Calvert Hall College High School
Towson, Maryland
Teacher: George Kropp

 

Capitalism and its Presence in America
By Andrew Marchsteiner

11^th Grade

 

What would life in America be like if, as a child, you decided you wanted to be a doctor, and you could not even attempt to reach that goal?  How about a student who loves math, but is not allowed to learn how to multiply, because the other student in his class could not add?  These are limited examples to a problem huge in scope.

 

What is often forgotten in the endless debate on socialism versus capitalism is that capitalism does not disallow the individual to do good for others. 

 

To have an egotist society does not mean that all people become selfish and evil; it simply allows the individual to achieve his or her own potential, without being affected by those greater or weaker. The misconception is that to be successful in a capitalist environment means that others are forgotten. This is stereotypical, and comes from the basic belief many have, that humans are basically evil beings.

 

The problem with either political theory is that an absolute use of either policy is detrimental to most people. Socialism, on one hand, places limits on people who could otherwise do great things. Capitalism, on the other, causes poverty and suffering for those of the lower class. While Aristotle’s “golden mean” seems like it would be the perfect fit for this situation, the truth comes when you examine the benefits of both sides. A large government offers relative safety and forced equality for people who thirst to be better. Competition offers, very simply, freedom.

 

Capitalism’s reward of freedom leads directly to the individual. To believe that the majority of the people wish to do good for those who need help is to believe that Capitalism works. The brilliant young mathematician who could not learn how to multiply is the same man who later could invent time travel. More realistically, and more importantly, the business man who makes a billion dollars can give half of it away.

 

But helping others is only one side of the issue. Life is choices.  When they are taken away, there is no point to life. For society to stagnate, and for individuality to cease, means the end of human life. We can not survive without the need to survive, because of our own need for growth. Is it possible for everyone on the planet to be content enough about their surroundings to not want more? No, curiosity and competition drive us forward.

 

Economically, Socialism is dangerous. The one thing that the entrepreneur values over all others is freedom, the freedom to experiment, invent and produce. The one thing that the entrepreneur dreads is government intervention. Government taxation and regulation are the means by which social planners punish and restrict the man or woman of ideas.

 

Welfare, regulations, taxes, tariffs, minimum-wage laws are all immoral because they use the power of government to control human choice and action. They are immoral because they inhibit or deny the freedom to choose how we live our lives. They are immoral because they deny our essential humanity.

 

The requirements for success in a free society demand that ordinary citizens order their lives in accordance with certain virtues like rationality, independence, and industriousness. In a free capitalist society individuals must choose for themselves how they will order their lives and the values they will pursue. Under socialism, most of life’s decisions are made for you.

 

When government redistributes wealth through taxation, when it attempts to control and regulate business production and trade, who are the winners and losers? Under this kind of economy the winners and losers are reversed: the winners are those who scream the loudest for a handout and the losers are those quiet citizens who work hard and pay their taxes. America has created two new classes of citizens. The first of these is the poor who are dependent upon welfare. This is the money that working people earn, and the government redistributes. The second class is those men and women who are quiet, hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen who mind their own business but are forced to work to provide for the government and the people who feed off of it.

The return of capitalism will not happen until there is an understanding in this country.  We cannot look to our government to provide for us or the needy. We ourselves must take action to be good citizens and help the poor, and be a benefactor to society. We must rediscover and then teach the virtues associated with being free and independent citizens. Only then will there be social justice in America.

 

Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading

Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay?
“…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.” Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?

 

Reiter said that there is a direct link between freedom and inequality, in that when a society has freedom, some people will succeed while others fail.  I agree with this thought because the strong members of society should help the weak, the weak should not hinder the strong.

Q2- Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.” To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?

Chris Carney attributed these feelings to James Madison saying, “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.”  Madison believed that each person, by seeking success for themselves, would help all of the people in his community.

Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.

 

Doyal believed that through Diocletian’s Edict of 301 the government took over ever aspect of Rome’s society.  Because this made everyone’s lives harder, we know that absolute rule does not make it easier to live.

Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.” Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.

 

Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.”  This is a detriment to the anarchy side of thinking, because of its validity.  If a strong man hurts a woman every time she tries to state her opinion about something, her freedom is destroyed.

Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” How does he relate individual liberty to dictators? Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.

 

Joshua Spencer statement “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” Dictators destroy this asset by either giving everyone what they need without work, or not providing what those in a society need, despite their work. I agree with this assessment because when people are not controlled, their own abilities are allowed to flourish and competition helps everyone.

Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?

Luke Hall’s question presents a troubling issue. But, I believe that freedom overrides safety because, while freedom is something to be sure of, safety is not. I, personally, do not trust the government to keep me entirely safe, because that is impossible.  However, leaving me to my own business is not, so freedom is assured.

Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.” She doesn’t agree. Do You?

 

Molly McGlone said this, and I agree that the framers of Constitution did not put more emphasis on the group then the individual.  If this was true, why are there amendments like freedom of speech and press?

Q8- “Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution.” Do you agree or disagree? Aaron Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act. How do you personally feel about these two issues?

 

I agree that a law should not overrule the constitution, despite its merit.  This argument is basically summed up into “the ends justify the means”, and this is not true in any case.  A law that infringes on my rights, such as a ban on smoking, despite being good for me, is not a law I want passed.  I agree with these two prohibitions, because, while I support peoples’ rights to smoke and to own a weapon, I don’t support them being used to infringe upon other’s rights.

Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where “the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.” What was the name of that book? Have you read it?

Annie St. Romain uses the book The Giver by Lois Lowry in her essay.  I have read this book three times.

Q10- “As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups. Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty. Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved.” This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay. Which side of the issue do you support and why?

 

Jessie Veit’s essay is the classic problem already presented in previous essays.  That is, how much power can the government have to ensure our liberties without taking them away in the process?  I believe the less power the government has, the better, while still being able to keep us safe.  I believe our government should increase in size with the people, but that does not mean we need to increase the power the government has. 

Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.

 

One example is traffic safety.  If everyone drove carefully and respected each other, there would be no need for tickets.  Two other examples are abortion and euthanasia, where the respect of human life is the simplest thing needed to stop these crimes.

Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic. In his essay he claims when the founding fathers “wrote the constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility. … These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing.” Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.

 

Being a good person is better than any government control in fostering good communities.  I agree fully with Benji Lehman in his assertion.  Because the desired end of many laws is forming good people, when we are good already, it is an easier solution.

 BACK