There are those who claim that capitalism based on unregulated competition in a free market is an eminently fair system. Those who ‘produce’ are ‘rewarded’, those who ‘produce’ less are ‘rewarded’ less, and those who do not ‘produce’ are not ‘rewarded’.
Indeed, it is touted as such a wondrous system that there is no problem it cannot cure, and any outside interference is not only unneeded, but, in fact, damaging.
This leads me to propose that such enthusiasts of the system implement it in regard to the raising of their own children.
Would it not kindle the spirit of competitiveness in the little tikes if, before the siblings are capable of producing their ‘worth’, a parent simply puts their daily handout of food on the table, letting them develop and employ their market skills by competing for it? And when they are old enough to begin “carrying their own weight” should they not be allowed to bid on the meals, the one with the greatest amount of accumulated ‘wealth’ naturally getting the choice cuts and greatest quantity, while the least ‘productive’ has to be content with the scraps left from her more ‘productive’ siblings?
The same could be done with the allocation of bedrooms (or amount of floor space for those less well off ‘capitalists’), leaving it up to the market (the individual siblings) to determine the bid price for the best room. For those not yet productive, perhaps a charitable donation of a mat in the garage would not be too corrupting.
Of course, as we all know, fortunes change. Perhaps one of the little neophyte ‘producers’ makes a wrong decision and one of his formerly less productive siblings spies an advantage and moves quickly to “get an edge” before his sibling can recover (No hard feelings, it’s just business) thus catapulting himself to the top of the ‘production’ heap with its attendant ‘rewards’. What better incentive for displaying such initiative?
Fortunately, childhood is full of illness, and that gives a parent the opportunity to demonstrate what happens if one fails to “earn his keep” by falling ill. As the sick sibling’s “rainy day fund” quickly slips away (Food costs money. So does bedroom rent, not to mention an in-home nurse *thanks, Mom!* and meds) his fellow siblings are eagerly eying his assets in anticipation of a desperation sale. The big bedroom with the windows just may be changing hands soon!
This instills in the sick sibling the realization that sickness is no excuse, and instills in the other siblings that another’s misfortune is usually a shrewd person’s opportunity.
As an aside, though it is “tough love,” if a child should become so injured she is no longer able to return to work, should she not be instructed that for the good of the family she must leave?
Surely, if such an eminently fair system can be made available to adults in our society, we can and should extend its benefits and lessons to the children. There is simply no telling where the economy would go or how high the stock market would soar if America were to develop an emotionally strong, market oriented, bottom line, family structure honed to a razor sharp competitive edge!
Rather than constantly attempting to wed some corrupted form of Christianity to capitalism in an attempt to lend it moral status, should we not simply acknowledge the objective morality of free market capitalism and its superiority over religious rant?