> No... ignoring property rights consistently produces crony-capitalism.
No, the original capitalist system (that is, the dominant system of the mid-19th century system developed West for which critics coined the name “capitalism”) fully embraced the capitalist model of property rights—again, the capitalist model of such rights was defined by what was observed in that system as distinct from a other historical systems—and was deeply and pervasively characterizes by cronyism.
Now, if you have some other model of property rights in mind other than that embodied in the real historical system for which “capitalism” was coined as a label, you might argue have an argument that deviation from that model, such as the deviation seen in capitalism, produces cronyism. But you shouldn't confuse that model with capitalism.
I would be careful of suggesting the idea of property you're referring to is somehow "the original capitalist system". Many economic and political theorists in the mid 19th century and earlier talked about property rights in the terms I'm referring to - these were also capitalists.
“Propriété et loi.” Originally published in the 15 May 1848 issue of "Le Journal des économistes", Frederic Bastiat (hardly some obscure, sideline thinker) wrote:
> Economists consider that property, like the person, is a providential fact. The law does not give existence to one any more than to the other. Property is a necessary consequence of the constitution of man.
He continues:
> It is so true that property predates the law that it is acknowledged even by primitive people who have no laws or at least no written laws. When a savage has devoted his work to building himself a hut, no one disputes his possession or ownership of it. Doubtless another savage who is stronger than he can drive him out but not without angering and alarming the entire tribe. It is actually this abuse of strength that gives rise to association, agreement, and the law, which places public force in the service of property. Therefore the law arises out of property, a far cry from property arising from law.
Point being, the property rights I'm referring to - the property rights that the vast majority of free-market advocates speak about - have been considered and thought about for ages. I'm not coining a new label.
No, the original capitalist system (that is, the dominant system of the mid-19th century system developed West for which critics coined the name “capitalism”) fully embraced the capitalist model of property rights—again, the capitalist model of such rights was defined by what was observed in that system as distinct from a other historical systems—and was deeply and pervasively characterizes by cronyism.
Now, if you have some other model of property rights in mind other than that embodied in the real historical system for which “capitalism” was coined as a label, you might argue have an argument that deviation from that model, such as the deviation seen in capitalism, produces cronyism. But you shouldn't confuse that model with capitalism.