Misunderstanding Capitalism
Lawrence W. Reed writes at FEE about trendy-to-hate capitalism, the subject of a recent article-length sneer in TIME magazine ("How the Elites Lost Their Grip," by Anand Giridharadas).

From the TIME article:

A democratic socialist--Bernie Sanders--is among the top contenders to be the next Democratic nominee for U.S. President. His rival and fellow Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is also among the top tier of candidates, declaring herself a capitalist who wishes to transform American capitalism as we know it, with a wealth tax, a Green New Deal and the elimination of private health insurance.

Yes, transform America into Venezuela, where the question, "What's for dinner?" is answered with the name of the family dog -- if he weren't eaten, oh, two years ago.

Reed writes:

The worst assumption in Mr. Giridharadas's article, however, concerns what capitalism really is. Implicit throughout is his belief that capitalism is nothing more than cronyism, whereby the rich use political connections to line their pockets.

Mr. Giridharadas ignores the fact that those of us he would surely label as pro-capitalist are just as much against cronyism and corruption as anybody, and likely more so than any socialists are. We understand that the answer to cronyism and corruption is not to give government even more power and money. We support not some corrupted, capitalist straw man but genuinely free markets, limited government, private property, and the rule of law. When will mainstream media learn this distinction?

Moreover, to those of us who appreciate this distinction, the pursuit of money is not the principal objective in life. Critics of capitalism suggest endlessly that it is, but that's infantile. The case for capitalism rests on something far more important than material wealth. It is not refuted by the occasional bad eggs who misbehave (socialism, by the way, produces bad eggs by the bushel and never creates anything resembling an omelet).

The case for true capitalism is a moral one that's rooted in human nature and human rights. To create wealth and add value to society through invention, innovation, entrepreneurship, production, and trade is a birthright. One cannot be fully himself--or even fully human--if he must live his life and conduct his affairs according to the dictates of those with political power. It speaks volumes that capitalism is what happens when peaceful people are left alone; socialism, on the other hand, is a Rube Goldberg contrivance with a lousy track record fueled by envy and class warfare.

This guy, in the comments at FEE, is right:

Col. Edward H.R. Green
Taxation is necessary to have a civilized society -- national defense, national roads, and courts, and police must be funded to have a civilized society. And the American constitution provided for those, some to be funded nationally, and most, locally.

But every penny the government spends represents someone's hard work that had to be taken, so this taking should be as minimal as possible, and only for particular, legitimate purposes we've all agreed to. (Our American constitution lists those agreed, legitimate national purposes in Article I, Section 8.)

You are also correct -- the Office of Management and Budget's website categorizes 70% of today's federal spending as "payments for individuals." That is, 70% of federal taxes are monies that are taken from a person who earned them, and given to another who did not.

But that's not in the Constitution. That's not what free people create governments for.

The whole purpose of a people coming together to form a government is to protect themselves and their families from being robbed, harmed, invaded, etc. So when gov't itself takes more of your money than robbers ever did, then gives it away, Bastiat argues the legitimate purpose of government itself has been turned on its head -- the gov't has been changed from something to protect you from plunder, into an institution devoted to it.

That ruins countries. When a nation's gov't becomes a means of voting yourself a share of your neighbors' things, that nation has been changed into a nation based on theft where people essentially are voting to steal from one another, rather than protect one another.

And it changes the people. Think about it -- a society based on theft, where everyone is rationalizing why it's legal and moral to steal from one another, has lost its virtue.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a
society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal
system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frédéric Bastiat

And then government has fundamentally been changed in purpose, hasn't it? No longer is gov't there to protect you and your property; now it's there to take your property and give what you earned to others, while monitoring and controlling you.