Jerry Mitchell writes
> "an economic system characterized by private or corporate
> ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined
> by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices,
> production, and the distribution of goods that are determined
> mainly by competition in a free market."
That definition was supplied by Barbara, Jerry, not me :-)
> Nature imposes Capitalism, man imposes all other forms.
Too many libertarians, in my opinion, forget the importance
of culture. Actually, a hunter-gatherer communism is probably
more "natural" than capitalism. But even very developed societies,
such as the Inca, might very well somehow make some form of
communism work (lots of things are possible when your leader
really is God).
We can probably safely state, however, that for human beings
capitalism is "natural" if
1. there is a sufficient tradition of liberty in a culture
2. the ruling government or state is not overly powerful
3. no existing religion has absolute control, unless it's
fairly mild and isn't antithetical to profit
I think that I see why you wish to describe capitalism as
"natural"
> Capitalism is after all is what happens when one quits
> trying to impose systems on man.
While I can't agree with that for the aforesaid reasons, it's
true that in comparison, systems that arise from the concentration
of power at a central focus seem artificial in comparison.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT