Ruth Institute Blog

A couple of more thoughts on the definition of Capitalism proposed by Dr. Brook (the definition being a social system based on the recognition of individual rights in which all property is privately owned).

I was giving the implications of that strange definition some thought.

All property means all property.  What if, in the United States, all property was held privately, except for the Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court Building.

Would that system be capitalist?  Under the definition given by Brook, we would have to say NO.  After all, not all property is held privately.  The real estate and improvements on those locations is publicly held.  Does that really mean that the United States was not capitalist?  His definition forces us to laughable results like these.

But even if we could have a system like this (I could imagine that White Castle would be interested in having the naming rights to the White House or that some brothel in Nevada would want the naming rights to the Capitol), would it be desirable?  Would we really want this?

Again, all property means all property.  How would we have a modern military?  It is one thing in the days of the Greek hoplites in which the individual soldier was expected to provide his own panoply.  But what about today?  The weapons of war are much deadlier.  Do we want to have tanks or nuclear weapons in private hands?  What happens if the enemy makes a deal with the private owners of military property?  Perhaps we couldn’t go to war to defend ourselves because the enemy bought off the owners of all of our tanks?  Things like that have happened before in history.  Why not again?

And that’s not the end of it.  How could modern weaponry be developed in this supposed capitalist utopia proposed by Brook?  Who would pay the corporations to develop the weapons we need?  Does any individual have the means to do so?  Perhaps certain crime families would be able to raise the funds, but do we want the weapons in their hands?  If we say that we can pool together resources to develop the weapons to defend ourselves, isn’t that pretty much the same thing as saying that the State owns the weapons?  In which case, not all property is owned privately.

When you really think about it, Brook’s definition of capitalism, as he gave it in the debate is laughable.  And the reason it is is because he seems to value ideological purity over all else.  Why else would he use terms like “all property” and deride any exceptions to his principles?