Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unrestricted slavery, sharecropping, exploitative businesses running sweatshops, peasants and serfs being bound to the land and therefore bought and sold with the land, etc. These are all the sorts of things that you find in a system as it begins to approach pure Laissez Faire.
Slavery and serfdom/feudalism could not exist under a laissez-faire economy unless a person were so desperate as to relinquish all his/her freedom for an asset. I doubt that many of us would consider that under any conditions, but even if so, it could be prohibited by law, or in extreme circumstances, by amending the Constitution. But regardless of that, involuntary servitude requires the co-operation of the machinery of a government (nation-state) which represents a legalized monopoly on the use of force - the power to coerce by depriving a citizen of his/her life, liberty or property.
The feudal system developed hundreds of years before what has come to be called the Enlightenment -- the basic realization by a handful of better-educated individuals that human beings have individual personal rights -- and slavery predates all of human history. It was the formation of circles of enlightened men, on both sides of the Atlantic, that finally focused human attention on the immorality of the slave trade; capitalism, which began among small independent tradesmen, had very little to do with it.
Communism has always been closely affiliated with a strict philosophical underpinning; Marx firmly subscribed to a theory called economic determinism; he believed that capitalism would lead to revolution, and that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which followed would eventually "wither away" as the Workers' Paradise evolved; Fat Chance!
And capitalism has had its own, somewhat smaller (and loosely-organized, since it rejects most coercion) philosophical underpinning, mostly in the writings of Ayn Rand and her successors. This movement, with which I became well-acquainted in my undergraduate years (c. 1970), was probably directly spawned by the high-water mark of organized Marxism in the late Fifties, but it is not as strong an influence in recent years. During the time of Rand, Karl Hess and Murray Rothbard, it was fashionable for some dreamers within Rand's Objectivist philosophy to envision a "society without coercion" where every possible function was left to the private sector, but I doubt this would have much appeal today due to the increasingly-fragile nature of daily life in a post-industrial economy.
But it should be recognized that the bureaucratic state proposed by the so-called "progressives" cannot expand infinitely; the responsibilities, and incentives toward greater productivity rest with the individual, and the bureaucrat has absolutely no incentive to operate efficiently -- only to expand his/her clientele and sycophancy. That argument, combined with the recognition that personal and economic freedom are inexorably linked, are the two basic points on which most advocates for capitalism and freedom of enterprise share common ground.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-08-2016 at 08:55 PM..
Slavery and serfdom/feudalism could not exist under a laissez-faire economy unless a person were so desperate as to relinquish all his/her freedom for an asset. I doubt that many of us would consider that under any conditions, but even if so, it could be prohibited by law, or in extreme circumstances, by amending the Constitution. But regardless of that, involuntary servitude requires the co-operation of the machinery of a government (nation-state) which represents a legalized monopoly on the use of force - the power to coerce by depriving a citizen of his/her life, liberty or property.
The feudal system developed hundreds of years before what has come to be called the Enlightenment -- the basic realization by a handful of better-educated individuals that human beings have individual personal rights -- and slavery predates all of human history. It was the formation of circles of enlightened men, on both sides of the Atlantic, that finally focused human attention on the immorality of the slave trade; capitalism, which began among small independent tradesmen, had very little to do with it.
Communism has always been closely affiliated with a strict philosophical underpinning; Marx firmly subscribed to a theory called economic determinism; he believed that capitalism would lead to revolution, and that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which followed would eventually "wither away" as the Workers' Paradise evolved; Fat Chance!
And capitalism has had its own, somewhat smaller (and loosely-organized, since it rejects most coercion) philosophical underpinning, mostly in the writings of Ayn Rand and her successors. This movement, with which I became well-acquainted in my undergraduate years (c. 1970), was probably directly spawned by the high-water mark of organized Marxism in the late Fifties, but it is not as strong an influence in recent years. During the time of Rand, Karl Hess and Murray Rothbard, it was fashionable for some dreamers within Rand's Objectivist philosophy to envision a "society without coercion" where every possible function was left to the private sector, but I doubt this would have much appeal today due to the increasingly-fragile nature of daily life in a post-industrial economy.
But it should be recognized that the bureaucratic state proposed by the so-called "progressives" cannot expand infinitely; the responsibilities, and incentives toward greater productivity rest with the individual, and the bureaucrat has absolutely no incentive to operate efficiently -- only to expand his/her clientele and sycophancy. That argument, combined with the recognition that personal and economic freedom are inexorably linked, are the two basic points on which most advocates for capitalism and freedom of enterprise share common ground.
Agreed that Socialism has gone too far in the USA. We are being crushed under poorly regulated and easily defrauded social programs to the point that they constitute 2/3 of the federal budget -- which effectively makes them 2/3 of our tax burden. I'm quite passionate about stopping the insanity.
The premise set forth by the OP was flawed. There are some that seem to think that Socialism only exists in pure Communism. This is false of course. Socialism to a limited extent exists in every human civilization that has ever existed. Capitalism and Socialism are the yin and yang of of economic theory. No system has ever existed that did not contain some of each. The very existence of a government and it's involvement with any part of the economy is a limited form of Socialism.
Utopist Anarchy is a failed pipe-dream theorizing that if you completely eliminate government, everyone will hold hands, sing Kumbaya and get along perfectly, yet it is from that very utopian origin that the Libertarians in America found their beginnings. We've evolved away that much as the Democrats have evolved away from championing the cause of slavery. The Anarchist-style Libertarianism would have never appealed to me but the movement in it's present for fits my worldview perfectly. At this point, the Libertarian Party has the perfect cure for what ails America: Have the federal government do less. A lot less. Presently, the US government does way too much and far too much that is counterproductive waste of money and resources.
Agreed that Socialism has gone too far in the USA. We are being crushed under poorly regulated and easily defrauded social programs to the point that they constitute 2/3 of the federal budget -- which effectively makes them 2/3 of our tax burden. I'm quite passionate about stopping the insanity.
When the government can take from the poor and middle class to bail out the richest of the rich, indeed it has gone too far.
Of course the USA is partially Socialist....it's a matter of degrees. How much of your income is taken to support the group? In the USA, the average is 18%, Denmark is 55%, Canada is 37%. I personally like the USA model as it worked out really well for me but I would be okay with the Canadian model. I also would have been okay under the Denmark model, I just would have worked a lot less.
Most people against Socialism, think Communism = Socialism. They've been brainwashed into thinking it's some sort of evil structure. Meanwhile Capitalism is crushing them.
Socialism as defined by Karl Marx is where the government/public owns all of the means of production and means of distribution. He describes it as an evolutionary phase between Capitalism and Communism where competition dies and cooperation reigns.
Capitalism as defined by Adam Smith has free market competition and private ownership of the means of production and distribution, but it does not exclude the government protecting workers (he supported worker pensions, union rights, etc) nor does it exclude any government interaction to secure fair competition. Competition is the #1 ingredient.
As Denmark says, they are NOT socialists. They are a free market with a large safety net -- compatible with Capitalism.
This can't be repeated enough -- Denmark arguably has a freer market than the USA by many measures. Things like national healthcare in fact enhance capitalism, as it allows smaller businesses to compete for workers more readily with larger companies. It allows for workers to be more productive and compete at what they are best at without care for taking a job specifically for healthcare benefits.
I would argue that capitalism has brought the masses out of poverty and that most people twist the original definitions around to fit their cause.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 03-09-2016 at 04:53 AM..
Agreed that Socialism has gone too far in the USA. We are being crushed under poorly regulated and easily defrauded social programs to the point that they constitute 2/3 of the federal budget -- which effectively makes them 2/3 of our tax burden. I'm quite passionate about stopping the insanity.
That being the case then in your opinion we should be striving to rid ourselves of these evil social programs?= List of government social programs
American prison life is the ultimate socialism, where the inhabitants must group with their own kind to survive.
Barter and smuggleation are frowned upon by the authorities.
Authoritarians are always frowning.
To me, they are just frown clowns.
Trump's not a frowner.
He has perfected the art of the grump.
He has, better than anyone I've ever seen, perfected the grump look.
The Trump grump will get him elected.
He attacks people to get them to attack back, then during the back-attack, he grumps "justifiably".
Genius! Pure genius!
The Trump Grump resonates with zillions of people.
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 03-09-2016 at 10:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
