It doesn't take but 5 minutes listening to the tort reform rhetoric to see that "rule of law" is a socialist, not a capitalist, concept.
Can you think out of the box: show that Capitalism REQUIRES Socialism :D
- Thread starter harrytrader
- Start date
It doesn't take but 5 minutes listening to the tort reform rhetoric to see that "rule of law" is a socialist, not a capitalist, concept.
apparently you are confusing the terms "social" and "socialist;" and "capitalist" with "anti-social."
any group of individuals who mutually agree to cooperate in commerce agree implicitly to be bound by the rule of law. to say this is a "socialist concept" is inaccurate and gives "socialism" far more gravity than it is due. socialism is a philosophical construct invented to describe the manifestation of a breakdown in the rule of law -- overregulation (overcompensation). Embracing socialism is the philosophical equivalent of eating poo-poo.
If so, do you think education is important for growth? If yes, do you think it should be accessible to all, not just the ones able to afford it? Do you think that building infrastructures such as highways, railroads with questionable immediate return on investments but obvious benefits long term can happen in a pure capitalist word?
Yes, education is important for growth. However, I believe the private sector can deliver it much more effectively than the government sector. At the very least, transitioning to a voucher system would be an improvement over the current situation.
Regarding roads + railroads, first of all many of the railroads were privately built. And yes, companies often times take risks, just like at Global Crossing or the current Nano-tech stocks. Some of these projects have taken / will take 5-10 years before the rewards (if any) come through. If anything, investors might be a little too eager to jump into investments with questionable short-term earnings prospects
-Taric
You are, of course, welcome to use any self-serving re-definitions you like. Unfortunately it won't make for much conversation.
Perhaps private sector can deliver it much more effectively (per student), but inevitably some of the population will be priced out in a capitalist society. Unless access is regulated by the government, in which case we are back at the beginning of the question.
Itâs another question which is better; elite education for some of the population or decent education for all.
we'll get nowhere if we aren't on the same page. I sense that there are assumptions and colloquialisms at work that muddy up the debate.
So why don't you tell me what you mean by a "pure capitalist world?" and while you're at it, what do you mean by "socialism?" and do you think it follows that a civil structure that provides for the construction of commonly used infrastructure is necessarily "socialist?"
I understand there are lot of misconception, but since you wrote that âcapital doesn't require anything except rule of lawâ I assumed (incorrectly? ) that you lean toward Libertarianism.
OK, here is my try with definitions. Iâm sure plenty of people will not agree with them.
Capitalism:
An economic system in which private individuals or corporations own and invest in the means of production.
Pure Capitalism :
This would refer something close to Libertarianism : society with sovereign individual property rights and a capitalist free market. Any public services that are deemed valuable, such as law enforcement or education, would be privatized.
Socialism:
Political philosophy that advocates greater public support, defense, and regulation promotion of the private sector
Pure Socialism:
Collective ownership by all the people of the means of production (this is by Marx )
"Socialism" is the distribution of private property and its incidental ownership rights to members of society on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of ability, which is the method used in a "capitalist" system.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -- Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme