The "proven track record" part of your question is shortsighted. We shouldn't restrict future political thought by past political thoughts. We'd never see any progress that way.
If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.
Someone smarter than me can weight on this part, but I don't think it was/is capitalism per se. Moving off the gold standard, and allowing the Dodge Brothers to win the case saying stock holders were more important than paying workers were a 1-2 gut punch to capitalism. I don't believe our forefathers would be very proud of us if they saw this mess.
Dodge v. Ford was both a landmark case and a very narrow excuse that holds no jurisdiction outside of Massachusetts. I hope someone challenges it one day, but it seems like any potential challengers benefit from pretending it's precedent.
It's not an either/or situation... we can improve on the capitalist system we have today (in the US) through government policy (taxes, whatever). I fear we're actually too late, and ceded too ,much influence to the billionaire class, but that's not totally proven out yet.
High captial tax rates, strong labor protections, and banned stock buybacks as a start. So much hubub over "make america great again" but we seem very coy about looking at fiscal policy back in the "great" days.
And I don't even think these are the best ideas. But they have "a proven track record".
Marginal tax rates on income and wealth that make being a billionaire impossible? The US was prosperous with much higher marginal tax rates for instance.
We should treat existing fortunes as bugs and correct them.
Good, let them leave, then. I'm tired of this excuse of "but the parasites are crucial to our way of life". As if the invisible hand won't have dozens of other companies to compete and fill the void should the monopoly man walk away with his money.
They've had decades to move to Dubai or New Zealand or whatever other magical country doesn't tax its residents. I wonder why they choose to stay in one of the richest countries in the world instead?
The Islamic system does not permit uncontrolled capitalism, requires fair financial transactions, is pro rights for both rulers and the population, enforces Zakat (alms tax / a form of wealth tax).
The middle east has the largest concentration of billionaires outside of US/China and huge poverty alongside. It is so grotesque that the rich will often just kill people and casually pay blood money.
Begin a billionaire is not inherently unethical. It's about how the money was acquired and how it is spent. This notion that it is evil is mainly a western one.
If you're being sarcastic, yes lots of westerners are in the region because of lower taxes and other benefits. Otherwise, correlation is not causation, much of the situation there is because of the fallout of western colonization, including Islamic principles being not fully applied there (the west is behind a lot of it), and the usurious financial system.
The "proven track record" part of your question is shortsighted. We shouldn't restrict future political thought by past political thoughts. We'd never see any progress that way.
If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.
Someone smarter than me can weight on this part, but I don't think it was/is capitalism per se. Moving off the gold standard, and allowing the Dodge Brothers to win the case saying stock holders were more important than paying workers were a 1-2 gut punch to capitalism. I don't believe our forefathers would be very proud of us if they saw this mess.
Capitalism is an extension of nature. Nature can be cruel, but it's still nature.
Blaming capitalism for what's happening in America is like blaming an engine for a car not having seatbelts.
No. Anarchism is an extension of nature, and a better analogy would be blaming an engine for only Rolls Royces having seatbelts.
Dodge v. Ford was both a landmark case and a very narrow excuse that holds no jurisdiction outside of Massachusetts. I hope someone challenges it one day, but it seems like any potential challengers benefit from pretending it's precedent.
There were times when NASA went to space, not incredibly wealthy individuals…
NASA went and turned itself into a gigantic inefficient bureaucracy to the point that SpaceX considers NASA experience a negative.
Why are we at all concerned with what SpaceX considers a negative?
Every large entity eventually becomes an inefficient bureaucracy.
NASA just sent four people around the Moon.
I think Julius Caesar demands a word if we were only supposed to use systems with proven track records.
https://xkcd.com/2383/
Are you seriously claiming that building an empire didn't have a proven track record by the time of Caesar? Interesting.
No, Caesar suggests that no founding father of a modern country accepted your requirement of a proven track record for republics.
Isn't he the millionaire that destroyed the Roman Republic?
Exactly.
It's not an either/or situation... we can improve on the capitalist system we have today (in the US) through government policy (taxes, whatever). I fear we're actually too late, and ceded too ,much influence to the billionaire class, but that's not totally proven out yet.
High captial tax rates, strong labor protections, and banned stock buybacks as a start. So much hubub over "make america great again" but we seem very coy about looking at fiscal policy back in the "great" days.
And I don't even think these are the best ideas. But they have "a proven track record".
Marginal tax rates on income and wealth that make being a billionaire impossible? The US was prosperous with much higher marginal tax rates for instance.
We should treat existing fortunes as bugs and correct them.
I’m not sure if you are aware but there are ways for the rich and powerful to live, maintain and earn fortunes outside of the US.
Good, let them leave, then. I'm tired of this excuse of "but the parasites are crucial to our way of life". As if the invisible hand won't have dozens of other companies to compete and fill the void should the monopoly man walk away with his money.
They've had decades to move to Dubai or New Zealand or whatever other magical country doesn't tax its residents. I wonder why they choose to stay in one of the richest countries in the world instead?
My point is they can still influence the US even if they / their money isn’t there.
Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
>they can still influence the US even if they / their money isn’t there.
Sure, but I wager not being in the US means less money. And thus less influence
> Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
Adding any friction to their influence is a good thing, in my eyes.
The Islamic system does not permit uncontrolled capitalism, requires fair financial transactions, is pro rights for both rulers and the population, enforces Zakat (alms tax / a form of wealth tax).
Neither does Christianity, but you really wouldn't really know that by observing the practices of so called Christian Nations™
The middle east has the largest concentration of billionaires outside of US/China and huge poverty alongside. It is so grotesque that the rich will often just kill people and casually pay blood money.
Begin a billionaire is not inherently unethical. It's about how the money was acquired and how it is spent. This notion that it is evil is mainly a western one.
That certainly explains the flood of migrants from the West to the Middle East and North Africa.
If you're being sarcastic, yes lots of westerners are in the region because of lower taxes and other benefits. Otherwise, correlation is not causation, much of the situation there is because of the fallout of western colonization, including Islamic principles being not fully applied there (the west is behind a lot of it), and the usurious financial system.