4 ms·

America needs capitalism, a system it embraced fleetingly in the ninteenth century. Capitalism requires a complete and total separation of state from economics,

America needs capitalism, a system it embraced fleetingly in the ninteenth century. Capitalism requires a complete and total separation of state from economics, just as we have a separation of state from church. To get there, we need a moral revolution in which altruism is replaced by long-term rational self-interest as the moral ideal. Without this moral basis and justification, the traces of capitalism in our mixed economy will continue to be eroded, and innovative corporations such as present-day Apple will face ever-increasing pressure to given in to the politics of pull.

hga 16y ago
"Capitalism requires a complete and total separation of state from economics" How do you fund the state, which is required for the provision of certain public goods like the common defense and that in most libertarian schemes enforces contracts? Also, modern societies cede a monopoly on the legitimate use of force outside of self-defense to the state, which prevents revenge cycles (vendetta) and allows trust beyond families and clans. The US and Japan are high trust societies and that makes a big difference in being able to do business (contract enforcement is a last and generally unsatisfactory resort) and all sorts of things we think as good. I think among other things that needs a state of more than minimal strength.
- maxharris 16y ago
  "How do you fund the state...?" The government should sell optional contract insurance, which gives the contractual parties the right to go to court (or perhaps expedited enforcement in court) if the contract is not met. The rate should be capped at some small percentage of the contract's value - say 1%. But the exact method doesn't really matter; in a society that such as the one I am speaking of, surely there will be many who will see the obvious selfish gain in maintaining a limited government that it totally dedicated to the defense of their individual rights.
- billswift 16y ago
  Actually, I don't think taxes would necessarily violate a separation, if the taxes were not attempting to manipulate the economy by favoring this or punishing that. A single-rate income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and the like could effectively be "economy-neutral", that is neither benefiting some unfairly nor being an excessive drag. The big problem is with government regulation.
  - hga 16y ago
    Perhaps in theory possible, but it violates the simple "complete and total separation of state from economics" principle. And the public choice theory says it's not possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
fgf 16y ago
I'm not at all hostile objectivism, however, you need to realize (I'm sure you do, but some people will assume you don't) that the foundation of capitalism, private property, is a state enforced right. All schemes to have private property enforced by non state actors in a modern society are, at best, only plausible (but untried). A total separation of state and commercial activity is thus not possible. Furthermore some commercial activities have negative externalities; some of these are hard to measure in monetary terms; wich, in turn, makes a value judgement from the ultimate arbiter (the state) necessary; etc. This shows the difficulty of separating the state and economy even to the degree church and state are separated today. (I said degree for a reason; right to worship is also meaningless without (state) enforcement, without wich some radical muslim would surely sometimes enforce sharia laws on some unlucky apostates from their religion)
- maxharris 16y ago
  See my comment below. Externalities are not a problem when all property is owned privately and the courts are philosophically equipped to handle the ordinary disputes that arise. Remember that if you can detect some pollutant or annoyance well enough to write a scientific paper, you can probably convince a court, and there is probably a big enough market that detectors for the chemical or vibration (or whatever) can be sold, making effective, objective litigation (inherently a nonviolent process) much easier. This works for land, sea and air.
  - fgf 16y ago
    Yes, you're not really arguing against me here (I'm only claiming that the monetary value of some externalities are hard to measure.) For example, the problem of overuse of antibiotics leading to an increase in resistant bacterias, how do you solve that one? Even if the judges found a way to make the parties pay for the harm they do to others. How do you measure the harm of an increase in resistant bacteria that leads to a shorter average lifespan the cause of wich also, on average, makes it possible to work more hours (and thus raises lifetime income and consumption)?
    - 16y ago

hga 16y ago

"Capitalism requires a complete and total separation of state from economics" How do you fund the state, which is required for the provision of certain public goods like the common defense and that in most libertarian schemes enforces contracts? Also, modern societies cede a monopoly on the legitimate use of force outside of self-defense to the state, which prevents revenge cycles (vendetta) and allows trust beyond families and clans. The US and Japan are high trust societies and that makes a big difference in being able to do business (contract enforcement is a last and generally unsatisfactory resort) and all sorts of things we think as good. I think among other things that needs a state of more than minimal strength.

maxharris 16y ago
"How do you fund the state...?" The government should sell optional contract insurance, which gives the contractual parties the right to go to court (or perhaps expedited enforcement in court) if the contract is not met. The rate should be capped at some small percentage of the contract's value - say 1%. But the exact method doesn't really matter; in a society that such as the one I am speaking of, surely there will be many who will see the obvious selfish gain in maintaining a limited government that it totally dedicated to the defense of their individual rights.
billswift 16y ago
Actually, I don't think taxes would necessarily violate a separation, if the taxes were not attempting to manipulate the economy by favoring this or punishing that. A single-rate income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and the like could effectively be "economy-neutral", that is neither benefiting some unfairly nor being an excessive drag. The big problem is with government regulation.
- hga 16y ago
  Perhaps in theory possible, but it violates the simple "complete and total separation of state from economics" principle. And the public choice theory says it's not possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

fgf 16y ago

I'm not at all hostile objectivism, however, you need to realize (I'm sure you do, but some people will assume you don't) that the foundation of capitalism, private property, is a state enforced right. All schemes to have private property enforced by non state actors in a modern society are, at best, only plausible (but untried). A total separation of state and commercial activity is thus not possible. Furthermore some commercial activities have negative externalities; some of these are hard to measure in monetary terms; wich, in turn, makes a value judgement from the ultimate arbiter (the state) necessary; etc. This shows the difficulty of separating the state and economy even to the degree church and state are separated today. (I said degree for a reason; right to worship is also meaningless without (state) enforcement, without wich some radical muslim would surely sometimes enforce sharia laws on some unlucky apostates from their religion)

maxharris 16y ago
See my comment below. Externalities are not a problem when all property is owned privately and the courts are philosophically equipped to handle the ordinary disputes that arise. Remember that if you can detect some pollutant or annoyance well enough to write a scientific paper, you can probably convince a court, and there is probably a big enough market that detectors for the chemical or vibration (or whatever) can be sold, making effective, objective litigation (inherently a nonviolent process) much easier. This works for land, sea and air.
- fgf 16y ago
  Yes, you're not really arguing against me here (I'm only claiming that the monetary value of some externalities are hard to measure.) For example, the problem of overuse of antibiotics leading to an increase in resistant bacterias, how do you solve that one? Even if the judges found a way to make the parties pay for the harm they do to others. How do you measure the harm of an increase in resistant bacteria that leads to a shorter average lifespan the cause of wich also, on average, makes it possible to work more hours (and thus raises lifetime income and consumption)?
  - 16y ago