557)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
socialism
And? Do you want ten families to control whether or not your children can get a job that gives them a chance to attain the American dream?
you know, what I tell my kids is that, if you don't like the opportunities you are given, make your own opportunities.
Who says you have to work for the man? Start your own business. There are many things you can do and types of business that you can start up on a shoestring.
To say that you can't get a job because no one will hire you is just an excuse.
Will this startup necessarily be your dream job? Probably not, but if you can provide a decent service, you can probably make a living at it.
In an unregulated unrestricted free market economy, which is what capitalism is (we currently have a regulated market economy, which is moderate socialism) there would come a time when it would be impossible to start a business due to market forces beyond your control. You would HAVE to work for the "Man" at whatever wages you could receive.
in an unregulated, unrestricted free market economy -- there is ALWAYS entrance and exit from the market -- it is generally gov't interference that makes the entrance and exit of businesses from the marketplace difficult.
Incorrect. See laissez-faire economic policy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States.
It is true that if monopolies and monopsonies take over, it is very difficult to start up in those industries where the monopolies and the monopsonies are operating. But, unless the GOVERNMENT prevents or restricts the startup of a new business (through licensing and / or regulation -- off the top of my head, think hack licenses in NYC), an enterprising person can find some niche in which to do business.
But, can they succeed? It's possible, but does that give the same opportunity that regulation does? I think not.
Look at AT&T. The break-up of AT&T caused a massive growth in the technology sector and out of the break-up came more innovation and more wealth.
first, even most free market conservatives agree that monopolies serve no one but the monopoly, although AT&T was a "natural" monopoly and it is arguable if our phone (landline) service is cheaper, more reliable or more efficient than it was under the regulated monopoly.
Quite frankly, in my business 85% of my problems (and tons of my expenses) are caused by gov't regulations many of which are not only ridiculous but contradict other regulations.
you must either be a lobbyist or a drug dealer if 85% of your problems are cuased by gov't.
nope, transportation, and auto/truck repairs. The amount of regulation we have to deal with is ridiculous, in addition to our governor "declaring war on trucks" every couple of years. Here in CT, we're having a war on trucks right now. It's awesome.
Perhaps you are complaining about:
---The pollution control laws that bring huge numbers of customers into your shop (although I'm eqaully sure that you will state you make no money on them).
---The laws that prevent you from dumping used tires along the roadside for others to pick up
---The laws that make you recycle oil rather than dump it into Long Island Sound.
---The laws that require the recycling of heavy metals such as lead.
---The laws that require you to provide basic work site protection for your workers
My point is that nearly all of these laws are there because of previous abuses that have cost the public huge dollars in clean up costs or in disabled workers or in other negative public problems.
I say this being a small business owner myself.
No, I have no problem with those laws -- we were disposing of our hazardous wastes properly before it was mandated, except for the ultra low sulfur diesel -- more expensive, we get about 30% fewer miles per gallon (hence more C02 emissions) and because sulfur is a lubricant, our maintenance costs have already gone up because our trucks were not designed to run on it. I am bothered by random inspections by DOT which always result in fines. We have towed trucks with less than 5000 miles on them out of DOT inspections where they were deemed "unsafe" for the road. I am bothered by OSHA regs that say that everyone MUST wear eye protection and/or hearing protection and Dept of Labor regs that say I can't fire someone because they won't use the protection I have provided. But I'm glad the gov't is your friend.
Regulation isn't moderate socialism. Socialism implies some level of government ownership of the means of production.
In some cases. Socialism can also mean regulation of the means of production. Socialism isn't any one thing, it is both an economic policy (with dozens of aspects) and a social policy (with dozens of aspects).
No, it always implies some level of government ownership of the means of production. Here are the two definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
It implies collective ownership of production, not necessarily government. For instance, many utilities would qualify. In recent years it has also come to mean control and regulation not just ownership.
You notice that I didn't call our system of economics socialism in the main. It is a regulated market economy. What I should have perhaps said is that this is similar in effect to moderate socialism.
However, your point is taken.
In modern practice, it always means government ownership. Even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation due to some market tendencies, such as the tendency to form monopolies. Therefore, you can't really categorize regulation as indicative of socialism.
Perhaps in your circles. For instance, a single payer health care system in which the government pays for health care run and administrated by private insurance companies would be called socialism by many (if not most) conservatives, but under your definition would not be. A "privatized" Social Security system where you give the money to the government and they give you options on where to place the money with private firms would also be called socialism by many, but under your definition it is not.
Publicly owned utility companies (such as a co-op) would not qualify under your definition even though they are classically socialist.
And if we don't want to call regulation socialist, then let's call it progressive or liberal instead. But, you can't call me a socialist then.
It's not my definition. I gave you the formal definition of socialism but you play fast and loose with it. Since Adam Smith made allowances for regulation, you can't claim the idea for the progressives either. Any business enterprise owned by the government would be socialistic.