While I’ve never taken much of what is written in the Alligator to be worthy of print, the ignorance of Wednesday’s editorial left me slack-jawed. I can’t say for sure which parts most showed the complete disregard for history and, more disgustingly, the implied lack of intelligence of the Alligator’s average reader.
Perhaps the first indication of the drivel to follow is the hyperbolic lead with its oh-so-subtle critique of supply and demand.
The editors may wish to consider no one is forcing the parched passerby to patronize the avaricious young entrepreneur.
The editors may also wish to consider which agent has most successfully “brainwashed” its citizens. Upon consideration they would find them to be the wonderful and hardly free-market National Socialists, the Stalinists of the communist Russian utopia, the ever-peaceful Mao Zedong and his disciples.
In the mind of any rational person, the succeeding paragraphs can only solidify the opinion that the press is generally less informed than the public on matters of import.
We are not made great by capitalism; we are great because the capitalist system allows us to make ourselves great. The huge advances in quality of life over the past 200 years derive from the proliferation of capitalism in the West. Even in the face of enormous restrictions on trade, the free market and its individualism produced practically everything we can’t live without today. To deny that is to deny history, human accomplishment and the human mind.
Capitalism at work is billions of people all voluntarily engaging each other through trade for their own desires. Capitalism at work is food surpluses, effective medicines, easier travel and faster communication. The free market is founded on mutual benefit and mutual agreement, not on guns or the megalomaniacal schemes of “the people’s” leaders. That, to me, seems fair.
It’s good the editors won’t be burning Milton Friedman effigies. Bonfires and illogical beliefs should be the realm of fundamentalist churches, not newspapers.
And to answer the facetious rhetorical question capping the editorial: No, your lemonade stand would not have worked any better.
Lazy Johnny would have used his popularity to get out of doing work and set himself up as leader. Then he would have had his bullies intimidate the other children into doing as he wished. When you dared to question him, he would have them force you to work building his illustrious New People’s Playground of Solidarity, where you would eventually die.
All the while no one would be served any lemonade.
Editor's note: This letter refers to this editorial.
