Capitalism? Yes. Modern multinational corporatism, with ads ubiquitous and government lobbyists even more so? No.

It is important to recognize the value of the free market for what it is. It is equally important to recognize when the pursuit of money oversteps its bounds or fails to provide solutions to genuine problems.

And, no, I am not arguing for socialized medicine - not by a long shot.

Actually, the ConUS makes no reference to any sort of economic system. If they had desired to establish one, it would probably have been agrarianism as that was the most dominant aspect of the economy of the time, especially in Virginia, the home of some of the most influential FFs. The FFs established a system of governance of a republic that could be applied to virtually any economic system. It seems that variations on it have been. The ConUS has had a vast influence on the constitutions of the European democracies, perhaps especially those of the socialist countries of Scandinavia and Germany.

I think you could debate this a little. The Federalists certainly wanted a capitalist society; many of the Republicans (they later changed their name to Democrats, the same party that exists today) such as Jefferson, wanted an agricultural based economy that depended on slavery and a class system that favored the landed gentry in their small fiefdoms. Of course, neither were for univseral sufferage, but that's a different issue than the economic system they wanted to instill.

First, let me state that I am a diehard capitalist. Having said that, this writer has it all wrong. There was no such thing as capitalism in the 18th century. The Founding Fathers lived in an era under a barter economy--you traded with your neighbors because they had something you wanted. You rarely produced a surplus of goods because there was no menchanism to trade in a distant market. Capitalism would take off in the early 1820s--see Charles Sellars' The Market Revolution.

As close as it comes would be the mention of private property through the terms "pursuit of happiness." This has always been interpreted to mean private property. Of course, communism is opposed to private ownership of property and other sources of wealth, all of which should be held in common.

Acutally the founders adopted socialism when it comes to matters of defense and funding of a central government.

Also to speak of "the founders" is somewhat misleading. They were not one. Many would have disolved slavery if they could have. Others opposed this idea. In order to form a Union, this issue was put off to a later day.

Also, just because the founders would have done this thing or that thing, so what? Where is it written that we have to take what they gave us an not improve upon it?

I for one like the socialistic practices of public funding of education so that it just isn't rich kids who's parents are educated that can get an education. Social security for old people and people who become disabled, food stamps to ensure there are no hungry. Disease control so plagues don't get out of control. Ocupational safety standards to ensure when you get a job, there is some minimum standard of safety in the work place.

I also appreciate capitalism, so that each of the above socialistic practices can be paid for and be reality.

Socialism is good, capitalism is good, these are not either or.

form of slavery. A little seldom works so the solution is a little more, which doesn't work and on and on and on. In the end those who continue to produce and have their fruits taken and distributed to those who don't produce are nothing more than slaves to the non-producers. It is a system based upon envy and an unholy need to gain power over others.

Universal healthcare is not socialism.
Making a profit on sick people has no basis in morals. This is yet one more instance of republicans showing they have no true morals or ethics....making the sick, middle through poverty classes lose everything due to medical bills.
No morals at all.

re Socialism is a creeping | 9:36 a.m.

Socialism is a creeping form of slavery? My good man (or woman). How naive we can be at times.

Under our form of capitalism, we have people all the time taking money who didn't earn it, and therefore those who earn it don't get it.

You never heard of Enron? Or similar other situations where those at the top of corporations took home (notice I didn't say earn) millions as their corporate stock tanked?

You assume in saying that socialism is slavery that capitalism is any different. Capitalism isn't very good at correctly giving the right amount of money to those who earn it. Although its proponents are largely ignorant of this fact or choose to ignore the facts.

If the guys at the top can give themselves much more than they earn, thereby causing those at the middle and bottom to take home less than they earn, what is wrong with voting for people who will recognize this fact, and tax those at the top more to help even up the playing field?

Thomas Jefferson said that the democracy he envisioned could not exist in a country in which power and money were controlled by a small fraction of the population. That is the country we live in today.

Capitalism only works in an honest, free society, that has moral principals and standards wherein the goal is wealth and power, but not the destruction of the vehicle that gave you that wealth and power.

The United States can no long boast about have such qualities.

Re: You are so naive.

Nikita Khrushchev to Sec. Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism." Tell me we are not way down that road.

I'm interested in your statement that "capitalism isn't very good at correctly giving the right amount of money to those who earn it." Who decides what the correct amount of money is, and how much it is? Some pointy headed government goon? Someone smarter and better than the rest of us? Enron came about from someone breaking the law. You will condemn every honest hard working businees owner to the slavery of socialism because of a few. The market does a much better job than some are willing to give it credit. Winston Churchill said, "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings. Socialism is the equal distribution of misery." He was almost correct. The socialist elites do not get their share of misery. The people whom they are so arrogantly looking after do it for them.

"As close as it comes would be the mention of private property through the terms "pursuit of happiness." This has always been interpreted to mean private property."--BBKing | 7:24 a.m. May 18, 2008

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he borrowed the phrase "life liberty and the pursuit of property" from John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government". However, Jefferson chose not to use the word property as Locke had done. Instead Jefferson deliberately substituted the word happiness, expanding the concept beyond Locke's notion of property.

Happiness as an inalienable right is a timeless human necessity that speaks to the human condition, but is subject to reinterpretation in every
generation, allowing for the constant redefinition of the pursuit of happiness as befits the changing circumstances of a changing world.

*** "The Founding Fathers lived in an era under a barter economy--you traded with your neighbors because they had something you wanted. You rarely produced a surplus of goods because there was no menchanism to trade in a distant market." ***

Huh? Trade was ubiquitous, and as old as the ancient Silk Road - and older. Remember the Boston Tea Party? The American colonies were settled because of trade. Britain wanted timber, glass, and other agricultural products from the New World. Their little island was getting squeezed because of the population boom caused by the industrial revolution

The future USA was one of the first places in the world, after Britain, to embrace the industrial revolution. A lack of skilled craftsmen made mass production of goods a perfect economic fit.

Yo, Anonymous at 2:42 p.m., you're flaunting your historical ignorance--and lecturing to someone who has spent his entire adult life researching and writing the 18th c. You're talking about a system of trade that was coerced by the British Empire--we call them the Navigation Acts [look up for a refresher]. I didn't say that trade was non-existent, it wasn't. I said trade--and hence capitalism--didn't really take off until the early 19th c. This is trade on the free market, not trade coerced by a distant metropolis--big difference.

Yes, Enron broke the law. Every week though I read in the news that some company's execs get big bonuses while the company is in trouble or the stock price has declined.

This isn't in itself against the law. It happens all the time. Illustrating that under capitalism, it is possible for people with power to take more than they earn, leaving those at the bottom with less.

By your defination of slavery this is slavery. People earning money they don't get being forced to give it to those who do.

Not that capitalism is bad, but it has its weak points, and it doesn't pay to put ones head in the sand and deny the truth.

No one way has it all. Capitalism is a great engine, it creates great wealth, however in its pure form it is very poor ad distributing it in the best way possible.

Socialism on the other hand is a weak engine. However it sees to it that the poor get educated, protected, don't go hungry.

Together these two, capitalism and socialism form a pretty great system.

In spite of what church leaders, or right wing talk show hosts have said.

I despise anything remotely similar to Communism and I'm not real crazy about Socialism. One thing that makes me lean toward Socialism in the oil industry is that, yes, I would love to access the oil in Anwar and the outer continental shelf but what good does it do me if the price is still being set on the world market? How is that going to help me or the country? One of the reasons oil keeps going up is that many Countries like Saudi Arabia are keeping their oil for domestic use. I certainly don't trust the Government to run an oil company but why risk the environment if I can't afford to drive anyway. Why should we become the third world country?
Someone smarter will have to explain this.

You never addressed the good premier from the USSR and his view. You can't have a little socialism and a little capitalism. One will eventually devour the other. Socialism is a cancer and needs a live organism to survive. It will eat at it until there is nothing live left.

You are maturing. You are begining to realize that no one system has all the answers.

Thats why we shouldn't rely on only one system.

Not Capitalism, not Socialism, not anyism

But we should take the best from each.

If we believe that all men are created equal, and all of us depend on each other to one degree or another for both our survival and our quality of life, then our occupational time should be more or less equal. Of course there are other factors that would raise or lower that to some degree, but taking those factors in consideration 8 hrs. should equal 8 hrs.

Ultimately it is moral law that governs a true economic system that will prosper the most people while remain strong and stable over the long haul.

The supply and demand form of capitalism often violates moral law and therefore we see inequity in the payment for services rendered. Those on the high side of this inequity leverage their gain both economically and politically to ensure that the inequity continues perpetually.

Those of us who have been on both sides of the fence know this to be true. An employer is as dependent on his labor as the laborer is on the employer. The guy needing the heart transplant is as dependent on the donor, transporter of the heart, auto assembly guy, and oil field worker, as he is on the surgeon.

>>First, let me state that I am a diehard capitalist. Having said that, this writer has it all wrong. There was no such thing as capitalism in the 18th century.<<

"Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in England between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early forms of merchant capitalism flourished during the Middle Ages." - Wikipedia

>>You never heard of Enron? Or similar other situations where those at the top of corporations took home (notice I didn't say earn) millions as their corporate stock tanked?<<

You don't have to look to CEO's. Try our US Senators and Congressmen. They take home a fair salary and do precious little... except what they think will get them reelected.

Take the porous border and high oil price problems; two very serious issues that face our country today. They avoid these issues like the plague.

AT ARE WE EQUAL : OF COURSE WE AREN'T ALL EQUAL. SOME PEOPLE ARE MOTIVATED AND SOME PEOPLE ARE LAZY. DON'T BRING THAT MARXIST PROPAGANDA AROUND HERE. HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US THAT THERE IS NO "VALUE ADDED" TO RAW MATERIAL/PRODUCTS BY WORKERS. GO ASK GORBACHEV OR FIDEL CASTRO