Posted on 01/13/2002 8:05:27 AM PST by tonyinv
George Will just uttered the most absurd statement I've ever heard. He said (paraphrasing)
"Rebpublicans need to understand that capitalism is complex web of laws and regulations" and further "that capitalism is a government program"
I knew George Will wasn't exactly a conservative, but this is unbelievable.
Actually this is not true. The first roads in America were private toll roads, and there are private security forces (police) operating all over the world. The question is who provides these services more efficently, government or private companies? In the past government has had the edge but that is beginning to change as services continue to become more specialized.
My economic activity in Russia had nothing to do with their government, not even their tax system. Contrary to your assertion, the existence of capitalism does not require government regulation or interference, anarchy or otherwise. It is you who are confusing political and economic systems.
Monday: Actually this is not true. The first roads in America were private toll roads, and there are private security forces (police) operating all over the world. The question is who provides these services more efficently, government or private companies? In the past government has had the edge but that is beginning to change as services continue to become more specialized.
The key word in my statement was public. Private armies choose whom to defend. Private roads exclude those who either cannot afford or undesirable for other reasons.
If you subscribe to the idea that every cisizen of a village has the right to walk in the streets, and if you want those streets to be lighted, the market economy will fail to help you because of the public nature (indivisible consumption) of street lighting.
The key word is outside. In the absence of the hired gun of government as a proxy, the only way is to wield one (or more) yourself.
She's been beating her breasts for years, believing she taught me how to cuss, wait until she sees that she responsible as well for my "racist" language! Lol ...
(Not to worry ... I'm distinctly color- and sex-blind when using it. I just like the way it sounds. =)
I didn't say that all services commonly refered to as public could be privatized, but only that many could be in the future. Already many neighborhood associations maintain the roads and lighting in their neighborhoods. These are open to the public.
Already many neighborhood associations maintain the roads and lighting in their neighborhoods. These are open to the public. You are absolutely correct. Note, however, that these associations are a form of government in that they have a coercive power. Every member of that locale MUST pay for that lighting. As an outsider, I cannot buy a house there unless I agree to these terms. Your example illusrtates my point.
Hehe, funny thats just the way the private free market works. I cannot buy a hamburger from Burger King unless I agree to their terms. I know what you mean but a neighbor hood assoc. is a voluntary form of gov't. I have a choice, not like the US gov't. although many have a choice there too. LOL, we can always leave for elsewhere if we don't like the way things are run. Called voting with your feet, and I expect increasing numbers of people to do it in the coming decades.
I remember reading that this all stems from the first Corporations which had the title of "Limited (or LTD.)" - meaning limited liability. And this was first granted by the Queen of England to owners of English ships that wanted to do trade across the high seas, but were afraid of being sued by the surviving family of the ship employess if the ship was lost in the seas. So yes there is some good reasons to believe George Will when he says that Capitalisn is a government creation - although that statement misses some other importants parts of the picture of what capitalism is.
Do we? What is the difference between government control and government ownership? I would say little. Yes, there are differences, such as no one tells me what business to start, run, or employ with, but isn't there enough control over commerce such that the government is only a few steps away from total ownership? What about profit? If a corporation must give up 33+% of the profit to the government and the people are taxed at 65% of the money they are paid, isn't that also just a mere technicality between government control and government ownership? If I control 33+% of a company, do I not basically own it? 33% of most companies will certainly control it, and our government does. No, we are not technically a communist state, but we are not that far from it.
I cannot buy a hamburger from Burger King unless I agree to their [sic] terms. Yes, because hamburger is a private good. This is different, in fact, oppposite from street lighting.
I know what you mean but a neighbor hood assoc. is a voluntary form of gov't. All forms of government are voluntary to the same degree.
This is actually a dividing line between libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives see human nature and realize that peace, capitalism and prosperity are impossible without organized coercion. One out of every fifty boys is an aspiring warlord--and if you don't have the organized means to squash them, they screw everything up, including local trading in public stocks.
Libertarians seem to me to imagine that we can just work everything out if only everyone would sign contracts. That works great until some neanderthal with one-hundred buddies carrying sticks with nails in them says "Contracts, I no got to show you no steenking contracts." Libertarians have a much more optimistic view of human nature than conservatives. I can only suppose that they believe that once government is washed away, human nature will change and the neanderthal's followers will see the light and start businesses. I, on the other hand, think human nature will revert. Certainly, all the empirical evidence of history suggests the conservatives are correct.
Capitalism **as we know it** is wholly dependent on organized coercion, such as that provided by the government. Without that organized coercion--private property rights protected by the state, contract rights enforced by the state, predictable organization to society in ten years provided by duly elected constitutional government--capitalism would be a pale shadow of itself.
Would capitalism cease to exist? No. People would still trade. But they would be trading beads, not derivatives.
Yes, there are differences, such as no one tells me what business to start, run, or employ with, but isn't there enough control over commerce such that the government is only a few steps away from total ownership? The answer lies in the details, which few people bother to understand. Specifically, ownership does not imply, and has never in the past implied total control. Across cultures and times. It seems to me that this should be the starting point of comparisons, not some imaginary "absolute control = ownership."
If you look at real estate, for instance, the greatest bundle of rights you may get is fee simple. This is control that you are left with after certain (four categories of) rights have been retaied by the goevernment. This is a part of common law that goes back to XXIII century or so. So, when you own your house, it does not mean that you have absolute control over it.
Once we abandon this abstract and irrelevant idea of absolute control, the only well posed questions that remain are of the form, do I want to give up control in this or that area?
People complain about taxes and view this as blurring boundaries of property rights. This is a twofold error. Firstly, one of the greatest kinds of control exersised with respect to an owned property is the ability to dispose of it. There is hardly any interference in this area: the government does not dicate to you whether, where, to whom, or when you should sell of gift your house. You are taking this for granted, yet this progress was made only when we moved to the "capitalistic" society.
Secondly, your taxes provide you with the ownership of a great number of things. In essense, you hire your government(s) to produce public goods for you that would not be provided in a government-free economy. See my previous posts for examples. What about profit? If a corporation must give up 33+% of the profit to the government and the people are taxed at 65% of the money they are paid (this is Sweedish, not the U.S. rate),
If I control 33+% of a company, do I not basically own it? No, you the government "controls" 33% of the profit, not the assets. You decide what to do with assets. This shows the main problem with your arguments: if you choose to take for granted a huge numbers of freedoms that your property rights provide for you, nothing is going to make you happy. Absolute control has never been implemented in any civilized society. This is an ill posed question.
No, we are not technically a communist state, but we are not that far from it. No comment here. You are not being fair to your own country.
Would capitalism cease to exist? No. People would still trade. But they would be trading beads, not derivatives. Capitalism is defined by property rights, free trade is something else.
Would capitalism cease to exist? No. People would still trade. But they would be trading beads, not derivatives. Capitalism is defined by property rights, free trade is something else.
How and to what extent it emerges depends on context. The government and how it interacts with the market being a big part of the context, the judaeo-christian ethic being another.
So we have only a definitional quibble. What I am calling capitalism is somewhat broader than what you are calling it. It really matters not at all; we do not appear to disagree on substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.