(Original post by Bagration)
By 'established' you mean offering a standard of living that changed so rapidly for the greater under total economic liberalism, then yes, ok. There is no contention that living standards in the 19th Century were horrific. But compared to the 18th and 17th Century they were fantastic; amazing. Compared to the statist economies of the 19th Century, Britain was a paradise. Economic conditions naturally improve over time. Economic liberalism only speeds up the rate at which they improve.
Technological & scientific advancements and social conditions will progress over time, and as a result, so does the efficiency with which labour and materials are applied. Economies grow, people gain access to more technology in one way or another over time, no matter what the economic system, as long as progress is not lost by some sort of cultural collapse(i.e. The fall of Rome), or stopped/slowed by limitations of various sorts. Say that for traditional and aesthetic reasons, a government limits trains to steam engines.
I'm not saying Victorian Britain was bad, not at all, I'm just saying that its classical economic liberalism wouldn't work in the modern world. The world has changed in so many ways. It was good when colonising the empire and industrialising areas was possible.
There were also problems as a result of no industrial regulations, economically exclusive healthcare & education, and no social security. Those that couldn't make it died sick paupers almost universally throughout history. That should be no more thanks to the labour and innovations of past generations. We can usually ensure that everyone in the developed world has bread and butter. That, at least should be provided for humanitarian, rather than economic reasons.
Why should they have been initiated in the first place? I don't take your computer and go "why should I give it back." Failed logic.
They were initiated because many people fought for pensions and welfare, and saw them as a justified cause. Anyhow, the 20th century saw to the universal provision of such things that we now take for granted.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much libertytoo small a degree of it. than to those attending not enough of it - Thomas Jefferson
And that quote is relevant how? Circumstances in the 18th century were very different. I find that historical quotes will vary in importance and application to the modern world. Liberty does not mean security. You do not have any freedom to do anything if you are dead or restricted by others due to a lack of regulations. Let me counter with my own quote.
"What Libertarians don't get is that there are no absolute, natural human rights. Such rights are established and ideally upheld by the state."
Not sure who said it.
An unchecked, rampant, organisation? Free markets are checked by the price mechanism. Corporations are not evil groups of people who are destined to control our lives simply because that is not how the operation of a market works.
The supply of goods is kept in check, not quality or ethics. Corporations, just like governments, can stand for various things, and can be benevolent or malevolent, depending on their leaders.
Just like governments, all organisations with power, including companies and political organisations, should be kept in check by the rule of law and regulation. No exceptions.
I also don't agree that free markets are universally good for everyone. With economies of scale and large customer bases, long-running businesses can put newcomers out of business very quickly, and make it hard for newcomers to enter the market. Without government regulation, large corporations can form monopolies or at least oligopolies, as they can pump out more goods and services, faster and cheaper.
'Regression' means nothing. Was the fall of the USSR a 'regression' just because social, economic, and cultural developments were totally changed around?
It depends on the system, and the context of developments. It was a regression for a while, due to the chaos during the transitional period. The USSR was unfortunately stagnating due to gross economic irresponsibility and the strain of the Soviet-Afghan war. Not necessarily a result of command economics, but poor resource management as a whole. Now the wheels are turning again, under a new system.
This is going to be my last post for tonight.