NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that both Republicans and Democrats tend to be rather partial in their politics on this question. Republicans tend to believe that the economy should be free while the social order of society is carefully restricted, while Democrats seem to tend to believe that the social order should be free, and restrictions should be put on the economy. This raises one question however: What is more important to each party? and furthermore, what implications does this have?

I've noticed that both Republicans and Democrats tend to be rather partial in their politics on this question. Republicans tend to believe that the economy should be free while the social order of society is carefully restricted, while Democrats seem to tend to believe that the social order should be free, and restrictions should be put on the economy. This raises one question however: What is more important to each party? and furthermore, what implications does this have?
This is a good point, however, the reason the left isn't being largely inconsistant is explained here:

Modern liberalism is derived from classic liberalism (libertarianism) after the advent of modern capitalism. Why? Because it liberalism was all about the rights of the individual. One of the most important liberal tenets is that people must have inalienable individual rights and freedoms. Before modern capitalism was tried, it seemed the best way to secure that system was having the government do functionally nothing, as governments at the time were, well, enormous disasters. However, it became apparent that in the modern economy, corporations were more dangerous to the rights of the individual than the government, much more of your "undifferentiating egomass," as they placed profits above people in terms of their actions. See the United States at the end of the 19th century. Individuals had functionally no rights; if they protested agains their company they often died of starvation or were killed by Pinkerton detectives. Therefore, companies must be regulated to preserve individual freedom. Liberalism is libertarianism that has adapted to the modern economy.

However, are companies overly-regulated nowadays? Rather than just protecting the basic rights of people, are they limiting the free market to ensure that everyone gets some of the pie and that no-one has too big of a piece? Is a free market, even one that protects the basic rights of others, viable or simply too impractical as the rich will get richer and the poor even poorer?

Also, are things such as unfair dismissal valid market regulations. What rights are they protecting and do they not limit the employer's right to do with what he owns [the business] as he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Surely being able to work is a right but being secure in a specific job isn't.

I don't think many Republicans are necessarily free-market. They're just less socialist than many Democrats.

le bump

This is a good point, however, the reason the left isn't being largely inconsistant is explained here:

Modern liberalism is derived from classic liberalism (libertarianism) after the advent of modern capitalism. Why? Because it liberalism was all about the rights of the individual. One of the most important liberal tenets is that people must have inalienable individual rights and freedoms. Before modern capitalism was tried, it seemed the best way to secure that system was having the government do functionally nothing, as governments at the time were, well, enormous disasters. However, it became apparent that in the modern economy, corporations were more dangerous to the rights of the individual than the government, much more of your "undifferentiating egomass," as they placed profits above people in terms of their actions. See the United States at the end of the 19th century. Individuals had functionally no rights; if they protested agains their company they often died of starvation or were killed by Pinkerton detectives. Therefore, companies must be regulated to preserve individual freedom. Liberalism is libertarianism that has adapted to the modern economy. Yes but what are the root causes of societal poverty, and why do you modern liberals feel that regulation and or social welfare will solve it? I myself am a classical liberal(libertarian), or what the british would call an "old liberal", and I feel that we as a country must discover and treat the causes of social problems not just the syntoms. I have noticed though that modern liberals(new liberals) do agree with us libertarians on civil rights issues. So keep on standing up for human liberty and dignity.

I am a classic liberal (almost Libertarian) and I think that the economy and social order are inseperable. You cannot have a controlled economy and a free society or a controlled society and a free economy.

I am a classic liberal (almost Libertarian) and I think that the economy and social order are inseperable. You cannot have a controlled economy and a free society or a controlled society and a free economy.
Are you implying that one may lead to the other?

Are you implying that one may lead to the other?

I will go one step farther and say that a controlled economy is a controlled society, and a controlled society is a controlled economy.