In a state a fairer way to tax the rich is through usage fees and a sales tax that way they are directly taxed for what they use and people who don’t use said government serive (or who don’t buy luxery items that would taxed with sales tax) wouldn’t have to pay the tax.

In a perfect free market system everyone would just pay the fair price for what they use, no more no less. But since the state exists it should at least replicate this idea the best it can, and a progressive income tax does NOT do that.

If the word is used to merely refer to private ownership of capital then you could call a Slave who was allowed to maintain ownership of his shoes a Capitalist.

The United States represents a Capitalist economy in that way; the Slaves are even allowed to trade their shoes.

Private ownership of Capital is not the only thing necessary to qualify as a “Free Market”.

fascist germany certainly had a stock market, though hitler purged it of jewish brokers in 1933.

saddam hussein’s national socialist iraq had a functioning stock market. there was a strong rally just before the 2003 allied invasion.

cuba has no bourse, north korea likewise. can’t think of any others off the top of my head.

No, any more than a place where you can buy and sell fruit is a bread market. A stock market is a market where you can buy and sell stocks, and if business ownership is not corporate, there are no stocks.

It is also not necessarily true that any such place would spring up, since the businesses wouldn’t necessarily be fungible and/or liquid enough; all sales might need to be too hands on and sui generis. For instance, when a sole proprietor wishes to retire, the most practical way to transfer the business as a going concern is for the owner to take on the buyer as a junior partner for a couple of years or so, then be bought out. This both allows the transfer of specialist skills and business goodwill, and allows the necessary capital to be brought together more conveniently. This also applies to intergenerational transfers, particularly in regard to getting the capital together.

And, of course, you could still have business ownership even if it were impractical to trade in businesses, just as you can own a house even when the market for house sales has collapsed.

Try googling for Meir Kohn on mediaeval capital markets (“capital markets before 1600″).

That is, the wealthy receive more benefit from the government so they should pay more for it. If I can’t afford a car, what good is a road? If I can’t afford stock, what good is the regulation of the stock market that ensures fairness and transparency? Doesn’t a wealthy person benefit more from a police force than someone who has nothing (or very little) to steal?

But even if none of that selling up could be done, owners would still be owners.

And the owners can’t buy and sell their shares? What kind of “ownership” is that?

Rubbish. You could easily have a system with no corporations in which capital was owned individually or by partnerships.

Walt- I think we got the message!

Walt- I think we got the message!

Walt- I think we got the message!

Walt- I think we got the message!

Read the fine print next to the ‘Submit’ button.

Read the fine print next to the ‘Submit’ button.

Read the fine print next to the ‘Submit’ button.

Read the fine print next to the ‘Submit’ button.

Read the fine print next to the ‘Submit’ button.

Exactly. The U.S. market is not “free”.

I agree with fundamentalist that differentiation between capitalist/socialist is more about shades of gray than absolutes.