David Roberson
New member
I think this horse isn't entirely dead yet, so here are a few more whacks:
Amp, you said:
I don't agree that the US is the most successful mixed-market economy, unless you define "successful" as meaning "biggest."
That was my meaning, but I agree there are other measures of success. We can probably agree that the U.S. is one of the most successful mixed-market economies.
Third, the US has actually been steadily reducing the amount of socialism in its mix since the 1970s - we've steadily reduced welfare payments in real dollars, for instance, and many major industries have been and continue to be privatized and/or deregulated. So if you're right about that connection, then the strenuous effort to redefine the rights should have peaked around 1973 and gone down ever since.
Actually, what I said was that a government with the authority to redistribute its citizens' wealth cannot resist the urge to manage personal rights as well. That's not the same as saying there's a positive correlation between government efforts to manipulate the economy and its efforts to manipulate citizen's rights. Efforts to manipulate personal rights can at times take precedent over efforts to manipulate the economy, depending on the interests and goals of those in control of the mechanism of government. And that brings me back to the main point I was making: That the government with the authority to redistribute citizens' wealth isn't content to stop there.
Amp, you said:
I don't agree that the US is the most successful mixed-market economy, unless you define "successful" as meaning "biggest."
That was my meaning, but I agree there are other measures of success. We can probably agree that the U.S. is one of the most successful mixed-market economies.
Third, the US has actually been steadily reducing the amount of socialism in its mix since the 1970s - we've steadily reduced welfare payments in real dollars, for instance, and many major industries have been and continue to be privatized and/or deregulated. So if you're right about that connection, then the strenuous effort to redefine the rights should have peaked around 1973 and gone down ever since.
Actually, what I said was that a government with the authority to redistribute its citizens' wealth cannot resist the urge to manage personal rights as well. That's not the same as saying there's a positive correlation between government efforts to manipulate the economy and its efforts to manipulate citizen's rights. Efforts to manipulate personal rights can at times take precedent over efforts to manipulate the economy, depending on the interests and goals of those in control of the mechanism of government. And that brings me back to the main point I was making: That the government with the authority to redistribute citizens' wealth isn't content to stop there.