Libertarianism versus Liberalism vs Conservatism
June 19, 2008 · By Adam Dyck
I am a libertarian, small-l because I support neither the American Libertarian Party nor the Canadian Libertarian Party. However, what exactly does that mean, and what makes me different from a liberal, small or large “L”?
Obviously, we differ on issues of the economy. Liberals support a welfare state, a “trickle-up” sort of economic policy, if you will. However, on this issue we disagree with Conservatives as well, most of whom are exponents of a “trickle-down” economy.
The reason that we libertarians find ourselves here is because unlike both of these two ideologies, who make a clear distinction between social and fiscal issues, we do not. We oppose government intervention in the economy on a moral level, not a practical one. My business is my business. Not yours, not Harper’s, not Stelmach’s. Be it concerning money or not, they government can just stay out.
Worse than regular welfare, what the Liberal’s propose, is Corporate Welfare. Perhaps one of the sickest, vilest, most disgusting practices of government, this is when the nation gives a boost to a company, often to a company that supports the government.
On to social issues, where many are tempted to lump us in with the Liberals. Yes, we do tend to oppose social conservatism on most issues, like the Liberals. however, once again, our motives are different.
We often do not believe that gay marriage is morally right. We often disagree with people who do drugs. However, we believe it is their legal right to do so, whether we agree with it or not. We don’t legislate morality.
Some issues, most notably abortion, are very divisive for libertarians. I am personally against it, as I see it as murder. Nobody has the right to take the life of someone else. Other libertarians do not see a fetus as a living person, so they see no problem in aborting it. That’s not what I want to debate here.
However, it shows another difference between us and the Liberals. We do not support absolute freedom, we support freedom as long as it does not interfere with the freedoms of others.
And there you have it, from a living, breathing libertarian.
Great post. In the United States Ron Paul would be pretty close to where I stand. I think foreign policy and some aspects of social Conservatism have led to libertarians or true fiscal Conservatives being uncomfortable in the current Republican fold. American Libertarian Party nor the Canadian Libertarian Party are realistic options. This cycle in the US it is a tough choice between a candidate who will continue to promote the war in Iraq and all the spending associated with it against a candidate who wants out of the war but perhaps believes in increasing the welfare state and taxes. It is too bad the Republican Party has lost its way. I hope the same doesn’t happen here too.
Ron Paul is like Reagan: They both support small government, in small doses, when it suits them.
He was good, excellent by American standards, but he still had a ways to go.
I consider myself a libertarian as well. My philosophy stems more from a policy of ‘you mind your business and I’ll mind mine’.
I don’t support the western democracies sticking their noses into the affairs of the Middle East or any other part of the world. The Islamic nations follow a political code based on their religion. We have no business trying to change it. The only reason I support the war in Afhganistan is because Al-Quieda brought that war to North America. If the Taliban and Al-Quieda vowed to leave us alone, and if we could believe them, (a big if) then I would want us out tomorrow. The problems in the Middle East boil down to oil economics and the situation with Israel. Let those people sort it out. Same goes for all those petty tyrants in Africa.
I don’t support the drug eradication programs supported with our help in any country. The problem is ours. Quit punishing some dirt poor farmer who is trying to feed his family the best way he knows how. Stop the demand, or legalize it, and most of the problem disappears.
I don’t support organized religion of any kind, but since this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, then that represents the underlying morality of our society. Immigrants may worship as they choose, but I wouldn’t change a single tradition to accomodate their beliefs. If you they don’t want to follow the customs of this country then immigrate somewhere else that better suits their philosophy.
I don’t care what my neighbour does on his property. He owns it, and so long as what he does doesn’t represent a danger to me or my family then I leave him alone. If I don’t like the look of his yard I can build a fence or move. Nobody can guarantee my property values.
Everyone has their own agenda, therefore I don’t trust or believe a single word from large business interests. I don’t trust big unions. I detest big banks. I don’t trust politicians of any stripe or their governments and I especially hate the bureaucracies they spawn. I despise the single issue zealots and special interest groups that want to change my way of life or pick my pocket to support their cause. That applys to the idiots in the environmental movement, vegans, the smoke Nazis and PETA.
I believe in the golden rule, but beyond that leave me alone to decide how I’ll lead my life.
Where would we be if our forefathers and ancestors decided upon meeting all the different native peoples – like the Inca and the Aztec for example, to just mind their own business and continue to sacrifice adult and children to fictitious gods?
Not saying they were perfect, but live-and-let-live in international affairs is as morally barren as live-and-let-live if your neighbour believes in foot-binding his wives and caging his children. Who are we to judge another culture, right?
Oh wait. We’re supposed to draw the line at “as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else”. Well, what about the Taliban keeping their women cloistered and uneducated? What about the East African custom of female mutilation? Oh, we should just butt out, right.
Moral relativism, whether at an individual level or at a national level, is absolutely bankrupt. The only reason anyone subscribes to it is because they can’t be bothered to think about the ultimate outworkings of such a policy on a large scale.
So throwing billions of dollars at our military to go into a country is going to change it? In case you hadn’t noticed, people don’t react well when forced to change their ways.
I believe I explained that this is not moral relativism. I believe in right and wrong, that is the same for everyone. I am a Bible believing, born again Christian. However, I am not interested in legislating morality, be it for my neighbour, a Ontarian or an Iranian.
I just wanted to quickly point out that I’ve added to the discussion on the post below. As for “legislating morality”, I see that as including legislating human rights as we must come to a certain ethical awareness for such rights to have any meaning (see our human rights commissions, for example, on what happens when the reverse trend happens). Also, on the issue of say, marriage definitions, I’ve mentioned below and mention again that it is not about legislating morality when I oppose “gay marriage”, but rather about recognizing that a contemporary government does not have the legitimate authority to redefine a term/word/institution just because it wants to. I think that the 1984 references (“we’ve always been at war with Eastasia”) illustrates this argument nicely. Cheers everyone.
Yes. How dare a government ever propose to change a definition? We should have just left the definition of a person as a white male, right?
Adam, that’s just my point: government created the definition of a person as a white male in the recent centuries, however ancient cultures recognized the natural definition that spans across gender and skin-colour long beforehand. I don’t find it very libertarian to believe that government has to be the agent through which nature is recognized, nor is a system in which Venus can be renamed Jupiter for political reasons very neutral or sane either.
And the definition of voter as a white, land-owning male?
You’re missing the point. And you’re also not arguing reasonably. Back to your response to me. I never said the government was or is right to “throw billions of dollars into the military” – presuming that you’re suggesting that you oppose the Afghanistan mission. Whether or not I support that is beside the point. My point is that a live-and-let-live foreign policy has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Bible-believing Christian. I frankly am getting sick and tired of Christians telling me how to vote, like there is a Jesus party out there waiting to get elected. There isn’t. But I digress.
The fact is there are moral absolutes – everyone knows it – they are just afraid of admitting it. The reason culture is moving into the realm of moral relativity is because it knows that some of what it does is morally wrong, but they don’t want to be called on their stuff so they don’t call others on theirs. It is a vicious circle supported by a misreading of the Bible, strangely enough. “Judge not lest ye be judged” is not saying, “don’t judge others”. It is saying prepare to be judged when you take on the awesome responsibility of holding others accountable. A major element of the Christian faith enterprise is that people are supposed to hold each other accountable to following after Jesus.
As to how this relates to foreign affairs, I believe that nations should hold each other accountable to do what is right. If nations insist on massive human rights abuses, then other nations should oppose it. Now invasion and occupation isn’t the right approach in every case – in fact I would say it should be a last resort – but my point is that it should be an option. Because otherwise it is simply bestial to condemn other human beings to a lifetime of abuse and oppression, simply because we can’t get past the idea that if we say their government is wrong, someone might point out the log in our own eye.
I for one want that log pointed out. I think that as the world’s policeman, the USA has invited a lot of international scrutiny in terms of how it conducts itself. The problem is that it seems loathe in recent times to accept that there are logs in its own eyes, and rectify it. Same goes for Canada. In fact, I do support the Afghan mission – mainly because 1. I think we are accomplishing something that is worth the lives of our soldiers, and most of them do too, which is why they keep volunteering to go back (at least the majority that I have heard). 2. I think that not only are we improving Afghanistan as a country in our effort to help them build a self-supporting peace and educational infrastructure, but we are also helping to ensure the peace of our own nation by dealing with what used to be a hotbed of terrorism.
Adam, now you’re just grasping at straws. If you want me to bite, fine — tell me what a voter is today. You can’t give me one answer though because every country, province, state, city, county, region, school, seniors’ home, etc, etc has it’s own definition. It is a political office and a term that is relied upon by governing bodies to help in the organization and maintenance of said bodies. The same could not be said of the word marriage until recently; we all knew that a marriage consisted of certain parameters, the details of which I’ll spare everyone, but even if you look at the polygamous groups like Muslims and Utah/BC communities, they would clearly refer to a wife as being *married* to her husband; she would *not* be married to one of her husband’s other wives, but rather the husband would be participating in multiple marriages at the same time.
To recap, I don’t think anyone would deny a political government the ability to govern itself, and make terms that assist in that, but it is clearly not libertarian to encourage a government to go around changing the laws of nature, the language we use or the absolutes of our world to bring about political change; that is clearly, in my mind at least, within the realm of big-government liberalism.
There are no laws of nature related to human behavior. Without religion, there is no reason why murder, rape, theft, abortion, child abuse, polygamy or divorce are objectively bad. These judgements, in general or in specific cases, are subjective choices in the same way that the lion chooses to eat the calf — or to lie with him.
If people want to go to war, they should pack up their stuff and go pay for their own damn war. Otherwise, I see no reason to trust their motives.
Only individuals act. Therefore, “we” and “countries” and “nations” do not go to war. It is individual people who decide to go to war. It is politicians and the military who imposed this upon other Canadians — to go to war on their behalf as if they had consent, which they do not have nor did they seek. Also, “countries” do not engage in trade. Rather, individual merchants trade with other foreign merchants.
Shane,
We are here because our forefathers and ancestors had gunpowder at a time when the natives did not.
Adam,
Government is not an objectively measurable concept. A “big” government could be a “small” government for others and vice versa. You may find this opinion piece published in 1989 concerning Reagan’s legacy interesting.
Any pseudo-libertarian argument which stops short of absolute anarchy is a logical apology in support of big government.
Matthew: And, much like voting, marriage has become a political term. When we talk about gay marriage, we aren’t talking about whether or not gays should be allowed to live together, sleep with one another or have a monagomous relationship. We’re talking about whether the government should acknowledge gay marriage, and award it the same benefits of heterosexual marriage. Following your rather fragile line of logic, as a political and governmental term the government should have the right to define it as they see fit.
Should marriage be a political insitution? No. Marriage should be left up to two consenting adults and their God, or lack thereof. But as long as we maintain marriage as an act of government, it will be subject to politician’s and their beliefs, and that of their constituents.
Charles: Reagan was libertarian in small doses, when it suited him. What does this prove, exactly? I fail to see the relevance.
Of course small or large government are not objective terms. Anything with the prefix large or small is going to be subjective. So in supporting small government, I support a government smaller than now.
AdD,
Tell us: What would you have the current government do differently to make it “smaller than now”?
How do you measure government?
by amount of taxation?
by amount of spending?
by areas of spending?
by amount of money supply inflation?
by types of threatening legislation?
What good is a “small” government if it threatens to imprison any private competition? For all intents and purposes, maintain such a credible threat may not be expensive.
What good are low taxes if the government prints money willy nilly?
The point that I want to impress is that you may deem a government to be small because it abstains from various aspects of private life while still protecting others — for example, law and order. All you have done is demonstrate a preference for what you want statesmen to do and what not to do.
Whereas the socialist across the street, may have different preferences and deem a government to be “small” if it redistributes a minimum amount of wealth (by taxation or money inflation) while leaving everything else (say, law and order) to market forces.
Who is right? Answer: neither, because there is no single direction between “small” and “big” government.
I assume that you are familiar with the Political Compass, if not you can find it at politicalcompass.org.
The short answer is that the smaller a government is, the closer it would be to the bottom right corner of that spectrum.
I do not think you understand that government “size” can not be measured.
Let me ask a different question: What units of measurement can be used to compare government size?
The answer is that there are none.
I am very familiar with that Compass project — enough to understand its flaws. The first time I took that test a couple of years ago, my score was Economic Left/Right: 7.38; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74 and the second time I took it, I got Economic Left/Right: 9.25; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31.
Now, does that mean the second time around I believe in bigger government or smaller or the same size?
Can you transfer units from one axis to the other?
Of course I’m not trying to say that you can measure the size of governments by any unit, however, there are obviously some governments that are smaller than others.
I am not advocating a specific position on the compass. Nor am I advocating anarchy, as you seem to think that I should be. I am simply advocating more freedoms, both economically and socially.
I am not here to argue. I simply wanted to say, “Great Artcle!” Thank you!
I like the idea of libertarianism, but not so much the idea of political conservativism, or even liberalism, for that matter. I think that governments should be minimally involved in our lives, and I can’t stand these bailouts for floundering businesses (just let them die already… economic Darwinism. Only the successful survive.). However, I disagree with the conservative mindset in general (they seem a bit close minded) and the constant falling back on the Constitution to validate all that they do. Why can’t we fight for our own individual values instead of the values of our forefathers? If they’re the same values, cool, if not, whatever. Maybe I’m rambling a bit here… you see, I am slightly confused as to where libertarianism sits as a political ideology, and what it’s all about. Small government, individual rights, freedom to do as we please as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else… is this basically libertarianism? Is it conservative or liberal or a little bit of both? It seems like a good political fit for me, but if it’s too conservative-minded I’m not sure if I’m all that interested. Can anyone clarify this for me? Sorry if my post is a bit rambling and confused.
Thanks!
RavenH,
Once you deem it morally correct for governments to exert power, you are no longer a libertarian. Libertarianism means that love of freedom is held up above any other goal. Small government libertarianism is a cognitive dissonance because small governments restrict freedom nevertheless. The small government libertarians are actually advocating selective socialism. They want the security and justice industries to be socialized at the expense and to the exclusion of all other markets.
Authentic libertarianism is market anarchy by an other name. In real libertarianism, nobody is expected nor compelled to be a client of any provider. If you want your money spent on security or justice, you will pay an insurance company to protect you — unlike the confused conservatives who demand that the tax-payers fund such services and that the government monopolize them.
The problem with what you’re saying Charles, is that no everyone is capable of properly looking after themselves in a pure libertarian society as you advocate.
Would it be fair to then say that you believe those who are unable to manage their own affairs adequately deserve everything they get?
RavenH….
That’s almost like saying “If a good idea is too conservative-minded, then I’m more interested in a bad idea that isn’t.” Cutting off one’s nose to spite the face so-to-speak. Don’t be in any kind of a hurry to dismiss a liberal or conservative ideology based on what might be misinterpretations of what they are.
No. I am simply advocating that it is morally wrong to violate an other person’s freedom regardless of your motives.
Sean,
You need to prove that not everybody will be able to “properly” protect themselves without the government monopolizing the protection racket Regardless, in our current state of affairs, not everybody is protected despite the monopolizing of the protection racket.
More importantly, socialists have the same goals as you: protecting people. They just happen to place more importance on monopolizing the health care and education industries. Neither side is able to demonstrate their preferences for subsidies and enforced monopoly is better.
Actually, in this case, I don’t really have to prove any specific example. So long as there is the possibility that “someone” (for example a profoundly mentally handicapped individual with no family) would not be able to protect themselves, it would then fall, morally, to someone else to shoulder that responsibility. Whether that protection be physical, mental or any other form of personal threat is up for consideration.
That is, unless it’s morally acceptable to let them fall by their own incapacity. Nature’s Law; survival of the fittest.
If that’s not a morally acceptable alternative, what is the recourse? What if there is no one willing or able to shoulder the responsibility of behalf of that person? What is the appropriate solution?
I guess you are right. I mean, it is not like there are any profoundly mentally handicapped individuals with no family living on the streets these days.
Right. And it’s not like there aren’t any who are not wards of the state.
Then may I presume you believe that it is morally right for those who are out on the street to be there and on their own?
And what about that appropriate solution Charles? Do you have one or an opinion on what it aught to look like?
Yes, I believe it is morally right for people to live out on the street on their own if they so choose. I can not imagine why that would be morally wrong. Maybe you can shed some light on why you are asking that different question.
A solution?? I urge you to start by clarifying what problem you want to solve. Until then, we risk talking past each other.
Charles, you seem to be taking a deliberately difficult stance here from my perspective, but then I’m also assuming you’re following the trend of the discussion.
Of course a libertarian would call it morally right for people who choose to live out on the street to do so. From their position, anyone forcing them into some sort of institutionalized care would be violating their personal freedoms.
I thought it was previously clear that I’m talking about an individual who is there because they have no other choice but to be there because a libertarian society does not allow for government agencies or any other civilly-organized authority to assume responsibility for this individual.
Maybe it wasn’t as you claim I’m not specific or clear.
Earlier you claim that there is a difference between “Authentic” and “Real” Libertarianism. Given that both those words are synonymous with one another, I don’t perceive a difference between real and authentic Libertarianism.
So, what if you don’t have the money? What if there is no charitable fund available in that event? Tough luck?
Maybe offer a trade in services rendered (labour) as payment for protection? Would a person such as I described earlier (profoundly mentally handicapped) be able to make that kind of offer?
Areas controlled by private protection rackets competing with other nearby areas controlled by similar private protection rackets swiftly fall into feudal forms of organization, which become defacto governments on small scales. To get an edge over competing feudal areas, alliances form. Alliances need negotiated terms of agreement and ultimately a leader (too many cooks and all that). Pure Libertarianism fails at the beginning of this scenario.
Sp back to my request, specifically:
1) Is it morally right (from a libertarian perspective) for a person who is unable to take care of themselves (and has no one (volunteer group or otherwise) willing or able to care for them) have to live “out on the street” and take their chances as best they can if they would choose otherwise?
2) If a purely libertarian society which does not support any form of government agency or “care group” to take care of such individuals does not provide this option, what is the appropriate response to this situation?
I’d argue that unless there is an organization that looks out for the greater good of all, and to which the libertarian society is willing to cede responsibility to, Libertarian theory fails such an individual since there is no one person or group in this scenario willing to pay or cover the costs associated with the long term care of this individual, provided that a Libertarian society agrees that there is some moral obligation to care for such an individual seeking care but is unable to afford/pay/barter/trade for it.
In your opinion, only government agents can be charitable to the poor and destitute. I do not agree with that opinion. It does not square up with the reality of observable human behavior and I can not understand how you arrived at that prejudice. [ It is funny how many socialists present the same unprovable argument when demanding universal day-care, education, health care and law. ] Regardless, government agents still take it upon themselves to provide charity. I do not believe they are succeeding.
I believe that without government agents, other non-government agents will provide charity if people genuinely wanted to be charitable. I also believe that if non-government agents fail to provide enough charity, that is indeed tough luck. I just can not imagine why you would fear a lack of charity would arise in the absence of government monopolization.
I am using the terms “real” and “authentic” to be synonymous. I am not implying that they are different.
I do not believe your suspicions are realistic. Even if you were right, I would not consider those sequelae to be a failure.
Morally correct for who?? Whose actions are your judging?
We already agree that a person is not doing anything morally wrong by being homeless. You have to clarifying who you are judging. Me? Yourself? People passing by the homeless? The owner upon whose property the homeless person is resting?
I think you are struggling within the abstract but largely useless notion of Society as if it was an actor whose actions can intelligently be judged. That is just my guess. From a libertarian perspective, only individuals are judged. Collectives are not judged because such judgement is nonsensical at best, and bigoted at worst.
The preamble to your question is false. In libertarianism. nothing is stopping private charities from going into business.
You do not know that to be true nor can you prove it.
Not true. I don’t believe I actually stated that.
Let’s not assume I’m a socialist here. I’m not. While I don’t believe that Government should have the monopoly on those things, neither do I insist that government should have no role in them.
Okay, that answers one of my questions. In a Libertarian Society, someone who falls outside of the realm of non-government agents’ ability to provide charity and there’s no one else willing to help them, they are S.O.L. I don’t fear that a total lack of charity would arise in the “absence of government monopolization” (and there currently isn’t an absence of charity even with government involvement), but I’m certain that such charity that exists wouldn’t be sufficient to reach everyone who needed it, but as we already established, a Libertarian position on that would be “Too bad.”
Oh, sorry. I was misreading this then:
I was seeing those two sentences as being opposing. Again, sorry about that.
Well, given human nature I would argue that even in a Libertarian situation greed becomes a factor. Those who offer “protection” services and are earning by doing so, will want to earn more. They’ll eventually come up against someone else who either has the same mentality, or they’ll try to poach off someone elses turf. If there’s no authority to settle the dispute, it goes Feudal, which is a form of government in which those under the protection, end up giving up certain controls to those providing the protection. This, as I understand it, runs contrary to Libertarianism. “Once you deem it morally correct for governments to exert power, you are no longer a libertarian.”
Well, I was aiming more at the Libertarian Society as a philosophy/theory and it’s social mores which is by nature very abstract and I’ll admit, a little far reaching. The morality question there (in my opinion) still applies to the Libertarian Philosophy. Is this a theory whose morals are compatible with an individuals personal beliefs (as it would apply to the earlier S.O.L. individual).
Okay, but isn’t being Libertarian indicative of being part of a group who believe in the same philosophy? Wouldn’t that indicate a collective of it’s own sort? If so, then judging the collective based on it’s belief is fair game, even if it’s only the philosophy that’s challenged.
True, but that doesn’t mean that they will. Even if they do, there’s no guarantee that it will be sufficiently far reaching to provide the services for those that seek them. But again, as we cleared up earlier, those individuals are S.O.L.
The key to that statement lies in the “in this scenario“. In the scenario I provided, the individual is seeking the service but it is either not available/provided where this person is. Additionally, the person doesn’t have to means themselves to reach it and there is no one else willing or able to cover the costs to deliver that person to where it is. It doesn’t look like I was clear about that in the example.
In the end, what I believe is this.
I believe that there is a role for “government” as an agency/authority in society (albeit limited), although I expect certain freedoms to remain not infringed upon. I’m willing to cede control over limited issues in order to ensure that my neighbour is able to avail themselves of the same quality of service, for those issues, for the same price (monetary or commitment-wise) I do; particularly in regards to the overall well-being of myself and my neighbour.
I do not believe that my neighbour is entitled to the same “fruits of labour” that I have achieved for less work or participation. Nor do I believe that they should want the same as I have. If they do, they should have to acquire it not at my expense.
I believe that each person should be held responsible and accountable for their own choices and actions, provided that there is a standard to which “right” and “wrong” are held and it is consistently applied to anyone found in violation of that standard, regardless of age, race, sex or any other discriminatory basis.
I don’t claim to be Libertarian, just as I don’t claim to be Socialist.
What I claim to be is C(c)onservative: meaning moderate, cautious, traditional, thought-out and restrained in areas of finance, society and justice.
Any role that government plays represents socialism.
— and you see yourself as entitled to take my money in the form of taxation to fund your charitable missions. I do not have a more accurate label than socialist to describe that philosophy.
Stop complaining about libertarianism because what you fear is exactly how many police forces operate now anyway. I am embracing reality but just demanding more competition and less barriers to entry in that same market.
No, it is simply applying market economics to all markets in the economy.
Yeah but your example is not realistic. Your example makes sense in a society that is over-burdened by government largesse, I will grant you that much.
No, you do not because you insist that the tax-payer funds your version of justice.
You say that libertarians are opposed to legislating morality but you believe that the government should not interfere with the economy on moral grounds. No matter how much people would like to believe otherwise, you cannot separate morality and politics. Politics is the process by which a group of people make decisions, morality is a question of how people should behave towards one another, politics is a moral issue and morality is a political issue.
Liberals and libertarians both tend to be pro-autonomy on social issues, the difference between the two is that libertarians view autonomy as instrinsically valuable, liberals view autonomy as instrumentally valuable in increasing a person’s quality of life. Libertarians feel that sick, starving and homeless people are ‘free’ simply because no one is coercing them to do with their body, life or property what they don’t want to. Liberals deny that anyone is ‘free’ if they don’t have the opportunity to do what they want to do with their body, life or property. Therefore, coercion is necessary if it prevents more suffering than it causes, if it provides people with the opportunities (health care, employment insurance, education) to do what they want to do. Whereas conservatism stresses too much on a respect for tradition and authority, ‘proper’ behavior and in-group loyality and libertarianism has a dogmatic, deontological stance on autonomy, liberalism seems to be the political philosophy that is based on empathy and the scientific method.
I am currently a Libertarian, but I acknowledge my Conservative Christian background a my gateway drug so to speak on supporting Capitalism.
I am thankful though that I no longer base my support for Capitalism on whether the Bible teaches it or not.