Mr. Moderate

When capitalistic economics work, it can’t be beat as an economic system. The problems with capitalism are all around the margins, and have to do with areas of the economy where the free market is not in anything like an ideal state, and so the economy does not function properly for one reason or another. It could be because of monopoly power, or it could be because the area of the economy does not respond properly to free market forces (like health care). No matter what the reasons are for some areas of the economy not working properly under a capitalistic free market, any areas which do work properly are to remain untouched. So, the true core of my utopian economic system is pure capitalism.

But for the parts of the economy where it can be shown that capitalism produces inefficiency or unjust economic results, or that capitalism does not work properly for some other reason, then the second (or “back-up”) choice for an economic system, to be used only in those dysfunctional areas of the economy, is socialism.

A socialist approach is the overall second-best approach, and the best approach where capitalism does not work. If capitalism has led to a powerful monopoly that is robbing the people, then a socialist government needs to step in with some sort of socialist approach (nationalization, regulation, etc.) to remedy the social ills caused by an inefficient or non-functional market.

Now, I’m all for personal freedom, but libertarianism takes freedom to an impossible extreme. I believe that preferring free market capitalism over socialism as the default economic approach will result in a completely sufficient amount of personal freedom without needing to destroy the efficiencies of large scale operations which would necessarily result from libertarian economics. (For instance, Libertarians would deny the government the right to condemn property to build efficient road networks, something which is necessary to an efficient free market economy.) Let us remember that the goal of capitalism is a “free market” and it is only when the market becomes “un-free” that socialist controls need to creep into the picture. Again, in my mind, the focus on a “free market” as the top priority economic goal will necessarily result in a sufficient level of freedom for the population without needing to adopt libertarian principles.

If we evaluate the economic system of the United States against the above principles, we will find that we have many areas of the US economy where the market is not free in any real sense, and yet our government has done nothing to try to benefit the common people who are suffering due to this lack of a truly free market. This observation should not be the least bit surprising once we realize that our economic system is controlled by dedicated capitalists who are attempting to gain monopoly control (or at least, oligarchical control) of our economic system. If the US is going to remain a democracy that is responsive to the needs of the people, then socialist programs need to be implemented to address the very real abuses of the people by the economic monopolies and oligarchies that rule large segments of our economy.

I call my utopian economic system “capitalistic socialism” to emphasize that it is first and foremost “capitalistic,” but that, at the end of the day, it is a socialist economic system where “property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.” That socialistic principle is deeply embedded in our system through rights like “eminent domain,” where the community can choose to take any property that the community needs to create a public benefit. The problem within the USA is that the phrase “the community” in the above principle does not currently represent the needs of “the average citizen.” Instead, “the community” really means the group of business owners who contribute vast sums of money to political campaigns. This needs to be fixed in order to make our government responsive to average citizens.