The rational economic, ethical and political philosophy for the 21st century and beyond

Authored by James M. Carroll, First Printing, September 1996


We have previously defined mixturism as the private sector working together with the public sector to meet the needs of the people a common sense approach. The idea that the use of one economic system, such as socialism or capitalism, can meet the needs of all the people is a fallacy.  In order to encompass the different needs and desires of many people, economic systems must be flexible.

Mixturism, unlike other “isms,” would not put people into straightjackets as  they try to solve their economic problems. Other “isms” allow for only certain methods to be used in solving problems and limit the number of solutions acceptable to them. In mixturism, the solution
to the problem is deemed more important than the method used to find the solution or the method by which the solution is used.

Mixturism would not destroy any system that presently exists, but would call for the flexability to use what is good in all systems to solve the problems
of the people of this planet. Violent revolution and terrorism can be avoided if nations are flexible in their approaches to problems and to their solutions.

Mixturism is a proper mixing of private and public enterprise in any activity  of a socioeconomic system so that the needs of all people in the society can be best met and progress promoted for all the people of this planet. The mixing of private and public enterprise, or the partnership of private and public enterprise, should be similar to a reversible reaction.

If public enterprise can do a better job than private enterprise in any area of endeavor, then private enterprise must give way to public enterprise.
When private enterprise can do a better job than public enterprise, then public enterprise must give way to private enterprise. When neither  enterprise by itself can fill the vacuum that exists in economic development, then private and public enterprise must form a partnership to
fill the vacuum. The needs of the people must take preference over profit. Meeting the needs of all the people must be the determining factor as to which enterprise…private, public, or joint private and public…is to be used.

The chief goal of people is to survive their duration on this planet in the best possible fashion. Progress, or achievement of the “best possible fashion,” is
anything which leads to every person on this planet having the best of all the goods and services that are needed for quality living. At the very  least, every person should enjoy the right to a good job, health care and enough space for a home and a place of privacy for the duration of life.

The struggle between socialism and capitalism revolves around the questions of whether every person has a right to a job at wages high enough for quality living. Some say there has to be a top and bottom. If this is true, the bottom  should be quality living. No one should be opposed to anyone living rich, just to anyone living poor.

Governments have two main functions: first, to guarantee the rights and freedoms of its people and, second, to provide a political and economic system whereby the people can have quality living. Since the time of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, governments have had available to them a prototype by which the world could be brought to a higher degree of development.

Any government which does not guarantee its people the means to obtain jobs at wages high enough for quality living has fallen short of its duty to its people.  Through the philosophy of mixturism, a government can provide and guarantee quality living for all its people by creating  a reserve-retraining work force which would eliminate the need for welfare and unemployment. We’ll look in detail at this later.

Mixturism is a middle-of-the-road, hybrid doctrine. It borrows the best features of both capitalism and socialism. Mixturism is pragmatic. It asks what is  the problem and what is the solution. It employs whatever method will solve the problem most effectively, regardless of labels. If public programs are judged to be the more appropriate approach for the solution of a specific problem, then that is the method used. If private enterprise can do a better job, then that approach is taken.

Mixturism is not dogmatic or preferential in deciding whether government or business or both together tackle the problem. The only criterion applied is who can do the job better. The notion that governments should subscribe to only one type of political philosophy at a time, one “ism” is fallacious. With mixturism, the solution to the problem is more important than the philosophy or methodology.

We may draw a stunning analogy between the evolution of life on earth and the development of human society. The first life forms were primitive, yet  completely autonomous, single-celled organisms. For a time, they existed quite well without assistance from others. As the number of organisms increased, many  cells began to live together, forming colonies. Soon, particular cells in the group began to evolve differently and to specialize in varied tasks for the benefit of the group. With this division of labor, an interdependence slowly emerged. Now cells counted on their neighbors to perform services for them. We see the same scenario unfolding in human culture. Individuals in the beginning were self-reliant, able to meet all needs themselves. This period was followed by group living, and that followed by division of labor, the result of which is in an interdependent society.

We are now far removed from that society of rugged individualism. We have transformed our society into a culture whose individual members depend  on one another. We must therefore develop a government ethic which reflects and nurtures that concept. Mixturism fills that bill best, for it ensures that the government takes an active role in guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of its people in providing a system whereby everyone might enjoy a quality standard of living. It also ensures that the country contributes to the UN peace-keeping efforts and maintains a strong national defense. Any government that does less for its citizenry falls short of meeting its goals.