Due to the success (not just by name) of a Previous articulo , me ha parecido interesante compartir otro articulo de Porfirio Cristaldo Ayala.
El articulo del Sr. Cristaldo viene a cuento, por que tiene que ver con este otro articulo que aparecía hoy en El Pais , en el que se habla de como las modas del primer mundo, arruinan el medioambiente del tercer mundo. Pero... ¿realmente el culpable es el primer mundo de este caso en concreto?
Los ecologistas deberían defender el capitalismo.
Porfirio Cristaldo Ayala.
Environmentalists should defend capitalism, because it is the only natural economic system and the only one who has overcome poverty.
Capitalism and socialism are not simply two opposing economic systems, invented by various economists, the first , unlike the second, was not invented by anyone, but emerged naturally from the necessities of survival of the species, like other institutions, such as family, language, laws, trade.
Capitalism goes back to the Stone Age. About seven million years ago, our ancestors, primates living in the jungles of Africa, down from the trees, penetrated into the plains and began to walk upright. This hands were freed and allowed them to make tools, utensils and weapons for hunting. These rustic stone tools were the first capital of our ancestors, their primary asset, allowed them to improve their standard of living, add the meat to your diet, and allowed them to enlarge the brain.
For primitive man, the market was not a system but an inseparable part of human nature and individual freedom. Human beings can not survive, as do other animals, following their instinctual drives and using his strength, his speed, his fangs, claws. Must observe, think and act. The survival instinct encourages them to continually improve their situation. And hence arises the market. If man does not care for his person, his family, his tribe, if it produces and participates in productive exchanges, might perish.
Differences in the field of natural abilities allow men specialization. Some are more skilled as hunters, others as farmers, there are those who raise animals and have to make tools. Etcetera. Looking to improve your situation, individuals peacefully exchange their products, based on, first, of barter and then money.
Since time immemorial, man knows only two ways to get the products you need: by peaceful production and trade, which we know as capitalism, or the use of force and theft of others, behavior defines offenders and criminals. The peaceful cooperation in the market, which voluntarily exchange goods and services was often more convenient than the war and plunder. The Vikings in their maritime expeditions, traded with the well-defended villages and robbed the defenseless.
The dilemma is similar today. People can get their needs in the market (ie, using the peaceful exchange of goods and services), or resorting to theft ... or politics in the latter case, it uses the power of government to take over the foreign, as in socialism. The difference between the socialists and the Vikings is not that those are less barbaric, but that, under socialism, stealing is legal and is called "redistribution of wealth."
Capitalism is a system that arises naturally in any society, even behind that is due to the innate urge of people to the division of labor, specialization and the Pacific Exchange. Also, because the private property system does not require governments and laws, beyond the commandment to "not steal", characteristic of all cultures. Socialism, however, only works through coercion.
The great virtue of capitalism as a natural system of production and exchange is that it forces people to promote to others, both known as the stranger. And, to meet their own needs, should meet in the best possible way, of the other.
For primitive man, the market was not a system but an inseparable part of human nature and individual freedom. Human beings can not survive, as do other animals, following their instinctual drives and using his strength, his speed, his fangs, claws. Must observe, think and act. The survival instinct encourages them to continually improve their situation. And hence arises the market. If man does not care for his person, his family, his tribe, if it produces and participates in productive exchanges, might perish.
Differences in the field of natural abilities allow men specialization. Some are more skilled as hunters, others as farmers, there are those who raise animals and have to make tools. Etcetera. Looking to improve your situation, individuals peacefully exchange their products, based on, first, of barter and then money.
Since time immemorial, man knows only two ways to get the products you need: by peaceful production and trade, which we know as capitalism, or the use of force and theft of others, behavior defines offenders and criminals. The peaceful cooperation in the market, which voluntarily exchange goods and services was often more convenient than the war and plunder. The Vikings in their maritime expeditions, traded with the well-defended villages and robbed the defenseless.
The dilemma is similar today. People can get their needs in the market (ie, using the peaceful exchange of goods and services), or resorting to theft ... or politics in the latter case, it uses the power of government to take over the foreign, as in socialism. The difference between the socialists and the Vikings is not that those are less barbaric, but that, under socialism, stealing is legal and is called "redistribution of wealth."
Capitalism is a system that arises naturally in any society, even behind that is due to the innate urge of people to the division of labor, specialization and the Pacific Exchange. Also, because the private property system does not require governments and laws, beyond the commandment to "not steal", characteristic of all cultures. Socialism, however, only works through coercion.
The great virtue of capitalism as a natural system of production and exchange is that it forces people to promote to others, both known as the stranger. And, to meet their own needs, should meet in the best possible way, of the other.
0 comments:
Post a Comment