Saturday, December 24, 2005

Karmatalism

Karma is infinitely complex but the basic doctrine is simple: you get what you give. Blessings find the compassionate while the selfish are haunted by misery.

The elemental fairness of karma is illustrated by its appeals to people well outside the realm of Buddhism. There is something about it that just feels right. It is not surprising that karma echoes in the legal system of every nation and the moral code of every religion.

Capitalism is the perfect incarnation of karma in economic form. It has just one simple rule: you must give in order to receive. But the kind of giving matters too. Give services in higher demand or scarcer supply and you will receive greater riches. In this way society provides an incentive for people to produce things that are greatly desired or in short supply.

If you want a new iPod you must give up something, usually a few hours of labor, in exchange for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Capitalism is ridiculed because it is not a kind master. Socialist professors and their disciples decry the unfairness of a system that makes them work for their livelihoods. Their dream of something-for-nothing has no place in a capitalist society.

They desire a release from the demands of karma. They want the result without the sacrifice, the blessings without the work.

The Socialist dream will always remain mist and illusion. Reality does not comply with their demand of something-for-nothing. Everything must be paid for by someone. When they demand something-for-nothing, socialists are really demanding the ability to force someone else to pay for what they consume.

Their mentality is akin to the pickpocket and the slave master. They should beware: whenever people have taken what they desire by force from their fellowmen the gods of karma have not been kind.

1 Comments:

At 4:40 PM, Blogger freeman said...

Despite wholeheartedly rejecting state socialism, I'd say that those socialists you point to may have some valid points. That may become clearer to you when you realize that what they denounce as being "capitalist" is acutually, to be more specific, state capitalist in nature.

Depending on the definition of capitalism, I'd say that it is either bad karma or good (considering the free and voluntary nature of free markets). To avoid confusion and the continuation of negative stereotypes of libertarians ( such as "evil, greedy pot-smoking Republicans"), I avoid the C word like the plague. I advocate a free market, 'nuff said.

For more about the where I'm coming from concerning this semantic quibble, I recommend checking out a recent blog post by Brad Spangler titled War, Socialism, and Precision in Thinking (the second half of the post deals with capitalism and socialism).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home