What is wrong with such a government?

carn · #1 Jan 31, '12, 12:09 pm

(aka what is wrong with capitalism second try)

Please take a look at the following "code of conduct" for a government:

Protect the rights of everybody and respect the rule of law with basic human rights forming the foundation of the law. This includes property rights and therefore any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty) and is only possible according to laws and such laws are only valid and may be passed, if there is sufficient reason for the interference, which can only arise from the protection of human rights (e.g. poor people should not starve, so non-poor may be forced to provide the food/means for food if a voluntary solution does not work, voluntary solution preferable because then no interference into rights necessary).

Is this government lacking regarding morality and in what way?

(Please note that no government following this code of conduct existed the past 100 years, so any arguments by example are futile. )

Is the existance of such a government impossible for some reason or is it inherently unstable due to this code of conduct?

Monte RCMS · #2 Jan 31, '12, 1:14 pm

One size fits all. Fine if you just happen to fit that size.

Scoobyshme · #3 Jan 31, '12, 1:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by carn

(aka what is wrong with capitalism second try)

Please take a look at the following "code of conduct" for a government:

Protect the rights of everybody and respect the rule of law with basic human rights forming the foundation of the law. This includes property rights and therefore any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty) and is only possible according to laws and such laws are only valid and may be passed, if there is sufficient reason for the interference, which can only arise from the protection of human rights (e.g. poor people should not starve, so non-poor may be forced to provide the food/means for food if a voluntary solution does not work, voluntary solution preferable because then no interference into rights necessary).

Is this government lacking regarding morality and in what way?

(Please note that no government following this code of conduct existed the past 100 years, so any arguments by example are futile. )

Is the existance of such a government impossible for some reason or is it inherently unstable due to this code of conduct?

I don't think we've had real capitalism in this country since 1929. Both socialism and the form of capitalism we currently have are inadequate in the long term.

On the one hand, socialism believes that the state should own and control everything and everyone. One need only look to Europe and Russia to see how that failed. Sooner or later, you run out of everyone else's money. And, there's no real incentive to excel.

On the other hand, our brand of capitalism is about to fail, too. The richer get richer and the poorer get poorer. Because of the overemphasis on personal wealth of the small percentage of "owners" at the top, we've sent much of the lifeblood of our economy (manufacturing) overseas in exchange for cheap labor. We are going to collapse economically, barring a miraculous turnaround.

What we should be considering is some form of distributism, where the employees own the company, have a vested interest in it, and personally reap the rewards of its success. This is being done successfully in at least three places that I know of, right offhand. One is the Mondragon group in the Basque area of Spain. They recently voted a 6% pay cut across the board because of the economy, but other than that, they're thriving when everyone else around them is failing miserably. There's another group in Italy, and one in Argentina. The one in Argentina is interesting in that there was a large company, owned by the elite, that failed. The employees got together, bought the company and are running it through the distributionist model. It is thriving now. There's lots more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.

Here's a few references if you're interested in reading about distributism:

Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective on the Role of Government, Taxes, Health Care, Deficits, and More by John C. Médaille

Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal by Tobias J. Lanz

carn · #4 Feb 6, '12, 1:04 am

Thanks for the answers. It seems the question, what would be wrong with a government as described in my OP, is hard to answer. Maybe i'll try at another time with a new thread.

JonathonofOhio · #5 Feb 6, '12, 7:05 am

The flaw here is the idea that you can setup a government that will provide for the welfare of the people, and call it capitalism. Your idea is more socialism. Anytime you setup a government to provide welfare benefits to the people who are in need, the government must establish bureaucracies to decide who or who should not receive those benefits, and money must be given to the government in order to pay for such programs. These sorts of programs do not work long-term, and you will eventually only end up with a large government and out of control spending, as people scramble to gain power to control the money and subject others to their idea of morality and life.

A government which provides for the welfare of the people (a socialist government) and one that protects your God-given rights is incompatible, because anytime you give the power to a government to provide for the general welfare of the people, a portion of your property must be given to the government in order to provide for those benefits. When the government takes property from you (i.e. your income in the form of a tax), you lose your right to liberty; in that you have no say where the money goes, and you have little say in how much property the government can seize for the benefit of the people in the future. Therefore, I would think that this form of government you are purposing is impossible, and cannot exist in reality. You cannot be assured of your right to life, liberty, and property if you are willing to give even a fraction of it to someone else to decide what should be done with it, and you cannot expect a government to protect you from others taking what is left from you if the government itself is benefiting from taking your rights from you.

carn · #6 Feb 6, '12, 10:34 pm

@JonathonofOhio

I did not expect someone claiming that such a government would be too socialistic.

But you are right, the crucial aspect is whether this part "if there is sufficient reason for the interference," is done correctly or screwed by empty worded goals.

In defense, i want to stress, that all current so-called human right respecting governments never have to consider whether the raising of a tax might constitute a too strong interference in individual rights. In practically all other fields the supreme court often rules laws unconstitutional, if they interfere to far into an individual right for insufficient reason.
Not so with taxes. In Germany its even explicit majority opinion of constitution experts, that solely by the parliament decision to raise a tax rate it is already proven, that the raising is justified. There was some years ago a supreme court judge, who tried to introduce the "crazy" idea that for no individual the total taxation may be more than 50% of income, but unfortunately he failed.

So such a government as i suggested in the OP would be distinctive from today governements, that in property rights and especially taxation, it would have to consider, whether its a too far infringement on individual rights.