There is a difference in my mind between a regulated marketplace and a regulated society. For capitalism to work, there MUST be a strong judicial branch. Reason is that you have to enforce contracts. While the "freedom to contract" is important, the fact the courts will enforce those contracts is paramount. Consider countries in Africa trying to move toward a more capitalistic economic system...the judges are still taking bribes. Bribes destroy contract law. Not to say our judges don't, the behavior isn't as prevalent.
I am easily able to seperate political and economic systems.
And socialism isn't bad...it's actually worthwhile if you want to collar your livlihood. You get a "floor" in exchange for a "ceiling". To most Americans, I think such a system is good. They don't want to make decisions, take risks, and want help when times are bad. I am just against it because I want to be responsible for my failures, as well as reap all the benefits of my successes. Socialism does reduce crime...because it provides a safety net to keep people out of abject poverty and the crime that festers there. In a capitalistic system, people can simply "move away" from crime....leaving certain places of town where criminals tend to congregate, they rob and kill each other and leave me be.
The laws should be minimal to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. Should people be entitled to healthcare, no. Should people be protected from a hoodloom kicking in their door, yes. The "anti-regulation" notion refers to the regulation of the marketplace, not of society. To me, the distinction between the marketplace and society is very clear. I can see how others may not feel that way. People who prefer governance based on morals believe that people behave inappropriately on their own. Capitalism also creates philantrophy. I believe charity can exist with the capitalistic framework and should be more efficient than the government in executing the mission of charity.
Here's an example in my personal life. I am getting that housing tax credit of $7,500. It is more money than I need to accomplish a few home improvement projects, get my savings where it needs to be, etc. I am donating about $1,000 to charity. Why? Because the marginal utility of a family in need is greater than mine for that last $1,000. I'd piss it off on booze and trinkets, this may put food on someone's table. Because I live in a system that allows me a surplus (meaning my income exceeds my wants) I am able to donate money to needs I feel that are worthwhile, not what government feels is worthwhile. If I received less of a rebate, the government would probably spend it on a project that I didn't feel was worthwhile. I am not guided by morals, religion, or any of that nonsense. I dislike the notion that those who believe in "capitalism" don't also believe in the value of philantrophy. If the government was good at meeting those needs, philantrophy wouldn't be necessary.
If I were "king" the people would be able to chose the allocation of their tax dollars. For those who felt space exploration was the most important thing on the agenda, they could allocate their tax dollars there. Thus, federal agencies would become more efficient by competing for tax dollars.
