Unregulated Capitalism Undermines the Legitimacy of Liberal Democracy

The free marketplace represents a superlative model of capitalism, since it denotes the most proficient and profitable way of production. In a free market, economic actors are capable of conducting business devoid of political interferences, such as the burden of a minimum wage, or trade in tariffs. Without these limits, economic actors are abridged to a state of clean competition, driving costs downstairs and resulting in senior quality and lower price products.

John Locke and Karl Marx, two of the most renowned political philosophers, had many contrasting views when it came the field of political philosophy. Most notably, private property rights ranked high among the plethora of disparities between these two individuals. The main issue at hand was whether or not private property was a natural right. Locke firmly believed that private property was an inherent right, whereas Marx argued otherwise. This essay will examine the views of both Locke and Marx on the subject of private property and will render insight on whose principles appear more credible.

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

Perhaps the definition of failure has changed as in the last century capitalism has created wealth like nothing done previously in human history. At the same time, socialism has spent the last century subjecting millions of innocent people to tyranny and poverty. But somehow, its tenets live on in the millennial of the world’s richest countries. And what has followed is an arbitrary connection between the free enterprise system and declining rates of economic and social phenomena. So with the charges against capitalism more severe than ever before, we may as well present the facts.

James Madison once said, “The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.” In the time of the Founders property was a luxury that not every

Capitalism is an omnipresent system that has taken on many unique and defined forms throughout its existence. While capitalism comes in a variety of disguises, one thing about capitalism has always remained the same – the nature of its selfish being. Capitalism thrives on hard work. Individuals that work hard will undoubtedly be rewarded. On the contrary, those that are not able to work are left in a dreadful predicament. Even with two distinct versions of capitalism – plain capitalism and democratic capitalism – both involve the necessary component of free enterprise. Capitalism considers free enterprise something to be achieved individually with rewards intended for just oneself. Adam Smith came along and challenged that notation

Subsequently, making people responsible for their own property cultivates the “Invisible Hand” demanding pressure on producers to operate efficiently by supplying the value preferences of consumers. Contrasting, Marxism’s social exclusion theory that stresses the importance of government intervention into social systems and the free-market, Gwartney et.al endorses private ownerships’ strong incentive choice in developing goods and services in ways that are beneficial to others. Consequently, by satisfying an individual’s own value egoism to prosper, the “Invisible Hand” forced by the market, produces through altruistic means. Therefore, as the foundation of economic prosperity CSE set up private property rights as value reflecting, the amount of goods produced, the market price of goods, the future actions of suppliers and consumers, and the ethical measuring of human behavior without need of outside

Liberty, rights, justice and equality are ideals liberalists such as Gary Doore view as the most important aspects in the democracy of America (24). They also feel America has recently drawn away from these ideals and is therefore not as democratic as it once was or can be in the future. Doore believes there is especially room for democratization in the workplace (28). In fact, he points out that it is the lack of freedom of expression and the restrictive environment of the workplace that has led to this situation. More ideas and innovations would come from corporations if they would allow more freedom to its employees. Not only would workers benefit, but the company they work for would also. (28)

As citizens of the United States, we are members of the leading capitalist economy in the world. Our production and distribution is mostly done privately and we operate in a “profit” or “market” system. The capitalist system has been a target for criticism throughout the last three hundred years and is being discussed now more than ever due to the recent recession and financial crisis (Shaw and Barry n.d., 1). Its effects,

Capitalism started up as a system of investing and sharing money in order to increase the value of resources in the future. Capitalism was just an economic system, but then soon turned into a complex system of ethical practices. Harari defines capitalism as, “a set of teachings about how people should behave, educate their children and even think” (Harari 314). This economic system evolved along with the people that were endorsing it. Capitalism enables the rich to get richer, while the poor continue to get poorer. There are many benefits to capitalism, but there are downfalls as well, and these downfalls tend to be masked because of the rapid speed capitalists grow at. Harari first presents a definition for capitalism, and soon goes into great detail on why capitalism, while fast paced and unforgiving, is able to stand unwavered while other productions fail.

Capitalism is a subject that can be considered deeply controversial. There are many who tout the benefits that capitalism provides to the economy and the progress of human society. There are others who decry that it is a system which promotes selfish motives and extols profits above honesty and genuine goodness. This essay will examine the claims of each and will reach to conclude the answer to the question “is capitalism good?”

Marx’s model of private property views it as means of production creating a division of labor. In his theory, Marx takes a look and how private property, along with wealth, are funneled into the hands of the few leaving the ordinary worker unable to gain wealth from private property. The outcome of Marx’s principle can be seen especially in the last 30 years in the US with the increase of inequality and access to wealth to unprecedented numbers (USA 11).

Capitalists and supporters of democracy believe that socialism and modern liberalism are detrimental to economic progress. Because prices of goods and wage of workers is controlled directly by the government, privately-owned companies and institutions cannot flourish under a socialist or modern liberalist government. People who value freedom of speech and human rights likewise oppose socialism and modern liberalism, because they believe that such ideologies limit a citizen’s right to choose which products to buy, what job to take, what religious belief to espouse. Even though modern liberalism is more subtle and suave than socialism, it still ends up giving too much power to the government in the guise of economic, political, and social security.

Another concern expressed by Keong (2007) is the idea that positive liberty means we expect the state to hand us certain things on a silver platter. Positive liberty has been used as a platform to push through ideas such as the principle that everyone is entitled to a minimum income or standard of living, though not everyone is comfortable with the “moral hazard this might evoke” (Keong, 2007). Key questions asked with this in mind include; ‘if you are guaranteed something, will you be willing to contribute back to society for it? Or, will you sit around and collect your entitlements? (Keong, 2007; Haworth, 1991).