Capitalism and the rule of law

  • Thread starter Thread starter minkymurph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Capitalism / Free Market cease being free when the first regulation is applied.
For some markets, what you call truly free is not what we want. Free markets will corrupt themselves to the detriment of the weak parties in the market. Eg. Cartels will form. Laws which protect individuals may be the very same laws that prevent cartels.
 
For some markets, what you call truly free is not what we want.
If you want a government controlled economy…fine. Allow your government to regulate your markets.

The fact remains that when Capitalism was the least regulated it produced the highest standard of living and the most prosperity the world has ever known. With additional regulations Capitalism degenerated into a government controlled economy.
 
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.
Ok Zolt that is criminal law. In the UK is it the same.

What about Civil Law?

For example - like I told you I was recently sacked from my job. I firmly believe I was unfairly dismissed. I intend to take my former employer to court. I can take my employer to court because I am a fully paid up member of a trade union. My case has been referred to a lawyer and if he says the case has a 50% chance of success, then my union will pay legal fees. Had it not been for the union, I could not take my former employer to court because I don’t have the financial means to do so even if I had been unfairly dismissed.

So, what I am saying is do you think there should be laws that determine what constitutes unfair dismissal or not? If an individual has been unfairly dismissed but does not have the means to invoke their rights before court, what then?
 
If you want a government controlled economy…fine. Allow your government to regulate your markets.

The fact remains that when Capitalism was the least regulated it produced the highest standard of living and the most prosperity the world has ever known. With additional regulations Capitalism degenerated into a government controlled economy.
You didn’t address my point, or are you saying that cartels are part of the price we must pay for a high standard of living?

Is there any research that demonstrates std of living falls with regulation? And I wonder how std of living is measured? Some kind of average? That would say nothing about the distribution of the wealth…
 
Yes…YES, My statement stands as THE truth. ."…radical and unrestrained capitalism" does not exist anywhere in the world."
Huh? I was referring to this:
Social Justice now means “Social Covetness”
The fact remains that when Capitalism was the least regulated it produced the highest standard of living and the most prosperity the world has ever known. With additional regulations Capitalism degenerated into a government controlled economy.
And this was WHEN? And WHERE?
 
Social justice is not the same as social covetness. Proponents of a covetous endeavor may claim they seek social justice.
 
Ok Zolt that is criminal law. In the UK is it the same.

What about Civil Law?

For example - like I told you I was recently sacked from my job. I firmly believe I was unfairly dismissed. I intend to take my former employer to court. I can take my employer to court because I am a fully paid up member of a trade union. My case has been referred to a lawyer and if he says the case has a 50% chance of success, then my union will pay legal fees. Had it not been for the union, I could not take my former employer to court because I don’t have the financial means to do so even if I had been unfairly dismissed.

So, what I am saying is do you think there should be laws that determine what constitutes unfair dismissal or not? If an individual has been unfairly dismissed but does not have the means to invoke their rights before court, what then?
Yes.

You live under a government that grants rights. Your laws are based on precedent. I suspect you would need to have Parliament create a law would require barristers and solicitors to provide council and advocacy to those below a certain income level free of charge.
 
You didn’t address my point, or are you saying that cartels are part of the price we must pay for a high standard of living?
There are two types of cartels. Public and private. Both fix prices and eliminate competition. Private cartels are voluntary arrangements and have no way to enforce their policies or prices. A public cartel relies on a government to enforce the cartel agreement, and the government’s sovereignty shields such cartels from legal actions.

You are dealing with cartels ONLY because government supports them. Without government cartels would be powerless.
Is there any research that demonstrates std of living falls with regulation? And I wonder how std of living is measured? Some kind of average? That would say nothing about the distribution of the wealth.


Well, history is a good indicator.

Capitalism peaked at the end the 19th century. No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire capitalism—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference and control still remained, even in America—and this is what led to the eventual destruction of Capitalism. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Compare the living standards of East and West Berlin before the “wall” came down. How about the living standards of North and South Korea?
 
Huh? I was referring to this:

Quote:
Social Justice now means “Social Covetness”
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I see social justice as nothing more than altruism. A guilt trip, so to say. The basic principle of of social justice is that a person has no right to exist for their own sake, that service to others is the only justification of their existence, and that self-sacrifice is their highest moral duty, virtue and value.
And this was WHEN? And WHERE?
America, late 19th century.
 
There are two types of cartels. Public and private. Both fix prices and eliminate competition. Private cartels are voluntary arrangements and have no way to enforce their policies or prices. A public cartel relies on a government to enforce the cartel agreement, and the government’s sovereignty shields such cartels from legal actions.

You are dealing with cartels ONLY because government supports them. Without government cartels would be powerless.
Nonsense. Cartels and monopolies are simultaneoisly a corruption and a consequence of the free market and in most circumstances government’s don’t support them. Laws forbid them (though there are exceptions). I deal with cartels because their operation can serve to leverage the power of supplier(s) over the consumer.


Well, history is a good indicator.

Capitalism peaked at the end the 19th century. No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire capitalism—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference and control still remained, even in America—and this is what led to the eventual destruction of Capitalism. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Compare the living standards of East and West Berlin before the “wall” came down. How about the living standards of North and South Korea?

I take that to be a “no” to my question about whether there is any study to support you thesis. Further, the unfettered free market does not make an appearance in your version of history - you explicitly compare “regulated capitalism” with “totalitarian states”. Of course, I don’t disagree that excessive regulation can work in opposition to the success of the community. But your extreme position that less is always better is absurd.

Are you are telling us that the “standard of living” peaked at the end of the 19th century. 🤷 And is that numerical measure the only measure of community success that we value?
 
Let me fix up the text of that previous post…
There are two types of cartels. Public and private. Both fix prices and eliminate competition. Private cartels are voluntary arrangements and have no way to enforce their policies or prices. A public cartel relies on a government to enforce the cartel agreement, and the government’s sovereignty shields such cartels from legal actions.

You are dealing with cartels ONLY because government supports them. Without government cartels would be powerless.
Nonsense. Cartels and monopolies are simultaneoisly a corruption and a consequence of the free market and in most circumstances government’s don’t support them. Laws forbid them (though there are exceptions). I “deal with” cartels because their operation can serve to leverage the power of supplier(s) over the consumer.

Well, history is a good indicator.
Capitalism peaked at the end the 19th century. No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire capitalism—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference and control still remained, even in America—and this is what led to the eventual destruction of Capitalism. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.
Compare the living standards of East and West Berlin before the “wall” came down. How about the living standards of North and South Korea?
I take that to be a “no” to my question about whether there is any study to support you thesis. Further, the unfettered free market does not make an appearance in your version of history - you explicitly compare “regulated capitalism” with “totalitarian states”. Of course, I don’t disagree that excessive regulation can work in opposition to the success of the community. But your extreme position that less is always better is absurd.

Are you are telling us that the “standard of living” peaked at the end of the 19th century. And is that numerical measure the only measure of community success that we value? Should we feel compelled to reject a regulatory measure because it slightly lowered the numerical measure of “standard of living” but raised other valued measures?
 
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…

Does the US appoint a lawyer courtesy of state if an individual does not have the means to pay?
The wealthy always have an advantage in any system. In the US the courts will appoint a lawyer if the defendant cannot afford one.

One problem in the US civil system is that the court costs are so low. It costs next to nothing to involve the courts. Of course this is only for the plaintiff. The costs are high but born by the taxpayer. The costs are socialized. When you socialize a product you get more of it. We have more court cases because the cost is not paid for by the one getting the good. Courts are not the best place to work out disputes. They are the instrument of last resort.
Nonsense. Cartels and monopolies are simultaneoisly a corruption and a consequence of the free market and in most circumstances government’s don’t support them. Laws forbid them (though there are exceptions).
Monopoly used to be properly understood as a market in which the state gave an exclusive right. This could be utility companies, which the state grants the exclusive right to provide service. This could be Intellectual Property, where the state grants an exclusive right to produce something. A market with limited or no competition is not a monopoly. Where you have markets with limited competition it is very often the result of the government. The state creates all sorts of barriers to entry that further entrench the existing businesses.

And if monopolies are bad the state is bad. The state itself is a monopoly on justice.
 
It may be the early days of the thread, but I don’t think the outcome will be any different.

My theory is correct. Capitalism leads to erosion if not complete breakdown of the rule of law. Certainly those who ardently support capitalism want laws that protect them and their assets as such laws operate to their advantage, but not only do they not want to be subject to any laws, they think it is their right not to be subject to any laws.

Case closed.
 
I see social justice as nothing more than altruism. A guilt trip, so to say. The basic principle of of social justice is that a person has no right to exist for their own sake, that service to others is the only justification of their existence, and that self-sacrifice is their highest moral duty, virtue and value.
:bigyikes:
Seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching
  • Life and Dignity of the Human Person
  • Call to Family, Community, and Participation
  • Rights and Responsibilities
  • Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
  • The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
  • Solidarity
  • Care for God’s Creation
I would think that since this IS the Catholic Answers Forum, we would be using the definition of Social Justice as dictated by the Church…
America, late 19th century.
:rotfl:
Increased income for the wealthy does NOT translate to “highest standard of living and the most prosperity the world has ever known.” I’m pretty sure that the slave labor of the working class that bought that wealth would vigorously disagree with your statement.
From the Wiki article on The Gilded Age:
The unequal distribution of wealth remained high during this period. From 1860 to 1900, the wealthiest 2% of American households owned more than a third of the nation’s wealth, while the top 10% owned roughly three fourths of it.[29] The bottom 40% had no wealth at all.[27] In terms of property, the wealthiest 1% owned 51%, while the bottom 44% claimed 1.1%.[27] Historian Howard Zinn argues that this disparity along with precarious working and living conditions for the working classes prompted the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements.[30] French economist Thomas Piketty notes that economists during this time, such as Willford I. King, were concerned that the United States was becoming increasingly inegalitarian to the point of becoming like old Europe, and “further and further away from its original pioneering ideal.”[31]
There was a significant human cost attached to this period of economic growth,[32] as U.S. industry had the highest rate of accidents in the world.[33] In 1889, railroads employed 704,000 men, of whom 20,000 were injured and 1,972 were killed on the job.[34] The U.S. was also the only industrial power to have no workman’s compensation program in place to support injured workers.[33]
Certainly those who ardently support capitalism want laws that protect them and their assets as such laws operate to their advantage, but not only do they not want to be subject to any laws, they think it is their right not to be subject to any laws.
I think that’s it in a nutshell.
 
Yes.

You live under a government that grants rights. Your laws are based on precedent. I suspect you would need to have Parliament create a law would require barristers and solicitors to provide council and advocacy to those below a certain income level free of charge.
Barristers and solicitors do work Pro Bono but its not automatic and good will has limits. People below a certain income can receive a certain amount of assistance from the state but only up to a point.
 
:bigyikes:
Seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching
  • Life and Dignity of the Human Person
  • Call to Family, Community, and Participation
  • Rights and Responsibilities
  • Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
  • The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
  • Solidarity
  • Care for God’s Creation
I would think that since this IS the Catholic Answers Forum, we would be using the definition of Social Justice as dictated by the Church…
I have seen that before.

So in a nutshell…what is expected of me to comply with the Church’s Social Justice teaching?
:rotfl:
Increased income for the wealthy does NOT translate to “highest standard of living and the most prosperity the world has ever known.” I’m pretty sure that the slave labor of the working class that bought that wealth would vigorously disagree with your statement.
I dislike the misuse of the term “Slave labor”. Anyone who AGREES to do a job for WAGES is not a slave.

Capitalism did not create poverty—it inherited it.

Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof…the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

The amount of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about Capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of Capitalism and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on Capitalism were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business.

The evils, popularly blamed on Capitalism, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not Capitalism, but government controls.
 
Barristers and solicitors do work Pro Bono but its not automatic and good will has limits. People below a certain income can receive a certain amount of assistance from the state but only up to a point.
I see…

Well then perhaps a whole new social program should be started in the Commonwealth.

I suggest a “National Legal Fund” based on the ever popular, National Healthcare Service. It would be a publicly funded devolved system. Essentially all legal service would be free. Everyone, regardless of income, would be afforded the best possible legal representation the government could provide…at no cost.

Is this a great idea…or what?? 👍
 
I have seen that before.

So in a nutshell…what is expected of me to comply with the Church’s Social Justice teaching?
“Love your neighbor as yourself”
- Jesus
I dislike the misuse of the term “Slave labor”. Anyone who AGREES to do a job for WAGES is not a slave.

Capitalism did not create poverty—it inherited it.

Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof…the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

The amount of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about Capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of Capitalism and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on Capitalism were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business.

The evils, popularly blamed on Capitalism, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not Capitalism, but government controls.
 
…Monopoly used to be properly understood as a market in which the state gave an exclusive right. This could be utility companies, which the state grants the exclusive right to provide service. This could be Intellectual Property, where the state grants an exclusive right to produce something. A market with limited or no competition is not a monopoly. Where you have markets with limited competition it is very often the result of the government. The state creates all sorts of barriers to entry that further entrench the existing businesses.

And if monopolies are bad the state is bad. The state itself is a monopoly on justice.
That is but one scenario. The State has laws to prevent individual companies gaining too great a share of a market. Takeovers may be prevented on that basis. That is an “interference” of the free market. And a good thing!
 
It may be the early days of the thread, but I don’t think the outcome will be any different.

My theory is correct. Capitalism leads to erosion if not complete breakdown of the rule of law. Certainly those who ardently support capitalism want laws that protect them and their assets as such laws operate to their advantage, but not only do they not want to be subject to any laws, they think it is their right not to be subject to any laws.
That is very true of a mixed economy or a government controlled economy where unscrupulous businessmen and their corrupt government officials can get away with such
games…but it wouldn’t be possible in a true Capitalistic economy.

Only CRONY Capitalists want laws that protect them and their assets as such laws operate to their advantage.

A True Capitalist succeeds by pleasing his customers; a Crony Capitalist succeeds by influencing the government. If government had no business…in business…crony capitalism could not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top