Some people who hear “laissez-faire capitalism” may mistakenly assume it means leaving capitalists free to do such things as polluting their neighborhoods, defrauding their customers, and making deals with government officials for special privileges.
One possible strategy is to say “force-excluding capitalism”. The worst reaction we are likely to get is “What the [obscenity] is that?” This wording indicates a key concept in what we are talking about and gives us a chance to explain what we mean without dealing with the baggage some people attach to “laissez-faire”.
Thoughts?
1 Like
I suppose the problem with the term “force-excluding capitalism” is that it suggests that there is a “force-including capitalism,” when really there shouldn’t be such a thing. If you include force, it ceases to be capitalism.
When trying to explain my own views I like to emphasize that capitalism requires a separation of state and economics, which would mean that businesses don’t have state power, i.e., they don’t have the power to deal in force.
However, it usually takes a little explaining.
Capitalism is a controversial concept. There are always people who want to remove the concept from consideration, so they try to change the word to mean something else, so that there is no word for the actual concept.
Ayn Rand had the same problem with the term “selfishness.” She wrote a book trying to clear away the falsehoods that people have associated with the concept, but if there was ever a book that is only judged by its cover (it’s title, even), it’s probably that one. Lots of people decide not to read it because they think they already know what it says.
I no longer care about capitalism and I’ve never cared for Marxism. Obsolete artifacts from nineteenth century observers. Lassiez-faire capitalism is essentially a synonym for neomercantilism. I describle myself as an egalitarian or hedonistic utilitarian. I’m still no closer to understanding what this syncretism called Objectivism actually is.
On 6/30/2024 at 5:28 PM, necrovore said:
I suppose the problem with the term “force-excluding capitalism” is that it suggests that there is a “force-including capitalism,” when really there shouldn’t be such a thing. If you include force, it ceases to be capitalism.
Couldn’t a similar argument be made against the term “laissez-faire capitalism”?
On 6/30/2024 at 7:22 PM, irreligious said:
Lassiez-faire capitalism is essentially a synonym for neomercantilism.
I looked up neomercantilism. It very quickly became clear that it is very different from laissez-faire capitalism.
On 6/30/2024 at 7:22 PM, irreligious said:
this syncretism called Objectivism
Objectivism is not a syncretism. It has its own foundation and builds from there. I have not yet read Leonard Peikoff’s The Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but I gather it does a good job of explaining what Objectivism is. If you want me to recommend books I have read, start with Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness.
On 7/2/2024 at 3:31 PM, Doug Morris said:
Couldn’t a similar argument be made against the term “laissez-faire capitalism”?
I think the argument is made sometimes.