Capitalism and the rule of law

[minkymurph]

Hi folks.

This thread is about the rule of law. It is not about advocating one political theory over another as superior or inferior. It is about what the law should be and my intentions are genuine.

God gave Moses a written law. As Catholics and as Christians that tells us there should be a set of ‘rules’ individuals in a country or a community should adhere to. For the purpose of this thread we will put religious laws and laws on blasphemy to one side. Aside from these laws, Israelite law focused mainly on protection of property, protection of the person, and social justice. On protection of property and the person I don’t believe there is any contention. Contention lies in what constitutes social justice.

My line of argument is radical and unrestrained capitalism has eroded the rule of law in terms of social justice. I openly admit some, but not all, of my observations are subjective and based on individual observations of my culture and I am not one for sweeping generalizations. That said, I have read many radically capitalist theories and to me, whilst they have much to say on what the state should not do and what the law should not be, they have little to say on what the state should do and what the law should be. Thus, as a firm advocate of the rule of law I am inviting those who embrace radical unrestrained capitalist to state in terms of social justice, what the state should do and what the law should be to promote social justice.

Note - no negatives. Only positives. What should the state do, and what should the law be to promote social justice. Posters are also free to argue against social justice if they so choose.

 

[mikekle]

We as Christians SHOULD be more concerned with Gods laws versus mans laws, but in our times, it seems the opposite is true of most ‘religious people’.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hi folks.

This thread is about the rule of law. It is not about advocating one political theory over another as superior or inferior. It is about what the law should be and my intentions are genuine.

God gave Moses a written law. As Catholics and as Christians that tells us there should be a set of ‘rules’ individuals in a country or a community should adhere to. For the purpose of this thread we will put religious laws and laws on blasphemy to one side. Aside from these laws, Israelite law focused mainly on protection of property, protection of the person, and social justice. On protection of property and the person I don’t believe there is any contention. Contention lies in what constitutes social justice.

My line of argument is radical and unrestrained capitalism has eroded the rule of law in terms of social justice. I openly admit some, but not all, of my observations are subjective and based on individual observations of my culture and I am not one for sweeping generalizations. That said, I have read many radically capitalist theories and to me, whilst they have much to say on what the state should not do and what the law should not be, they have little to say on what the state should do and what the law should be. Thus, as a firm advocate of the rule of law I am inviting those who embrace radical unrestrained capitalist to state in terms of social justice, what the state should do and what the law should be to promote social justice.

Note - no negatives. Only positives. What should the state do, and what should the law be to promote social justice. Posters are also free to argue against social justice if they so choose.

Before we get to the answers, let’s correct the premise…

“…radical and unrestrained capitalism” does not exist anywhere in the world.

Social Justice now means “Social Covetness”

So, where do we go from here?

 

[exnihilo]

Before we get to the answers, let’s correct the premise…

“…radical and unrestrained capitalism” does not exist anywhere in the world.

Exactly. Unrestrained capitalism is defined, in the US at least, as the current system of regulations. It was unrestrained capitalism decades ago, when we objectively had less laws. It will be unrestrained capitalism years from now when we have even more laws.

Note - no negatives. Only positives. What should the state do, and what should the law be to promote social justice. Posters are also free to argue against social justice if they so choose.

The state should maintain property rights. We are entitled to our property. Strong property rights encourages investment which increases future output and makes everyone wealthier.

The state should maintain contracts. Contracts are key to investment and plans for production and distribution of goods.

The state should lessen the powers of corporations. Corporations are creatures of the state. They may be helpful. But they currently have too much power and independence from the shareholders. They are today more a tool for the elite to enrich and empower themselves.

 

[minkymurph]

Before we get to the answers, let’s correct the premise…

“…radical and unrestrained capitalism” does not exist anywhere in the world.

Social Justice now means “Social Covetness”

So, where do we go from here?

Indulge me Zoltan. Pretend it does - for the simple reason not everyone agrees with you.

If you can’t do that, simply discuss

Should we have laws that address issues outside protection of property and the person, and if so what should they be?

This is a legal debate - not a political one.

 

[minkymurph]

Exactly. Unrestrained capitalism is defined, in the US at least, as the current system of regulations. It was unrestrained capitalism decades ago, when we objectively had less laws. It will be unrestrained capitalism years from now when we have even more laws.

The state should maintain property rights. We are entitled to our property. Strong property rights encourages investment which increases future output and makes everyone wealthier.

I stated at the outset laws outside of protection of property (and the person)

The state should maintain contracts. Contracts are key to investment and plans for production and distribution of goods.

The state should lessen the powers of corporations. Corporations are creatures of the state. They may be helpful. But they currently have too much power and independence from the shareholders. They are today more a tool for the elite to enrich and empower themselves.

OK - we’ve got a start. Contract Law and lessening the powers of corporations.

Now lets come up with laws that should regulate contracts and lessen the powers of corporations. I don’t mean lawyer standard - ‘Joe Bloggs’ standard is fine.

 

[minkymurph]

Before we get to the answers, let’s correct the premise…

“…radical and unrestrained capitalism” does not exist anywhere in the world.

Social Justice now means “Social Covetness”

So, where do we go from here?

This thread is not about debating definitions. It is about defining law.

Where we go from here? See above post.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Indulge me Zoltan. Pretend it does - for the simple reason not everyone agrees with you.

Everyone SHOULD agree with me…it is the truth.

But…I will play along

Should we have laws that address issues outside protection of property and the person, and if so what should they be?

This is a legal debate - not a political one.

NO!. The only objective laws that are necessary for a free society are laws that protect individual rights and property rights.

 

[GratefulFred]

“radical and unrestrained capitalism” existed before Teddy Roosevelt became the US President. He is the one that started to regulate and restrain the excess of capitalism. Nearly every Administration and Congress have added regulations.

So using “pretend” as a basis for thoughtful realistic discussion seems oxymoronic, IMO.

Now some 100 years after Teddy, it may be more helpful to debate whether capitalism is OVER restrained. Do government bureaucrats, most of whom have never started a business or kept one going, really know how to run a business better than investors with their own money at risk? Note: Congress passes laws, but the bureaucrats develop and issue regulations. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

As for social justice, there are some 7 encyclicals by Popes dealing with the details of the moral requirements for social justice. Knowing that it is an oversimplification, whether one is rich or poor, one is morally obligated to develop his talent and work fairly for the good of both workers and owners.

When terms are left undefined any law based on undefined terms is most likely to do more harm than good.

Corporations have too much power and independence from shareholders simply because too many shareholders fail to pay attention and VOTE their shares to make the changes they think best.

Contract law is actually quite well developed. And law suits are constant for breech of contracts. Marriage is a contract but laws allow marriages to be broken rather easily and the kids suffer for it. Some social justice there.

Colorado and Washington state approved laws to allow retail Pot. Growers and sellers are making money and the State is reaping tax revenue. The effect on kids is ignored. But the kids suffer. Some social justice there too.

 

[JoeFreedom]

I think one of the New Orleans Saints players said it well:

“Systems are broken because people are broken and if systems are fixed without hearts being changed the result will be a legalistic attempt that will lack long term results,” he said. “Our problems are holistic and common to the human heart.”

Capitalism and free-markets cannot function without regulation unless we first regulate our hearts and align them to God.

 

[Selah_KY]

Thus, as a firm advocate of the rule of law I am inviting those who embrace radical unrestrained capitalist to state in terms of social justice, what the state should do and what the law should be to promote social justice.

Social Justice now means "Social Covetness

I’m curious what has led you to have such a low opinion of your fellow man. And why, if you feel it is so hopeless, do you keep posting in the Social Justice forum?

Everyone SHOULD agree with me…it is the truth.

Ummmm. No. Just no. It is not THE truth, it is your truth. And I think it’s common knowledge that there are enough people in the world that disagree with you, I won’t even look for sources to prove that.

Unless, of course, your going for the Carl Rove approach of “if we say it enough, people will start to believe it.”

Now some 100 years after Teddy, it may be more helpful to debate whether capitalism is OVER restrained.

How about incorrectly restrained? Most restraints favor the largest corporations while disproportionally limiting small businesses.

“Systems are broken because people are broken and if systems are fixed without hearts being changed the result will be a legalistic attempt that will lack long term results,” he said. “Our problems are holistic and common to the human heart.”

:clapping:

Capitalism and free-markets cannot function without regulation unless we first regulate our hearts and align them to God.

Which will likely never happen. It’s interesting to me that Evangelicals are so enamored of free market Capitalism, even as they believe in the total depravity of man.

In any case, when everything is working well, I believe that the government, the corporations, and the unions (and other working people) are all balanced, we have prosperity. When even one of those three has undue influence the economy suffers. Great examples include both Depressions (the Great Depression and the One That Must Not Be Called a Depression) when the wealthy and corporations had too much wealth and power, and the recession of the 70s caused partly by the unions having too much power.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Capitalism and free-markets cannot function without regulation unless we first regulate our hearts and align them to God.

Capitalism / Free Market cease being free when the first regulation is applied.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m curious what has led you to have such a low opinion of your fellow man. And why, if you feel it is so hopeless, do you keep posting in the Social Justice forum?

You have me all wrong, I hold my fellow man in very high esteem. Nor do I find most things hopeless. I post on the Social Justice Forum because my large (and growing) fan base expects to find me here.

Ummmm. No. Just no. It is not THE truth, it is your truth. And I think it’s common knowledge that there are enough people in the world that disagree with you, I won’t even look for sources to prove that.

Unless, of course, your going for the Carl Rove approach of “if we say it enough, people will start to believe it.”

Yes…YES, My statement stands as THE truth. ."…radical and unrestrained capitalism" does not exist anywhere in the world."

Now if you and the other sadly misinformed people in the world can point me to a Utopian society that operates under a true, pure, unrestrained, laissez-faire Capitalistic/Free Market…not only will I admit that I am wrong, but I will also move there, and live happily ever after.

But I digress…“This is a legal debate - not a political one.”

 

[JoeFreedom]

Capitalism / Free Market cease being free when the first regulation is applied.

Just as an FYI. I am a constitutional libertarian (lower-case “l”) and I believe in the self-regulation of ones own behavior and as much liberty as possible. We must realize that a truly free society must regulate itself, and when the masses begin to vote in favors for themselves, we begin to lose control. No society can ever be truly free, as we suffer from concupiscence, and evil exists. We must have some laws to regulate and keep order in a civil society. When those that want otherwise begin to outnumber those that want freedom, you see what happens. Personally, I am anti-regulation and want the government out of my life, out of my wallet and to do only the absolutely necessary functions to sustain a free and safe country. For example, to provide for the safety of our country by organizing a military to protect us (this does not preclude citizens from becoming lazy and letting the military do all the dirty work, as we the people, make up the military). So you see, my point is that we can all disagree (or agree) ideologically, but when it comes right down to it, the root of the problem is our hearts and where they lie. If they lie with God, everything else will fall into line. When we begin to try and become like God, we bring those dysfunctional elements into how we govern ourselves and how we regulate our society.

 

[GratefulFred]

“Systems are broken because people are broken and if systems are fixed without hearts being changed the result will be a legalistic attempt that will lack long term results,” he said. “Our problems are holistic and common to the human heart.”

Capitalism and free-markets cannot function without regulation unless we first regulate our hearts and align them to God.

No economic system has ever been built or maintained without the effort of enough people working together. No system is perfect because we are not perfect.

God speaks to our hearts IF we let Him. When enough of us allow God into our hearts we then make better decisions that work better for all concerned.

Joe’s quote is spot on.

Total freedom is chaos. We must have a certain degree of good order. The never ending challenge is agreeing to that certain degree of good order. We now live in an era where government over controls incorrectly, IMO.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just as an FYI. I am a constitutional libertarian (lower-case “l”) and I believe in the self-regulation of ones own behavior and as much liberty as possible. We must realize that a truly free society must regulate itself, and when the masses begin to vote in favors for themselves, we begin to lose control. No society can ever be truly free, as we suffer from concupiscence, and evil exists. We must have some laws to regulate and keep order in a civil society. When those that want otherwise begin to outnumber those that want freedom, you see what happens. Personally, I am anti-regulation and want the government out of my life, out of my wallet and to do only the absolutely necessary functions to sustain a free and safe country. For example, to provide for the safety of our country by organizing a military to protect us (this does not preclude citizens from becoming lazy and letting the military do all the dirty work, as we the people, make up the military). So you see, my point is that we can all disagree (or agree) ideologically, but when it comes right down to it, the root of the problem is our hearts and where they lie. If they lie with God, everything else will fall into line. When we begin to try and become like God, we bring those dysfunctional elements into how we govern ourselves and how we regulate our society.

I agree with you for the most part.

However, I believe that a free society needs only objective laws that protect individual rights and property rights. All else is superfluous and leads to increased government control and less freedom.

 

[minkymurph]

Everyone SHOULD agree with me…it is the truth.

But…I will play along

NO!. The only objective laws that are necessary for a free society are laws that protect individual rights and property rights.

This is my point Zolt. The absence of any other laws = complete erosion of the rule of law and the death of society.

If the law should only protect property and individual rights, then by your reasoning there should be no laws regulating either people having sex in the street, or refusing to hire someone because they have a big nose.

On the point of individual rights - to invoke one individual rights before a court one needs sufficient means. What about individuals who do not have sufficient means?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is my point Zolt. The absence of any other laws = complete erosion of the rule of law and the death of society.

If the law should only protect property and individual rights, then by your reasoning there should be no laws regulating either people having sex in the street, or refusing to hire someone because they have a big nose.

On the point of individual rights - to invoke one individual rights before a court one needs sufficient means. What about individuals who do not have sufficient means?

This is what I was afraid of…what law are we discussing? English Common Law or American Constitutional Law?

In the U.S. a person only needs to file a complaint about a “rights” violation issue. No “means” are necessary.

 

[minkymurph]

This is what I was afraid of…what law are we discussing? English Common Law or American Constitutional Law?

In the U.S. a person only needs to file a complaint about a “rights” violation issue. No “means” are necessary.

Well if that is the case Zoltan then I applaud the American legal system. :clapping:

I have often said of the UK system of Justice is only available to those who can afford it. If you do not have the means to pay court costs you cannot take a case.

For those who can afford court costs, more and more people in the UK are self litigating because they cannot afford a lawyer. Unfortunately they run into problems because they don’t have the necessary knowledge and experience, and are up against someone who will eat them alive.

Does the US appoint a lawyer courtesy of state if an individual does not have the means to pay?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Does the US appoint a lawyer courtesy of state if an individual does not have the means to pay?

Yes. if a criminal case is brought to trial and the defendant cannot afford legal council a lawyer is appointed by the court or council is supplied by the Public Defender’s Office.
Lawyers practicing in communities without a Public Defender are required to provide a certain amount of “Pro Bono” work for the court.