globalvision said:
what about regulations that prevent companies from polluting the environment. are these just or should they be done away with, so that firms can grow quicker. how much regulation of firms should there be to prevent exploitation of workers?
If individual people or organizations were allowed to own the enviornment, they would care for it as much as they do any property, and would sue corporations for polluting on their property.
Also, government is the #1 polluter in America. Yet it is able to take no responsibility by claiming sovereign immunity.
Third, if you can prove a company is effecting the air you breathe by polluting it, you should have every right to sue that company for contaminating.
anomoly said:
Unemployment would drop but poverty would skyrocket!
Not really. That is complete speculation on your part.
Low paying jobs are not meant to be permanent ones. They are, like I said, stepping stones for bigger and better jobs. Someone at a low paying job might not be making much at the time, but they can advance to a higher paying job extremely fast. Not only that, but they could receive aid from a charity if they need it. Also consider that without the government taxing the hell outta their paycheck they could take home much more of it.
And as far as I know, ANY job is better than NO job at all.
Please do explain to me how someone with SOME job is going to be in more poverty than someone with NO job at all. It doesn't follow simple logic.
anomoly said:
Would the teachers and police still be spit on while athletes are praised for contributing hardly anything to society?
It's not like some magic wizard made the world like this.
Athletes receive tons of money because people think watching that athlete is worth spending tons of money.
In a free market society, teachers would be respected and praised as much as they helped people. And because education would be private, the consumer would actually appreciate that the teacher is so valuable to their children.
anomoly said:
Charity just doesn't work. I mean, currently how much do you donate in charity each year? And yet the gov't's "stolen" money is used to fund many useful social programs. So you want to not help the jobless? The abolition of the welfare state! So how will the homeless and jobless live inbetween jobs? Charity? It doesn't add up. If people were naturally charitable, there would be little need for taxes.
I personally donated only $5 this year, but that is understandable considering I have no job and am not yet out of school.
But total charity for 2003 was $241 billion! That's an average of $1,812 for EVERY person in our country!
This is people giving out of kindness, even though the government already takes tons out of their paychecks!
Think how much more this would be if the government didn't rediculously tax us!
Also, the number of unemployed people would decrease drastically if welfare were abolished and wages unregulated.
anomoly said:
Laissez-faire policies don't add up and they put too much economic power into too few hands, something sociologists have been warning against for years.
On the contrary, Laissez-faire puts ALL the power in the hands of the people.
The higher ups would have to treat the common people with kindness and generosity because they get all their money from us!
One bad move and they could lose all their funding, and with that all their power!
But with our current system, the government controls everything. It does whatever it pleases, and we have no choice whether to support it or not. And if we don't support a system that may be failing horribly, we are sent to jail for "tax evasion".
How does that keep the power in the hands of the people?
anomoly said:
Besides, you haven't mentioned how inheritance fits into your 'free' policies. They seem to disrupt the idea at the basis of free-market capitalism: People should make what they earn.
My ideas is that no one, EVER, should be allowed to interfere with a person's life, liberty, or property by FORCE.
Inheritance is a voluntary agreement, consented by the giver and the receiver.