Okay, let's examine this:
Let me be absolutely clear: the argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism is NOT that it will somehow magically and automatically better everyone's lives, but that it leaves men free to better themselves *if they so desire*. It has generally been shown that, given the opportunity, most people *do* choose to better themselves.
The problem with such "mixtures" is that they are kind of like dynamite: horrendously unstable. Once you throw principles out the window (for principles, by their very nature, are *absolute*) you've abandoned any means of deciding *when* to choose freedom and *when* to choose controls.
Oh, we'll just do whichever one is better, people say. Better for *whom*? By what standard?
Eminent domain is a *perfect* example of this. Oh, they say, it'll bring in more *tax revenue* if we kick these people out of the houses they've worked for and build a shopping mall. But if that's your principle, what's to stop someone *else* coming along and declaring that your shopping mall ought to be an interstate and kicking *you* out? Once you concede the principle of individual rights--which is what government interference in the economy *invariably* means you have no basis on which to protest when the thieves come.
Individual rights, on the other hands, are ethical principles that provide a bridge between "how should I act?" and "how should I act toward other people?", they are the foundation for an ethical political system. The fundamental right is, of course, the right to life. Since life isn't an automatic function but requires action and goods to sustain it, you also have the derivative rights to liberty and property. These are sometimes referred-to as "negative" rights because they imply no obligation on the part of anyone else---except that they refrain from violating your rights. They are the only proper rights--any other type of right entails a *violation* of someone's rights.
Per capita income is a pretty invalid measure of wealth and/or prosperity in any case because it does not take local prices or availability of goods into account. I can't say much about the corruption because I don't know what standards they use for making that determination, but I do know that the fact that something is "transparent" doesn't mean it's not corrupt. Many practices of Japanese corporations (entrenched nepotism for a specific example) would be anathema in American corporations and desperately covered up, whereas in Japan they're just business as usual.
I think I'll keep the definitions that reflect the facts, thanks.
I certainly love condescension even more than argument from intimidation. You might successfully convince me that you're doing such things without conscious intention, but that's not going to prevent *me* from noticing dirty tactics.ZTBar post=18.74461.842059 said:
So, it's *okay* to support free markets--as long as you don't dare to evaluate them as "good"? Why should I care to support something that I evaluate as *evil*?
Don't care. This is like refusing to install electric power because it's not *guaranteed* to continue working through any conceivable disaster. There are no perfect guarantees in life and no human agency (including the government) can change this situation. I'd rather have power 99% of the time and deal with the occasional power outage.
Let me be absolutely clear: the argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism is NOT that it will somehow magically and automatically better everyone's lives, but that it leaves men free to better themselves *if they so desire*. It has generally been shown that, given the opportunity, most people *do* choose to better themselves.
The involuntary dislocations, corruption, and evils of which I speak are only possible at the behest of government. No person or group of persons *without government force* can kick people out of their houses (eminent domain), force competition off the market (power monopolies) or set ruinously artificial prices (healthcare). It can't be done, because if you're not facing the threat of arrest, seizure, expropriation and jail you can tell anyone and everyone you don't like to go screw themselves. Don't like this job? Find another one. Can't find someone who will hire you on your terms? Start your own company.
Oooh, bait and switch. The Army, the police, and the courts are the proper province of government because they involve the use of force which *must* be strictly controlled if civilization is to exist and continue. A free market does not imply anarchy--in fact, anarchy makes any such thing as freedom *impossible*.
Of course not! No would-be tyrant wants to control *everything*, they just want to get away with controlling the things they regard as *important*. Or, if they're the lesser sort of would-be irrationalist, they just want you to bow to their whims every now and then. Some sort of "mixture" is the way to go, they claim.
The problem with such "mixtures" is that they are kind of like dynamite: horrendously unstable. Once you throw principles out the window (for principles, by their very nature, are *absolute*) you've abandoned any means of deciding *when* to choose freedom and *when* to choose controls.
Oh, we'll just do whichever one is better, people say. Better for *whom*? By what standard?
Eminent domain is a *perfect* example of this. Oh, they say, it'll bring in more *tax revenue* if we kick these people out of the houses they've worked for and build a shopping mall. But if that's your principle, what's to stop someone *else* coming along and declaring that your shopping mall ought to be an interstate and kicking *you* out? Once you concede the principle of individual rights--which is what government interference in the economy *invariably* means you have no basis on which to protest when the thieves come.
Economic cost to WHOM?! Where do you think the money the government proposes to "invest" comes from?
Look, yet another bait and switch! I didn't mention rule of law ANYWHERE, I mentioned *individual rights*. "Rule of law" usually refers to the idea that one must occasionally defer to laws with which one personally disagrees (such as speed limits) because the preservation of a civilized society and the fact that one can continue to oppose such measures via persuasion far outweigh minor inconveniences and it is irrational to make oneself a martyr except in situations of dire extremity.
Individual rights, on the other hands, are ethical principles that provide a bridge between "how should I act?" and "how should I act toward other people?", they are the foundation for an ethical political system. The fundamental right is, of course, the right to life. Since life isn't an automatic function but requires action and goods to sustain it, you also have the derivative rights to liberty and property. These are sometimes referred-to as "negative" rights because they imply no obligation on the part of anyone else---except that they refrain from violating your rights. They are the only proper rights--any other type of right entails a *violation* of someone's rights.
Define "sufficient" in this context. Sufficient for what? Which countries are these? It's no use claiming evidence without pointing to specifics.
Per capita income is a pretty invalid measure of wealth and/or prosperity in any case because it does not take local prices or availability of goods into account. I can't say much about the corruption because I don't know what standards they use for making that determination, but I do know that the fact that something is "transparent" doesn't mean it's not corrupt. Many practices of Japanese corporations (entrenched nepotism for a specific example) would be anathema in American corporations and desperately covered up, whereas in Japan they're just business as usual.
"Well" by what standard? *Which* aspects of the economy?
Our government was specifically set up with the purpose of making it as *difficult as possible* for it to exercise its power--and even so it's sucking us dry. Asking for more of the poison that's killing you is not a long-term winning strategy.
You're talking about two of the MOST regulated and LEAST privatized industries IN THE COUNTRY--and how did it become a GLOBAL crisis with all those lovely conscientious governments in other countries controlling things so much better than we are? The very policies you are suggesting we adopt rendered them utterly impotent. If the U.S. collapses, so do they.
Yeah, it was . . . 120 years ago when we had as close to perfect laissez-faire capitalism as has ever existed in any country on earth. Now we're an increasingly turbulent mixed economy that would have long since lurched itself to final disaster if it weren't for the *amazing* productivity of what little freedom remains.
Rising national debt resulting from government interference in the economy. Economy shrinking due to government interference. Poverty increasing because of government interference. Rising health costs are because of government interference in medicine, specifically the Medicare and Medicaid programs which have led to staggering increases in controls and are rapidly sending us into socialized-medicine hell. Oh, and lobbyists *exist* because of the mixed economy--if the government *can't* interfere in economic matters then what's the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars wooing politicians?
I think I'll keep the definitions that reflect the facts, thanks.
