One way is to see that humans’ maximize profit. Sedan, under capitalism, you can and only can, enrich your self through productive works. So productivity is maximized.
So for people to be productive, an option to be productive, hidden somewhere, only need to exist. That and we can all claim that everyone that isn’t productive vermin, etc.
Another theory is similar but more complex. It’s not enough that you do the most productive thing.
You do productive thing. Then you make money. Then everyone can see that you are enjoying your money and happier. This encourage others to be productive too. Then they too become productive too.
So it takes time, and process for “good” to grow. Not only it can works, we need to convince the world that it can really work. The second part is where the real miracle is.
Perhaps Jesus don’t really produce 5000 breads. But by sharing the little bread he has, he convince the crowd that we all live in an abundance. The crowd then pull out their own bread too and start sharing the otherwise going to rot bread and fish anyway. Turns out it’s enough.
The same way free market do not produce prosperity out of magic. Certain rich people make a lot of money and provide jobs. Then the crowd start becoming capitalists too. Turns out, our faith in prosperity trigger nash equilibrium that’s indeed physically possible. So we have more and more than enough.
Is it physically possible? Well if nobel prize winners in economics say so, and the math say so, and it’s been working everywhere else, and statisticians say so, I’d say capitalism is definitely worth a try. Give abundance a chance. Give globalization a chance. Give legalization (of drug, commercialized sex, and organ trade) a chance. That’s all. We know it works on all the other cases.
The key here is that productivity improves not due to any physical process, but due to the change of belief. We spend a lot of money for jail for only one reason, to make people believe that some crimes may not pay.
It’s not enough that something is profitable then everybody would be doing it.
It has to be profitable. Then the profitability need to be sufficiently advertised and verified in some expensive and hence credible settings. Then more people are doing it.
Which one is right? Is it enough that a good option exist, or the option need to be sufficiently understood, known, and popularly familiar?
Well simple. The second theory is falsifiable. If the second theory is true, then government can prevent something, not by making it illegal, but by simply preventing information about it to spread. Or government can simply arrange that certain things are not done openly. There you go, the acts will get reduced even though it’s not technically or effectively illegal. Often chilling effects are indeed, the intended effects.
Then government could argue, well people actually have a choice. They choose what we prescribe because it’s best.
“No body forces you to get married,” says many religious bigots.
To prohibit things, government do not need to make sure it’s not done. Government simply need to ensure that certain things are not done too openly.
Cohabitation agreement is better than marriage at least for many males. Beatty Chadwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick) , would agree. Why would a rich male risk all their wealth if they can get laid without doing so. And there are many women that prefer sharing rich smart males than being the only one for a poor one. I know many poor but pretty women that got knocked up by a male that leave nothing but debt. Yap she is married to that male.
About drug, there is something interesting.
Water is safe, legal, popular, but not psychotropic
Alcohol is legal, popular, psychotropic, but not safe
Salvia is safe, legal, psychotropic, but not popular yet
Ecstasy is safe, popular, psychotropic, and USED to be legal for 10 years, till it’s popular.
As Jesus said, the road to life is narrow while the road to hell is wide. That’s because the devil (anyone not libertarian) will close the road once they found out it’s too popular.
If government do not want you to have fun, they do not need to prohibit all drugs, just the popular ones.
Taliban does not force women to mate with their followers. They only prohibits women from becoming prostitute and working. The only alternative left is starving or marrying someone the Taliban approved. See why many young males are willing to die for Taliban? It’s win win win. The Taliban win in getting followers. The young males win because there is no way they can compete with Brad Pitt. The women? Tja, it’s pretty easy to convince everyone that they’re protecting women.
The same way, if government wants to force you to get married and risk going to jail for 14 years and paying millions of dollars, it doesn’t need to prohibit all alternatives. The one that doesn’t work like free sex (altruism), or abstinence (not fun) can be practiced openly.
Two Ways to Explain How Capitalism Works is a post from: Gratis Market evigt