I notice more and more of my friends such as Randy Gage, Art Jonak, Robert Ringer, Paul Jacob and others investing a lot more of their writing space on the topic of Capitalism vs. Socialism. I’m glad they are because the differences between the two are the differences between prosperity and misery both for individuals and for the masses.
Since we’ve never in our world history had a truly capitalistic society, for our purposes here, we’ll refer to mainly-Capitalist societies as “Capitalist” and those that are not as “Socialist.”
(Explanation of above: the U.S. at one time came ‘relatively’ close to pure Capitalism (of course, the monstrous, immoral and horrendous institution of Slavery ruled it out and then the later creation of nationalized banking and government control of the money supply), as have some other countries — regrettably, we now operate in an economic system known as a “mixed economy — part Capitalist and part Socialist, which has a natural tendency to lean towards Socialism. And, this is regardless of the party in power.)
To the degree that Capitalist societies have allowed Capitalism to thrive, that is the degree to which their country and citizens have prospered. To the degree they have not, they have experienced the opposite.
Over the past 50 years the world has seen former socialistic countries turn on the spigot of Capitalism and move from rancid purveyors of poverty to become economic powers (just a few examples; think: “The Hong Kong Miracle”, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Estonia, etc).
Unfortunately, the term “Capitalism” is — in my opinion — one of the very most misunderstood terms in the English Language.
In watching the television pundits, reading the many articles and in listening to and participating in conversations on this topic wherever I might be, it’s very noticeable that the problem with the misunderstanding is right within the premise. This is where just about 100 percent of all misunderstandings occur.
“Even the most logical argument — if based on a false premise — can never lead to a correct conclusion.”
In order to intelligently discuss Capitalism and Socialism, we must know what they actually are; what the terms mean. Believe it or not, most people don’t. They have an … “idea” as to what they both are, but don’t really know.
This is SO dangerous that it has caused our country (the U.S.) to sink into a socialistic abyss.
Two problems I see with this:
Many Americans are not even aware we are have drifted into Socialism (since they can’t define either Socialism or Capitalism). And, if one is not aware of a problem, one is powerless to fight it.
Many Americans do not understand the extreme danger of such an economic system. (Typical question: “But, doesn’t Socialism help the poor?” Correct answer: No, not at all. Not one single bit. More on this in future postings.)
If you ask most people the cause of our current economic meltdown, they will cite “a failure of Capitalism.” I’ve also actually heard terms including runaway “‘de-regulation’ of the banking industry.”
In actuality, this crises had nothing to do with Capitalism or de-regulation of any industry, least of all banking, which is actually one of the most regulated industries there are.
First, for the problem to have been a failure of Capitalism, we would have to actually have Capitalism. We don’t; we have a mixed economy with so many rules and regulations that thwart Capitalism and the good that it does, it is sickening to those who understand it.
And, the irony of people blaming de-regulation of banking (the fact that it is hugely regulated and was protected from its own ineptness from the get-go) is so ironic it should be self-evident.
The fact that it’s not self-evident is downright scary.
If you are interested in how this meltdown occurred — and I truly hope you are — I’m going to ask you to click here and read two articles. The first is by Sharon Harris; the second is by Steven Horwitz. Though I believe Mr. Horwitz’ article title is titled incorrectly, the article itself is brilliant.
After reading the short article by Ms. Harris, there will be a link to the article by Mr. Horwitz, should you choose to read that, as well.
What about the definitions of both Capitalism and Socialism that I referred to earlier?
In Part 2, we’ll look at the definitions of those two terms, as well as the intent and, more importantly, the results of both. These definitions will provide the premise from which we can logically and intelligently discuss the two types of economic systems.
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
Bob,
Great article and crucial topic. I am intrigued to read the next installments. On a macro level, there is no question that Capitalism creates more wealth for more people. The problem is that too many folks think on a micro level. And if its easier to “get” from the government, that’s the path of least resistance and that’s how they’ll go. When I first got married, I lived on a kibbutz in Israel. The concept was the everything belonged to everyone so we would all take care of the property and equipment. But in practice, nothing belonged to anybody so nobody took care of anything. That’s why a. socialism exists and b. socialism ultimately fails.
Bob it’s great you’re working to clear this up. It is so frustrating to see so much media whining and comments from the herd decrying Capitalism as a failure, not realizing that they haven’t seen real Capitalism. Or anything remotely close.
Also important for people to remember is something you’ve said on my blog: Namely that Capitalism is not the perfect answer to every problem we face. Just that it will always do a better job than Socialism will. Keep beating the drum…
-RG
Thank you, Neal. Excellent first-hand example of what is known as the “Tragedy of the Commons”, a term attributed to Garrett Hardin. Basically, when you have one ‘common’ area “owned by all” (really meaning that it is owned by none), human nature dictates that everyone will try to reap the most individual benefit even while destorying the area. This because, without ownership, there is no perceived benefit to taking responsibility and providing upkeep. They don’t mean to harm it (as that would be hurting everyone, including themselves); it just turns out that way. Socialism ignores this prinicple of human nature, and does so to its own demise as well as to the extreme harm of those living under its net.
Thank you, Randy. I appreciate your kind words. Excellent reminder in your second paragraph.
Note from Bob: Bestselling author, Randy Gage’s blog is one of those I recommended at the beginning of this post. You can check it out at http://www.randygage.com/blog.
Bob,
Excellent topic and commentary. I too have noticed that a lot of bloggers (myself included), even those who do not label their blogs as “critical thinking” or “political”, have begun to shift their blogs’ focus in the past few months toward Politics and “Capitalism.”
At least on a sub-conscious level, I believe they are sensing a cause-effect relationship to their businesses and lives that they hadn’t seen before. And, to the extent that their business/industry relied on the Market Manipulation/Leverage of the Federal Government, they are now feeling the “pinch” like never before.
It’s an exciting time to be involved, and I believe we are going to see a “critical mass” of REAL philosophical exploration (hopefully in the correct direction) in the near future.
As an aside, I wonder if the squealing about the “Fairness” Doctrine and it’s effect on the Internet will affect this movement, or is just a scare tactic from conservative talk radio. I think they’re worried, frankly, that the Republican Party’s lack of a philosophical foundation is going to see the light of day.
After hearing “W” state that he had to “abandon Free Market Principles to save the Free Market”, anyone who believes that we are a Capitalist Nation ought to be in a straight jacket!
-David
Thank you, David, for your thoughtful comments.
Regarding your last paragraph, yes, it’s an amazing thing, and I’m afraid George W. Bush is far from the only person who has said that or something similar to that. Of course, from day one in office he and the Repulican majority in congress spent money (and I’m only referring here to domestic spending) that made FDR and LBJ look like fiscal conservatives. We won’t even bring up the “spending money like drunken sailors” analogy, as that would be an insult to drunken sailors, who are at least spending their own money and typically spend it much more wisely.
Unfortunately, since today’s Republicans – at least those in political office – are “falsely thought” to be Capitalists (with the exception of a few who actually do respect the tenets of small, Constitutional government), this then causes advocates of big government to say, “see, Capitism doesn’t work” when, in fact, what they’ve been witnessing is not Capitalism.
That is what this entire series is really based on; providing a true look at Capitalism and it’s opposite, “big-government”, which indeed is Socialsim with a slightly less-offensive name.
Great article. Thanks for the insight.
Thank you, Todd. Much appreciated.
I enjoyed looking at the articles on your interesting site, as well. http://barefootmailmen.blog.com/4013603/
Hey Bob, I wanted to say it’s a great pleasure hearing your political thoughts. I’ve had your book “Endless Referrals” for a while now, and it’s been a great source of inspiration, and I intend to get your other book on persuasion.
I always find your writings to be very clear and insightful, and I’m glad to see this blog is no exception 🙂
Anyway, I’m off to read Part 2. Thanks again!
Paul Hancox
Hi Paul,
Great to e-meet you. Thank you for your very kind words about “Endless Referrals” and this post. Much appreciated.
I just went to your website and read some of your posts. Great job!
Note from Bob: Check out Paul’s site http://optimalinfluence.com.
oh man, you should have never let me know your politics….. thank you for your thoughts and your referrals, i am devouring.
Bob, you are a many faceted man, and great at bringing each topic you tackle, to a level many can understand. I love the definitions, and your statement of what should be obvious. Thank you!
Laura, thank you; that is very kind of you to say. I’m glad you enjoyed the article and found it to be of value. Much appreciated!
Bob, thanks for the food for thought. I myself am a recovered libertarian (small L), so I’m sympathetic to a large portion of what you write above and what Sharon Harris and Steve Horwitz write in their essays. I am convinced by Mr. Horwitz’ plea, and from here forward will refrain from referring to the cause of the financial crisis as a free market run rampant.
Where I depart from libertarianism, as I do with any -ism, is in believing that dramatically less government in general, and governmental regulation in particular, will necessarily bring a net gain to humanity. To paraphrase Adam Smith, capitalists have a moral obligation to do the right thing. Failure to do so gives the government license to step in. Unfortunately, in the 230+ years since Smith published his second book on capitalism and morality, we’ve seen countless examples of how Primitive (selfish, short-sighted, Rober-Baron-style) Capitalism is the result when the government does not regulate the economy adequately.
Like communism, libertarianism is a great idea – it just doesn’t work too well in execution. To quote by Franklin Roosevelt, “I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I am an American.” Purist philosophy of any stripe is bound to disappoint.
Hi Ted,
Thank you for joining in and sharing your thoughts with us. I appreciate it.
You write: Where I depart from libertarianism, as I do with any -ism, is in believing that dramatically less government in general, and governmental regulation in particular, will necessarily bring a net gain to humanity.
Bob: I have a bit of confusion with that statement, Ted, as dramtically less government, and less government regulation indeed have resulted in longer life, a higher quality of life, more jobs, better conditions, more convenience, in fact…more of pretty much everything good. Not just in the U.S. but in any country that has freed up the minds of men and women to create value that others would be willing to pay for.
While I agree that capitalists (and everyone else, for that matter) have a moral obligatin to do the right thing (of course, “the right thing” is defined differently by different people so we need to be careful there), the only legitimate function of government is to protect people from force and fraud. As, Smith taught (paraphrasing), with that in mind, the entrepreneur will do best by those who buy from them because it is in their best interests to do so.
When you talk about the “Robber Baron’s” keep in mind that only when they colluded with government officials were they ever able to achieve monopoly status. This is similar to the “Corporatism” of today that – unfortunately – many people think is Capitalism.
Capitalism – where government’s function is to protect people from force or fraud – works just fine. We know that only because to the degree we have had it (never, fully, of course) people, both individualy and as a society, have profited greatly. On the other hand, communism and socialism are responsibile for very long lines to wait for rations of stale sausage, not to mention, millions and millions of deaths by tyrants supposedly carrying out “the will of the people.”
And, while Franklin Roosevelt never claimed to be a socialist, he certainly legislated as one.
By the way, never have I ever said that any -ism (including Capitalism or Libertariansims) is perfect. Utopia is not an option in this world. I’ve only claimed (and I believe backed up with logic) that it is a far better system than the others.
Thank you again for your comments. They are always welcome.
TQ Bob for your provocative post and TQ Ted Coine for your thoughtful comment. Like you, Ted, I might well call myself a recovered libertarian. One of the most vivid examples of government non-regulation and then regulation of a free market is to be found in your post, Bob: the regulation of slavery. In my mind, it shows that a totally free economy will eventually be harmful, not only to the masses but, also, to those who control that economy. The stifling of innovation resulting from the use of man’s forced labor illustrates my point. Without man bearing the burden machines became ubiquitous, unharnessing the power of the mind instead of the power of the back.
As to your points about Socialism and Capitalism, I agree that the words are thrown around without regard for, or knowledge of, definition. The massive bailouts by a corporatist government (whether identified with an R or a D) fit my definition of Socialism. I agree with those who call it Socialism (Corporatism) for the rich by the poor Capitalists. When de-regulation fails, as it did with Glass-Stegal, and the failed come running for help by using the common’s money, could there be a clearer example of Socialism (Corporatism)?
I could go on but I really want to read the articles you’ve mentioned above. Thanks, again, for the thoughtful post. And thanks to Ted Coine for the tip, I know anything he recommends is worth my time!
Hi Kristina,
Welcome to the discussion. Glad to have you with us.
Please allow me to respond to a few things:
1. I’m not attached to the term “Libertarianism” (large L or small). I use it only to describe the philosophy that I believe best protects the Capitalist/Free Enterprise System. Personally, we could call it “Piano-ism” and I’d be just as happy providing it limited government to its limited functions of protecting its citizens against force and fraud, otherwise allowing people to live and trade freely.
2. You wrote the following statement: “One of the most vivid examples of government non-regulation and then regulation of a free market is to be found in your post, Bob: the regulation of slavery.”
Kristinina…please; government allowing slavery wasn’t a matter of non-regulation. It was a matter of their not carrying out their legitimate function regarding protection from force. They actually allowed human beings to own other human beings. That’s disgusting and a true dereliction of their responsibilities. That’s not a matter of non-regulation. Keeping one person from forcing another to do their bidding is the very definition of a legitimate function of government.
#3 You wrote: “it shows that a totally free economy will eventually be harmful.”
I don’t really understand where what you said after that made that point. Might just be me. Please feel free to explain.
Remember, please, a free economy does *not* mean that one can force someone to do their will, buy from them, sell to them or anything else. And government does have responsibility to protect people’s rights. So, please don’t think I’m endorsing or suggesting anarchy.
#4 You mentioned “Deregulation failing.” I’ve never seen it happen by itself.It is always within a context of something else. But, even “Glass-Stegal.” Unless there’s something about that I don’t know, that was not deregulation; it was still government saying what could and could not be done. If I’m incorrect about that please let me know. I certainly did agree with everything you wrote in that paragraph before the part about deregulation.
Thank you for taking time to read some of the other articles in the series. The fact that you and Ted are doing that says a lot about both of you. Unfortunately, too many people are willing to base major decisions on very limited information. We may or may not agree on everything, but I appreciate your having the information, and for the well thought-out comments you made in your above response. Thank you.
Okay, my thoughts are not always cogent, I admit, but here we go.
The comment about slavery was in regard to yours. I disagree with you there, I DO think slavery was a form of Capitalism in its most egregious form. It certainly wasn’t Socialism. And it certainly needed the highest form of regulation – outlawing it. And this is what I was referencing with a “totally free economy.” Some parts of all economies need regulating. The disagreements will always be about where to draw the line.
And my point about Glass-Stegal is that it was regulation that worked, although I admit, I have to do more research there. It was its DE-regulation (the repealing of Glass-Stegal) that created the current problems – to a point.
And that point is where, I think, we agree. I was totally, 100% against the bailout from Day One. Moral Hazard on steroids. I thought, like Horwitz, that we should have taken our medicine, killed the inefficient entities, let the too-large-to-fail ones shrink themselves naturally, and gotten on with it. “It”, the bitter dose of economic medication, could well have been on the way to being over by now. That’s a Free Market. Instead, we’re digging a bigger hole – look at Geithner/The Fed’s Friday/Christmas announcement about Fannie and Freddie. Did they really think that would go sailing right over our heads? (I fear so.)
Oh, one more point about which I agree completely with Horowitz and that is that the regulated most often become the regulators. And when they don’t, they’ve got them regulators paid off in one form or another anyway. But…I think you and I, and Horwitz and I, would disagree, again, here. I don’t think that means regulation itself is wrong. I think it means the wrong regulation is wrong.
And that brings me to where I disagree with both you and Horwitz. I don’t consider this a Left or Right issue. In fact, I’m not sure those paradigms really exist today. And I certainly don’t consider it a Capitalist-Socialist issue in the conventional sense. It’s a Corporatist issue. They are ruling all of us and until that is addressed, fairly and squarely, the consequences will continue to be felt most detrimentally by the common. And one can’t look at Republicans and say they did it nor look at Democrats and say they did it. It’s almost everyone in Washington right now. That’s where the real regulation should start – getting the Corporatists out of our political system. Ah well, another discussion for another day.
Thank you for your comments, Kristina. Here are my responses, if you are interested:
Kristina wrote: The comment about slavery was in regard to yours. I disagree with you there, I DO think slavery was a form of Capitalism in its most egregious form.
Bob responds: I’m sorry if I appear to be dogmatic here, but slavery had nothing to do with capitalism (just because something is intended to make money for someone, doesn’t mean it is Capitalism. Robbing a bank is intented to make money, but it is not Capitalism; it is theft. Corporatism is not Capitalism, it is Corporatism.). One person holding another person hostage and forcing them to do their bidding is not capitalism.
Kristina wrote: It certainly wasn’t Socialism. And it certainly needed the highest form of regulation – outlawing it.
Bob responds: No ma’am. It did not need regulating. It should never have been allowed in the first place. I do understand you are saying that when you say “outlawing it” but that is exactly my point. You would not regulate something that should not be in existence. This is not just semantics. It’s very important to understand and acknowledg the difference. Robbing banks should not be regulated. It should be illegal. Killing someone should not be regulated. It should be illegal. To even suggest regulating says that government should be allowing it to happen within a controlled environment. I know that neither of us believe that should be the case with slavery, robbery or murder.
Kristina: And this is what I was referencing with a “totally free economy.” Some parts of all economies need regulating. The disagreements will always be about where to draw the line.
Bob responds. Kristina, please always remember to check premises in a discussion such as this. Refer back to both my article and my previous comments. A “free economy” does NOT mean that one can do anything they want if that “anything” includes trampling on the natural rights of another human being. I sense you trying to make a case for the word “regulation” and I’m not exactly sure why. Yes, of course, there do need to be rules and regulations to a degree, but the vast; the vast majority of them fall under the very limited and enumerated legitimate functions of our government which is to protect individuals from force and fraud. Again, I’m not sure to what degree I can continue to make the point that a “free economy” does not give someone the right to trample on the rights of someone else.
Kristina wrote: And my point about Glass-Stegal is that it was regulation that worked, although I admit, I have to do more research there. It was its DE-regulation (the repealing of Glass-Stegal) that created the current problems – to a point.
Bob responds: I appreciate your acknowledging that perhahps you might need to do a bit more research on that before you can make that kind of statement.
Kristina wrote: And that point is where, I think, we agree. I was totally, 100% against the bailout from Day One. Moral Hazard on steroids. I thought, like Horwitz, that we should have taken our medicine, killed the inefficient entities, let the too-large-to-fail ones shrink themselves naturally, and gotten on with it. “It”, the bitter dose of economic medication, could well have been on the way to being over by now. That’s a Free Market.
Bob responds: I agree with you. Please keep in mind, however, that had we been operating under a free market we would not be in the position of being faced with that situation. What a shame.
Kristina writes: Instead, we’re digging a bigger hole – look at Geithner/The Fed’s Friday/Christmas announcement about Fannie and Freddie. Did they really think that would go sailing right over our heads? (I fear so.)
Bob responds: I certainly agree with you here, as well.
Kristina writes: Oh, one more point about which I agree completely with Horowitz and that is that the regulated most often become the regulators. And when they don’t, they’ve got them regulators paid off in one form or another anyway.
Bob responds: Yes, that is true. Another area in which we agree.
Kristina responds: But…I think you and I, and Horwitz and I, would disagree, again, here. I don’t think that means regulation itself is wrong. I think it means the wrong regulation is wrong.
Bob responds: I’m still not sure why you would desire any regulation other than that which protects people from force and fraud. Please make the case for why this is necessary. Remember, force and fraud IS an issue and protection from such is a legitimate form of government. So, if for any reason your answer is that Capitalism doesn’t work, please feel free to make your case, site an example, and please make sure you are in fact talking about Capitalism and not something that falls outside that realm. If it falls outside the realm of Capitalism, then Capitalism is not at fault and thus the problem is not a lack of regulation but the problem of it *not* actually being Capitalism. Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m totally open to anyone proving that Capitalsm doesn’t work. Which, again, doesn’t mean it’s perfect; it does mean that it is the best of all possible choices.
Kristina rights: And that brings me to where I disagree with both you and Horwitz. I don’t consider this a Left or Right issue.
Bob responds. Oooh. Kristina. I *never* claimed it to be a left or right issue. If you noticed, in introducing Mr. Horowitz’ article, I mentioned that the “Right” also didn’t understand the issue. However, feel free to point out where I said otherwise and why you feel you disagree with me on that.
Kristina writes: In fact, I’m not sure those paradigms really exist today. And I certainly don’t consider it a Capitalist-Socialist issue in the conventional sense. It’s a Corporatist issue. They are ruling all of us and until that is addressed, fairly and squarely, the consequences will continue to be felt most detrimentally by the common. And one can’t look at Republicans and say they did it nor look at Democrats and say they did it. It’s almost everyone in Washington right now. That’s where the real regulation should start – getting the Corporatists out of our political system. Ah well, another discussion for another day.
Bob responds: Interestingly enough, when you say getting the Corporatists out of our political system, there is a way to do that, but I doubt that you would agree with me, based on your desire to give politicians the “right” to regulate. The solution is to make the 535 members of the legislature operate solely within the confines of The Constitution/Bill of Rights. As my friend, Michael Cloud says, “The problem with our government is not the abuse of power (that’s just the symptom); the problem is the power to abuse.” Take away the legislature’s ability to operate outside the boundaries of the Constitution (where they can grant special favors and privileges in return for campaign contributions and other goodies) and it wouldn’t matter how many lobbyists there are representing their special interest clients; they’d be powerless to enact any kind of Corporatist Laws.
Your thoughts?
Bob, I’m feeling beseiged…:-). In my own defense, I did reference, and double-check, all of my points to what you had written. If we disagree about the meaning of what you wrote or I wrote, well that’s discussion, right.
I’ll address your last point first: I’m not giving politicians the right to regulate, they are given it by the very Constitution you’re referencing in Article One. We both agree with Michael Cloud. And agree with you about taking away their power to operate by granting special favors and priveleges. I think we probably would agree, in fact, I pointed out most places where we do agree. But…I’m confused as to your actual solution for rendering them powerless to enact Corporatist Laws.
As to the R-L issue, I specifically mention Horwitz with that and then return to the Capitalist-Socialist issue which is what you address. I think we agree on this, it’s just a matter of semantics.
The slavery semantics are beyond my scope at this moment, although I’ll be up for it after I recover from all of this fantastic mental exercise!
Sorry for the bottom to top referencing, my mental acuity is fading and I don’t have the luxury of being able to conveniently place the points next to yours.:-)
Hi Kristina,
I’m sorry you feel beseiged. Absolutely no offense is meant and I hope you don’t take it that way. I appreciate all the work you’ve put into our exchange of ideas.
You wrote: “I’ll address your last point first: I’m not giving politicians the right to regulate, they are given it by the very Constitution you’re referencing in Article One.”
Bob responds: Please pardon the semantics for a moment; I realize this will be annoying to some. But, government actually as no “rights” – only “powers” (and strictly enumerated ones at that – which are, not given, but only granted (See Article 1 – Section 1).) Theoretically, we the people can take back any of those enumerted powers at our discretion but, of course, that is hardly realistic at this point.
Anyway, regarding the powers to regulate. In Article 1 – Section 8 – Clause 3, it indeed does grant congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states and the Native American tribes. However, two very important points. This regulation must be in accordance with the rest of the Constituation and Bill of Rights. They cannot just make up rules and regulations at their whim just for the sake of regulatiing (or providing special favors to those who contribute to their campaigns). But, also important is the word, “Regulate” which meant, “to keep regular” or “keep it happening.” This because some of “the several states'” governments were making restrictive, protectionist laws. So, actually, to regulate was just the opposite of tying it up with red tape. Again, my question might be, “knowing that red tape is so hurtful to the general welfrare of business and individuals both” why would you be arguing for all but the most limited regulation.
With that said, again, there certainly does need to be a limited amount from time to time. Though, most of that will be covered within the “Force and Fraud” aspect we’ve discussed previously.
You wrote: We both agree with Michael Cloud. And agree with you about taking away their power to operate by granting special favors and priveleges. I think we probably would agree, in fact, I pointed out most places where we do agree. But…I’m confused as to your actual solution for rendering them powerless to enact Corporatist Laws.
Bob responds: What a great question, Kristina. Yes, the solution is simply (but not easily) that, as citizens, we let our elected officials in Washington, D.C. know that, once they swear to uphold, defend and protect (I hope I put that in the right order) the Constitution of the United States of America, if they fail to do so, even once, by passing Unconstitutional laws, they will be voted out of office in the next electon or perhaps even recalled immediately. If that is the case (and if they actually believe the threat) then never again will there be “pork” and never again will a special favor be given to a corporate special interest.
Now, will we ever accomplish that? Personally, I doubt it. I think we are much too far along the road for that to happen. But we can still – instead of arguing for more laws, rules and regulations (which will always benefit those with political power) – we insist and make happen to the degree it is possible that all Unconstitutional laws be taken off the books and that not one new law (outside the confines of the Constitution) can be enacted without that legislator being voted out in the next election.
Yes, I feel like Don Quixote tilting at rainbows but, what the heck. 🙂
Thank you again, my friend. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.
I’m back. Here are my questions:
What is your definition of Socialism, and who, right now in this country, is on the receiving end?
What is your definition of a Free Market, and where does one exist?
Wow, you recover fast. 🙂
Kristina, the answers to your above questions are mainly covered in the next article, Part Two of the series. Please scroll up to end of Part One and click on the link that says “Part 2” in the first line of the final paragraph.
Oh, in answer to the final part of your second question above, “where does {a free market} exist?”… actually, as explained in the second paragraph of the above article (Part One) there has never been a totally free market (again, “totally free” meaning that there is a “Rule of Law” in which government’s legitimate functions include protection against force and fraud) and then I explain in the fourth paragarph that “to the degree” there is one, a country and its citizens prosper and “to the degree” there is not one, the opposite occurs.
Thank you,
Bob
i was just thinking this same exact thing before hehe, fantastic post