While you may believe the world shares your vocabulary it doesn't. Capitalism was the economic system created by the bourgeoise (or vice versa) and is that because of its connection with the creation of capital. A simple definition in the Dictionary of Economics is " An economic system based upon the private ownership of all kinds of property and the freedom of the individual to contract with others and to engage in economic activities of his own choice and for his own profit and well-being."
It is simply false that Hamilton proposed or implemented a "widescale state intervention." Hamilton's push to bring capitalist development to the US was one of the factors which drove the opposition to his program. He was a prime mover in the development of capitalism in the US. Jefferson, particularly, was opposed to such developments believing any system not dependent upon agriculture was evil in nature.
Never claimed you cited Rand's book.
As I pointed out months ago a 15% tariff is not protective whether you believe it to be or not. A protective tariff is often 100% or more. Bounties were a means H used in order to help build up industries necessary for the national defense. He would have never suggested them as a means of protecting mature industries other than defense.
Hamilton's goal was to develop a new style of thought in America consistent with capitalist development and to bring about the Rule of Law. It was to change the entire mindset of the People and usher in the modern era which he could see being born. He was as far from backward looking as one can be and his foresight helped create the wonderful country we share today. There was nothing Mercantilistic in the creation of the National bank which went against everything Mercantilism stood for particularly the great concern to run positive trade balances in order to accumulate specie. From any indication H had little or no concern about the trade balance per se. Your mania to squeeze into convenient pigeon holes things which do not fit is rather amusing.
...says the man who arbitrarily redefines the term to include massive state interventionism of the neo-mercantilist kind.
Capitalism was the economic system created by the bourgeoise (or vice versa) and is that because of its connection with the creation of capital.
In other words, you accept Marx's definition of a word with an etymology that predates him by more than a century. It's nice to see your true colors showing through though.
A simple definition in the Dictionary of Economics is " An economic system based upon the private ownership of all kinds of property and the freedom of the individual to contract with others and to engage in economic activities of his own choice and for his own profit and well-being."
...the key being _private ownership of all kinds of property_, as in all is owned and controlled by individuals rather than the state. Thank you for supporting my case, however unintended it may have been.
It is simply false that Hamilton proposed or implemented a "widescale state intervention."
You keep telling yourself that and see if it makes it any less wrong. All I need to know to rebut it is his Report on Manufactures.
Never claimed you cited Rand's book.
Then why did you bring both her and it into this discussion?
As I pointed out months ago a 15% tariff is not protective whether you believe it to be or not.
It is when the difference between the world price and the domestic price of the protected good is 14.999% or less.
A protective tariff is often 100% or more.
Generally speaking, the average rate for the United States in periods that are considered "protectionist" (i.e. the late 1820's, the 1860's, 1842-46) ranges somewhere in the 30-60% range. 100% ad valorem is NOT necessary for a tariff to be protectionist and, technically speaking, even a 1% tariff could serve that role if the difference between the domestic and world prices were less than 1%.