entrepreneur and that of the political entrepreneur
is the fact the market entrepreneur simply goes about their business, doesn’t take state
subsidies, etc and simply lives by the free market. Whereas the political entrepreneur
seeks to lobby government for special-interest favours. The special-interest favours that
these political entrepreneurs seek for, just so happen to be socialist subsidies, after
all, that’s what all state subsidies are. If you were to look at capitalism or just
the economy as a scale, as a whole, capitalism one hundred percent is Anarcho-Capitalism.
So, if you were to look at a scale then, the most extreme form of capitalism is no government
at all. Now, we know that that’s never existed, that’s not the argument, the argument is the
very fact that this proves, without shadow of a doubt, this proves that state subsidies
are not capitalist. That’s why, you know, there’s not a hundred percent capitalism because
there is to some varying degree, there has been things like the government regulation
or the government subsidies, etc. So, yes, all state subsidies, in other words, bailouts,
etc are socialist. So what do you call a political entrepreneur that seeks to lobby government
for special interest favours and uses socialism to gain a competitive advantage over their
competition, do you call them capitalist? How are they capitalist if what they’re basically
doing is railing against capitalism, is railing against the free market system? You see, what
these big corporations do is they lobby government for special-interest favours and lobby government
for more government regulation, again, going against the free market economy. So the question
here is this: how can you claim to be in support of capitalism, claim to be a capitalist, but
oppose the free market economy at the same time? You can’t. The definition of individualism
is clear, it means the separation of the economy from government, where individuals are free
to pursue, to seek, you know, out of their own self-interest their own career, their
own goals without the interference of government and since capitalism is the only individualist
system there is, you can’t argue with that fact. The ideologies and systems can only
fall under 1 of 2 things; you either have collectivist systems or, of course, an individualist
system. It all boils down to those 2 things; individualism and collectivism. There are,
of course, differences that I spoke about before on individualism and collectivism and
capitalism has absolutely nothing at all to do with collectivism, it’s the opposite of
capitalism. Collectivism is a word synonymous even by definition to the word socialism.
You, again, can find that evidence even by the definition of collectivism which ties
into the definition of socialism. So, again, going back to that of a political entrepreneur,
who then turns to the government and gets the government to bail them out for special-interest
favours all in the name of government protectionism, again I would ask the question: how is that
capitalist? It’s not. It doesn’t matter whether you talk about the real world, the real world,
in fact, going back to the 19th century and I have pointed this out so many times before,
is the fact that, when you turn to the United States, you look at the private turnpike industry,
the steamship industry, the railroad industry; all of those who took on the subsidies ended
up bankrupt. To try and label them capitalists, despite the fact that they’re opposed to the
free market, that’s not the meaning of a capitalist, that’s not capitalist at all, it’s anti-capitalist.
To be a corporatist is to be an anti-capitalist because you’re against the free market. Therefore,
those big business people who support the European Union, they’re not capitalist, how
can they be capitalist if they’re opposed to the free market? And this leads onto the
very fact that in a free market system, referring to that of a capitalist system, the only way
an exchange can take place in the market is voluntary exchange, is both parties agreeing
upon the exchange, there is no other way an exchange can take place, therefore, when you’re
speaking about capitalism, you’re not speaking about government taxation. You require socialism
in order to force money out of one’s hands to redistribute to the other. So, when you
talk about that of government subsidies, where the government forces taxation out of the
taxpayer, redistributes their wealth through coercion and subsidises the losses of, you
know, big business, etc, that is inherently socialist. Capitalism is not about, you know,
punishing success and rewarding failure, capitalism is about rewarding success and punishing failure.
If these companies support, you know, getting involved with government and getting government
to lay on more government regulation and state subsidies, they’re not in support of the capitalist
system and I think that’s all that you really just need to understand. Capitalism is about
the free market, it’s not about a merger between state and corporations.

17 thoughts on “Capitalism: Government Welfare is NOT Capitalism

  1. Uhu! The first to watch and comments here! Ok that's of me hehe. Great channel, friend! I am translating into portuguese the work called "Scandinavian unexceptionalism" – which I highly recomend – and agree with you! Greetings from Brazil!

  2. Yes by definition capitalism is Anarchy.

    Capitalism is the private ownership of good and services and the voluntary exchange of those goods and services and the synonym for that is a free market.

    The government is not capitalist at all.

  3. AGREED!!!! Which is why the progressive blue MAKER states must immediately refuse to promote #redstatesocialism any longer. The blue states IMMEDIATELY must withdraw all fiscal funding for the federal government until welfare states like Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama, etc., get their fiscal house in order. No more welfare for the lazy red states. Cut them off IMMEDIATELY!!!!

  4. Scotty I recommend you do a video on the economic calculation again because there commies who think computers can fix it.

  5. I recommend you go to Bittube. If you don’t know what it is. It’s basically YouTube but it’s decentralized and you earn crypto-currency every week. Also the great thing is that viewers will get payed. Recommend you also get Atomic Wallet the best place to get crypto.

  6. Corporatism is what can and does happen when wealth becomes super centralized in a state with any type of government. It's not capitalism that causes corporatism, it's authoritarian groups (like the government) that do.
    But lets not kid ourselves, the government only plays one part in this. There are mafia-style groups at all levels that have different means of control. The SPLC is one of many examples of such mafia groups putting illegitimate pressure on other groups and individuals to keep them in line with their ideology. They see themselves as a sort of Batman if you will, but they are in fact the mafia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *