Economic Theories and the Role of Politics

[AntiochusIII]

Very few people agree with completely unfettered capitalism. Even the most ardents proponents of capitalism agree that some regulation is necessary to ensure that lives, personal property, and the environment are not sacrificed on the alter of the almighty dollar.

It is a constant struggle to find balance between social responsibility and social liberty. One end of the spectrum is over-regulation and impacts productivity and liberty. The other end is not enough regulation and contributes to the destruction of the environment (Brazillian deforestation being one example), the confiscation of personal property (U.S. Supreme Court Case, New London), and the sacrifrice of lives for wealth (any U.S. HMO).

Agreed, but...

The goal of most American capitalists is to find balance where those with ability and desire are able to succeed without infringing on the rights of others.

By capitalists, do you mean capitalism-theorists, indifferent proponents of capitalism, or the capitalists-in-practice which are the businessmen and CEOs? Because apparently the last group's goal is not balance at all, but profit. We can see far too many examples to care anymore of this group's abuse.

If we unfairly overburden the successful with punitive taxes, there will be little incentive to succeed.

But of course, there is also a current massive, continuous fraud that takes advantage of the American tax system continuously, thus forcing the nation to rely on collecting money more and more from salaried members instead of the businesses...

Being born with wealth does not infringe on other's rights. It creates opportunites that might not otherwsie exist. Wealth does not take away, it grants. In order to compensate, the rest of society is given ample opportunity to apply themselves and succeed. Thus the reason for publicly funded universities.

But apparently publicly-funded universities aren't receiving enough funds to compete, so they collect from the students, too--there really is no practical difference in prices between a private liberal arts university and a public one...why?

Surely, lack of post-secondary education is now a serious detriment in the work market, and yet to get one one must pay on prices that would put the overwhelming majority of Americans on debt for years and years after graduation; how does that contribute to the concept of equal opportunity?