USA with Constitutional Capitalism

The closest we have come to having that is the United States between 1905 and 1937. The Supreme Court ruled in Lochner v. New York that the Constitution under the 14th Amendment assumes a right to "liberty of contract" and that severely curtails government regulatory ability.

Reviving that to some extent is a goal talked about among conservative and libertarian legal academics today.

But Lochner, etc. simply limited government authority to regulate private enterprise, not to own the means of production itself. Nothing in Lochner for example would have prevented the State of New York from setting up state-owned bakeries (with maximum hours, minimum wages, etc.) The only limitation would be that if they wanted to put existing private bakeries under state ownership, they would have to pay the owners just compensation.
 
As a global superpower, the United States leads the world in many categories. One area that it's excelled in for practically its entire history, however, is free market capitalism. Not only is that system America's socioeconomic bedrock, but it's also central to US culture and identity to an extent not found in other, economically capitalist nations.

I'd have thought at some point in recent history, the US would go ahead and make free market capitalism their official economic system. But to my surprise, this is not--nor ever has been--the case.

So is there any point in time to add free market capitalism to the US Constitution, and retain that amendment(s) to the present day?

If yes, then when, why and how would it be passed? And what effect would it have on history from that point onwards?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot
Capitalism is too vague of a term, it only refers to non-communist economies in the loosest. The US, South Korea, Sweden are all capitalist countries with drastically different approaches to their labor markets, regulations, and ideas about the proper role of a state that don't fit a simple more capitalism vs. less capitalism divide. Capitalism vs. Socialism discussions never change anyone's mind anyway, iy makes more sense to weight the relative merits of different policy approaches.
For example, Sweden has no minimum wage laws, but a large trade union infrastructure that negotiates wages directly with employers and corporations. America has relatively low private sector unionization and minimum wage laws, but most American progressive advocate a minimum wage law as the best way to deal with the stagnant income growth of most Americans over the last few decades. A capitalism vs. socialism lens wouldn't be useful in a discussion about whether unions or minimum wage laws are more effective for raising average people's salaries.
 

RousseauX

Donor
As a global superpower, the United States leads the world in many categories. One area that it's excelled in for practically its entire history, however, is free market capitalism. Not only is that system America's socioeconomic bedrock, but it's also central to US culture and identity to an extent not found in other, economically capitalist nations.

I'd have thought at some point in recent history, the US would go ahead and make free market capitalism their official economic system. But to my surprise, this is not--nor ever has been--the case.

So is there any point in time to add free market capitalism to the US Constitution, and retain that amendment(s) to the present day?

If yes, then when, why and how would it be passed? And what effect would it have on history from that point onwards?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

the problem is that what free market capitalism is really ambiguous, does it for example prohibit government regulations on the stock market? What about government owned corporative entities like the TVA?
 
Wouldnt free markte capitalism in the constitution prevent tariffs? That would lead to really interesting developments in the market.
 
the problem is that what free market capitalism is really ambiguous, does it for example prohibit government regulations on the stock market? What about government owned corporative entities like the TVA?

Wouldnt free markte capitalism in the constitution prevent tariffs? That would lead to really interesting developments in the market.

I'm no lawyer, but as I've said before, the government might justify economic regulation by pointing out that Constitutional rights aren't infinite or absolute.

The First Amendment doesn't protect slander, the Second Amendment doesn't mean that felons can still own guns, etc. If that's not enough, then we can add clauses to it (i.e. something about reasonable regulations) before the amendment gets passed.

Also, why not define capitalism based on its four main principles?:
-Private ownership (already protected)
-Free markets
-Competition
-Profit motive
 
The question is all about timing:
The USA would look a lot different if it was put in at the founding. A large part of the federal budget was paid by tariffs in the founding era. That would have led to some different way the goverment would have to be financed, maybe a early income tax? Also the development of a lot of businesses would look totally different. And sure you can say they could regualte all that but you need to convince people at that time why its important. The first Tariffs of 1789 only passed 31-19, now if free market was already enshrined in the constitution i could believe that would sway a few more since they didnt want to vote against the constitution so early after it was written down.

Now if you introduce it during the 1920s or so against the red scare I could see a different development to otl in the great depression. I would think the goverment would still try to regulate as much to combat great depression but there are always people winning somewhere that would try to stop it since it would go against free markets or what not of capitalism. In the end I think the supreme court would uphold the goverment regulations but it would cost time and money that would delay the recovery. Could have interesting developments for the normal people as well if they see some rich folk sueing the goverment against helping the economy. I could see a shift of people more towards left since they see capitalism isnt helping.

After WW2 it isnt that interesting since a lot of the economy and its rulings are already formed and no real big shakeups happen. Maybe overall less strict ruling against business. Intersting would only be 2008 onwards again but that could easily become current politics.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I'm no lawyer, but as I've said before, the government might justify economic regulation by pointing out that Constitutional rights aren't infinite or absolute.

The First Amendment doesn't protect slander, the Second Amendment doesn't mean that felons can still own guns, etc. If that's not enough, then we can add clauses to it (i.e. something about reasonable regulations) before the amendment gets passed.

Also, why not define capitalism based on its four main principles?:
-Private ownership (already protected)
-Free markets
-Competition
-Profit motive
2 and 3 I could see, #3 could even lead to stronger anti-trust action by the government since it ensures "competition"

#4 is too ambiguous and I have trouble seeing what could actually pass, you can't thought control people's motives and banning charities seem dumb etc
 
2 and 3 I could see, #3 could even lead to stronger anti-trust action by the government since it ensures "competition"

#4 is too ambiguous and I have trouble seeing what could actually pass, you can't thought control people's motives and banning charities seem dumb etc

About #4, how about it just affirms the right to make a profit, but does not force businesses to do so.

You're right, banning charities and non-profits is seriously dumb.
 
#3 could even lead to stronger anti-trust action by the government since it ensures "competition"
That is a point that could go both ways and is influenced by the time and circumstances. As far as I understood capitalism its not necessarily against monopolies. The regulation here should only enforce a breakup if the price is unfair. Everything else is regulated by the market. Someone else will make a better or cheaper product in time.

not sure where the #4 banning of charities comes from. Just because the profit isnt directly accountable in money doesnt mean there isnt any profit. If you can deduct your charity from tax everyone would use that since its the most profitable thing to do. Or maybe being charitable is makeing your brand more recognized thats another profit not measured in direct money.
 
About #4, how about it just affirms the right to make a profit, but does not force businesses to do so.

You're right, banning charities and non-profits is seriously dumb.

I think the issue is that the right to profit is kind of implicit from the right to property. You sell your property, whether that's physical or your labor, and you make a profit on the transaction that you use to live. Hell, business would have to worry about labor unions using a provision like that to argue for a guaranteed living wage. They'd also resent the competition clause, since it could be used against companies with monopolistic practices.

And really, those speak to the real problem here. Namely, that while we may like free markets and fair competition, that's mostly just something we settle for if we can't get away with tipping the scales in our favor.
 
I thought that the US would've gone ahead with it during the Red Scare or something. Apparently, not.
To what end? Constitutional amendments are incredibly difficult and require immense political capital. What would be gained by doing so? Such an amendment would be so incredibly vague as yo be unenforceable.
 
Top