Z
zz912
Guest
No, you can’t. By definition, in a free political system, you CAN’T command a free man to do what you wish economically. If the govt can command someone economically, than that is not a free political system.
BlueCross BlueShield withdraws from Medicaid managed care program
- Status
F
freeRadical
Guest
That is your opinion. Doesn’t make it right.
If you are just going to resort to uncharitable assumptions about me, I see no reason to continue this further.
F
freeRadical
Guest
It seems you don’t understand what a command economy is. Nobody is “commanded” to do anything.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Furthermore, I see you can’t read either. I don’t see economic freedom anywhere on that graphic.
P
powerofk
Guest
Okay, I think I know what the problem is. It’s our definitions of “left” and “right”. Today, in the US, we often consider less government control to be “conservative”/“right” and more government control to be “liberal”/“left”…
But that, honestly, has not traditionally been the case. First of all, the whole idea of “left” vs. “right” started in the English Parliament, after the Glorious Revolution. The more “conservative” MPs would be on the right-hand side of the Prime Minister, and the more “liberal” MPs would be on the left-hand side of the Prime Minister. The people on the farthest right were called “Jacobins”, as they favored the restoration of the House of Stuart, and James II (followed by his son, who would have been James III). The rest of Parliament called James II “The Old Pretender” and his son “The Young Pretender”. But regardless, the king’s power in England had generally been chipped away since the Magna Carta, and by the twentieth century, had become virtually non-existent.
Regardless, kings and queens throughout Europe were generally autocrats, and had supreme power over their kingdoms. Manor farms had extremely directed economies. Yet, at the same time, free enterprise was beginning in towns. So, yes - free enterprise is not incompatible with autocratic rule.
When the US was founded, what we now call “Conservative” was, in fact, considered extremely “Liberal”. To be a Conservative at the beginning of the founding of the US meant you were a Loyalist to the King of England. Yet by the dawn of Socialism, everything had changed. The Industrial Revolution and its aftermath had, once again, placed immense power and wealth into the hands of very few. Conservatism (which means conserving the status quo) now meant that one favored allowing as few regulations as possible to allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor. Liberalism now, instead of meaning “liberated from autocratic royalty” now became “trying to liberate from poverty”, as the idea was, that if one is poor, one is not truly free to “pursue happiness”. Socialism & Communism, then, rose as attempts to “force the hands of the markets to be equal to all”. Of course, it turns out that it is much more difficult to do this when the government has less concentrated power, and so governments which run in countries based on socialist/communist states end up becoming more autocratic.
Because, though free market economies can thrive under autocratic regimes, socialist/communist economies require large-government (socialist) to autocratic (communist) regimes to be able to function. They cannot function under small-government regimes to any relatively successful degree (though Marx envisioned Communism to be the fullest exemplification of democracy, in practice, a true democracy could never sustain Communism). In essence, what had been “conservative” on the “conservative”/“liberal” scale origianlly (autocratic rule), now became “Left”.
But that, honestly, has not traditionally been the case. First of all, the whole idea of “left” vs. “right” started in the English Parliament, after the Glorious Revolution. The more “conservative” MPs would be on the right-hand side of the Prime Minister, and the more “liberal” MPs would be on the left-hand side of the Prime Minister. The people on the farthest right were called “Jacobins”, as they favored the restoration of the House of Stuart, and James II (followed by his son, who would have been James III). The rest of Parliament called James II “The Old Pretender” and his son “The Young Pretender”. But regardless, the king’s power in England had generally been chipped away since the Magna Carta, and by the twentieth century, had become virtually non-existent.
Regardless, kings and queens throughout Europe were generally autocrats, and had supreme power over their kingdoms. Manor farms had extremely directed economies. Yet, at the same time, free enterprise was beginning in towns. So, yes - free enterprise is not incompatible with autocratic rule.
When the US was founded, what we now call “Conservative” was, in fact, considered extremely “Liberal”. To be a Conservative at the beginning of the founding of the US meant you were a Loyalist to the King of England. Yet by the dawn of Socialism, everything had changed. The Industrial Revolution and its aftermath had, once again, placed immense power and wealth into the hands of very few. Conservatism (which means conserving the status quo) now meant that one favored allowing as few regulations as possible to allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor. Liberalism now, instead of meaning “liberated from autocratic royalty” now became “trying to liberate from poverty”, as the idea was, that if one is poor, one is not truly free to “pursue happiness”. Socialism & Communism, then, rose as attempts to “force the hands of the markets to be equal to all”. Of course, it turns out that it is much more difficult to do this when the government has less concentrated power, and so governments which run in countries based on socialist/communist states end up becoming more autocratic.
Because, though free market economies can thrive under autocratic regimes, socialist/communist economies require large-government (socialist) to autocratic (communist) regimes to be able to function. They cannot function under small-government regimes to any relatively successful degree (though Marx envisioned Communism to be the fullest exemplification of democracy, in practice, a true democracy could never sustain Communism). In essence, what had been “conservative” on the “conservative”/“liberal” scale origianlly (autocratic rule), now became “Left”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The two-dimensional chart provides a clearer picture.
Some others: (including a three-dimensional model)
google.com/search?q=libertarian+chart+personal+government+freedom&client=firefox-a&hs=yZ3&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&imgil=1faCiesB7xNSbM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcTitoAXsrJm0eqb-YeZnCEx4G4g9w2WkI-5GpSvLK2T_NvOVEUsw%253B1169%253B829%253Bo9EyvyCXh203lM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fpileusblog.wordpress.com%25252F2010%25252F06%25252F18%25252Festimating-the-liberty-bloc-in-each-state-part-2%25252F&source=iu&usg=__rXAMVBKfbMNbAWfw6aWDIijKfq0%3D&sa=X&ei=6YLYU7b2MceayAShvoCYDw&ved=0CCkQ9QEwBA&biw=1013&bih=627#facrc=&imgdii=_&imgrc=1faCiesB7xNSbM%253A%3Bo9EyvyCXh203lM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fpileusblog.files.wordpress.com%252F2010%252F06%252Fstateideol.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fpileusblog.wordpress.com%252F2010%252F06%252F18%252Festimating-the-liberty-bloc-in-each-state-part-2%252F%3B1169%3B829- Status