R
Rau
Guest
Ahh…so a society of saints Yes, that could work! Saints can be relied upon to moderate selfishness for the sake of respecting others. People at large? Hmmm…not so much!
- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
The state can prevent individual companies from gaining ‘too great’ of a market. The problem is the state is so frequently creating monopolies. MLB, NCAA, the power company, the cable company are all examples of grants of monopoly. Why does the state create monopolies if having too great a share of a market is bad? The government prohibiting Time Warner and Comcast from merging is not preventing a monopoly. These companies are already monopolies. The government breaking up AT&T is breaking up a monopoly they created into smaller geographic monopolies they created.
If people at large are bad how does putting those same people into a monopoly position of state power make them behave better? How can the system be better than the people who comprise it? The promise of capitalism isn’t that you won’t have greedy, unfair people. The promise is that you are not beholden to them.
R
Rau
Guest
I’ve not made any comment on the merits of States creating monopolies. But corporations seeking to become monopolies, or form cartels, driven by self-interest, is unlikely to be good!
The State may err in creating monopolies, or there may be cases when it makes sense. The supply of drinking water in a city might be a good example. And I suggest that 100 years ago or so, there was probably a reasonable case in telecommunications also! Technology has changed dramatically and overwhelmingly competition has been introduced into that market. But natural monopolies remain - only 1 organization should reticulate power down my residential street! Competition rightly operates in other aspects of those industries, however.
I did not say people at large are bad and nor did I advocate widespread establishment of monopolies - are you making a strawman? But we have laws that recognise people may be inclined to do wrong. I am pro capitalism, but reject the notion that it will serve us best with zero regulation.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Corporations can only become monopolies by state power. A cartel is necessarily not a monopoly. Cartels might form for a while but are unlikely to last very long. The force of the market prevents this.
Why? Because you’ll have to many wires? I look at most places in my area where they haven’t buried wires and it is a mess of wires. Its not India but one more wire on the poles wouldn’t make a difference. Not to mention the phone and cable utilities use the power companies poles. They don’t all own it. The power company does (at least in my state).
My point is if people left to their own will do bad things how does entrenching those people in a government position solve that problem? It can’t. If government is going to regulate business the business will simply pay off the government to get what it wants. You still have economic injustice but now it is entrenched in law.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force.
In a Capitalist society, no one or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights. The government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
As in any society there must be government and laws. In a Capitalist society the only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Economic regulations are unnecessary since our rights would be protected by objective laws.
Example:
Simple environmental law: Thou shalt not pollute. That applies to all.
The factory upstream pollutes by dumping waste in the river. This action violates the rights of those downstream. So we have a rights violation as well as a broken law. Upstream Inc. is in deep trouble.
There is no need to create a REGULATION that requires all factories located near a stream to add expensive additional equipment to treat waste…or be fined. Many of these factories probably do not create waste that could pollute. It would be unfair to those factories to burden them unnecessarily.
In a Capitalist society, government has no authority or power to regulate business or industry. However if a business or industry violates the rights of others, the government is empowered to use whatever force is necessary to protect those rights.
The best example of the existence of pure Capitalism would be in America for a few decades after the Revolutionary War. People were free to conduce business anyway they wanted. Even roads, canals and bridges were privately financed. Government subsisted very well on tariffs rather than taxes and the economy thrived.
A cartel could not exist in a pure Capitalist economy because it would be shut out by competition in no time. As long as other entrepreneurs are free to trade their goods or services in a Free Market, price fixing and market control cannot exist. The best product at the best price always wins.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Would you reject the argument they can become monopolies in the absence of state power?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I’m sorry Murph. I should have realized that you are one of us who really understand how these things work. Most Americans look at the NHS and the Canadian system and think…wow free healthcare…how cool is that. I want that…why can’t we get free stuff from the government??? They would be the first to scream about a higher tax bill…unless they are at the level that pays no taxes.
But my suggestion still stands…socialize the legal system.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The actions you describe are societal problems not economic or business related problems. Of course laws are required to control such behavior. But this has no bearing on Free Market regulation.
That’s not my definition of freedom…and I don’t want a lawless society. That is why we need objective laws and a limited government to enforce them.
R
Rau
Guest
The body of employment law serves as “regulation” - it undeniably regulates businesses (and persons) in their involvement in commerce / the economy.
R
Rau
Guest
This is simply untrue. Perfect markets are not guaranteed in capitalism.
Are you confusing “capitalism” with an environment of “Perfect Competition”? The latter is a theoretical model of markets in which no one entity has materially greater advantage (scale, costs, access to resources, etc.) than any other. It is rare.
That’s an aesthetic opinion. I hold the reverse one. And from the economic perspective, competition in the electricity industry, even in residential ‘supply’ can exist in the residential market without the eyesore (and the duplicated investment for no gain) of poles and wires.
I’ve not advocated this - why ask me? I think we all agree monopolies pursued for self-interest are bad. Let’s not have them. It seems crazy to me to argue that no regulation is better than some because the latter might lead to corruption.
R
Rau
Guest
If you agree that polluting the river violates somebody’s rights, then so does air pollution, noise pollution and various others. How much pollution infringes the rights of others? Perhaps your “law” would have outlawed the Industrial Revolution should anyone have objected to black smoke wafting over their house? Even in this one example (“pollution”), it is clear that there is a granularity of specification of what is allowable and what is not, and that those specifications likely need to change over time to reflect out capabilities and our knowledge. “Thou shallt not pollute does not cut it”.
I think you mean this is your “imagined capitalism”. Codifying the “rights” of others will inexorably lead to definition of regulations. Does inclusion of lead in petrol infringe our rights to clean air? Etc. Etc.
That requires a Perfect Market - equal distribution of resources, perfect flow of information etc. - read your economic text book! Perfect Markets are not the natural outcome in (unregulated) capitalist economies. They are largely theoretical, though there are instances of them.
M
minkymurph
Guest
So you would agree we should have laws regulating sexual behaviour and discrimination in the workplace?
I also agree but we cannot describe such laws as protecting property or the person. Thus, laws other than those that protect property and the person are necessary.
If we have laws that two consenting adults cannot have sex in the street then the government is regulating sexual behaviour between two consenting adults - not protecting property or the person.
Discrimination has a bearing on Free Market regulation as in terms of Employment Law.
Can you describe what you mean by objective laws? I don’t think the law can always be objective as if it was it would become abstract.
I would also say it is not the government that enforces laws. Government makes laws. Courts enforce them.
M
minkymurph
Guest
The term I would use would be nationalize rather than socialize.
I am not advocating we nationalize everything. As I said, this thread is about law in terms of what laws we should have, not what economic system should we have.
It is true we pay higher taxes in the UK, but I personally have no problem paying tax if I get a return on; emergency services, good schools and hospitals, water, roads, public transport. Everyone should be able to avail of these things at a benchmark level irrespective of their ability to pay. I have no problem contributing to things like education and healthcare for others as educated and healthy individuals benefit society a whole. My issue with paying taxes would be not getting what I am entitled to - and I mean entitled to.
Private medical care is available in the UK and those with the means can choose to be treated privately. I went semi-private to have my children.
In terms nationalizing the legal system, people on low incomes get what’s termed legal aid in the UK but only up a point. Yes, a national system could be set up specifically for legal aid but there is a difference between what lawyers do and for example doctors or teachers. You won’t die or be illiterate and subsequently find it difficult to get a job if you don’t have a lawyer, and you won’t need a lawyer as often as a doctor or teacher - or a drink of water.
Incidentally, I’m back to working a volunteer with the courts. I love the work, but unfortunately it doesn’t pay the bills.
R
Rau
Guest
It makes sense for Government to fund schools. It makes sense to ensure all children can be educated regardless of their family financial circumstances. It makes sense that school education (or equivalent) is compulsory. Is this guaranteeing the rights of some, or trampling the rights of others? Are rules required?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
It is interesting to read newspaper editorials during the industrial revolution. No one complained about the evil smoke from the evil factories in the big cities. The major complaint was the accumulation of horse manure on the streets due to more horse drawn vehicles as well as the removal of dead horses.
There is no need to codify “rights”. The concept of a “right” pertains only to action …specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Where did this “right to clean air” come from? What agency do we call when a volcano erupts? A wildfire covered our neighborhood with smoke for days…who do I complain to?
There is no such thing as “a right to a job”. There is only the right of free trade, that is: my right to take a job if another man chooses to hire me.
There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: I can build a home or buy it.
There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product.
There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items. But you can certainty manufacture them yourself.
There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young,"
There are only the Individual Rights of Man…rights possessed by every individual and by everyone as individuals.
True pure Capitalism IS the Perfect Market.
R
Rau
Guest
So no right to not have my air polluted by a factory, but a right to not have my river polluted by the same factory? 
Unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism does not naturally produce a perfect market. Your assertion to the contrary is wishful thinking.
The discussion appears to have lost any grip on what is capable of being real.
Unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism does not naturally produce a perfect market. Your assertion to the contrary is wishful thinking.
The discussion appears to have lost any grip on what is capable of being real.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
If a society wants to regulate sexual behavior it should regulate it at home as well as the workplace…or leave that up to the employer.
Discrimination in the workplace is best left up to the employer. Discrimination means discernment, and who better than the employer should discern who is best for the job.
It has been my considerable experience that an employer who does not consider the best person for the job and discriminates because of race, skin color or ethnicity is cutting his own throat…
But you are right. Discrimination laws do regulate a Free Market and as such make it a less than Free Market or more of a government regulated market.
All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): we must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids us to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty we will incur if we commit it.
In the U.S. the legislature passes laws, the government (police) enforces the laws and the courts determine guilt or innocence.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Regulating sexual behaviour at home may only work for minors who live with their parents. What do you think?
I agree it is not for the state to micromanage sexual behaviour between two consenting adults. It is a private matter. My point is we need laws regulating sexual behaviour when it is a public matter - for example displaying pornography - and I don’t see protection of the person could stretch as far as the law needs to.
I agree with you, and in an ideal world no one would discriminate against anyone, but we don’t live in an ideal world and people do discriminate. Thus, we need legislation.
Agreed, but on interpretation the law cannot be inflexible and the rigors of objective laws need subjective interpretation for Justice to prevail. The law of Equity is an example of that.
My argument is not Capitalism is bad and the root of all evil. There is little that in itself is bad. It is often application that makes something good or bad. This is not an argument supporting central planning or nationalization of all industry and services. As I have said before, even Lenin realized capitalism was necessary. The argument is to create a just society in which the rule of law prevails laws that protect property and the person are insufficient. Yes, if we were a society of Saints we would not need laws at all, and probably would not need a government. But we are not a society of Saints and never will be.
Thus - I’ll run the following by you Zolt.
Among other things what prompted my thread was zero contracts. What is your position on zero contracts?
- Status