Without the state there is no such thing as property rights. If you disagree please explain yourself.
Bailouts from the State are very harmful to society and make things far worse. Bailouts are stealing from responsible people and giving to irresponsible people. Is it any wonder that there are so many risky investments when the State will save you? Anarcho-capitalism is all around you. It is what people do without violence being applied to them. Every transaction freely entered into is anarcho-capitalism.
You claim that, but socialism bailing out capitalism is what has lead to our current standard of living. The Space Race was socialism bailing out capitalism.
There is no such thing as natural rights, especially concerning property, which is inherently part of the state, which is the only force that can defend and uphold its ownership.
Capitalism didn't need bailing out. It was the government banking system that needed bailing out. Don't get confused. It was socialism that caused the problem, and the socialist solution of stealing from the poor to save the rich only makes things worse. The Space Race was government stealing from society to build monuments for fools to believe in.
Of course there's such a thing as natural rights. The proof is in how you live your life. You don't steal from your neighbors or violently attack others not because you'll get punished but because you just know that it's wrong. Saying that property rights are part of the state doesn't make any sense. I think you are confused because you think that the state upholds property rights and without the state there would be no such thing. That is, of course, just as silly as thinking that if the state didn't build any roads there would be no roads because we're all too dumb to figure out how to lay some asphalt from here to there.
I am not sure why you believe that. Where is there any capitalism without the socialism of a State, doing what you claim? - - - Updated - - - The concept of natural rights is a social compact that is recognized in our social contract and supreme law of the land.
Capitalism is just the voluntary sector of society. Every thing that you and everyone else does without violence, threats of violence or fraud is capitalism. You see, if you threaten to beat someone up if they don't give you money, that's socialism. If you offer to trade something of yours for money, that's capitalism. You've been taught the fairy-tale version of things in which socialism = sharing and capitalism = greed. Reality is that socialism = violence and capitalism = peace. The Constitution and government pay lip service to natural rights, but if they want your life, liberty or property they will take it from you. You see, to them we are just cattle. You don't want to upset the cattle too much or the milk will go sour. You give the cattle a little room to move around in, make sure they are calm and obedient, but always under tight control.
You seem to be omitting the point about Capialism not being a form of Government; Socialism includes Government. I believe the Electorate of the United States merely needs to become more well informed:
Humans are naturally cooperative according to some of the latest brain research so behaving in public is an expected natural behaviour. Humans are also naturally social and have always lived in groups so the concept of individual private property is not natural. It is a very recent notion in human history. Throughout human history the ownership of property has been communal and it has always been the community, be it tribe or state or nation, that upheld and defended and decided the right of individuals to make use of it. Without a community state or nation to uphold and defend them individual property rights become only what an individual can hold on their own against all comers. In other words, useless and meaningless. This is what happens when social concepts are removed from their context.
Which is all the time. - - - Updated - - - What chapter of the General Theory covers Keynes saying regulations should be cut?
Keynes' General Theory has been holding up better than the Real Business Cycle Theories, monetarist, Austrian School voodoo, and NeoClassical bunk. Especially since the responses to the Great Recession have proven Keynesian policies to be successful in bringing markets back to growth faster and with less long term damage than those other approaches.
Clinton had a plan to bring down deficits via tax hikes, before the Rise of the Unthinking Republicans in the aftermath of the 1994 elections. The debt fell as a percentage of GDP during Clinton.
Successful in the short term only. The repercussions will be felt at some point when the only answer is to always kick the can down the road. At some point that road ends. Why do you think the "Great Recession" even happened? Because there was a slight jog in the road, just wait until that road comes to an end.
Untrue. The thing about Keynesian economic policies is that the recessions are ended sooner, with median to long term deficits actually reduced by the short term deficit spending, because if the economy is growing, revenues are rising. Then, when the economy is recovered, Keynesian policy is designed to reduce deficits by the increased economic activity, reducing spending and raising taxes. That's why Clinton's stimulus to combat the recession GHW Bush left, followed by deficit reduction as the economy grew and taxes were raised, was more proof of Keynesian success in not kicking the can down the road. Want another example? WWII spending ended the Great Depression, and taxes were raised to far higher marginal rates. Yes, there were more deductions, but the effective rates were still higher than today. As were corporate taxes, capital gains, and other taxes adding to the revenues. Deficits were dropping after the largest debt the US ever incurred from the Keynesian policies. And spending on infrastructure helped companies find opportunities to chase after and maximize profits, further reducing deficits as the revenues streams were created.
Historically, "The State" has been dominated by war lords and dictators, where might was the only property right. This is good justification for the second amendment (it is not about hunting). There are many democracies where property rights are not enforced by the state, rather they are abused. Even in the US, governments have abused eminent domain and search and seizure by sliding down that slippery slope of "societal justice" rationalization.
From FactCheck.org Seems there was more at work than Clinton's tax increase. And, when the Dot-Com bubble burst...... No. During the war, most people were employed, and with much of industry converted from consumer to war goods, a large part of what they earned was saved. That savings, plus the sales to Europe and Asia after the war ended the Great Depression. There was concern that the sudden reduction in government spending would cause a recession - didn't happen. Why would you think government spending would end recession - it hasn't.... and won't.
It merely proved that socialism with a Cause can always bailout Capitalism on a not-for-profit basis.
Please explain how the space race is "socialism with a Cause," disproves the claim that the Fed is a consortium of private banks, and that it and not the Fed bailed out bankers after the 2008 crash.
So what? There was a deficit every year Clinton was President. Learn the difference between a deficit, debt, and the GDP.
Socialism usually requries a social Cause not a capital Cause. It really is that simple to distinguish Socialism from Capitalism.
