American Freedom: Overstated or Understated?

[JohnBM01]

I think this is the first time I've discussed anything related to politics. I don't do topics like these because government is not one of my strong points. You have freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of religion. Is American freedom really... free? Sure, there are limits to my native country of the U.S. of A, but what do you think about American freedom?

Reply now.

 

[milefile]

A country cannot be free, but each individual person can. America preserves the greatest possibility for an individual to choose to live free of any country. It is understated, but mostly because many believe government makes people free, that it doles out freedom like some finite resource, which it doesn't, and simply can't do. It only allows it or prohibits it, to varying degrees. Freedom is an individual choice that is more possible here than anywhere else.

 

[Duke]

...though not nearly as possible as it could be. The US system remains the most economically attractive, personally free society in the world. However, with the ever-growing size and involvement of the govermnet, we are fighting a losing battle. Unfortunately, no matter how much they pretend otherwise, the majority will always vote themselves "bread and circuses", to paraphrase a Roman emperor.

There are too many people who think that freedom equals entitlement. In other words (and I've heard it said right on these boards), "How can someone be truly free if they can't afford anything?" Freedom is not the removal of responsibility. Freedom is the removal of barriers to meeting your responsibilities.

The fundamental American system is strong enough that it has supported the kilotons of junk that has been heaped upon it. It remains strong enough that it will continue to support that and more, for the indefinite future. But it's rather like saying that an Olympic sprinter can still beat me with ankle and wrist weights on - sure, he's faster, but nowhere near as fast as he could be.

 

[87chevy]

couldn't this have been discussed in "Is America Too Arrogant"???


anyways, total freedom is not possible in a society. Belonging to a society means you have agreed to give up some 'freedoms'. It's called the Social Contract. The problem with america is as duke stated, the majority of people think rights = entitlements. your not entitled to anything material. oh also, NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say 'you have the right to NOT be offended by the words or actions of others'. that's what makes me sick, all these lawsuits and things because someone got their damn feelings hurt. gimme a F-ing break!!

 

[wellyrn]

For the same reason I'm dropping out of the Weekly Race Series I won't be calling you guys hypocritical right wing morons any more. Just pretend im here. Assume i say the opposite of everything neon_duke and 87chevy and follow it up with a nice "you idiots" 👍

cya l8rs i hope

 

[Duke]

Well, I didn't see why that was, but good luck with whatever's going on.

 

[87chevy]

For the same reason I'm dropping out of the Weekly Race Series I won't be calling you guys hypocritical right wing morons any more. Just pretend im here. Assume i say the opposite of everything neon_duke and 87chevy and follow it up with a nice "you idiots" 👍

cya l8rs i hope

well, as much as i fantasize about you getting hit by a greyhound bus, i don't actually wish any ill doing on you, but i can honestly say i will not miss your moronic drivvle. but good luck with whatever is pulling you away from GTP.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, there are limits to my native country of the U.S. of A, but what do you think about American freedom?

America is highly restrictive. Our income tax is up near the levels of countries we call socialist (which isn't exactly free).

Our government (and most of our citizens) are all about choking our economy with all kinds of well intentioned crap. Well intentioned for everyone except the people giving out jobs.

I was listening to an economist talk about job numbers last weekend and he was explaining that because of all of the things saddling employers like lawsuits, unions and (most of all) taxes, they aren't hiring as much as they could.

It's common knowledge in the economics circle that tax cuts help business and reduce unemployment - but that's not what you hear on the news. Much economic recovery is attributed to Bush's tax cut - imagine what would happen if there were a serious tax cut.

I'm in the process of reading "Give Me A Break." By John Stossel. He's one of the only libertarians in the press and it's a fascinating book - but it makes me squirm. He talks about all of the ways that our freedoms (social and economic) are curbed by our government, and how our society is screaming for more. America should be a lot more free both socially and economically.

One of the better one liners I've read in that book so far:

Patrick Henry didn't say "give me absolute safety or give me death".


-----------------------------


All that being said, one of the worst systems imaginable is anarchy. There are some roles government must play (especially protecting basic rights). But to the extent that the government attempts to do more than what it has to, freedom is removed.

 

[Pistachio]

Overstated, I don't quite understand what government officials or people mean when they say "freedom" in the US. How is an American any more free than someone living in Scandinavia or Germany, or Canada?

If freedom is your ability to act as you wish without intervention then we can easily say a country with no government institutes or authority is by far the most free, not necessarily desirable.

I always dismissed "American freedom" as a propogandistic term not to be taken seriously.

 

[Arwin]

I always dismissed "American freedom" as a propogandistic term not to be taken seriously.

I fully agree. While I'm not the nationalist type, I'm certainly interested in hearing how and why anyone thinks that I am NOT more free here in the Netherlands than anywhere else in the world, including the U.S.

To give a few examples, over here prostitution is legal, marihuana is legal for medicinal use, soft-drugs are more or less legal*, euthanasia is legal. Thanks to our social system children of both rich and poor parents can go to university if they are able. People can vote for whatever party they want. Everyone can start a party of their own, and if that party gets enough votes for one seat in the parliament, they get that one seat and their voice is heard, and they could even become member of a coalition government and take part in active government. This works the same on all levels of government.

So, tell me, what am I missing here?


*EU issues prevent us from setting it down in law, although that might still happen as the other countries are softening their standpoints

 

[Danoff]

Thanks to our social system children of both rich and poor parents can go to university if they are able

Your freedom restricting social system that robs from the rich and gives to the poor.

What about the freedom to not pay for everyone else's health care? What about the freedom to fail? Do you have that? The freedom to start your own company selling whatever you want. The freedom to spread propaganda against your government, or the freedom to own lots of guns. Can you be the first to drive past a car accident and not stop?


I'm not doubting that many countries have more social freedom than the US (even though many of the ones I listed above are social freedoms). It's the economic freedom that made the US the superpower it is.

By the way, I think pot is legal for medicinal use here too. And prostitution and gambling (depending on where you are within the US).

 

[Arwin]

Your freedom restricting social system that robs from the rich and gives to the poor.

What about the freedom to not pay for everyone else's health care? What about the freedom to fail? Do you have that? The freedom to start your own company selling whatever you want. The freedom to spread propaganda against your government, or the freedom to own lots of guns. Can you be the first to drive past a car accident and not stop?

I'm not doubting that many countries have more social freedom than the US (even though many of the ones I listed above are social freedoms). It's the economic freedom that made the US the superpower it is.

By the way, I think pot is legal for medicinal use here too. And prostitution and gambling (depending on where you are within the US).

We've voluntarily chosen to limit the freedom for people to be a total arsehole. Sorry to state it like that, but that's how most people would see that here. You call this a freedom, we call it a luxury. Socialism comes from the idea that together we stand tall. Besides, it also makes economic sense - we take care of and stimulate our greatest capital, our people and their knowledge and expertise. There's a point where poverty crosses over into slavery, and unreigned economic power takes away just about any of the precious freedom you're talking about.

We work the fewest hours a week of many countries, but those hours are some of the most productive in the world. The only reason it works, is because we somehow manage to add value to it (by our location, expertise, facilities, etc.) that can't be matched by other countries that have cheaper labor, but of course we'll have to make sure that the balance stays right and that we stay on top of our game, or we'll run into trouble. That's what it's all about.

Your economic freedom doesn't protect you from China or India catching up in terms of knowledge and quality and those rising nations are taking away your jobs (and some of ours too) as we speak. A country like China which now combines outright capitalism with dictatorial communist government that could hardly be considered free has very little to prevent it from doing a lot better than the U.S.

Lowering our wages won't help against this - though keeping them down a little does help a bit on the short term, other countries will always be cheaper. The only thing we can do is to do it better and smarter. For now, the freedom of the U.S. (Europe isn't much better admittedly) shows itself in setting protectionist import taxes to keep out foreign competitors who can do it faster, cheaper and better than U.S. industries can.

Propaganda against our own government is no problem, start your own company to sell whatever you want no problem - I just happen to be looking into that myself. You can actually own a gun if you're a member of a registered gun club and have been for at least one year, I just checked. But of course you're only allowed to use it inside the gun club and even need a special permit to use it in another gun club. But never mind that discussion - the situation is less black and white in the U.S. where you have areas that aren't densely populated, which you don't really have over here.

There's a state where prostitution is actually legal? I didn't know that. I learn something every day - would someone know which one? Incidentally, we allow gays to marry too.

So, basically, you now say that the great freedom of the U.S. is economic freedom. You don't value social freedom nearly as much, but then again you highly rate the freedom to carry guns. You value being able to drive on when you witness an accident (although I'm sure you'd value it less if that happened to you). Oh and then there's the healthcare for which you don't want to pay, but at the same time I don't think you seem to have a big issue funding a war that did you more bad than good, but for which you are going to have to pay anyway.

I hope you permit me the liberty to remain puzzled at your logic.

 

[nk4e]

Does this go to the topic that , either freedom can be a right or a privilige(spelling?)?

 

[Danoff]

I hope you permit me the liberty to remain puzzled at your logic

Of course, but I'll try to clear up your confusion anyway. Part of the problem is that you're mixing legitimate criticisms with illigitimate ones. I'll try to point out where.

I don't think you seem to have a big issue funding a war that did you more bad than good, but for which you are going to have to pay anyway.

War is something that cannot be done by private companies properly. I would disagree with you (so far) on whether the war has done more harm than good. I think at the moment we're ahead - and I think in the future that will only increase.

You don't value social freedom nearly as much, [as economic freedom]

That's simply not true. Social and economic freedom are both important. It's the economic freedom that I see being the most popular thing to attack around the world. And, as you pointed out, economic freedom is the driving force behind the strength and capability of a country. However, I find social freedom just as important (to me personally).

There's a state where prostitution is actually legal? I didn't know that. I learn something every day - would someone know which one?

Las Vegas has prostitution. I don't know if all of Nevada is that way but I think that's the case.

Incidentally, we allow gays to marry too.

That's one way in which we should be more like you.

Your economic freedom doesn't protect you from China or India catching up in terms of knowledge and quality and those rising nations are taking away your jobs (and some of ours too) as we speak. A country like China which now combines outright capitalism with dictatorial communist government that could hardly be considered free has very little to prevent it from doing a lot better than the U.S.

I'm surprised you wrote this. I explained my view on outsourcing above. Let me summarize... it is exactly the restraints put on capitalism that make outsourcing a problem.

You're right, as long as China relies on capitalism, very little would preven its economy from being as strong or stronger than the US.

We work the fewest hours a week of many countries, but those hours are some of the most productive in the world.

That's an interesting spin. You're not the most productive country in the world and your workers are not the most productive workers in the world, but they're the most efficient with their time.... who cares.

There's a point where poverty crosses over into slavery, and unreigned economic power takes away just about any of the precious freedom you're talking about.

And of course, slavery must be prevented by maintaining the precious social freedom I've been talking about as well. There is no inconsistency in my argument here.

We've voluntarily chosen to limit the freedom for people to be a total arsehole. Sorry to state it like that, but that's how most people would see that here.

Some of you have voluntarily chosen to limit the freedom of others of you. That sounds like a dicatorship by the masses to me. You are not free when others can vote your freedom away.

You call this a freedom, we call it a luxury.

Let's think about this for a second.

Keeping the money you earned for yourself. Not having your money stolen from you to be given to those who did not earn it...

Freedom... luxury..... seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Arwin]

Some of you have voluntarily chosen to limit the freedom of others of you. That sounds like a dicatorship by the masses to me. You are not free when others can vote your freedom away.

So, how would you in that case like to redefine democracy?

Keeping the money you earned for yourself. Not having your money stolen from you to be given to those who did not earn it...

Freedom... luxury..... seems pretty clear to me.

Let's try a scenario. I walk on the street, and some guy performs a driveby on someone else, and I get hit. I make it, but it takes me a year to recover, I run huge medical debts, and I lose my job. What happens next?

Another one. A company doesn't take care of its workers, they get hurt and become unfit to work. What happens next?

Why we call it a luxury is because it makes us feel a lot safer. However unfortunate we are going to get in life, there's a safety net that keeps us standing. When something bad happens, you're going to have enough to worry about as it is. At least the basics are taken care of.

I guess it's hard to explain these things because there's such a big cultural gap, it takes a big stretch of the imagination to know what it's like I suppose.

 

[Duke]

Let's try a scenario. I walk on the street, and some guy performs a driveby on someone else, and I get hit. I make it, but it takes me a year to recover, I run huge medical debts, and I lose my job. What happens next?

Your insurance company pays for your medical treatment, and if you bought it, your disability insurance pays you a stipend because you are no longer able to work. What would happen if any calamity hit you?

Another one. A company doesn't take care of its workers, they get hurt and become unfit to work. What happens next?

If the employer violated saftey standards, then the workers' insurance companies (see above) sue the employer to recover some or all of their costs to pay for workers medical treatment and/or disability pension.

OR, going back a step further, the workers excercised their own responsibility and found jobs in a company that did meet safety standards, or they demanded higher wages for the risk involved in doing a dangerous job (and used that money to insure themselves), or they decided the risk wasn't worth it and moved somewhere else or learned a different trade or farmed their own food or started their own businesses.

Why we call it a luxury is because it makes us feel a lot safer. However unfortunate we are going to get in life, there's a safety net that keeps us standing. When something bad happens, you're going to have enough to worry about as it is. At least the basics are taken care of.

I guess it's hard to explain these things because there's such a big cultural gap, it takes a big stretch of the imagination to know what it's like I suppose.

The thing about it is, there's almost nothing - national defense, emergency response, police, etc. excepted - that private industry cannot do more efficiently than the federal government can.

Private insurance could cover anything necessary, and in fact private organizations WERE handling it through religious, ethnic, and other mutual-aid societies in the late 1800s before the Intellectual Left gained a lot of influence and brought forth the idea of the State as a kind of all-father that is more important than the individual citizens.

In effect, what you guys seem to want is your rent and your car payment etc. deducted from your checks before you ever see them, so you aren't too tempted to blow that necessity money on something fun like stereo equipment and CDs. You want the government to budget for you, because you've voted yourselves incapable of managing your own money.

I'm not picking on you personally, or Europeans only, because America is in the process of doing the same thing, and has been since 1932.

 

[Arwin]

Your insurance company pays for your medical treatment, and if you bought it, your disability insurance pays you a stipend because you are no longer able to work. What would happen if any clamity hit you?

If the employer violated saftey standards, then the workers' insurance companies (see above) sue the employer to recover some or all of their costs to pay for workers medical treatment and/or disbility pension.

The thing about it is, there's almost nothing - national defense, emergency response, police, etc. excepted - that private industry cannot do more efficiently than the federal government can.

Ok, now here's how it goes over here.

1. Exactly the same. The only difference is probably that everyone has to have an insurance, and insurance companies can't refuse to insure basic medical treatment.

2. The insurance company takes care of the medical bills. The employer is responsible for paying the first year of 'replacement/disability' salary by default, so no lawsuits are needed (saves a lot of costs on both sides there) and employers are a lot more careful with their employees as well as more eager to work with integration projects. It has been a big problem here in the past, but I think we're getting the better of it.

You'd be surprised, but we have the same idea here - private companies generally should be able to do better in terms of money/service. It's not just an idea either, but it has been put to practice. Most things you mention are handled by privatised companies over here. Probably the only difference is that we guarantee and enforce a decent minimum level of insurance and welfare for everyone, to protect the weak.

And perhaps not just the weak. What would happen if someone without insurance, money or a job crashed into you with a stolen car? I guess if you're lucky you get money from your own insurance, if you covered that.

You do have to be careful - in England the railroads were privatised and a complete mess ensued. The same threatened to happen here, because the government doubted for too long on how to establish healthy competition, forcing the privatised railways to postpone orders for new trains, which resulted in a decreased quality of service soon after (trains take a few years to be built so you have to plan ahead).

Profits can be made in various ways, and you have to be careful that there is some healthy competition. Before that can exist, you have a transition period that can be difficult - but the Californians here know about that too.

 

[Danoff]

So, how would you in that case like to redefine democracy?

Not necessary. Democracy has already been set up with certain basic rights that the majority cannot vote away. This is a common misunderstanding with democracy. Many people think that democracy means the majority gets whatever the majority wants. That is not the case and society will not function properly like that. You go on and on about protecting the weak. The minority in a democracy is "the weak" meaning rich people in this example are "the weak".

It is not right in any light for the rights of the minority to be violated by the will of the majority.

1. Exactly the same. The only difference is probably that everyone has to have an insurance, and insurance companies can't refuse to insure basic medical treatment.

Exactly the same only different... can't refuse to insure basic medical treatment... what does "basic medical treatment" mean anyway and who's to say that the definition isn't going to get changed in the future.

The employer is responsible for paying the first year of 'replacement/disability' salary by default, so no lawsuits are needed (saves a lot of costs on both sides there) and employers are a lot more careful with their employees as well as more eager to work with integration projects. It has been a big problem here in the past, but I think we're getting the better of it.

Employers will be a lot more careful not to hire people - or get totally screwed when they weren't at fault.

I guess if you're lucky you get money from your own insurance, if you covered that.

You make it sound like your insurance plan is a roll of the dice.

You do have to be careful - in England the railroads were privatised and a complete mess ensued.

Doesn't work if you don't do it right.

Profits can be made in various ways, and you have to be careful that there is some healthy competition

You don't have to be careful that there is competition. You just have to not regulate that there be no competition. That doesn't require care, that requires a lack of legislation. Compeition will show up if given the chance (meaning no law forbidding it).

 

[Arwin]

It is not right in any light for the rights of the minority to be violated by the will of the majority.

But a democracy doesn't work that way. The democracy allows the majority to choose to protect the rights of the minority, which it does voluntarily, because the majority is part of a minority. Even so, not all minorities' rights will be protected - for instance, if they harm the rights of the majority. Society is a constant negotiation between the rights of its agents, which all infringe on each other. A balance need to be found, and some believe the balance to be more to the left, others more to the right. There is no room for absolutism here, but I think we already agree on that. I think actually we're starting to reach points of agreement, which considering the ground we've covered so far, is pretty impressive.

Exactly the same only different... can't refuse to insure basic medical treatment... what does "basic medical treatment" mean anyway and who's to say that the definition isn't going to get changed in the future.

The definition changes constantly. We continuously have to redefine what we want to cover in terms of costs and benefits. I'll see if I can get a recent English document listing.

Employers will be a lot more careful not to hire people - or get totally screwed when they weren't at fault.

Yes. But hey guess what? They can get an insurance ... And it works. Reason being? Cause of people ending up unable to work is in the majority of cases the working environment. It's not a perfect way to deal with it, but trust me that it is more efficient than your claim culture, which is just good for my boss (a big law firm).

You make it sound like your insurance plan is a roll of the dice.

Those who are struggling at the lower part of society (that includes single mothers for instance) now sometimes don't get an insurance if they can't afford one. And insurance companies aren't water proof and may take some time to pay up. It's not a roll of the dice, but it's not a 100% sure thing either. Some are better than others, but it's not always easy to find out until you actually need them.

Doesn't work if you don't do it right.

No but it isn't easy to do it right. It is, in fact, rarely done right - there's no real proven right out there yet.

You don't have to be careful that there is competition. You just have to not regulate that there be no competition. That doesn't require care, that requires a lack of legislation. Compeition will show up if given the chance (meaning no law forbidding it).

Well, take the phone company. It was state owned, had a monopoly and possessed the complete copper network. Now we privatise it. It is private and has a monopoly. What chance does competition have? Zero. We needed to put several laws into place to allow competition to spring up. You make it sound so easy and natural, but that's naive. I can list loads of big companies that would not have any competition if special laws hadn't been put in place. It's not just privatisation either - all sorts of laws are needed to prevent one party attaining a monopoly that is so powerful it can kill off any competition.

 

[Danoff]

Well, take the phone company. It was state owned, had a monopoly and possessed the complete copper network. Now we privatise it. It is private and has a monopoly. What chance does competition have? Zero.

We have competition for phone service.

We needed to put several laws into place to allow competition to spring up. You make it sound so easy and natural, but that's naive. I can list loads of big companies that would not have any competition if special laws hadn't been put in place.

Go for it.

Those who are struggling at the lower part of society (that includes single mothers for instance) now sometimes don't get an insurance if they can't afford one.

It's their choice how to spend their money.

Yes. But hey guess what? They can get an insurance

So being out of work is better than having work but not being gauranteed that your employer is going to have to take care of you if you get hurt (without need of a lawsuit)?

The definition changes constantly. We continuously have to redefine what we want to cover in terms of costs and benefits. I'll see if I can get a recent English document listing.

And that's a problem. Because the cost will always increase.

But a democracy doesn't work that way. The democracy allows the majority to choose to protect the rights of the minority, which it does voluntarily, because the majority is part of a minority. Even so, not all minorities' rights will be protected - for instance, if they harm the rights of the majority. Society is a constant negotiation between the rights of its agents, which all infringe on each other. A balance need to be found, and some believe the balance to be more to the left, others more to the right.

This is fundamentally wrong and goes straight to the heart of our disagreement. Some societies infringe on the basic rights of their citizens. For example, some societies (including ours) have considered it ok for slavery to exist because the majority waned it. Is that the right way to do business???

Regardless of whether or not the majority wants to execute all red haired individuals born on a tuesday, we have to protect the rights of those people. The only way a society can truely be free is if its citizens are gauranteed certain inalienable rights. Rights that are simply not up for vote. If that is not the case, if my right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned is up for vote, I am not free.

Thankfully, here in the states, that is usually not the case (ie: it is usually not the case that my rights are up for vote). For the most part, I am free here in the US. I would like some more freedom but there is no place for me to go where I can be more free (economically and socially) - so I'll stay here.

So what do you think Arwin? Have I changed your mind about the fact that certain rights must be considered inalienable - that some things are not up for vote? Or do you think the majority should be able to enslave the minority - and how could you call that a free society - and if you can't, how could you call that a fair society? How could you call that a good society?

 

[Carl.]

I would like some more freedom but there is no place for me to go where I can be more free (economically and socially) - so I'll stay here.

I'd suggest Monaco.

 

[Duke]

Considering the buying power my current salary would have if I lived in Monaco, I would say that I am not capable of moving to Monaco, even if I would enjoy more freedom of both kinds.

That's not a failure of Monaco's system, and it doesn't make me less free to move there. It's just a condition resulting from the choices and circumstances of my life.

 

[Famine]

Strangely, France has one of the "freest" societies on Earth. Citizens are not prevented from doing anything at all - as long as it doesn't lead to another person's injury.

Health & Safety regulations do not exist. If someone wants to work as a skyscraper window cleaner without any safety harnesses, that's their problem.

 

[Duke]

Well, that's one thing they have gotten right. Besides the Citroen DS and the Renault Clio Sport.

 

[ledhed]

you bring up 1932 . well lets take it further . The reason the US embraced some socialism is that pure capitalism failed miserably during the period of the great depression and the events leading up to it. The US government until 1932 was as close as you will ever get to a pure capitalist system. The government steped in with some safety nets in reaction to the fact that the country was falling apart at the seams and was ready to embrace comunisim , or any other isim that promised a way out . The sysyem we have now is far from perfect but I believe that a hybrid system of government is the way to go. I do not think I could ever get on board with a pure philosophy of any type. I feel that the ability to adapt is what keeps you from extremes and blind adherance to a philosophy will keep you from adapting or thinking outside the box.

 

[Danoff]

you bring up 1932 . well lets take it further . The reason the US embraced some socialism is that pure capitalism failed miserably during the period of the great depression and the events leading up to it. The US government until 1932 was as close as you will ever get to a pure capitalist system. The government steped in with some safety nets in reaction to the fact that the country was falling apart at the seams and was ready to embrace comunisim , or any other isim that promised a way out . The sysyem we have now is far from perfect but I believe that a hybrid system of government is the way to go. I do not think I could ever get on board with a pure philosophy of any type. I feel that the ability to adapt is what keeps you from extremes and blind adherance to a philosophy will keep you from adapting or thinking outside the box.

1932 was not a failure of capitalism. It was a failure of people to be careful with their money. Part of the reason that hasn't repeated itself is because we learned from that scenario. The government doesn't need to have a safety net in place because people no longer think that the stock market = free money.

Blaming capitalism for the stock market crash or the depression is like blaming capitalism for Enron. It doesn't make sense.

 

[ledhed]

It wasn"t just the crash. it was the failure of the system to recover from the crash. The fact that the crash went on and was so deep was also a failure of the system then in place. Dont forget that thecrash created a panic of confidence in the public and almost made the entire bank system then in place in the US collapse. In fact if the supreme court had its way Roosevelt would not have been able to get the US off the gold standard and its a good bet that the US would have gone bankrupt.Hoover tried to stick with the pure capitalist credo that " the system will right itself, the worst thing we can do is interfere" but that only made things worse. Massive government intervention was what stopped the downward trend, and only massive government spending because of WW2 finally brought us out.It was corrected by installing government controlls on the stock market. You should also look at other symptoms of unregulated capitalism like the fact that that air brakes were not installed on rail road cars because it was cheaper to replace brakemen than to install a new brake system. Child labor. Mine workers conditions. The 40 hour work week is also a result of "progressive " ideas. The dust bowl and strip mining. hydraulic mining. If you want to be fair you can go on and on. The struggle to form unions for collective barganing that turned into open warfare. Is the forming of a union of working people for the purpose of collective barganing against capitalist principle ? It seems no different to me than a union of construction companies that get together to bid on a large job because if they get together it gives them more leverage and a better chance of making more money. After all the workers are selling thier labor to management and by presenting a united front they can bargain more effectively and hopefully get better compensation for their efforts. Look at the Japenese way of manufacture, they set up a little socialist empire in each factory and manage to be very effective capitalist.
At any rate I'm just pointing out , or trying to point out that you need to keep an open mind because I really do not think the perfect system has or ever will be invented. At least not as long as the variable called human beings are involved.

 

[Danoff]

It wasn"t just the crash. it was the failure of the system to recover from the crash. The fact that the crash went on and was so deep was also a failure of the system then in place. Dont forget that thecrash created a panic of confidence in the public and almost made the entire bank system then in place in the US collapse. In fact if the supreme court had its way Roosevelt would not have been able to get the US off the gold standard and its a good bet that the US would have gone bankrupt.Hoover tried to stick with the pure capitalist credo that " the system will right itself, the worst thing we can do is interfere" but that only made things worse. Massive government intervention was what stopped the downward trend, and only massive government spending because of WW2 finally brought us out.

So right there you said the social programs didn't save the economy. The fault was with the people - economists and consumers alike. Now that we're more experienced with economics, that kind of thing wouldn't happen again - no government safety net needed (then or now). WWII is military spending - I'm cool with that.

You should also look at other symptoms of unregulated capitalism like the fact that that air brakes were not installed on rail road cars because it was cheaper to replace brakemen than to install a new brake system.

So we need government to help with this? Do you know how many lawyers would line up to sue on behalf of the injured brakeman?

Child labor

I'm not so sure child labor is a bad thing. It needs to be looked at carefully. I don't see anything wrong with a kid working for an hour or two a day.

Mine workers conditions

Again, lawyers.

The 40 hour work week is also a result of "progressive " ideas.

The 40 hour work week (before overtime) is an arbitrary limit that should be repealed.

The dust bowl and strip mining. hydraulic mining.

Care to elaborate?

The struggle to form unions for collective barganing that turned into open warfare. Is the forming of a union of working people for the purpose of collective barganing against capitalist principle ? It seems no different to me than a union of construction companies that get together to bid on a large job because if they get together it gives them more leverage and a better chance of making more money. After all the workers are selling thier labor to management and by presenting a united front they can bargain more effectively and hopefully get better compensation for their efforts.

I see nothing wrong with Unions, only special laws that protect them.

Look at the Japenese way of manufacture, they set up a little socialist empire in each factory and manage to be very effective capitalist.

Can you post a link to an article or something? What exactly are they doing that's different and better?

At any rate I'm just pointing out , or trying to point out that you need to keep an open mind because I really do not think the perfect system has or ever will be invented.

It's open, don't worry about it. Open does not mean easily persuaded. I'm a very skeptical person.

I really do not think the perfect system has or ever will be invented. At least not as long as the variable called human beings are involved.

So is there some kind of inherent thing about humanity that will destroy any system? What is that thing, how could you build a system that would take it into account?