Quote:
|
[b]Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
|
Another definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Capitalism - The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists."
Which, then makes us ask, what is a capitalist?
"Capitialist - One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises."
As much as you try to refute what I'm saying with your definition, it really doesn't. The process of eminent-domain has nothing to do with means of production or distribution - it specifically addresses land rights. There's a big difference.
To be clear, the tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production. Did you know its possible to have capitalism in a country where no-one owns any land at all? Means of distribution involves how one delivers goods to the market.
Another thing, free market is defined (by the American Heritage Dictionary) as "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."
Eminent-domain has nothing to do with supply and demand regulations.
Additionally, the Oxford English Dictionary definition gets right to the heart of what I'm saying... this system favors capitalists - those with capital and want to make more capital have a better chance to do that than people with less capital.
It really is elementary, I'll agree with you there.
Quote:
|
Me: Authoritarians can be capitalists.
|
Quote:
|
You: Um, why compete in a free market when you can just take whatever you want?
|
The existence and survival of most authoritarian states (all that I can think of) has a lot to do with the approval of the capitalists with the government. As I mentioned earlier, Musselini said (I found the direct quote), "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." If an authoritarian system were to simply take anything it wanted, the authoritarian system would fail. Communism didn't do this, it attempted (poorly) to redistribute land and goods fairly. Like it or not, all governments do have to pay attention to the people, or else they will pay the consequences.
Eminent-domain generally has a capitalist upshot. I don't argue against the creation of roads and power lines. Capitalism is supposed to improve the quality of life for everyone. We wouldn't have supermarkets without a good transportation system, or a lot of other things. It is a good capitalistic tool.
Quote:
|
Do you honestly believe that free market capitalism is about "taking capital from others?" No.
|
I didn't say that. I said, "rights prevent those with capital from taking capital from others".
Quote:
|
Now imagine if the transportation infrastructure in this country were privately owned. Roads for example. They would be easier to pay for (EZ-pass?) than the current system of federal, state, and local tax codes, fees, and pork-filled appropriations bills. They would be cheaper to build and maintain than they are in their current state, where protected monopolies and beaurocracies control the market. Competition among road owners would drive down prices and improve services. And property owners wouldn't be faced with the threat of having their homes seized by the state.
|
So, what? We have to pay a toll every time we enter a new road jurisdiction? Or what? A monthly bill? Will my car have a tracking device to show how much I use each section of each privately owned section of the road? In this case I can see the road system being owned and operated by thousands of people. How do you organize things such as freeways? How do you ensure good quality and maintenance along all stretches of the roads? How would they be cheaper to maintain and build? What about the railroad moguls that were so corrupt and manipulated markets, couldn't that happen again with that system? Government provides uniformity and standards... I don't particularly care if I spend more on roads for the guarantee that I'm going to be able to safely transverse them.