VICTOR JOECKS: The moral case for capitalism

Capitalism comes from freedom. Socialism requires coercion.

Regardless of Tuesday’s election results, one thing is certain: Along with welcoming the Democratic Socialists of America into their party, Democrats are rapidly embracing socialism. Several DSA candidates will win in deep blue congressional districts. Democrat House Leader Hakeem Jeffries has said they are welcome in his caucus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said recently that the DSA and the “demand for bold change” is going “mainstream.”

Polling shows that the public is increasingly open to socialism. A recent Gallup survey gave socialism a 43 percent approval rating. That’s closing in on capitalism, which is viewed positively by 55 percent.

Although it is important, it isn’t enough to point out the practical problems with socialism. It’s time to make the moral case for capitalism.

Any good argument should start by defining terms. Merriam-Webster defines socialism as the “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Yes, that sounds like communism. The two words can be used interchangeably, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did.

In contrast, capitalism protects private property. Individuals and companies participate in a free market, which influences investments, prices and production.

Capitalism is a fancy term that describes the freedom to make economic decisions. Pull out your wallet or check your bank balance. Who does that money belong to?

That’s not a trick question. You would probably agree that how you spend your money should be up to you. Imagine you use some of your money to invest in the stock market or start a company. That’s a free choice — with risks.

In a free market, you can’t force someone buy products from preferred companies. Businesses must persuade would-be customers to buy their products. Those individuals have the same freedom to spend or save their money that you do.

Those who do that successfully can earn a profit. In a free market, that’s not a dirty word. It’s the reward a business earns for providing a good or service that someone else wants at a price they are willing to pay.

There’s freedom for employees, too. You can choose your profession and your employer. As you increase your abilities and experience, you can negotiate for a higher salary or switch companies.

For both entrepreneurs and employees, the key to earning more is becoming more efficient at doing things others value. These win-win transactions are important to the broader economy, too. Because they leave each person better off, they power economic growth and reduce prices of popular goods over time.

At every step of capitalism you’ll find individuals freely choosing what to build, where to work, what to buy and how to spend their time. That freedom comes with responsibility. Individuals must live with the consequences of their choices. That may not be pleasant, but it’s an essential part of freedom.

Contrast this with socialism. Think back to that money in your wallet. You take it for granted that you can go to the store and choose what to buy. But under socialism, government controls the distribution of goods. You don’t have the freedom to purchase what you want.

The government owns the means of production, and that means you can’t start certain types of companies either. Nor could you buy stock in government-run companies.

This isn’t great for employees either. Companies aren’t competing for labor. The government runs the companies and you have to work for the government. Socialism promises the opposite of responsibility. No matter your choices, you won’t have to live with the consequences. The government will run everything.

People have a God-given right to liberty. That’s why capitalism is moral and socialism isn’t.

Contact him at [email protected] or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on X.