Thread: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, or Socialism?

Mostly free market, only socialism would be police and similar jobs (not heath). A totally free economy would not work, but you cant over socialize it either. No competitive business should be owned by the government. A healthcare would work as long as it is EMERGENCY only, and cannot be abused. However, that is almost impossible.

Originally Posted by sheogorath

Mostly free market, only socialism would be police and similar jobs (not heath). A totally free economy would not work, but you cant over socialize it either. No competitive business should be owned by the government. A healthcare would work as long as it is EMERGENCY only, and cannot be abused. However, that is almost impossible.

How would a totally free economy not work?

The only problem with a totally free economy is that it is based on what is best long term, so short term problems may show up. They all get worked out in time, however people get all upset and so many people can't see anything past today.

People want short term gain, and don't care about the long term. Which is why we have so many problems in the country today.

How would a totally free economy not work?

It would work fine until companies monopolize themselves and eventually shift the direction of the world.

That isn't much a of a threat in a free market, atleast in any long term or permanent biases.

like alric and absolute said, there would be monopoly and it would be the equivalent of anarchy. There would not really be any laws because there would be private businesses being the police, and who would stop them if they chose not to obey s certain law?

Originally Posted by Absolute

It would work fine until companies monopolize themselves and eventually shift the direction of the world.

Twist and turn the monopoly problem as one may, one always comes back to the fact that monopoly prices are possible only where there is control over natural resources of a particular kind or where legislative enactment's and their administration create the necessary conditions for the formation of monopolies. In the unhampered development of the economy, with the exception of mining and related branches of production, there is no tendency toward the exclusion of competition.

-Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism"

http://mises.org/story/621
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10d.asp

Originally Posted by sheogorath

like alric and absolute said, there would be monopoly and it would be the equivalent of anarchy. There would not really be any laws because there would be private businesses being the police, and who would stop them if they chose not to obey s certain law?

What's wrong with anarchy?

Also, if there were no laws, what would be the problem with private police companies not obeying the laws?

I meant that there would be virtually no laws because the private companies would not obey them.

Whats wrong with anarchy is lack of organization. Organization is crucial when it comes to situations like war. Anarchy would maybe work in a full world anarchy situation, but if you want examples of how it fails in the real world just look at the tribes in africa. Is that not what anarchy would be like? You would have gangs of people (not everybody, but some) that would basicaly contoll certain areas.

As human beings, we abuse our rights when given too much, but at the same time, become restless when with none. The only way to solve this is to give us "enough" rights so that we FEEL like we are in charge, and we FEEL like we have power over our own lives.

just IMHO

Originally Posted by sheogorath

I meant that there would be virtually no laws because the private companies would not obey them.

Whats wrong with anarchy is lack of organization. Organization is crucial when it comes to situations like war. Anarchy would maybe work in a full world anarchy situation, but if you want examples of how it fails in the real world just look at the tribes in africa. Is that not what anarchy would be like? You would have gangs of people (not everybody, but some) that would basicaly contoll certain areas.

As human beings, we abuse our rights when given too much, but at the same time, become restless when with none. The only way to solve this is to give us "enough" rights so that we FEEL like we are in charge, and we FEEL like we have power over our own lives.

just IMHO

How is there a lack of organization? If by organization you mean government, then yes. There will be organization, but among individuals through voluntary actions, like trade, commerce, and everything in general. If Anarchy can work world-wide (in fact we have Anarchy between nations right now since there is no world government), why not between states, cities, individuals?

Give me information on how some African countries are in anarchy and not just governed by warlords.

You have to understand, though, that anarchy is chaos. There would be good people, bad people, and indifferent each having the power to do what they want. Rape, loot, and murder is an example. What would inevitably happen is organizations sprouting from the chaos that then become factions and eventual empires depending on their natural management of people and resources.

Twist and turn the monopoly problem as one may, one always comes back to the fact that monopoly prices are possible only where there is control over natural resources of a particular kind or where legislative enactment's and their administration create the necessary conditions for the formation of monopolies. In the unhampered development of the economy, with the exception of mining and related branches of production, there is no tendency toward the exclusion of competition.

-Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism"

Which is what we precisely saw with Shell Oil in the past when they were making more money than the United States Government at one point.

Originally Posted by Absolute

You have to understand, though, that anarchy is chaos. There would be good people, bad people, and indifferent each having the power to do what they want. Rape, loot, and murder is an example. What would inevitably happen is organizations sprouting from the chaos that then become factions and eventual empires depending on their natural management of people and resources.

Ridiculous. There would be no chaos because that would lead, as you described, to rape, loot, and murder, which would violate property rights, etc. Rape (violating property rights), loot (stealing/theft, violating property rights), murder (violating your general right to live) would be handled by private court systems and work somewhat similar to how they work now through contracts and their own legal codes. The families would be reimbursed through whatever means, whether it's monetary or imprisonment (though I'm not sure prisons would even exist in a free society because the victim's family/the victim them self would have to pay to keep the criminal in prison) or some other means.

Plus, you assume that everyone that is a respectable person now would suddenly change and just go and kill someone for no reason.

As for factions sprouting up, where will they get their power from? They would have to monopolize in a free society, and I've already explained monopoly in a free society.

I am not an anarchist , and I have no problem with the government stepping in to stop illegal things that are harmful to people. However, I would rather have anarchy, than the super government we have today.

Ridiculous. There would be no chaos because that would lead, as you described, to rape, loot, and murder, which would violate property rights, etc. Rape (violating property rights), loot (stealing/theft, violating property rights), murder (violating your general right to live) would be handled by private court systems and work somewhat similar to how they work now through contracts and their own legal codes. The families would be reimbursed through whatever means, whether it's monetary or imprisonment (though I'm not sure prisons would even exist in a free society because the victim's family/the victim them self would have to pay to keep the criminal in prison) or some other means.

I don't see why this is ridiculous nor do I appreciate such a declaration. In an anarchist society, there is no private court system, nor is there any entitlement to follow a law. I don't see why you are arguing for anarchy unless if I have some sort of misunderstanding? Unless if you mean a community-based society that is decentralized, then that would refer to the ORIGINAL format of Karl Marx's ideology, which was never instituted into a sovereign nation since it abolished any form of a currency-based economy or class based structure.

Plus, you assume that everyone that is a respectable person now would suddenly change and just go and kill someone for no reason.

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when order is non-existant. There were countless rapes, murders, and theft. We can also see disorder in some African countries where the government hardly has any control and people do as they please regardless of morals. People do it even in an ORDERED society and try to get away with it when an attempt of moral laws are continuously enforced.

As for factions sprouting up, where will they get their power from? They would have to monopolize in a free society, and I've already explained monopoly in a free society.

Once you have someone that is capable of converting people into their form of thinking, it does not take long until more can rally under such an umbrella. It is how religions and previous empires have started in the past. This is self-evident, is it not?

Mixed. The government does need to do its job of protecting the people while giving them the opportunity to do as they wish and allow for economic innovation.

We learned that the second week in my Economics class.

First off, sorry for getting to this so late.

Originally Posted by Absolute

I don't see why this is ridiculous nor do I appreciate such a declaration. In an anarchist society, there is no private court system, nor is there any entitlement to follow a law. I don't see why you are arguing for anarchy unless if I have some sort of misunderstanding? Unless if you mean a community-based society that is decentralized, then that would refer to the ORIGINAL format of Karl Marx's ideology, which was never instituted into a sovereign nation since it abolished any form of a currency-based economy or class based structure.

Why would there be no private court systems?

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when order is non-existant. There were countless rapes, murders, and theft. We can also see disorder in some African countries where the government hardly has any control and people do as they please regardless of morals. People do it even in an ORDERED society and try to get away with it when an attempt of moral laws are continuously enforced.

But why did New Orleans end up in the condition that it did? Could it have been the government-owned levees, maintained by the Army Corp. of Engineers? Maybe the drainage system, operated by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board? Note that I'm not saying that private ownership would've guaranteed 100% efficiency when it comes to drainage and levees. Could private ownership have done it better? Most likely. There would've been a profit/loss initiative to build stronger levees and a better drainage system.

Don't forget that New Orleans was militarized shortly after the hurricane hit. Citizens were disarmed, which almost certainly led to more looting.

And remember FEMA and its...less than acceptable response to the disaster.

And as far as I know, most African "anarchist" countries are run by warlords or just corrupt warlord-influence governments (so basically, they're not anarchist).

Once you have someone that is capable of converting people into their form of thinking, it does not take long until more can rally under such an umbrella. It is how religions and previous empires have started in the past. This is self-evident, is it not?

Possibly, but again, where would these factions get their power? In an Anarcho-Capitalist society they would have to monopolize, and free markets make monopolies impossible.

My god two anarchists are jacking every thread and turning it into an anarchism thread.

Definition of Anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder:

1. A state of society without government or law would produce people fending for themselves. No law enforcement would create the open doorway for people to do as they please, unless all of humanity was subject to the fellow acceptance of acceptable ethics and morals.

2. Social and political disorder is self explanatory with the absence of law enforcement or bureaucracy.

3. This theory is a nice one, but in practice, with the present state of humanity the way that it is, it would not allow any form of perfect union since there are those who do not embrace any morales and only follow the fulfillment of their self indulgent desires regardless if it is at the cost of another.

4. Self explanatory in its own way.

Why would there be no private court systems?

Because there would be no justification of jurisdiction within distances and communities, nor would there be any type of law enforcement for someone to abide to a particular law or be sent to court. If any type of court system was in existence, it would have to be communised, and then, you'd be breaching into the category of communism. You seem to have the view that anarchy would solve problems, when really you want a theoretical ideology that could benefit society as a whole, supply basic needs, eliminate class structure, still have some type of laws and ethics to abide to, and equality above everyone. I would recommend you to switch views on anarchy over to Karl Marx's actual version of Communism, since it was never actually implemented in any society.

But why did New Orleans end up in the condition that it did? Could it have been the government-owned levees, maintained by the Army Corp. of Engineers? Maybe the drainage system, operated by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board? Note that I'm not saying that private ownership would've guaranteed 100% efficiency when it comes to drainage and levees. Could private ownership have done it better? Most likely. There would've been a profit/loss initiative to build stronger levees and a better drainage system.

Don't forget that New Orleans was militarized shortly after the hurricane hit. Citizens were disarmed, which almost certainly led to more looting.

And remember FEMA and its...less than acceptable response to the disaster.

Whilst I can agree that the management of the political bureaucrats was incompetent, whether or not it was appropriately managed would have still produced people to induce into higher amounts of crime. The reason WHY it was militarized was because of the amount of chaos that was happening in the first place. They sent thousands of military personnel into the area to secure it. That's why martial law was declared.

And as far as I know, most African "anarchist" countries are run by warlords or just corrupt warlord-influence governments (so basically, they're not anarchist).

It would still be considered anarchy since only parts of the country are under direct influence of the warlord, whilst other regions are rampant with other factions or gangs that do as they please, and the warlords have a difficult time at controling it.

Possibly, but again, where would these factions get their power? In an Anarcho-Capitalist society they would have to monopolize, and free markets make monopolies impossible.

You couldn't have an anarcho-capitalist society because a corporation would acquire monopolizationt through dominion in the free market, whether its the production of a necessary resource or a product that someone always desires. Without any type of centralized monitoring in a free market system, a company like Shell Oil could have eventually bought out the United States in the last century, or would use it as a puppet government. Regulatory measures need to be put into play, otherwise if I were evil, I could turn a company into a conglomerate that also is based on some form of military and I could do whatever I want, pay whatever minimum wage, and anything else. With any sense of capitalism in an anarchist based economy, people would still be slaves to the dollar and it would only be a matter of time until people would round together under the leadership of someone who promises them something, or just did as they told for their money.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

My god two anarchists are jacking every thread and turning it into an anarchism thread.

Meh, it's just a spur of the moment thing.

Lol! I posted one minute before you. You probably didn't notice my post. Let me know what you think of my responses. =)

Originally Posted by Absolute

Definition of Anarchy:

1. A state of society without government or law would produce people fending for themselves. No law enforcement would create the open doorway for people to do as they please, unless all of humanity was subject to the fellow acceptance of acceptable ethics and morals.

2. Social and political disorder is self explanatory with the absence of law enforcement or bureaucracy.

3. This theory is a nice one, but in practice, with the present state of humanity the way that it is, it would not allow any form of perfect union since there are those who do not embrace any morales and only follow the fulfillment of their self indulgent desires regardless if it is at the cost of another.

4. Self explanatory in its own way.

Where are you getting the implication that I'm advocating no law? I'm advocating no government. The two are different.

People would defend themselves, which is a basic ability to be honest, or hire companies to protect them. There would be police, obviously, but not the kind of ones we have now. The company employing them has a profit/loss incentive to do well to their clients, or else, you know...They wouldn't get paid and go out of business.

Because there would be no justification of jurisdiction within distances and communities, nor would there be any type of law enforcement for someone to abide to a particular law or be sent to court. If any type of court system was in existence, it would have to be communised, and then, you'd be breaching into the category of communism. You seem to have the view that anarchy would solve problems, when really you want a theoretical ideology that could benefit society as a whole, supply basic needs, eliminate class structure, still have some type of laws and ethics to abide to, and equality above everyone. I would recommend you to switch views on anarchy over to Karl Marx's actual version of Communism, since it was never actually implemented in any society.

Again, there would be law enforcement, but not the kind we have now that just does whatever it wants because it can't go out of business (because it's supported by the government). And why would private court systems be communized? Do you even have any idea of what I'm advocating? Do you know nothing of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism? You're making baseless assertions.

Whilst I can agree that the management of the political bureaucrats was incompetent, whether or not it was appropriately managed would have still produced people to induce into higher amounts of crime. The reason WHY it was militarized was because of the amount of chaos that was happening in the first place. They sent thousands of military personnel into the area to secure it. That's why martial law was declared.

What do you think the causes of said chaos were? The hurricane itself, the poorly maintained levees and drainage systems that caused massive flooding, overpopulation in an area that normally wouldn't be as populated due to government subsidies (that got people to work/live there), etc.

And realize what you are saying. "Under government, there would be little to no chaos." And yet, during Katrina, we had government, and there was lots of chaos.

It would still be considered anarchy since only parts of the country are under direct influence of the warlord, whilst other regions are rampant with other factions or gangs that do as they please, and the warlords have a difficult time at controling it.

Let's take a look at Somalia: http://mises.org/story/2066. Movements to install central governments are causing these warlords/clans to do power grabs and fight each other.

You couldn't have an anarcho-capitalist society because a corporation would acquire monopolizationt through dominion in the free market, whether its the production of a necessary resource or a product that someone always desires. Without any type of centralized monitoring in a free market system, a company like Shell Oil could have eventually bought out the United States in the last century, or would use it as a puppet government. Regulatory measures need to be put into play, otherwise if I were evil, I could turn a company into a conglomerate that also is based on some form of military and I could do whatever I want, pay whatever minimum wage, and anything else. With any sense of capitalism in an anarchist based economy, people would still be slaves to the dollar and it would only be a matter of time until people would round together under the leadership of someone who promises them something, or just did as they told for their money.

For the ump-teenth time, monopolies could not exist in the free market.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

My god two anarchists are jacking every thread and turning it into an anarchism thread.

Well this is about just economic theories. To quote Murray Rothbard:
'Anarchism is Capitalism and Capitalism is anarchism' meaning that the full extent of what capitalism implies [ private property ] also afford certain rights towards such things that cannot be violated by outside actors such as the government. The only ruler is yourself. Therefore the fullest extent of individual sovereignty is where you can actually acquire the fruits of your labor and be able to freely trade and buy and sell. I noticed that there are some Ron Paul fans here and one of the things that Ron Paul wants to do is end legal tender laws. What this would mean is the belief that the free-market is capable of providing a sound medium of exchange such as gold and silver. Now it is strange to say that the market can provide all these services including money yet somehow defense and legal services alludes the capabilities of the market. The government isn't some mystical force that can actually provide something that the market can't. It is a question of which system can provide it better, not necessarily which one can or can't. Now being Austrian economists, for the most part, in the Ron Paul movement or other 'liberty-minded' units, it is inconsistent to say that a monopoly can provide an efficient, cost-effect service.

Where are you getting the implication that I'm advocating no law? I'm advocating no government. The two are different.

Yes, but without some form of governance to regulate the credibility of a law enforcement agency or company is the problem. If no one is there to keep an eye on them, they could control the community versus protecting them.

People would defend themselves, which is a basic ability to be honest, or hire companies to protect them. There would be police, obviously, but not the kind of ones we have now. The company employing them has a profit/loss incentive to do well to their clients, or else, you know...They wouldn't get paid and go out of business.

What about a pair of young females being overrun by a bunch of horny raiders? What about a careless psycho who has a gun and wants to take someone's house, and the family ends up getting murdered because all they had was knifes and pitch forks on a farm? The point is that not everyone can defend oneself when there is no order.

As for an enforcement agency, the problem returns into play where what regulates a company from growing too large, manufacturing powerful technology & services, then expanding beyond their own community/communities?

Again, there would be law enforcement, but not the kind we have now that just does whatever it wants because it can't go out of business (because it's supported by the government). And why would private court systems be communized? Do you even have any idea of what I'm advocating? Do you know nothing of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism? You're making baseless assertions.

From what I was reading, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were arguing for complete Anarchy entirely with just a free market in place. I did some research into anarcho-capitalism and it sounds very intriguing, but the problem is, again, regulation to keep the agencies in check. Since these companies are also financed through insurance companies, we'd also be running into a problem of the insurance companies having power over the defense of a community or area, which in turn could produce illegitimate enforcement.

What do you think the causes of said chaos were? The hurricane itself, the poorly maintained levees and drainage systems that caused massive flooding, overpopulation in an area that normally wouldn't be as populated due to government subsidies (that got people to work/live there), etc.

And realize what you are saying. "Under government, there would be little to no chaos." And yet, during Katrina, we had government, and there was lots of chaos.

The hurricane itself, exactly that. Something that removes the sense of law enforcement and order in a community or society is going to produce chaos. Although they may have mismanaged everything, if it were not for the martial law set into place and thousands of troops, it would have taken a much longer to bring order back into the area.

Let's take a look at Somalia: http://mises.org/story/2066. Movements to install central governments are causing these warlords/clans to do power grabs and fight each other.

Of course, because illegitimate people are placed into these positions. If the right people were there in the appropriate office, and if power was in my opinion decentralized, more power would be in the people's hands. I do not agree with centralized power unless if it is toward the management of a corporation.

For the ump-teenth time, monopolies could not exist in the free market.

This, in itself, is contradicting the free market.

A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud.

An example of how a corporation can become a monopoly is through joint ventures and acquisitions of its competing companies. In other cases, they can provide their product or service completely better and put their competitor out of business, too. When they become so very large, they have an immense level of control. While, I will say that the order in an anarcho-capitalist society would rest in the executive board of companies (which I like greatly), it still leaves room for a power-hungry madman.

I just personally think that a different economic system would be more suitable, just maybe with a little more regulation to make sure that it does not grow too large.

I like this, though. Should we start a new topic on Anarcho-capitalism? I really like the idea. It's fucking cool. I love it.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Yes, but without some form of governance to regulate the credibility of a law enforcement agency or company is the problem. If no one is there to keep an eye on them, they could control the community versus protecting them.

Why not let the consumers decide the credibility of a law enforcement company? If a company is doing practices that the consumers think are unethical or just wrong, the company won't get any clients.

What about a pair of young females being overrun by a bunch of horny raiders? What about a careless psycho who has a gun and wants to take someone's house, and the family ends up getting murdered because all they had was knifes and pitch forks on a farm? The point is that not everyone can defend oneself when there is no order.

This kind of stuff happens now, even with our current police system. They can't be everywhere and stop all crimes in their tracks. I'm not saying private companies will be omni-present, but they'll have a contractual and profit/loss incentive to protect their clients.

And why will the farmers (in this case) only have knives and pitch forks? Did we jump to the middle ages?

Again, this is about no government, not no order.

As for an enforcement agency, the problem returns into play where what regulates a company from growing too large, manufacturing powerful technology & services, then expanding beyond their own community/communities?

What is wrong with them growing large, manufacturing powerful tech./services and expanding? This sounds like economic growth to me. If anything, the company will be able to take in and protect more clients. That isn't really even an anarcho-capitalist issue, it's a basic economics/business issue.

From what I was reading, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were arguing for complete Anarchy entirely with just a free market in place. I did some research into anarcho-capitalism and it sounds very intriguing, but the problem is, again, regulation to keep the agencies in check. Since these companies are also financed through insurance companies, we'd also be running into a problem of the insurance companies having power over the defense of a community or area, which in turn could produce illegitimate enforcement.

I am arguing for anarchy with a free market.

I explained the regulation-to-keep-agencies-in-check issue above. As for insurance companies controlling defense agencies, what incentive would they have? And I doubt the defense agency would just allow the insurance company to have control over them. They'd change insurance companies if they did so. That, or the consumers would be unsatisfied with the agency due to the insurance company's actions and both the defense agency and insurance company wouldn't get business.

The hurricane itself, exactly that. Something that removes the sense of law enforcement and order in a community or society is going to produce chaos. Although they may have mismanaged everything, if it were not for the martial law set into place and thousands of troops, it would have taken a much longer to bring order back into the area.

So the only way to restore order is to disarm citizens and have the military running around? The poor property rights.

Of course, because illegitimate people are placed into these positions. If the right people were there in the appropriate office, and if power was in my opinion decentralized, more power would be in the people's hands. I do not agree with centralized power unless if it is toward the management of a corporation.

But the power is in the people's hands there, sort of. It gets more removed once the centralized government movements start up and the warlords/clans start fighting,

This, in itself, is contradicting the free market.

Where the heck did you get that definition?

Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market

free market (–noun)

Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market

an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

An example of how a corporation can become a monopoly is through joint ventures and acquisitions of its competing companies. In other cases, they can provide their product or service completely better and put their competitor out of business, too. When they become so very large, they have an immense level of control. While, I will say that the order in an anarcho-capitalist society would rest in the executive board of companies (which I like greatly), it still leaves room for a power-hungry madman.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

Chapter 10 of Murray Rothbard's book, "Man, Economy, and State."

I just personally think that a different economic system would be more suitable, just maybe with a little more regulation to make sure that it does not grow too large.

I like this, though. Should we start a new topic on Anarcho-capitalism? I really like the idea. It's fucking cool. I love it.

No need to create a new thread. Laughing Man made two great topics about it. I'm glad you've taken an interest, though.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Which of the three do you think is the best form of an economic structure for global trade and why? As an economist, I'd like to hear the thoughts on this, especially with the recent fluctuation with the world markets. Have some of your opinions changed with recent events or do you still stand on a particular system?

Actually all 3 of the options presented are simply variants of capitalism. What you mean by "socialism" is not socialism at all but state-run capitalism - state capitalism. Socialism in its traditional (i.e. pre-Leninist) sense was widely regarded as more or less synonymous with communism - a moneyless stateless commonwealth in which individuals would freely take from the common stores and voluntarily contribute their labour. The question of "global trade" would be meaningless in this sense since goods would not be traded. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels talked lucidly of the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" - they might just as well have said the socialistic abolition of buying and selling.

The poll basically betrays a defective and limited understanding of the nature of capitalism by pretending that a mixed economy and what it calls "socialism" (state capitalism) are alternatives to capitalism. They are not. They are simply variants of capitalism and so called "free market" capitalism does not exhaust the meaning of the term capitalism