Fiscally-sound social democracy is the way to go.
Of course, don’t trust liberals to balance the ledger. They suck at it, for their ever-bleeding-hearts.
The US is basically a social democracy, contrary to what seems to be the popular belief on this board (so is Canada and most of the Western World™), and we haven’t run out of money yet.
I think it’s less bleeding hearts than political ambition. Social democracy falls apart when it goes bankrupt, but it also falls apart when the liberal politicians can’t hand out endless goodies to buy voter loyalty. Once the budget pie has to shrink, the game is up. It’s just that in places like Canada and Sweden, the liberals are responsible and bit the bullet, and thus created a more conservative society, but one in which their core progressive values were at least mostly salvaged. In places like Greece and Italy and Spain, the transition back to conservatism will be uglier.
Social democracy is a political system, not an economic system.
Do social democracies have a free market?
What you say when you say you are against laissez faire capitalism is that you are against a state of affairs in which individuals are free to make decisions regarding their person and property. You have your own goals for people to live up to, and you plan to use violence in order to accomplish your goals. You claim partial ownership over other’s property, because you attempt to control other’s property through political action.
What you call a failure of capitalism is a failure of individuals to operate both freely and in accordance with your desires.
Our desires. We vote, and the majority decides which desires are implemented. It is called a democratic republic. Anarchy is down the hall.
“We” do not act. Society does not act. Individuals act. Individuals have desires. “We” do not have desires. In an idyllic democratic society, the majority’s desires are implemented. Various mechanisms make this impossible, but assuming it was possible, only the desires of the majority would be “implemented”.
Are you against a state of affairs in which individuals are free to make decisions regarding their person and property?
Do you claim partial ownership of others’ property by attempting to control others’ property through political action?
How does the individual secure his decisions regarding their person and property?
Secure them?
Secure them from others, who might take property or injure the body?
The individual has nearly infinite options. He could choose to contract with a protection agency. She could build a moat. He could hide himself and his possessions. He could choose to not secure them. He could build rapport with his neighbors for mutual defense. It is her choice.
Ultimately, either personally, or through an agent, you either enforce your property claim at the point of a gun, or you let others take it, is that about how it works?
If your claim to property is legitimate, it is backed by the prevailing law and norms. Violators of property rights would be subject to retribution, also in line with norms.
So yes, you can defend your property and person from aggressors, just as you can now. The difference would be that the govt, which is not subject to laws governing the rest of society, would not be pointing the gun for you, an agency that is subject to the laws governing the rest of society could be pointing the gun for you. Also the most successful aggressor against property, the govt, would not exist.
Who decides which claims are legitimate, if not goverment? Who writes the prevailing laws, if not government? Who administers the retribution, if not government?
You are just trading one agressor for another, only in Libertopia, your private agents are only as good as the number of guns they control. Your neighbor’s militia is bigger than yours, so their claim is more legitimate. You can’t appeal to the law, because it is weaker than either of you; in Libertopia the law depends on voluntary compliance.
Government demands respect from all parties, because it has more guns than anybody.
The purpose of government is to defend the weak from the strong. Whether it is you or your neighbor, all are equal before the law, which is the will of the majority.
You’ll have to explain what you mean by that. Are you saying the American south had a capitalist economic system prior to the Civil War? That seems a difficult argument to accept. You had people investing money into producing agricultural products (cotton mainly) and then selling those products at a profit. It seems like textbook capitalism.
Not at all. I wouldn’t attempt to refute capitalism. Capitalism works.
But some people go too far. They don’t just stop at saying capitalism works or even that it works better than any other economic system humanity has ever tried. They argue that capitalism is perfect (even if they deny that they’re doing so) - they argue that capitalism can solve any and every problem, is the best system in any situation, and never produces a wrong answer or makes a mistake. They treat capitalism the same way a believer in biblical inerrancy treats scripture.
Capitalism is not perfect and it doesn’t solve everything. And slavery is a good example of one of the things that everybody now acknowledges was wrong but that wasn’t solved by capitalism. Slavery needed other means to be solved.
But the capitalist perfectionists can’t accept that. They’ll start arguing that true capitalism (to be administered by true scotsmen no doubt) would have solved slavery.
I won’t go on at length or highjack the thread…but…I have to disagree. Societies have collective decision-making powers, and act in ways that individuals cannot.
Individuals fight in wars, but nations fight wars.
Otherwise, you have to apply the same dictum to all collectives. “The market” doesn’t make decisions either. But…decision-making is what the market actually excels at, possibly its most admirable quality.
Can you please provide a cite for this claim?
As I recall, during Reagan’s Administration, the federal government spent hundreds of billions of dollars helping the poor and mentally ill. State and local governments spent plenty more and so did the private sector. You, on the other hand, say that “all funding” for the poor and mentally ill was “shut down”. One of us must be dead wrong. If you’re right, then providing a cite should be easy.
It wasn’t a free market, if that’s what you’re saying, but it was capitalist. Sort of.
The two don’t mean the same thing, although they are usually related. The South did not have a free market, in that a substantial portion of its population was not allowed economic self-determination or the ability to trade with some degree of security or freedom. Note that even women (of most races) did have this ability, even though cultural and practical considerations kept most of them at home. Blacks did not.
This society was, to a degree, capitalist in some places. Many of the urban areas were hotspots for global trade and investment. In others, it was damn near early-medieval, with prominent families who essentially owned all the land. This was something of an ongoing issue which gave rise to significant class tensions within the Southern economy. In any given area, the few wealthier planters tended to be able to dominate the ownership of the most profitable land and thereby excluded others. But it indisputably true that many of them become so because they borrowed money, invested in land and slaves, and become wealthy in the first place.
So, long story short: Capitalism is only a specific form of free markets, and it can exist in any time and place with a well-developed banking system that enables reasonably efficient allocation of scarce credit. This applies as much to a poor kid who borrows money to get a car so he can get to work and back as to billion-dollar corporations. It’s only a difference of degree, not kind.
However, free markets also inevitably create capitalism, even when authorities would perhaps rather it didn’t. The advent of the industrial age made it more obvious, but people had been doing the same thing for several eons.