It is taken by faith by many that capitalism is the "correct" way to run economies and countries. People believe (without any real evidence) that free enterprise will solve any major issues that arise along the way. These kinds of ideas were discussed years ago by David Ehrenfeld, in his book "The Arrogance of Humanism" (now out of print). Those that believe in "free enterprise" just think that it is common sense, yet few have the formation to understand the implications. This is one of those areas where anosognosia rears its head. Anosognosia means that one does not know what one does not know (Actually, the definition is broader than this, but in this context, it fits - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia)
I was once asked a question that is a perfect example of this. My blonde friend from Montana asked me "If evolution is true, why are there still apes?" The question shows a remarkable LACK of understanding of evolution and biology in general, yet within the context of a stubborn insistence that she understands evolution! What she doesn't know in fact fills all the books about evolution, because she does not really even understand the first premise. Thus, she doesn't know what she doesn't know about evolution, but goes ahead and forms opinion and rejects the idea out of hand based on that which she doesn't know.
Those that think in a finite world that free enterprise and capitalism are THE economic models that explain how the world should run are in a similar setting. Finite resources imply that they can run out and indeed, will. Economic growth is considered fundamental to capitalism. Growth implies that resources will always be available. Clearly resources are finite and therefore, growth will at some point reach the limits to growth.
I have been told by my brother-in-law that free enterprise and competition will even the playing field and that it will generate a balanced economic system. And, enterprises that fail are meant to fail, because for whatever reason they did not compete well within the system. However, we all recognize that monopolies are problems to be avoided. Yet, in most ecological models with competitors, competition itself can favor monopoly - that is, the best competitor may always come out on top. If so, that means that free enterprise should breed monopolies. If so, then we cannot allow free enterprise to do that, which means, once we put controls on it, it is no longer free enterprise. If it is not free, then what is it, who controls it and how does it fit into our concept that free enterprise is the end-all of economic models? Thus, when a person uses common sense on issues of which they may not have good knowledge, then common sense can be incorrect. That is, we don't know what we don't know, so we base our common sense on what we think we know.
Basically, we must question ourselves - Is my belief based on evidence, or is it just based on what I already tend to believe and will continue to believe? If it isn't based on evidence, then it isn't based on anything. When we are illiterate with respect to a topic, then we must ask ourself the simple question: "Why do I even have an opinion on this subject?"
This issue, and others, will be touched on every so often, informed by my discussions with family, friends, enemies, radical left-and-right wing soothsayers and naysayers (most of whom are very dogmatic) all within a context of ecological concepts and an evolutionary perspective. I hope it will be as much fun for me as it will be for everybody else.
