Comments on: Capitalism without the Thorns

By: Salman Siddiqui

Salman Siddiqui — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:08 +0000

The important consideration is liberty, not what economic system people choose. A free society, whether capitalist or socialist, is better than an authoritarian society, whether capitalist or socialist. My own prediction is that, for stateless societies, there will be great diversity in property arrangements, with capitalism, socialism, mutualism, geoism, and other systems we haven’t even thought of yet being tried in various enclaves. The end of religious establishments didn’t result in everyone becoming atheist. On the contrary, there is a great diversity in religions and denominations and cults. Similarly, the end of economic establishments will result in diversity in property systems.

By: Nafees Bajwa

Nafees Bajwa — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:12:53 +0000

Now this is what I call an outstanding discussion. I wud also like to commend Mr. Dan Tow for an authortative piece.

By: Dan Tow

Dan Tow — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:06:35 +0000

Faisalk: You make an interesting point regarding the price of electricity in a less-regulated market in Pakistan: It *would* likely go up, and the result *would* cause supply to rise to equal demand! I grant that no on would much lik the higher price, but I also expect that ahving enough electricity would be a tremendous help to development of the nation - what does more harm, the rise in price or the lack of sufficient electricity?

By: Faisalk

Faisalk — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:27:20 +0000

The concept of public education being sponsored by the corporation is a great one. If the corporations spend a bit of their profits on developing educational centers for the very consumer that they thrive upon it would lead to wholesale betterment of the masses. A lot of the Libertarian philosophy seems to be aimed at idealistic thought. Is it ever possible to achieve such a state in today’s world though? If we are to simple let market forces determine price then by that measure electricity would be twice as expensive in a country like Pakistan as the demand far exceeds the supply?

By: Prof. Armughan Khan

Prof. Armughan Khan — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:41:21 +0000

Then I think US is heavily Libertarian. Because Microsoft, Oracle, Coca Cola, Dell, Warner Bros and many other tycoons are practically more powerful than US government.

Perhaps that is why governments in developing countries don’t let the businesses and media flourish beyond a certain point.

By: Rumta Jogi

Rumta Jogi — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:35:28 +0000

When you please pay pollution taxes to Pakistan, pay them to the people, and not to the rulers. If you give it to rulers, money would go back to their swiss and spanish accounts.

By: Abhijeet

Abhijeet — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:28:19 +0000

But what if we take government as a big mighty corporation having monopoly and immense control? A corporation which is hated and loved by people, and whose survival depends upon the number of haters and lovers? Then doesn’t that render this whole Libertarian thingy useless?

By: Pipian

Pipian — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:18:33 +0000

That’s how it was in Russia really. My grandmother’s father was “German”, and her first language was Platdeutsch. My other grandfather was “Jewish”-”Polish”. Why “”? Who of the simple folk thought about regulations? They lived where they lived, did business how they used to do it and didn’t really think about it. Things started to corode when capitalism became an issue.

By: Dan Tow

Dan Tow — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:18:26 +0000

Responding to James Sutherland:
I’m a lifelong Democrat, myself, James, and I’m highly sympathetic to the Democratic ideals, including the ideal of government addressing imbalance of wealth. I actually think this can be done, though, within a framework that simultaneously respects Libertarian ideals better than we currently do, by better harnessing people’s own wish to help themselves, and giving them the *means* to do so. Specifically in terms of regulation of business, I’d challenge you to find a case for useful government regulation that cannot be addressed in terms of one or more of three types of regulation that I submit are legitimate under the most Libertarian arguments:

1) Demand rent (tax) for external damages (such as damages to the commons) done by a business following destructive business practices, and demand rent (tax) for the businesses use of government-provided infrastructure.
2) Enforce that individuals have good information to make *informed* choices. The subprime mess was owing to mortgage buyers being uninformed about their choices and risks, and securities buyers being uninfirmed about the risks of those sub-prime-”guaranteed” securities, for example, so that mess is avoided through type-2.
3) Enforce that individuals have real choices, that the market provides real competition.

As for the non-business arena, and government’s legitimate role there, I agree that the best policies looks more like what the Democrats advocate than what the Libertarians advocate, but even there I’d argue that we can justify those policies in terms that ought to make sense even to a Libertarian, if we did a better job of explaining them, and if we tweaked them just moderately. That’s a topic for a future post, though!

Responding to Dr. Ayesha:

In US history, too, we too had a period where capitalism was very rough, during those 1800s I mentioned in my original post. It *is* important and legitimate for an honest government to be stronger than the companies, and capable of enforcing the three types of legitimate regulation mentioned above. In this environment, I submit, your current capitalist abuses would be very much reduced. Without this environment, things are bound to be a mess for a while, as they were in 1800s America, and the question becomes what is the best, fastest path to something better: the path the US took, or something better and more fitted to your situation?

By: Farzana Mir

Farzana Mir — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:06:31 +0000

Can anybody tell me that is there any modern industrailized nation which represents loosely or stricly the laissez-faire principles or policies.