The problem is that capitalism is not completely self-regulating. Capitalism, like evolution, requires competition to work. Ideally, the competition should be numerous entities offering competing services with the entities that offer the best services succeeding. However, it’s possible for an entity to “compete” not by offering better services, but by preventing other entities from offering similar services. Adam Smith himself recognized this and wrote that monopolies were harmful to capitalism. So in order for capitalism to work as it should, an outside force (such as government regulation) is required to maintain the proper “laissez faire” conditions.
Really? In an anarchist society, who’s going to stop people (or animals) from organizing themselves?
eeh… Tony blair is not a Socialist. He likes to say he is, but he isn’t really. most of “New labour” policies are watered down thatcherism, rebranded and marketed.
he is a centerist, with a vauge left leaning.
ottto, is there ANYTHING that you actually know that is correct?Every post you enter seems to be incorrect.
The definitions I provided were from www.m-w.com, (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). While you may have a personal view of how these ideologies should be defined, the fine folks over at Merriam-Webster disagree.
As for Tony Blair being a socialist…I suppose he could be. He seems to be the British version of Clinton, from what I hear, but I don’t really follow British politics. Regardless, since Britian does have state-owned industries, it could be said that Britian is socialist. (Or has socialist tendencies?)
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who call herself a socialist is a socialist. Social liberals are farther apart from neoliberals than they are from mainstream socialists and consevatives. Which is the ‘true’ form of liberalism? Arguing over the right label for a policy is quite a silly game to play IMO. Better to argue over what policy is right.