| SamuelRSmith said: Well, the creation and development of societies are strongly linked to the creation and development of our morals. Personally, I agree with the Hayekian view that our morals, and thus the societies we created, went through an evolutionary process over the course of thousands of years. The "tribes" who developed the best sets of morals grew and prospored, whilst those based on ideas less than optimal slowly died out, or merged with the better systems. The argument being that our morals, and therefore our societies, are between instinct and reason. They are greater than instinct, for they have been learned, yet they are before reason, because they were not purposefully, top-down created. Note that these morals and societies developed not because we liked all their features, but because they were ultimately led to greater progression of humanity. The ideas of the left, and these concepts of "socialism", or what have you, didn't come until much later - until "enlightened" thinkers believed they could design a better system than the one that evolved over the course of history, along with our morals. The problem being that they often fail to distinguish between the seen and the unseen. Sure, more equal pay would be nice, but at the unseen cost of lost wealth and prosperity going into the future. You see it throughout history, countries and societies grow rich under laissez-faire Governments, with a strong focus on localism (the systems that would have developed naturally). Wealth and new technologies lead to "enlightened" thinkers who get into power and disturb the natural order (whether it be through war or welfare). These enlightened policies ultimately result in the destruction of the society, and a decline in prosperity. A new society is born with a renewed focus on the natural order, until new levels of wealth and technologies are developed (and, you know, this time, it's "different" - self defence didn't account for automatic weapons, protection of property didn't mean third yachts (arguments that another poster has made)). I'll answer the highway system point later. |
I agree that societies were initially formed quite organically, and their purpose was likely not understood by those participating within them, but the reason certain societies excelled over others is because the people within them were "more functional and productive than if [they] stood alone". And that's my point. Now that we understand this, it gives us the ability to continue along this path as efficiently as possible. But I feel we've lost our way somewhat over the past hundred years.
Also, I disagree with the implication that a society has to be built entirely around capitalism or entirely around socialism. I believe a mix of both is necessary to reach maximum efficiency and an ever increasing standard of life for everybody within a society.
For example, a free market relies on readily available competition or the option to forgo a product entirely in order to be effective. Certain markets (highways, and I'd argue healthcare and education) don't have easily accessible competition, nor are people capable (or maybe just willing) to go without. This allows prices to inflate in a for-profit environment. In other markets, like consumer electronics, there's plenty of competition to be found, which encourages technological advancement in the interest of attaining the best price:performance ratio and thus a larger share of the market. The approach I believe we should take (or are already taking) with the former would be seen by many as socialism, but I think it's a necessary degree of socialism, as pure capitalism in these areas actually holds society back. Meanwhile, we should for the most part stay the course in other markets, letting private enterprises do what they do best.
This is what a for-profit mentality in healthcare leads to:
http://www.creditloan.com/blog/2010/03/01/healthcare-costs-around-the-world/
Costs per person in the US are roughly twice that of countries who rely on public healthcare services or single payer insurance options.
Also, here's an interesting video discussing various stats related to wealth inequality in major world powers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
What they've discovered is that there is a correlation between the wealth disparity and the overall health of a society, while there is no apparent correlation between the overall wealth and health of a society.
