I Love Free Markets! As we all should!

True Liberalism is of the right and not the left end of the political spectrum.

Craig Biddle of The awesome Objective Standard wrote an amazing article pointing out why the left is not liberal in anyway shape or form. That "the left" is an anti-liberal and anti-freedom political point of view and always has been. That "the left" is an immoral and anti-reason mindset that has always been anti-freedom. Which is simply a fact.

The Eugenics movement which took numerous lives and involuntarily sterilized whole demographics of people was "of the left." Hitler and Nazis are "the left." Mussolini and his fascist views were a variant of socialism and thus "of the left." It was the "left Democrats" in the early American Independence that supported slavery and fought against the "anti-Slavery Republicans" on "the right."

It was the "the right-wing" H.L Menken whom also called himself a "liberal," and a "libertarian" whom pushed to end the prohibition of alcohol. It was the "leftist," including the first feminists whom were pro-prohibition of alcohol. Women's groups went around with slogans like "lips that taste liquor will never taste ours." It was the right-libertarian and "liberal-right" heritage where you will find all of the pushes for extended liberty to all. It is the "left wing" at it's most radical and thus it's root that you find every extension of state overreach and power.

The term right should not be shed, but, instead shown proudly by rightists. The right is the true liberal and the true liberal's home is on the right. He or she is a person on the right end of the spectrum and not the left. A consistent liberal is a capitalist and a consistent capitalist is a right-liberal. Really, all labels such as right-wing libertarian, Constitutional Republican, Objectivist, Laissez-Faire Capitalist are really just other labels for classical liberal. Or a consistent liberal or a member of the broader right.

Rightism is the views of the right and the views supporting of protection of individual rights. Of views like those mentioned above and it does not include those whom would use states to push their values on others with force. Rightism supports protection of freedom, liberty and individual rights for all. It is views that support the notion of the Non-Initiation of Coercion on ones neighbor. That this is an imperative and must be protected. That it is the only moral framework for a society of civilized people and that retaliatory force in self defense is a moral good.

Rightism is also rational and reasonable. The more you tip your toes into irrational politics the more leftist you are becoming. It is truth vs fantasy running the world. Rightism is the moral and practically right approach to economics and politics.

In conclusion we need self-love, compassion and respect that our views are correct. They are in accordance with facts of reality and we can have pride in our intellectual rigor. Do not let the leftist sympathizers get you down. The regressive-left is not liberal and never has been liberal. You and I have been the True Liberals all along and always will be! Let the haters hate just do not initiate coercion on them. Let them stew in their delusional nonsense and reality will let them reap what they have sewn.

How the Free Market System Can Stop Economic Collapse: A Right Side Interview with Yaron Brook

Chris Pareja interviews Yaron Brook, on the free market system and how it is the only thing that can save us from economic collapse and the morality of capitalism. Directed and produced by Jim Twu and Mike Harris at Cable Access channel KMVT 15 in Mountain View, CA. Original title: The Right Side with Yaron Brook, Episode 201. Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

The modern socialist embraces the best of the fruits of Capitalism well denouncing their cause.

Yaron Brook Lectures: Capitalism without Guilt at Steamboat Institute Freedom Conference

This presentation by Yaron Brook was delivered at the 10th Annual Steamboat Institute Freedom Conference on August 10, 2018 at the Steamboat Grand in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. For more information on the Steamboat Institute, see https://www.steamboatinstitute.org.

Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.

Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).

Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Yaron's History Lesson - The Corporation, Part 1 of 3 (Audio Only)

The public corporation is under attack in America today. The regulatory burden is ever increasing: boards and CEOs are constantly harassed over wide-ranging issues from CEO pay to options "backdating," and the media continues to portray corporate America as a cesspool of corruption. The expenses and risks of being a public corporation are now so great that an unprecedented number of companies are choosing to "go private."

In this course, Dr. Brook discusses the history and economics behind the rise of the modern corporation, explaining how this form of business organization made possible new heights of wealth creation. He explains why the corporation, despite its productive virtues, has been attacked as illegitimate and immoral since its inception. Finally, he discusses the popular paradigm of "corporate social responsibility" and contrasts it with the proper corporate goal of shareholder wealth maximization.

This course was recorded at the 2007 Objectivist Summer Conference in Telluride, CO.

Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.

Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).

Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

The Penultimate defense of the proper left and right.

I recommended anyone that is considering dropping the left-right spectrum and the defense of rightist as individual rights read Craig Biddle's recent essay in The Objective Standard. They are committing numerous fallacies by making it seem that saying rightist is freedom and individualism is incorrect or to be shunned. As Craig Biddle correctly points out it is the very nature of any political spectrum to have a rights side and an authoritarian side. We need to explain and provide proper definitions for the right Vs the left hand pole not pretend there is no left and right poles to a political spectrum.


As Craig Biddle points out so eloquently in his article;

One way in which people commit this fallacy is by assuming that we can abandon the left-right political spectrum and speak strictly in terms of a statism-capitalism spectrum or a collectivism-individualism spectrum without correcting misconceptions about the left-right spectrum. That may sound great—until we think about it, reflect on the broader context, and realize that a two-pole spectrum by its very nature has a left side and a right side.10 No matter which words we place on the opposite ends, the spectrum will still have a left side and a right side; thus, people will still think about it and refer to it in terms of left and right.11

This is 100% correct that there is not a single spectrum that exists that does not have two poles a left and a right pole of the spectrum. The idea that the Nolan Chart or multi-axis Charts are the answer is factually obliterated in Craig's other masterful work, "The Muddy Waters of The Nolan Chart."

We need to define the essentials objectively and properly; then make our home without shame on the side that is "right." Which is the Right of the spectrum on the side of individual rights and non-initiation of coercion or consent based societies. It is Capitalism the social system; the only moral social system; the Political Right on which classical liberals, constitutional republicans, Objectivists, Laissez-Fairest, et cetera reside. One needs to defend their rightness on the spectrum as well as in matters of facts. The political right represents the morally proper system of social interaction. As visualized and clarified on the below spectrum.

On the Non-Initiation Of Force Principle vs the Non-Aggression Principle

The below article was originally posted by Redditor Mr_Koroand it took the words right out of my mouth. In other words he says in wonderful words one of the many issues with the libertarian movement and its context-dropping/reality evading by ripping NIOFP from any context or possible lines of evidence. No infringement or plagiarism intended by posting it on this blog. This is purely for education reasons. Peace!

Abstract

In this post, I discuss what some Objectivists call the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (hereafter NIOFP) and its relation to its ostensible libertarian-counterpart, the Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter NAP). I presume the reader has some preliminary familiarity with Objectivism.

To begin with, I talk about its origin in the Objectivist literature as well as its validation.

Then, I move onto the origin of the NAP, and some of its validations.

Later, I discuss the aforementioned relation and contrast it with other views.

Finally, I recap and add some personal thoughts.

Quick Introduction

u/JamesShrugged said on a recent meme:

[The NIOFP and the NAP] are the same thing. “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of force.

This led me to think about it. On its surface, the issue seems to be purely semantic. I began thinking whether or not aggression necessarily specifies the initiation of force, and what are the implications of using either formulation. The following is the result of my thinking.

The Origin in the Literature and Validation

The NIOFP's earliest appearance is in Atlas Shrugged. In Galt's speech, Galt spends several paragraphs addressing physical force. In essence, he introduces the idea that no man may initiate the use of force against another, and notes the immorality of succumbing to physical force as forfeiting one's judgment. He finishes by relating the issue to the basis of ethics, stating, in effect, that reason is man's means of survival.

There are many other further discussions of physical force which you can find in the Lexicon.

The validation of the NIOFP is grounded in the Objectivist ethics. There are two fundamental elements to this foundation:

• The first element is the Metaphysical Element. Man, being the rational animal depends on reason to survive. His needs are not accounted for by instincts. The goods he consumes can only be created. In other words, in order to live, man must produce his values, and the only means to that end is thought.
• This leads to the second element, the Normative Element. A man, should he choose to live, and thus be rational, must create the values his existence requires. He cannot expect another to live solely for his sake, and create the values he needs for him. And so, taking by force the values another man has created is self-destructive.

Thus we can observe that the initiation of force is immoral. In order to maintain this position rationally, one must rely on its foundation.

The Origin of the Non-Aggression Principle

Locke was the first to originate the NAP, stating that

no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [1]

Many thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and others, maintained such positions thereafter. But to my knowledge, none have based it on the Objectivist foundation prior to Rand.

In fact, we can observe that some thinkers have based their support of the NAP on their support of equal individual rights. Their support of individual rights can be based on a theological basis, like Jefferson's view of rights as endowed by a Creator, or on a utilitarian basis, like Stuart Mill's view.

Interestingly, as previously mentioned, Rand bases the NIOFP on an ethical basis, and not on rights. Although there is a strong connection between the two, that is worth discussing.

The Relation: Equivalency or Contrast?

As we have seen, the NIOFP is necessarily a reference to the principle as Rand formulated it, and in the context of the Objectivist ethics. The principle specifies precisely what is its subject, by using the words "non-initiation of force." It maintains the proper context that validates it also.

Contrast this to the NAP. This principle can be said to be the result of God's edict that all of mankind was created equal; it can be said to be the result of the need for peace and order in society for the Common Good; it can also be said to be the result of the fact that man cannot truly know reality, and thus all action is amoral, so "live and let live".

The crux of the issue is the huge ambiguity in using the word "aggression".

The word "aggression" has two main senses:

1. Unprovoked physical force.
2. A hostile attitude and/or willingness to attack. [2, 3]

And something we should keep in mind is the fact that the intended sense of words is derived from their context. We should also keep in mind the fact that, unless otherwise specified by the speaker, you cannot assign the NAP any context. Given these facts, one can only conclude that the NAP cannot, and should not be a primary in a given discussion.

Conclusion and Personal Thoughts

By now I have shown that the NAP is a context-less concept. In order to validly use it one must tag onto it a context. This weakness, I believe, invalidates the use of the term NAP on its own, and renders its use for the purpose of communication impractical.

Moreover, this leads me to think about how the use of the term NAP without a context is prevalent in the libertarian community and reveals the arbitrariness with which libertarians base their support of freedom. It also validates my concern for the term NIOFP, as it could be tainted by the irrationally used term NAP.

Trump is not a Rightist and he is no Republican either

Before I go ahead with writing this article I need to provide definitions on what I mean by rightist and what I mean by Republican. By a Republican I mean someone whom is in favor of a government limited to the functions vital of a functioning free society. Specifically, limited to the use of defensive force against those whom are harming others and their property. With all of the proper limits, checks, balances and separations of powers. By rightist I mean in favor of the elimination of the initiation of a breaking of consent among society. To me to be "right" is the equivalent of being an Auberon Herbert "voluntaryist" or in the modern day equivalent to be for Capitalism.

Whom is on the right? Auberon Herbert based "volunatryists," Constitutional Republicanism, Classical Liberalism, Capitalism, better and consistent Right-Libertarians (fiscally responsible/socially tolerant types VS actual libertarianism philosophy or movement which is an ammoral and immoral mess). It also includes anyone that would consider themselves a radical for capitalism.

I find the best way to illustrate what I mean by The Right is the below chart/spectrum which shows what I consider leftist vs rightist and why you might actually be on the right on some issues in my definition.

  

In my view pro-same sex marriage legalization is on the right as it is for granting choice to consenting adults to own and use their bodies as they see fit. It is removing force from peaceful peoples lives. However, at the same time so is being pro-choice on abortions as it is about removing force on peoples lives. It is leftist to be pro-government using force in peoples lives. So, anyone that claims to be "right-wing," but, then is for adding more initiation of coercion that person is to the left or even depending on how much force the extreme left on that issue. A lot of you would be on The Right to me in social or personal issues, but, most more to the left on using force in the economy through taxation, regulations and the like. This places you in the degrees of leftism which is considered the moderate middle of modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classical Rightist Liberalism) or modern Conservatism.

I needed to setup the above opposition of views to show why I contend that Trump is not a Rightist and he is not a Republican in any sense of the actual definition. He is anti-Free Trade and pro-Tariffs which means that he is against the Global system of individual rights and thus anti-Capitalist. He has much more in line with classical Fascists and even certain forms of Socialism than he is a Capitalist. He is for initiating coercion into the lives of peaceful "illegal" immigrants whom he does not feel have the individual human rights the government is supposed to defend as their core reason for existing. Individual rights belonging to humans does not stop because they entered your Country through your borders.

In fact, if he was President in 1920's USA Ms. Rand would be rounded up and deported back to her very likely death in ironically of all places Russia. (Ironic, given how much Trump admires the Communist Dictator Putin.) This is because her way of getting here would not be allowed and she would be deemed illegal in his definition these days. What the US needs is a truly Rational and Reality based means of immigration.

I am in favor of Open Immigration for anyone that is not carrying an infectious disease, is an actual criminal (like the actual gangs of sex traffickers and such) and those whom are connected to/receive funds from organizations connected to or are themselves terrorists or terrorist material. This does not mean no screening at all and absolutely no border control. It means that you have one easy to access and easy to get screened for, and easy to cross border for new citizens to come through Openly VS Closed off borders.

In matters of trade I am for full Unilateral Free Trade globally for all. Capitalism is not a local thing, but, a universal and global thing. It is in essence of the system a Globalist or Globalism system of unfettered lassiez-fair trade across borders. Individuals and groups of individuals get to engage in consensual trade between each other for mutual benefit to mutual advantage, in win/win mutual exchanges or you are not in Capitalism. You get to hire workers from anywhere as well and that is part of trade. Free Trade and Open Immigration are corollary to one another. Labor should be open to as much of  Unilateral Unfettered Lassiez-Fair trade as goods or services are.

This ironically is also the position Mike Pence used too have before he became Vice Presidential Candidate and then VP with Trump. He used too be much more Capitalistic in that sense, was for TPP and NAFTA for example. The point is that Trump is not a Capitalist if anything he is a Crony and he is actually well modeled in the villains in Atlas Shrugged. Whom used lobbying and pull, connections between the State and Economy to get their way over consensual trade between individuals. He is not as some have called him an Ayn Rand Hero he is someone Ms. Rand would hate and she would be rolling in her grave.

Finally, I need to erase any sort of conclusions you might be making based on a flawed view of what I mean by Capitalism. I do not mean Corporatism, Lobbyism, Cronyism, et cetera. What I mean by Capitalism is not even just the existence of Capitalists either. Capitalism is a form of social system with a distinct identity and character which separates it from all other ISMS. It is in essence consensualism or Voluntaryism. It is a free society it is a true market free of any sort of coercion backed monopolies or anything of the like.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The sort of social system I support does not really exist fully anywhere in any Country at this time nor in anytime in history. Capitalism is not a Conservative idea no matter how Conservatives steal and hijack the term for their own intruding into peoples rights for the sake or religion or tradition or family values. Capitalism is not a system of yesterday, but, as Ayn Rand said is the "Unknown Ideal." The ideal setup and system which has not yet been fully put into practice anywhere on this Earth. It is a forward looking system. In fact, it was the system and vision of the world of the Classical Lassiez-Fair Liberals. Of a world united in Individualism, Individual Enlightenment thinking and Individual Rights. This is what I mean by Capitalism; this is what I mean by The Right and those whom are of The Right and what a True Constitutional Republican would be defending too.

 In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

This is what it means to be fully of The Right it means to be for this view of the world. Trump has a malevolent sense of life he sees not opportunity not for win/win solutions, but, only the win/lose. There is no understanding of the need for greater philosophy either. He is a dead end road of pure pragmatism and populism with no sense of underlying principles or code of virtues to guide what he wants in life. He is an amoral at best and grossly immoral at worst human being. He is the kind of savage one dare not meet in a black alley on their own without a weapon to defend you. For he has no underlying code other than to trample others. This is not the code of a proper business man it is the code of the Highway robber, the code of the irrational whim worshiping mystic and a horrific second handed mentality.

Trump is as far from reality, reason, morality and rights as a President could get and he admires dictators of all stripes; look at his gushing over North Korea and Putin previously. This is not a good day for the American Dream and I fear where this is leading the West. USA please wake up you voted in a Wolf in Sheep clothing better snap out of it well you can. Before your Country is changed so fundamentally the World does not recognize Lady Liberty because she is dead in the name of Making America Great Again (for the Cronies.)

Consent and Non-Consent/Freedom and Force is a Binary

Some people have commented in the past that I am too extreme or too far rightist. In the sense in which right means being for Capitalism VS Anti-Capitalism of some form. However, they are philosophically incorrect and not understanding of the essentials of right and left, of freedom and force or of consent and non-consent. You see force or breaking of consent is a binary and you either have consent/freedom or you have force/compulsion of the innocent. There is no such thing with this in mind as too in favor of Capitalism. There is no such thing as being too pro-Consent. There is no such thing as "extreme-right" or "Far-right" other than to separate yourself into being the pure form of rightism if needed. However, it is in the end an oxymoron as there is no degrees of Capitalism. There is no degrees of Consent Society and of freedom for the innocent. You either are free; to live, to think, to judge and then to act or you are not in which case you are a Surf.     

The options (Right or Left; Top or Bottom) are the binaries at the heart of all philosophy how mankind qua mankind should treat each other while living on Earth. It is a humane Ethical code put into practice in the political realm of the world and of philosophy. Anything that is not Right (On the Right) is Wrong/Evil and not correct or moral. Thus it is not I; the moral man with the fully coherent and fully rational moral code of conduct expanded to politics that needs to explain things. It is the immoral, the vile, the vicious and pernicious parasites that think government exists to cater to their entitled attitude that need to explain why they are not in the realm of politics either evil or wrong. Why is it right to force all other moral men and I's minds? What is your evidence for the need and moral backing of stopping our minds? Of squashing our very Human Spirits at the barrel of a gun? You do not get to control others because you grew up in a padded Snowflake friendly entitled world. 

I am not your Surf, I am not your Slave... I am a human being, a human mind and a living entity of your species. You have no right to make me your surf or your Slave. You have no right to demand my time or money be spent on what your values are at the expense of my own. I do not live for those whom demand sacrifices at every turn like I am a stuffed Turkey at your Thanksgiving. I am a man qua man and my freedom is Binary. As is all of yours. Freedom/Consent or Force/Non-Consent. It is a Binary; it is Right (Morally and Politically) or it is wrong (that which the Left politically represents and the Moderate Muddled compromise allows to poison the broth.) Even if one uses the term Top for Freedom and Bottom for degrees of force it is still a Binary one direction or the other. There is no other direction it is either Freedom/Consent or some level of evil, of wrongness of the vile thing known as force/non-consent in dealings with your neighbors. The Anti-Capitalism in any degree is the anti-mind, thus the anti-human and the anti-life. Moderates; those whom call me too extreme or too far-right are the ones that are wrong for they are in the end compromising with their own deaths. 

No, I am not a libertarian anymore. However, I might still vote for a Libertarian (Capital L).

My views on politics would best be called Classical Liberalism or just plain Capitalism. However, there was a time that I had been part of the Libertarian Party of Canada. This was before I realized that libertarians philosophically had issues with reason and reality from the most core of its ideology. With its fill on subjectivism and anarchism among its ranks. Not all Libertarian members, but, people that are actually listening to and following it to its conclusions which are the anarcho-capitalism's very foundations. I would be quick to vote for a better, less insane and reason based member of the Libertarian Party of Canada still, but. I do not at all anymore sign off on the philosophical views called "libertarianism."

The issue was the lack of basing the philosophies view on reality and reason. As well its view on anarchism not only being OK, but, for many the ideal way of having society. It also does not care if its philosophy is based on reality or not. Or about morals at all. It does not care about anything, but, following its Non Aggression Axiom as just that an Axiom. No need to prove that it is right by appealing to reality or what is true. It acts as a faith not as a reasoned position, I agree that the initiation of coercion or non-consent is evil and a very specific evil. However, you get there by following the facts that we all should have our individual rights defended as the role of government which comes from looking at the facts. You do not get there out of nowhere as an Axiom.

You cannot get there out of thin air by saying it is an axiom and beyond evidence or proof, or reason of any kind. Rights are not somehow naturally inside of men or women. If you cut yourself in two; please do not! You will not see rights there in nature. Rights are the ability to think and act within society as one sees fit free from harm/coercion as long as your action is not itself infringing others same rights. It is a system in a social context of how people are free to be with each other. It is not an axiom granted to you by God or Nature. These are the so-called roots of the NAP of libertarians and is not based in reality at all. Non-coercion being an ideal is true, but, it is simply another way of wording individual rights protection by a properly moral and good government.

Libertarianism has no reason to be right as it does not even search for one. So, before you say I am a libertarian for agreeing with the defending of individual rights I am not. Libertarians can be great people individually, but. the actual underlying Axiom is not based in reality. If you are a Libertarian and a classical liberal I will agree with being called the latter. However, I would ask you if you are sure you want to use a term used by people like Murray Rothbard; whom think parents should have the right to starve and neglect their children till they died. Or the likes of Walter Block whom has said in his own words that the issue with the Holocaust was that Hitler forced people into Ovens and did not persuade them to walk in on their own. There are many names; Classical Liberal, the Liberal Right, Lassiez Fairest, Radical for Capitalism, Constitutional Republican.The bankrupt libertarian shipwreck does not own liberty.

Members of Libertarian Parties that do use reality as their base or are not intellectually really "libertarian." They need to emphasize their differences from lower case libertarian intellectuals and the other movement that uses the name. They should point out that they do not agree with the nutcases that treat libertarianism as a faith to an axiom that is really standing on shaky legs floating on top of quicksand.

Yaron Brook and Dave Rubin | Objectivism, Religion, and the Role of Government (Full Interview)

Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute) joins Dave Rubin to discuss objectivism, free speech, changing the world through discussion and reason, Ayn Rand’s ideas, morality, religion, civil discourse and how to agree to disagree, criticism of the education system in the U.S., the role of government, and more.

Yaron Brook | Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Helping the Poor, Capitalism, and Human Nature from The Rubin Report

Ayn Rand's philosophy on social safety nets, capitalism, human nature and more.

Capitalism is a Social System; it is not just "economic freedom."

There is a big misconception out there that Capitalism only means economic freedom in a Nation. This is something that even some people that claim to support free markets say about the system. Libertarians tend to push Capitalism as "the economic freedom." However, this is dead wrong as Economic Freedom is the outcome of Capitalism itself. Economic freedom is simply a corollary of truly being free to begin with. Capitalism is both social and economic freedom it is not separate from the other. In fact, freedom to trade is not even really "economic" freedom at all it is merely one manifestation of personal freedom as pertains to the right to trade with others for mutual benefit to mutual advantage in a consensual manor. If you have a "market" quote un quote, but, then you are told what to eat or whom to date or whom to marry you are in an authoritarian nightmare not Capitalism. 

The separation of Economic Freedom from the broader existence of the defense of individual rights leads to things like the nightmare of Anarcho-Capitalism to be seen as a freedom philosophy when it is the complete opposite. It helps make especially libertarians to be incoherent and philosophically deadly. This is yet another reason that one needs to differentiate between supporting any individual Libertarian Party, institute, group or Individual Candidate for matters of implementing policy VS supporting libertarianism the intellectual movement. Due to their lacking a coherent philosophy or a dedication intellectually to reality or reason there is no "reason" for them to see the error of their way of seeing Capitalism as only Economic freedom scales. 

This is one of the big differences from a broader Radical for Capitalism or even Classical Liberal from the libertarian movement. While some Classical Liberals make the same mistake it at least is not ingrained in the movement or the intellectual caste of the group. This is of course a major difference between Objectivists and Non-Objectivists as well in talking about freedom and Capitalism in general. As Objectivism IS a coherent and reality based philosophy it talks about Capitalism as it really is. Which is that it is in fact the only moral social system that could ever "grace" this Earth. This is because an Objectivist whom really understands their Philosophy has a coherent whole of views that all go together in a hierarchy that fit together into reality based concepts. Whereas most, but, not all libertarians are whim worshiping and subjectivist at heart. They in a fact take NAP this NAP as an abstraction and do not know how to defend the soul use of defensive force. 

This is spurned on because a lot of them while talking about supporting Capitalism do not even fully understand the breadth of what Capitalism is and means. What Capitalism is, is not just economic freedom as a lot of libertarians word it. It is in fact the identity of the only truly humane, free and just; AKA Moral Social System it is in fact defined as follows; 

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, 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; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges—the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships.

I would recommend anyone that wants a properly explained and essentially defined look at Capitalism to find their nearest copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ms. Rand. To buy up a copy as quickly as possible to remove any Hobgoblins and residuals from the Anti-Capitalist mentality in your defending of this great system. The only truly moral system for mankind qua mankind. The above passages are all Copyright Ms. Rand's estate and all rights are reserved to the owners of the Ayn Rand Lexicon website. 

Ayn Rand - What Is Capitalism? (full course)

This 1967 lecture is Ayn Rand’s flagship talk on capitalism. In it she explains in depth what capitalism is, why it is often misunderstood and why it is the only social system consonant with man’s nature. She discusses the philosophical and ethical roots of capitalism, and contrasts them with the moral-philosophic doctrines that lead to rule by force. She then discusses progress under capitalism and how it is fundamentally different from the so-called progress of a statist society. Along the way, Rand takes up such questions as:

• What is the essence of man’s nature?
• What is the fundamental basis for the concept of individual rights?
• How is capitalism consonant with man’s nature? Why are other social systems not consonant with it?
• Why is serving “the common good” not a sound principle for governing a free society?
• What are the different perspectives on “the good,” and how do they inform people’s views on what constitutes a proper social system?
• What has been the ethical basis of all tyrannies in history?
• Who prospers on a free market?
• How does a free market unleash man’s creative abilities?
• What is so often misunderstood about progress under capitalism?

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/