“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
-- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
The problem in the US isn't capitalism, it's that the government interferes extensively in the economy. It is rational, if not moral, for the wealthy to expend effort and resources to gain political power rather than spending the same effort and resources on providing goods and services.
Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about.
There is NO such thing as a truly free market. Free markets are an ideal simplification, like calculations done in a frictionless vacuum. The role of government in the economy is to regulate in such a way that a sort of free market is created. That competition exists and everyone benefits.
Unfortunately that power is not always used correctly. Regulation is difficult, oftentimes it doesn't work as expected. But that does not mean the problem is regulation itself. The problem is specifically the regulations that exist today. That makes sense, when you realize that half the government is trying to prove that the government is terrible. I really wouldn't trust them with regulating anything.
The greatest time in recent American history was created by socialistic, big government programs and regulations. Period. The massive amounts of wealth generated during that time went to every American, not just the few, because of those policies. Removing government is not the answer, we need to fix it.
Government force is always going to result in unintended, negative consequences. Those socialistic programs you laud, with the high taxes, intrusive regulations, and government debt, are a net drag on the economy.
Working together voluntarily is vastly superior to being compelled by force, however well intentioned.
If we are reaching for government power, then we have encountered a problem which has not or cannot be solved by the free market as is. I have not seen many people saying "hey, we should socialize the software industry, Google just isn't doing well enough." It already is a last resort.
> Government force is always going to result in unintended, negative consequences.
I rarely use the word always because all it takes is a single counterexample to disprove the point, and I can name a few: Firefighters, police, military, are all "markets" that would not be easily regulated by the free market and the government has done instead (and done so quite well, in most cases.)
> Those socialistic programs you laud, with the high taxes, intrusive regulations, and government debt, are a net drag on the economy.
Lumping ALL those programs together (again) invalidates your point. There are some programs that work very well and have more benefits than costs. I agree that this is not true for all programs/regulations, thus my point: Fix what's broken.
> Working together voluntarily is vastly superior to being compelled by force, however well intentioned.
This argument could be used to support ANY form of government. Communism would work wonderfully if we all worked together voluntarily! Fact is we live in a world of game theory. Sometimes people work together, sometimes they don't. Capitalism works because in theory, even if you are working only for yourself, you are working for society as well. But that is not always true, and so we need to pull together to make sure that those who would abuse the system can't. We need to pull together so that everyone, or at least the majority, benefits from our society.
Hearing fellow liberals claim that conservatives want the poor and disadvantaged to suffer is like hearing conservatives say that liberals just want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. Both arguments are shitty, and both either imply that the speaker isn't listening or doesn't want the audience to listen.
If you don't even try to figure out your opponent's assumptions, you should probably shut up and start listening.
Also, yes, as a liberal, I do want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. That is exactly what I want to do. What do you think social welfare is? If you only give money to people who meet some arbitrary moral standard, you aren't helping everyone who needs help. I believe in universal income, universal healthcare, universal education, universal pensions, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with deserts.
Fundamentally, conservatives are people that are angry someone is getting something for nothing, and liberals are people that want to help the least privileged among us.
Until we can all come to terms with this, and logically come to terms with the idea that raising up the poor to a certain standard helps everyone, we're doomed.
Second, you seem to like his (our) position on liberals. Pot meet kettle.
Lastly, I came to this conclusion after many years of talking with conservatives (and watching them in action on TV programs) and reading their own words.
And what give you the right to take what belongs to others?
But no, seriously, that's the argument for wealth redistribution: the rich only are able to amass such wealth because of advantages they've accumulated for various reasons. If you're full-blown communist, it's due to the appropriation of the surplus labor produced by the proletariat. Therefore, you're just taking back what they took in the first place.
Now, you may disagree, but I figured since you asked, you might want an answer.
Why do you think poor people resort to crime? They've made the calculation, and as far as they are concerned, that is their best option at the moment.
It should be in everyone's interest to at least provide the poorest members of our society with enough support so that they don't get that desperate.
Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government.
> Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about.
Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government.
Well... maybe the government shouldn't have so much power that when influenced it can cause so much harm.
I would argue that with that amount of power, government necessarily has the ability to cause harm to the economy/society. Otherwise it fails as a government.
Stripping the government of power will do nothing. We must fix it.
Only when the people banding together claim a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their goals. This is exactly the distinction that Bastiat describes.
On a more "scholar" note there is the notion that a leviathan is needed.
Moreover, I think private companies and individuals can be as violent, or more, than any government that claim monopoly on its use.
Be it physically or symbolically.
Individuals who band together to accomplish things can also be called a corporation.
Do you genuinely fail to see the difference or is that comment just for the sake of that (weak) argument ?
If you are arguing for further erosion of checks on corporations, I see the US becoming more like China and will, at some point, have the same air quality they have there. Remember, the GOP want to do away with the EPA.
For an example, lets say the government bans the use of some inexpensive material in building houses due to health concerns, requiring companies to use some more expensive material instead. This has a direct economic impact on those construction companies, which, when you consider them all as one group, would add up to something significant. These companies in their efforts to make money could now do two things: use the new material, costing them x, or spend money lobbying to repeal the change, costing y. It seems almost inevitable that the money it takes to repeal the law will be cheaper - because the government (or, at least, the relevant portions) are effectively fighting against not one or two companies but an entire economic sector. This case naturally grows worse against sectors that are large/concentrated/powerful, such as finance and medical (which in my view would be the reason it is so difficult to have serious financial reform - even after a disastrous crash like 08).
But there's something more to be taken from this, I think - and that's that the economic system we have does not place value on health, or safety, or environment. Capitalism encourages a very "not my problem" attitude. Got a factory putting contaminants in a river? Not my problem. Worker loses his arm using dangerous machinery? Not my problem. An efficient and rational actor in a capitalist system doesn't worry about these things. This is where you get tragedy of the commons type effects, where someone (or people) seeking to maximize personal gain - as you should, under a capitalist system - damage or ruin something not just for themselves but for everyone.
In short, this idea that "Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it" runs directly contrary to the principles of capitalism, near as I can tell. I would be interested in hearing why/how this is not the case.
A State exists if there are class divisions, with the more powerful class holding the power of the State.
Since the resources and infrastructure to begin a society without want exists, we support taking control of the State (still a State but with the class holding the power reversed) to use it for those goals.
End goal being no State due to no classes.
Government controlled by a bunch of capitalists...
Without state enforced equality, there is no equality.
Many of the other things he says may well be true, and I'm not socialist, but that one has been shown over and over and over.
I think David Simon, and many other modern critics of capitalism, have forgotten this and/or are too afraid of sounding "preachy" if they were to advocate for a more moral society.
I'd also like to point out that Simon seems to be making an emotional argument when he says there's a whole portion of people in our society who are useless when it comes to making the economy work. Perhaps it's because their skills don't match the needs of the workforce today. It's simply supply and demand.