We start by addressing an important question:
What is politics?
There are numerous definitions.
One encyclopedic definition states:
"According to political philosophy politics
is a strife to implement the idea of The Good
(Plato), to achieve happiness understood as
eudaimonia (Aristotle), to gain, maintain,
and strengthen power (Niccolò Machiavelli),
to introduce and maintain a state of social
peace (16th century’s French les politiques),
or to realize common good (modern republican
tradition); politics is also acting as a collective
entity when faced with a threat of an enemy
(Carl Schmitt), or the ability of groups that
influence society to reach a compromise.”
To put it simply, politics set the rules of
interpersonal behaviors, thus defining both
the ways in which a person can treat another
and the institutions that guard these rules.
If there were only one individual in the entire
world, they would not need politics.
There is no government nor the governed on
the asteroid called B 612.
Only the little prince lives there, so he
is completely free and can live as he pleases.
After all, his life is his own and he can
best decide how to live it.
The little prince does not care about politics.
It is true that he should still care about
morality in order to know good from evil for
his own life’s sake, but concepts such as
‘rights’ are useless to him.
Even obvious laws as the right to life or
the right to property are relational, and
as such have meaning only when other people
who can respect these rights (or not) are
involved.
And only when other people are around the
stage is set for the concept of political
system governing the norms and principles
of cohabitation in society that consists of
interacting individuals.
Simply speaking, people interact in two ways:
voluntarily and coercively.
Voluntary interactions are those made by consenting
parties:
when a baker employs a helper;
when a couple in love gets married;
when you buy a used car found through an ad.
Each party believes that their decision was
good for them and will improve their life.
Otherwise they would not do it.
Coercive interactions resort to violence to
enforce decisions on other people without
their consent:
when a slave is forced to work;
when parents threaten to use violence if their
child does not marry a person they chose;
or when a thief steals your car.
In all such cases one party uses or threatens
to use violence against another party.
This is what makes these interactions coercive.
Many people claim, however, that there are
some NECESSARY coercive social interactions,
such as taxes, obligatory history courses
in schools, or bans on public drinking.
Political systems that adhere to this notion
are called interventionist, as their proponents
expect that the government will intervene
in private choices of its subjects, limiting
their freedom to act.
We will not discuss here neither the purpose
of such intervention, nor whether it is appropriate.
But let us think about something here:
Is there any political system that is based
entirely on voluntary interpersonal interactions,
under which a citizen has complete and utter
control over their own life?
A Political system that does not envision
neither lord nor servant, neither owner nor
slave?
Under which a person has the individual right
to separate good from evil, and be free just
as the little prince?
Let us turn to philosophy for answers:
According to Ayn Rand, the American philosopher
and well-known theoretician of freedom, each
and every (adult) individual has the same
full right to their life, and neither government
institutions nor other people regardless of
their needs can exert power over the individual’s
decisions, body, nor property.
In other words, no person can further their
own goals against the will of other individuals
by treating them as objects or tools.
Any person inherently has natural rights to
right to life (which is obvious), accompanied
by the necessary right to property, and the
right to freedom, i.e. to choose their own
way of striving for happiness.
So what can violate natural rights and limit
individual freedom?
Only physical force or its credible threat
can do that (no, we are not capable of paranormal
activities like telekinesis!).
Therefore, an ideal political system that
protects individuals as much as possible so
that they can live freely and according to
their will should eliminate physical violence
from interpersonal relations.
According to Rand: “In a capitalist society
[that recognizes individual rights], no man
or group may initiate the use of physical
force against others.
The only function of the government, in such
a society, is the task of protecting man’s
rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from
physical force; the government acts as the
agent of man’s right of self-defense, and
may use force only in retaliation and only
against those who initiate its use.”
Freedom is the key concept in the capitalist
system.
A man living on an empty planet is free -- there
is no one else to prohibit him from lighting
a fire or digging a tunnel to the other side.
In a free society in which politics has its
place certain activities must be prohibited,
so that everyone can enjoy the same rights.
VIOLENCE (or rather, its initiation! -- it
would be unwise to prohibit defensive actions
against one’s attacker) should be prohibited.
And, according to many supporters of capitalism,
this rule is the only appropriate role of
politics and the only appropriate role of
the government -- making sure that all relationships
between individuals are, according to their
own will, judgments, beliefs, and interests,
voluntary and nonviolent.
Freedom is not the ultimate value, nor does
it guarantee universal good; but it makes
achieving moral goals and being good possible.
Paraphrasing the words of Lord Acton: “Freedom
consists not in doing what we like, but in
having the right to do what we ought.”
Morality can emerge only when people are free
-- where violence reigns, there can be no
good.
Is capitalism then… the perfect system?
It is hard to know -- capitalism as radically
defined is still an ‘unknown ideal’.
Never in history has any state consistently
adopted a policy based on the principle of
non-initiation of violence (i.e. the ethical
basis of pure capitalism).
But there are countries that can boast more
voluntary interactions (like Switzerland,
Denmark, Hong Kong, or the USA), and then
there are those that intervene in people’s
lives a lot (such as Iran, Venezuela, Congo,
or Russia).
Experience shows that the more freedom a society
enjoys, the higher development rate and higher
standard of living it has, because free people
are able to utilize the full potential of
their reason, thus “subduing the earth”;
and when threatened with violence people stop
to reason.
The categories of violence and reason are
contradictory.
It’s trade, investment, exchange of goods
and services, freedom of employment and business
that over the last quarter of the century
have reduced world poverty by 75 percent,
illiteracy by almost 60 percent, child mortality
by 55 percent, and pollution by 65 percent.
What term would you use to separate most easily
the world before the end of the eighteenth
century from the contemporary one?
North Korea from South Korea?
China in the 70s and China today?
Poland before and after the ‘economic transformation’?
It’s Capitalism.
“Good system for bad people” -- misunderstood
and attacked, its label is constantly being
pinned to its antitheses, like governments
printing money, saving banks, or introducing
regulations to protect big business.
Try to imagine a world in which the laws of
economics were discovered 200 years before
their times.
Or a world in which propaganda would be replaced
by facts, power by free choice, war by trade,
and in which politics would be limited to
the bare minimum.
Try to imagine a world ruled by reason, not
by fist.
Would it be a utopia?
Pure capitalism has never existed, so does
it mean it cannot exist?
One can be hopeful -- for hundreds of years
people could not imagine a world without hereditary
class divisions or slavery (“utopia!”
-- they agreed).
Yet gradually the scope of freedom increased,
and today we celebrate equality of people
before the law regardless of gender, race,
or religion almost all over the world.
Maybe someday in the future we will achieve
pure freedom and complete ownership?
There are many reasons both theoretical and
empirical for claiming that such a direction
is and would be beneficial.
However, we must keep two things in mind:
- That kind of change is not automatic.
Both ‘spiritual’ and material development
is not set in stars nor is does it lie in
some sort of geological nature of the planet.
It is knowledge and ideas of men that can
result in both the Third Reich or the United
States.
Therefore, guided by facts, logic, and conclusions
drawn for example from the history of political
systems we should reevaluate our beliefs constantly.
- We must also remember that the goal is not
some social system, but human life; thus we
must aim for conditions that best foster it.
As for the little prince, if he cared about
politics, what system would he consider the
best for himself?
One based on coercion and ultimately leading
to food shortages, propaganda, or labor camps,
where an individual’s life belongs to others…?
Or one based on freedom, one that produced
modern technology, medical care, diversity
and availability of goods, amusement parks,
vehicles and electronic gadgets, where an
individual’s life belongs to themselves…?
Tomek Kołodziejczuk from Obiektywizm.pl is
the author of the idea
and 
the script.
