Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

What do you people think of minimal government, free market based society?

I, personally, think it's great. I love business. I think government should encourage competition and discourage monopolies. Though I want it to avoid coercion in doing so.

I like a government that emphasizes individual reponsibility and doesn't act like Big Brother?

What do you people think? Are my fantasies too radical?

From an Islamic point of view, the best form of Governance is one that rules with justice.

This means that in terms of trade, there is free and equitable trade. In terms of social justice, it means there are opportunities for all and the poor aren't exploited (so there is no poverty spiral).

The rulers/government needs to provide the public needs - such as Defence, Health, Education and basic infrastructure for the running of society. For this, they need funds - so there has to be a form of taxation.

For justice, there needs to be accountability and, as a minimum, consultation with the people.

Now, the interesting thing is that all of the above can apply to all forms of governance - from democracy, monarchy to dictatorships; and the principles also applies to all forms of management at whatever level in life/companies.


Now a bit of politics - a common misconception is that the economies of the G7 is a 'free market' model - when actually they are based on 'financial capitalism' which is not inherently just as it penalises the poor and inherently makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poorer. That is why there is anti-globalisation movement and why there are now 'ethical' or 'fair trade' companies/funds to distinguish from the general 'unethical' and 'unfair trade' companies.

A truly free market is one with no barriers and that is true capitalism - ironically this is exactly the model that flourished under the height of Islamic rule - there was no interest, no inflation and great progress in sciences, arts and technology.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique - I don't know how your this with it and compus mentus at 7.17am

You must have just had your coffee

Jabba - you forget that Muslims pray before dawn and are encouraged to read the Quran after this prayer. (Also, we have young children who don't know the meaning of a lie-in )

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Now a bit of politics - a common misconception is that the economies of the G7 is a 'free market' model - when actually they are based on 'financial capitalism' which is not inherently just as it penalises the poor and inherently makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poorer. That is why there is anti-globalisation movement and why there are now 'ethical' or 'fair trade' companies/funds to distinguish from the general 'unethical' and 'unfair trade' companies.

I agree there is no such thing as a free market. The USA were at one time the most liberal in the world but a lot of protectionism is now evident. The UK is probably as close to a free market as there is at the moment, for example we allow foreign companies to buy our assets as they are the most efficient to do so and we have a general social disdain for the protectionist/ nationalist policies of Continental Europe. We're not squeaky clean either admittedly, but our economy has flourished at the expense of others in the last 20-25 years (led by Thatcher's war on the Trade Unions) whilst others have floundered. Anyone else in the G7/G8 doesn't come close to being a free market.

I also agree a free business market is essential to economic and social growth, as it promotes choice, customer empowerment and quality. It is often levied with the charge of inspiring greed too, but when I look around at many other countries, the charge doesn't ring true. In a free market, EVERYONE has a chance to be successful and do what they want with the money (of which some choose greed) as opposed to most other societies where the chosen few will only ever have the chance to line their own pockets.

As for social equality, well, yes there does need to be some redistribution of wealth, but it should also not be a market where free money is made available as many people will choose not to work. Speaking only for the UK, the government's definition of "poor" is so broad that it is possible to own your own car, have a mortgage and have cable TV and still be "poor". There is of course many who have much less than this, but when you read statistics about gaps between rich and poor in the UK, bear this in mind.

The distribution of wealth in many Gulf countries is limited to nationals only, the cheap labour who live in tents and don't have proper nourishment/ water are often ignored. I can't see they are in any position to preach to others about social equality either.

In short, I don't think there are many societies who can claim to have perfect economic and social systems, but fundamental to the success of any society is giving everyone the opportunity to succeed, and only a move to a free market system can do that.

In my mind, the farthest thing from a minimal government society is theocracy; judging from the history of theocracies. May be I'm exaggerating, given the example of UAE. Obviously the UAE is much more capitalistic than communism.

As for the redistribution of wealth, I think it should be voluntary. I think the government role in the redistribution of wealth should be confined to merely searching for the people who require help and point them out through advertising and campaigning. I'm sure there will be people who will be willing to help voluntarily

I agree with what scot1870 said. However, I don't know much about U.K. politics but just by knowing that the labour party is in power and hearing some of Tony Blair's statements on the news, I didn't imagine the U.K. to have the most liberal market. Despite all the protectionism that's going on in the U.S. right now, I still thought it to be the most free...

msafi wrote:In my mind, the farthest thing from a minimal government society is theocracy; judging from the history of theocracies. May be I'm exaggerating, given the example of UAE. Obviously the UAE is much more capitalistic than communism.

As for the redistribution of wealth, I think it should be voluntary. I think the government role in the redistribution of wealth should be confined to merely searching for the people who require help and point them out through advertising and campaigning. I'm sure there will be people who will be willing to help voluntarily

I agree with what scot1870 said. However, I don't know much about U.K. politics but just by knowing that the labour party is in power and hearing some of Tony Blair's statements on the news, I didn't imagine the U.K. to have the most liberal market. Despite all the protectionism that's going on in the U.S. right now, I still thought it to be the most free...

Theocracy does not equate to communism, capitalism or any other 'ism' - it depends on what the Theology underlying the Theocracy is (i.e. what the principles are).

I agree with Scot1870 - very well put.

On a macro-economic level, it is interesting to view the ideal economy from an Islamic perspective. In that, there should be no interest - but a tax on unused capital. This encourages people to invest and earn real returns - this leads to increase in trade and economies based on real wealth and real assets.

My main gripe with the economic system at the moment is the reliance on interest and speculation/gambling/market forces- it is the foundation of the whole system and the source of a lot of pernicious evil (when you examine what the consequences are).

The system leads to bubbles and recessions, booms and busts - and has real effects despite being based on 'market sentiment'. Artificial liquidity is injected by irresponsible lending, fueling bubbles which eventually have to burst. The ones left holding the can are those who borrowed and are indebted to the banks - or those who lose their savings. If reponsible lending takes place - only those who have money to lose will lose their money (and the bubble doesn't form in the first place).

Anyway - I feel this is leading to another topic so I'll stop here before boring you non-economists to death

Cheers,
Shafique

• A self sufficient economy should not dependent on foreign trade.
• An egalitarian society where there are equal opportunities for all.
• Establishment of new resource centers for the augmentation of resources.
• Efficient management of land is essential for the development of resources. It is essential that the state keeps an eye on the occupation of excess land by the landlords and unauthorized use of land. Ideally the state should monitor the most important and vital resource – Land.
• The state should take care of agriculture at all times. Government machinery should be directed towards the implementation of projects aimed at supporting and nurturing the various processes; beginning from sowing of seeds to harvest.
• The nation should envisage to construct places of security , public utility and cities. These complexes would protect the country from invasions and provide internal security and standards. The cities would act as giant markets increasing the revenue of the state.
• Internal trade is more important external trade. At each point of the entry of goods, a minimal amount of tax should be collected. The state should collect taxes at a bare minimum level, so that there is no chance of tax evasion.
• Laws of the state should be the same for all, irrespective of the person who is involved in the case. Destitute women should be protected by the society because they are the result of social exploitation and the uncouth behavior of men.
• Security of the citizens at peace time is very important because state is the only savior of the men and women who get affected only because of the negligence of the state. Antisocial elements should be kept under check along with the spies who may enter the country at any time.
• Over all develop a society where the people are not running behind material pleasures. Control over the sense organs is essential for success in any endeavor. Spiritual development is essential for the internal strength and character of the individual. Material pleasures and achievements are always secondary to the spiritual development of the society and country at large.

Extracts from Artha Shastra by Chanakya on Politics and economics. Written some 2300 years ago.

St.Lucifer wrote:Extracts from Artha Shastra by Chanakya on Politics and economics. Written some 2300 years ago.

It shows...

scot1870 wrote:

St.Lucifer wrote:Extracts from Artha Shastra by Chanakya on Politics and economics. Written some 2300 years ago.

It shows...

Yea. It does, never said otherwise..
Are you a person of religious faith?

St.Lucifer wrote:

scot1870 wrote:

St.Lucifer wrote:Extracts from Artha Shastra by Chanakya on Politics and economics. Written some 2300 years ago.

It shows...

Yea. It does, never said otherwise..
Are you a person of religious faith?

Nope, athiest and capitalist funnily enough.

scot1870 wrote:

St.Lucifer wrote:

scot1870 wrote:

St.Lucifer wrote:Extracts from Artha Shastra by Chanakya on Politics and economics. Written some 2300 years ago.

It shows...

Yea. It does, never said otherwise..
Are you a person of religious faith?

Nope, athiest and capitalist funnily enough.

great combo, less heard good anyway.. Lemmi stop my argument here.

scot1870 wrote:Nope, athiest and capitalist funnily enough.

This reminds me of a question I once had, but never got the chance to ask. It doesn't really apply to you scot1870,

but why do atheists/liberals tend to lean toward communism and religious/moral conservatives lean toward capitalism? My wife thinks because atheists think that if government doesn't take care of you, no one will, while people who believe in god will just leave it to him.

Do you guys agree?