Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Laissez-faire capitalism

  1. Jul 18, 2009 #1
    self-sustained socialism regulated naturally? (technical definition of 'socialism').. anyone else believe in natural paradigms???

    although this post is meant to instigate a debate, please refrain from playing devils advocate too excessively... thanks!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2009 #2

    Mk

    User Avatar

    I don't understand your question, pgsleep.

    I'd say what capitalism comes down to is the individual sanctity of property. Whoever is the property owner gets to decide what is done with it. In socialism "your" property is subject to the rights of the community you are a part of.

    This is extended to the means of production.
     
  4. Jul 18, 2009 #3

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I read the post title as Re: "laissez-faire capitalization", only to find I was mistaken.

    Or was I? :rofl:
     
  5. Jul 18, 2009 #4
    Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. It is not socialism, so I am confused by the title of your thread and the content of your post. Could you please clarify your point. That said let me try to respond to your post.

    I don't think socialism can be natural, that is, without violence or coercion. It necessarily involves communal ownership of the means of production, but while it may be communal ownership in law, in fact someone or group will be making decisions as to how it is used, and they have an incentive to use to further their private interests. Socialism involves forcefully taking property from some person or group of people and redistributing it to others, there doesn't seem to be anything natural about this to me, it requires a some sort of organized and planed human action to accomplish. I would use the word natural to mean unplanned and uncoordinated human action. Regulation can be a form of taxation, it is rules as to how you are are allowed to use your property that may impose a cost on you while maybe benefiting others, but it also doesn't seem to be natural.

    (btw, I'm a big believer in the benefits of capitalism, for both moral and utilitarian reasons, so if your arguing on behalf of socialism I won't be playing devil's advocate, I really believe this stuff!)
     
  6. Jul 20, 2009 #5
    Whereas capitalism involves forcefully preventing groups of people from naturally accessing resources that some person has organised exclusivity to?

    Sure, I would agree that capitalism seems to have proven more motivating than communism, but some degree of socialism is necessary if only to force about some fairness. Violence and genocide are what is natural, and property (contrastingly) is an artificially imposed concept.
     
  7. Jul 20, 2009 #6
    Huh?

    Violence and genocide natural :rofl:
     
  8. Jul 20, 2009 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Um, that's basically a paraphrase of Hobbes and his concept of the "State of nature".
     
  9. Aug 4, 2009 #8
    to speak to the notion of natural paradigms... carbon life is brutal. "whether beasts devour saints or saints devour beasts what's nourishment for one, is the others affliction."
     
  10. Sep 10, 2009 #9

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So you say, and Hobbes. I say that's pure invention.
     
  11. Sep 10, 2009 #10

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Start with a group where everyone lives in huts, has the same small plot of land. Some work the land hard everyday, improving their yields daily. Others are lazy, or just indifferent, and fair not as well. The collectivist comes down the road and takes from the productive, and gives to the lazy or indifferent. Now what is is the fair part of that tale?
     
  12. Sep 11, 2009 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oversimplification: Your tale presumes that those who do not fare as well as I do so because they are lazy and/or indifferent, biasing us against their plight.

    I could just as easily posit that they do not fare as well because a tornado wiped out their crop and spared mine.

    Still so unfair to distribute?
     
  13. Sep 11, 2009 #12
    A more apt analogy would be to start with people who are born into different social groups and have (statistically) low chance of achieving outside of the group they are born into, and then redistribute things to allow people the same opportunities.
     
  14. Sep 11, 2009 #13

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    And now you're biasing us in the other direction. (Hint: efficiency tradeoffs in redistribution.)
     
  15. Sep 11, 2009 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes.
     
  16. Sep 11, 2009 #15

    Nan

    User Avatar

    Why?
     
  17. Sep 11, 2009 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That is not a more apt case, it is simply another case.
     
  18. Sep 11, 2009 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Be careful about comparing apples and oranges.

    In the case cited by mheslep - the disparity is due to the differences in industry applied by the people - some are diligent and hard working others not.

    In the case cited by DaveC - the disparity is due to a some natural (beyond human control) event.

    If the redistribution is by consent (mutual consent) of the participants, then it is fair. If however the redistribution is forced or coerced, that is not fair, and certainly not in the case cited by mheslep.

    In economic theory, one's hard work or diligence is supposed to be 'rewarded' in some measure by profit.
     
  19. Sep 11, 2009 #18

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I acknowledge people fail or have hard times through no fault of their own. There are also those that grew wealthy by doing absolutely nothing (legal or productive).
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2009
  20. Sep 11, 2009 #19
    It is more apt because it corresponds more closely to the real world.
     
  21. Sep 11, 2009 #20

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In other words, it's true because you say it's true.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Laissez-faire capitalism
  1. Capitalization? (Replies: 3)

  2. Future of Capitalism (Replies: 49)

Loading...