> genuinely effective in protecting the rights of individuals
> most concerned with people in positions of power buying government officials
Both of those are KEY issues, yes. And in both cases, the modern West is arguably more-or-less the most successful society I know of, across history, and yet simultaneously doing so much worse than it seems like it should be.
Here are some other areas where I think we should limit pure capitalism.
1) Market externalities. The most obvious of these, to me, is pollution. 500 years ago, worrying about mining tailings might have been ridiculous, but it's clear that today, a perfect government will interfere with this in some way (perhaps by allowing pollution but taxing it heavily?). Torturing animals might be another example (as opposed to allowing dogfighting as a market activity). I suppose that most other externalities that jump to mind are arguably covered by "protecting the rights of individuals".
2) Moderating wealth disparity. On the one hand, we certainly see some societal benefits from allowing industrious people to get rich. On the other hand, we know that wealth disparity is directly linked with a variety of social ills. Also many people feel it's reasonable to tax the rich heavily, in order to succor the poor. The main question is one of degree. To my understanding, this isn't incompatible with "pure capitalism", but many people argue for flat taxes on the basis of "pure capitalism", thus my bringing it up.
I think your questions are very good. Thank you. And as you suggest, I do think that a society and a government that really understood and cherished individual rights would go a long way towards solving the problems you raise.
Sadly, I don't expect any such society anytime soon.
As regards pollution, I think the problem can be solved by respect for property rights. Your life is your property, and if someone harms you by polluting the air you must breathe, I think the government and objective law should come to your defense. At the same time, I think it has to be proven that you were actually harmed by the pollution. I understand that this is a complex matter.
Same deal with water. I don't think anyone has the right to force someone else to provide them with clean water, as that would amount to a kind of slavery. At the same time, I think a rights-respecting government should act, if it can be shown, objectively, that someone is polluting a water source.
I don't think animals have rights, and I think they can be a person's property, so I would say that a person has the right to torture animals. I think that's a horrible thing to do, I think it's sick and pathetic, and I think such a person should be denounced, shamed and shunned to the greatest extent possible. But if asked whether s/he has such a right, I would say yes, they have such a right.
As regards wealth, again, I'm going to point to property rights. I don't think law-abiding people should have their property confiscated, to any degree, or for any reason. I understand that people will point out that of course we must collect taxes to fund the government, and I agree with this today, although I don't agree with the massive bloat in terms of what politicians and many / most in society consider government's proper role.
I appreciate this conversation and it's respectful tone. Ultimately, my bottom line is freedom for the individual and a society that demonstrates real respect for the rights of all individuals.
> genuinely effective in protecting the rights of individuals
> most concerned with people in positions of power buying government officials
Both of those are KEY issues, yes. And in both cases, the modern West is arguably more-or-less the most successful society I know of, across history, and yet simultaneously doing so much worse than it seems like it should be.
Here are some other areas where I think we should limit pure capitalism.
1) Market externalities. The most obvious of these, to me, is pollution. 500 years ago, worrying about mining tailings might have been ridiculous, but it's clear that today, a perfect government will interfere with this in some way (perhaps by allowing pollution but taxing it heavily?). Torturing animals might be another example (as opposed to allowing dogfighting as a market activity). I suppose that most other externalities that jump to mind are arguably covered by "protecting the rights of individuals".
2) Moderating wealth disparity. On the one hand, we certainly see some societal benefits from allowing industrious people to get rich. On the other hand, we know that wealth disparity is directly linked with a variety of social ills. Also many people feel it's reasonable to tax the rich heavily, in order to succor the poor. The main question is one of degree. To my understanding, this isn't incompatible with "pure capitalism", but many people argue for flat taxes on the basis of "pure capitalism", thus my bringing it up.