very well stated except you fail to note that Hong Kong and Singapore have extraordinarily active governments, as investors and regulators and state planners extraordinaire. Moreover, neither is a democracy and the former is an expression of a brutal authoritarian regime that incarcerates dissenters in volume. Socialism, whatever that means, is supposed to reflect the goal of the people owning through elected governments the means of their own way of making a life. Capitalism can be, possibly, aligned with democracy and individual rights, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. I wouldn't have wanted to debate you; you're tough! But I would have had you at the example stage.
Remarkably, Caplan and Bruenig completely talk past each other. Neither is interested in the things that motivate the other, nor addresses it.
I'm not personally interested in living in a socialist society, but have zero problems allowing those who want to, do so. I wish the socialists would allow me the same tolerance. But alas, no.
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need." But who determines your need?
The nearest thing to voluntary socialism would seem to be a monastery. Those work because the individuals are dedicated to something beyond their own survival.
Families are not democratic systems. Children ultimately have to do what their parents tell them to do.
Sorry, but your explanation of capitalism is faulty and also utopian. Capitalism can exist in a variety of systems, including fascist ones. Even "communist" China now has a form of capitalism. There has to be a certain minimal level of freedom for capitalism to work, within the market mechanism, but capitalism can still function within highly repressive societies. Furthermore, capitalism cannot function well without government to provide (reasonable) regulation, infrastructure, the rule of law, and some incentives for particular industries that are especially beneficial to society.
Libertarianism is as much utopian nonsense as socialism and anarchism.
That experiment’s been tried a few times. Not sure why this isn’t widely known (maybe the shift in high school curricula from actual history toward social justice stuff). Absence of any government regulation can lead to monopolies, so no competitors or elsewheres to go to. Free markets are the result of a government constraint on capitalism.
Not easy to do. But pure, unfettered capitalism also tends to authoritarianism (oligarchy), not the voluntary exchanges imagined in the post. The attempted solution for the past century is to regulate capitalism in a way prevents it harms while preserving its power to do good. Which is also not easy to do and has no fixed formula.
There is no such thing as unfettered capitalism. Even without government regulation, companies are regulated by their customers’ ability to buy elsewhere, their suppliers’ ability to sell elsewhere, their employees’ ability to work elsewhere, and their competitors’ ability to provide better goods and services at lower prices.
How does one separate authoritarianism from socialism? Isn't a system of Democratic socialism just another form of authoritarianism by different means?
Very interesting to read Bryan's opening statement alongside Bruenig's. Bryan's is concise, direct and tangible. Hers is so much airy, pointless fluff that it almost reads as a self-parody.
You are correct, Dr Caplan. When I read Bruenig's statement, it seems nicely poetic, but doesn't really paint a picture of socialism at all, perhaps by design?
very well stated except you fail to note that Hong Kong and Singapore have extraordinarily active governments, as investors and regulators and state planners extraordinaire. Moreover, neither is a democracy and the former is an expression of a brutal authoritarian regime that incarcerates dissenters in volume. Socialism, whatever that means, is supposed to reflect the goal of the people owning through elected governments the means of their own way of making a life. Capitalism can be, possibly, aligned with democracy and individual rights, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. I wouldn't have wanted to debate you; you're tough! But I would have had you at the example stage.
Remarkably, Caplan and Bruenig completely talk past each other. Neither is interested in the things that motivate the other, nor addresses it.
I'm not personally interested in living in a socialist society, but have zero problems allowing those who want to, do so. I wish the socialists would allow me the same tolerance. But alas, no.
You are, of course, spot on. How about something simpler? Choose either or both.
A) socialist states just before they fail become dictatorial, authoritarian states and intentionally or accidentally kill many.
B) I am going to appoint a committee for your life; they get to choose what you learn, where you work, and how you spend your money. You in?
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need." But who determines your need?
The nearest thing to voluntary socialism would seem to be a monastery. Those work because the individuals are dedicated to something beyond their own survival.
Families are not democratic systems. Children ultimately have to do what their parents tell them to do.
Sorry, but your explanation of capitalism is faulty and also utopian. Capitalism can exist in a variety of systems, including fascist ones. Even "communist" China now has a form of capitalism. There has to be a certain minimal level of freedom for capitalism to work, within the market mechanism, but capitalism can still function within highly repressive societies. Furthermore, capitalism cannot function well without government to provide (reasonable) regulation, infrastructure, the rule of law, and some incentives for particular industries that are especially beneficial to society.
Libertarianism is as much utopian nonsense as socialism and anarchism.
h
You’re comparing libertarianism with authoritarianism, not capitalism with socialism.
Plenty of historical examples of capitalism run amok in its purer forms, without state constraints to curb its excesses.
That experiment’s been tried a few times. Not sure why this isn’t widely known (maybe the shift in high school curricula from actual history toward social justice stuff). Absence of any government regulation can lead to monopolies, so no competitors or elsewheres to go to. Free markets are the result of a government constraint on capitalism.
Not easy to do. But pure, unfettered capitalism also tends to authoritarianism (oligarchy), not the voluntary exchanges imagined in the post. The attempted solution for the past century is to regulate capitalism in a way prevents it harms while preserving its power to do good. Which is also not easy to do and has no fixed formula.
There is no such thing as unfettered capitalism. Even without government regulation, companies are regulated by their customers’ ability to buy elsewhere, their suppliers’ ability to sell elsewhere, their employees’ ability to work elsewhere, and their competitors’ ability to provide better goods and services at lower prices.
How does one separate authoritarianism from socialism? Isn't a system of Democratic socialism just another form of authoritarianism by different means?
Game. Set. And Match to Dr. Caplan.
Very interesting to read Bryan's opening statement alongside Bruenig's. Bryan's is concise, direct and tangible. Hers is so much airy, pointless fluff that it almost reads as a self-parody.
Depressing that American intellectuals don't remember Talcott Parsons or why he was important...
You are correct, Dr Caplan. When I read Bruenig's statement, it seems nicely poetic, but doesn't really paint a picture of socialism at all, perhaps by design?