Duty to Support Capitalism?

One of the definitions of altruism is the belief that people have a moral obligation to help others. That is the sense that I am using here.  I do not mean the practice of helping others nor am I referring to the belief that it is virtuous to do so.  I mean to use this term narrowly to indicate the belief that we have a moral obligation to help others.

If we reject altruism, as Ayn Rand suggested, then where would a duty to support capitalism come from?  The burden of proof belongs to the person asserting a moral obligation because an obligation implies that punishment is appropriate if the obligation is not met.  At the very least we have the punishment of blame.

It seems plausible to assert that opposition to altruism is valid.  It is not obvious that we will improve the world by imposing an obligation to help others.  We might do better by restricting ourselves to positive inducements.

Now we have an obligation to respect property rights.  Theft has an obvious victim.  No society could function without property rights.  Indeed even the ones that are most hostile to capitalism will still have laws against theft.

Some have misunderstood Ayn Rand's philosophy as claiming that it was immoral to take benefits from the social welfare state.  In fact she said that this wasn't the case at all.  I think this follows from a rejection of altruism.  The social welfare state has as its premise that the state has an obligation to look after the poor.  Ayn Rand disputed this assertion.  She made no assertion that once a social welfare state was set up, that you had a moral obligation not to take advantage of its programs.

The benefits and taxes associated with the social welfare state are given and taken from people regardless of their political position.  You cannot legally exempt yourself from taxation simply because you don't morally support it.  Likewise you don't give up the right to collect benefits simply because you believe that no one is entitled to that kind of benefit.

Suppose we have a rule utilitarian who holds that the world would be a better place if there were no social welfare state.  The majority in that society disagree, so there is a social welfare state.  The majority have decided that everyone is entitled to receive benefits provided they meet the economic criteria.  If we took the opposite case where we had a supporter of the social welfare state in a society where the majority were opposed, we wouldn't impose a special tax on that individual.  Under both systems each individual is treated equally according to the rules that the majority have put in place.  You don't give up your rights by opposing majority opinion.

But how does this relate to an obligation to support capitalism.  As far as capitalism is a political position it doesn't.  It might very well pay to avoid the type of person who regards individual theft to be acceptable.  They might rob you.  It is easy to see how blame for theft would be effective.  The people you talk with will generally not want to be around people who are likely to rob them.  A reputation for theft could be potentially damaging.

However, that is different from the question we are considering.  We want to know what sort of moral forces we should apply in order to encourage people to support individual property rights against the state.  That is we want to know whether there are any reasons why a reputation regarding an individual's position on the social welfare state should be damaging.  Would the way that an individual voted give valuable information about the value of associating with that individual.

I argue that it would not.  First, even if the way an individual voted told you something about their character, since we vote by secret ballot an offense would be undetectable.  And in the second place how an individual believes the state should act might not give you very reliable information about how they would personally act unless you're considering whether or not you should vote for them.

So I fail to see why this would lead to an obligation to support capitalism.  Why isn't this considered self-immolation?  Sure if large numbers of people would support capitalism this would give us more market oriented government policy, but this seems similar to the claim that the world would be a better place if everyone would act for the greater good.

Still I suppose it is best to act with integrity.  When you talk about politics with other people, you need to be able to make a convincing argument that shows that you believe that the way you are voting promotes the greater good.