- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,923
- Reaction score
- 1,738
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Red_Dave said:What continually amazes me is that many propose a libertarian solution to the worlds problems. In my view capatalism causes alot of the worlds problems by bringing the economy under the control of a small unelected section of the worlds population. If the capatalism works in the intrests of the worlds population then why do we not see multinationals respecting human rights, the enviroment and there employes. The reason this doesnt happen is that each corporation runs for the benefit of those it makes money for rather than humanity as a whole . To me this doesnt seem a logical way of meeting the worlds needs and its completely illiogical to give this system a free reign over the world as most libertarians surgest. The enivitable end doing so is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor.
A good example of this is Hong Kong. The Hong Kong portrayed in much of the media is full of large sky scrapers and wealthy buissnessmen with a high standard of living, supossedly a wonderful example of what free markets can achive. What you rarely see in the media is Hong Kongs Heriorin ridden slums, some of the worst in the world. To me this seams a fairly logical outcome of Neo-liberal policys, as you cant expect corporations that work for profit to work in the intrests of the poor. The enivitable outcome is that they will produce things at the lowest possible price and therefore pay the lowest possible wages. As this is envitiably going to lead to those at the top of this system getting rich and everyone else getting poor [hence the ever growing gap between rich and poor that exists today] why would any moral person advocate such a system?
The same problems occured during the industrial revolution in europe but where to an extent countered democratically through the state through social policy. In varying degrees depending on how interventionalist the government is the state does and should provide democratic balance to capatalism. So What im curious to know is why people want to take the state out of economic life and give capatalism a free reign considering its undemocratic and destructive nature? By takeing the state out of economic life you are createing a power vacume which corporations will fill, as they would use and power they get to run the world for there own advantage to a greater extent than they do now it seams illogical to me to let this happen.
What i find particually disturbing is that many want to remove social poilcy that people depend on for education, healthcare and sometimes food. The envitiable result of takeing these things away is a situation where many are left without food, healthcare, or and education and each of these resources are monopolised by the rich. Isnt this completely amoral?
Many would argue that the poor are poor through lack of work, and the rich are rich through hard work. This would be true if we lived in a society in which
there was perfect social mobility, i imagine no one here does. On the whole rich kids have far better opertunitys in life than poor kids and although it does happen its quite hard to climb the ladder from one class to the next. For example someone living in Harlem and going to a crap state school is likely to do worse then someone going to a nice private school regardless of how much either of them works. Without social mobility those from a poor background are likely to stay poor so its seams unfair to me to punish people for being poor when its not there fault.
This is why its seams hipercritical to me that many libertarians advocate perpetuating social inequality by privitiseing education. All this would do is remove any social mobility that already exists and create a de facto caste system. Surely its hypercritical to on the one hand claim that the poor and work there way out of poverty yet on the other hand remove the means for them to do so through education. Im just curious to know why anyone would want to do this?
Red_Dave said:What continually amazes me is that many propose a libertarian solution to the worlds problems.
Red_Dave said:In my view capatalism causes alot of the worlds problems by bringing the economy under the control of a small unelected section of the worlds population.
Red_Dave said:If the capatalism works in the intrests of the worlds population then why do we not see multinationals respecting human rights, the enviroment and there employes.
Red_Dave said:The reason this doesnt happen is that each corporation runs for the benefit of those it makes money for rather than humanity as a whole .
Red_Dave said:To me this doesnt seem a logical way of meeting the worlds needs and its completely illiogical to give this system a free reign over the world as most libertarians surgest.
Red_Dave said:The enivitable end doing so is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor.
Red_Dave said:A good example of this is Hong Kong. The Hong Kong portrayed in much of the media is full of large sky scrapers and wealthy buissnessmen with a high standard of living, supossedly a wonderful example of what free markets can achive. What you rarely see in the media is Hong Kongs Heriorin ridden slums, some of the worst in the world.
Red_Dave said:To me this seams a fairly logical outcome of Neo-liberal policys, as you cant expect corporations that work for profit to work in the intrests of the poor.
Red_Dave said:The enivitable outcome is that they will produce things at the lowest possible price and therefore pay the lowest possible wages.
Red_Dave said:As this is envitiably going to lead to those at the top of this system getting rich and everyone else getting poor [hence the ever growing gap between rich and poor that exists today] why would any moral person advocate such a system?
Red_Dave said:The same problems occured during the industrial revolution in europe but where to an extent countered democratically through the state through social policy. In varying degrees depending on how interventionalist the government is the state does and should provide democratic balance to capatalism.
Red_Dave said:So What im curious to know is why people want to take the state out of economic life and give capatalism a free reign considering its undemocratic and destructive nature? By takeing the state out of economic life you are createing a power vacume which corporations will fill, as they would use and power they get to run the world for there own advantage to a greater extent than they do now it seams illogical to me to let this happen.
Red_Dave said:What i find particually disturbing is that many want to remove social poilcy that people depend on for education, healthcare and sometimes food. The envitiable result of takeing these things away is a situation where many are left without food, healthcare, or and education and each of these resources are monopolised by the rich. Isnt this completely amoral?
Red_Dave said:Many would argue that the poor are poor through lack of work, and the rich are rich through hard work. This would be true if we lived in a society in which there was perfect social mobility, i imagine no one here does. On the whole rich kids have far better opertunitys in life than poor kids
Red_Dave said:and although it does happen its quite hard to climb the ladder from one class to the next.
Red_Dave said:For example someone living in Harlem and going to a crap state school is likely to do worse then someone going to a nice private school regardless of how much either of them works. Without social mobility those from a poor background are likely to stay poor so its seams unfair to me to punish people for being poor when its not there fault.
Red_Dave said:This is why its seams hipercritical to me that many libertarians advocate perpetuating social inequality by privitiseing education.
Red_Dave said:All this would do is remove any social mobility that already exists and create a de facto caste system. Surely its hypercritical to on the one hand claim that the poor and work there way out of poverty yet on the other hand remove the means for them to do so through education. Im just curious to know why anyone would want to do this?
They can easily lobby for laws, anti-corporatists virtually have no money and so can't.Corporations don't make the laws, they're restricted by them
I have a problem with both child labor and sweatshops, and China is nowhere near being socialist.If you have an issue with child labor/sweatshops then take it up with socialistic governments like China.
How?The drive for profit creates wealth and brings everyone up to a higher standard of living, not just the fat cats.
I agree that giving the state more power is simply stupid, but that isn't the goal of socialism. Also I would not describe capitalism as "free" in a sense.To me, socialism is totally illogical in meeting the worlds needs and its completley illogical to give the government free reign over the economy.
Nice story, can't happen to most people. Got lucky.I have an uncle on my mom's side. They grew up on a farm. Started out as poor as could be. He had a dream of becoming successful. He worked his ass off and saved up enough money to buy a vending machine. After a little while, the money started to flow and he bought a couple more. 30+ years later when he was ready to retire, he had a few hundred pepsi machines, about 20 employees who he provided health insurance for and a bunch of company vans. He sold his business and is living quite comfortably now. Just recently bought a plasma screen TV that I gotta help him install later today.
I adore those smokestacks they put close to my house.Capitalism my friend. It's a beautiful thing.
Strange how impovershed people are stereotyped so much as being drug addicts. Most I know aren't. That's also probably a reason why they cant say get job, no one wants a drug addict as they're often stereotyped.Maybe instead of wasting their money and lives on heroin, those peole could make something out of themselves
The reason why wages are so high was because of past events, though I have found wages to be dropping ever so slightly since the 70s.No. (See above.) If they were to pay the lowest possible wages then everyone working for a corporation would make minimum wage which is hardly the case
Agreed, labor is a commodity.Labor, you see, is a good like any other.. hence the "labor market."
It exists today that is how capitalism functions.Because this system does not exist.
Motivation for what?What the poor kid lacks in money, he makes up for with motivation, a virtue that the rich kids tend to lack.
Comrade Brian said:They can easily lobby for laws, anti-corporatists virtually have no money and so can't.
Comrade Brian said:I have a problem with both child labor and sweatshops, and China is nowhere near being socialist.
Comrade Brian said:How?
Comrade Brian said:Nice story, can't happen to most people. Got lucky.
Comrade Brian said:I adore those smokestacks they put close to my house.
Comrade Brian said:Strange how impovershed people are stereotyped so much as being drug addicts. Most I know aren't. That's also probably a reason why they cant say get job, no one wants a drug addict as they're often stereotyped.
Comrade Brian said:The reason why wages are so high was because of past events, though I have found wages to be dropping ever so slightly since the 70s.
Comrade Brian said:Agreed, labor is a commodity.
Comrade Brian said:It exists today that is how capitalism functions.
Comrade Brain said:Motivation for what?
Not necessarily. Moving is often quite expensive. Also I live in a rather "industrial" city. Also there are basically 3 social sections of the city. One which has the wealthiest, I do not live in. Nor do I live in the "middle class". I live in the heaviest industrialised part, or the "poorest". So if I felt like moving somewhere where there were not industries the houses are far more expensive. And I would not consider moving to another city, usually expensive and I do rather love this city despite its problems.You can move.
I agree. But also many industries are run very "dirty", as in environmental sense, and many things can be done to reduce things.Those smokestacks would still be there regardless of what economic system was in place, unless of course we reverted to the pre-industrial revolution days.
No, I was referring to things like WWII. But when the "free market" was implemented it had terrible wages and such.Past events? You mean the implementation of a free market?
I find it has more to do with the fact that the nation is becoming more "industrialised". Because a capitalist would be more than happy to set up a factory, labratory, or whetever because of the "untapped labor".Free market reforms took place and what happen? The Chinese standard of living began to skyrocket. Gee.... wonder why?
Most people fail.Please elaborate on how he "got lucky."
The Real McCoy said:I wish more would do the same.
Who are bound by a competitive market.
Corporations don't make the laws, they're restricted by them. If you have an issue with child labor/sweatshops then take it up with socialistic governments like China.
The drive for profit creates wealth and brings everyone up to a higher standard of living, not just the fat cats.
To me, socialism is totally illogical in meeting the worlds needs and its completley illogical to give the government free reign over the economy.
I have an uncle on my mom's side. They grew up on a farm. Started out as poor as could be. He had a dream of becoming successful. He worked his ass off and saved up enough money to buy a vending machine. After a little while, the money started to flow and he bought a couple more. 30+ years later when he was ready to retire, he had a few hundred pepsi machines, about 20 employees who he provided health insurance for and a bunch of company vans. He sold his business and is living quite comfortably now. Just recently bought a plasma screen TV that I gotta help him install later today.
Which brings me to the TV/electronics market. Look at all the different companies building the same stuff. Sony, Magnavox, JVC, Hitachi, Emerson, the list goes on and on and on. All these companies are competing with each other for our money. Last year I bought a TV for $300. Just recently saw the same damn thing at Circuit City for $129. Capitalism my friend. It's a beautiful thing.
Maybe instead of wasting their money and lives on heroin, those peole could make something out of themselves. You got any labor statistics for Hong Kong?
I just got a job at Maines in Binghamton, NY. It's a food distribution company. The job I applied for was "driver helper." Basically I just ride around with truck drivers and help them unload the product. On my application, undr wage desired I put "Any." They started me off at $500/week. What an evil corporation. They could have given me minimum wage, I even encouraged them to, but no, they decided to give me almost double that. True story.
No. (See above.) If they were to pay the lowest possible wages then everyone working for a corporation would make minimum wage which is hardly the case. Labor, you see, is a good like any other.. hence the "labor market."
Because this system does not exist.
I'll continue later... gotta go install that TV.
The Real McCoy said:I've noticed that there seems to be 2 sects of libertarianism: the anarcho-capitalists and (IMO) the realists. I'm not the type to condemn every single form of government intervention in the economy. I believe there's a necessity for laws/programs like the Sherman Act, the SEC, the FDIC, etc. I do, however, feel that the government has overstepped it's limits and has become too intrusive in the market. No country has successful flourished for very long with a government run economy. Free markets are a necessity to the prosperity of nations.
You put far too much faith in a government's ability to sucessful control an economy. Bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency become rampant.
I see the necessity for the gov't to provide education because it's beneficial to society as a whole.
As for food, there's plenty of churches and private charities/organizations that provide food for the truly needy.
Now, why should I, someone who exercises and leads a pretty halthy life have my hard earned money forcibly taken away from me to pay for some alcoholic/smoker/fast food junkie's health coverage? That's not equality.
What the poor kid lacks in money, he makes up for with motivation, a virtue that the rich kids tend to lack.
Yes, hard work is hard. I'll take that any ****ing day of the week over a system where I have no chance of rising up.
And the socialistic solution is to drag the private schooled kid down to the lowest common denominator.
I personally advocate a MORE privatized system (like many European models), but not 100% privatized.
Me too. Totally privatized education would be nuts.
Red_Dave said:Scandanavian countrys like norway and sweeden have very interventionalist social democratict governments but are still quite wealthy. Norways the richest country in the world if i remember rightly. As i said in the "green party suporters" thread if Adam Smith and co where right about free markets leading to the wealth of nations those in development agencys would agree with him . However oxfam and a number of other development agencys run campians against the forced opening of markets and forced privitisation of industy in thrid world countrys through the world bank.
What evidence is there that free markets lead to the prosperity? That certainly not the case in america. There may be lots of money around but the way i see is that money is much like ****. Your preisident is full of it and it is only usefull when spread out allowing things to grow. America has plenty of billionaries but it also has an obsence gap between rich and poor and the poor have far less suport than they would have in social democratic states. For some reason the libertarian right wishes to perpectuate this.
Nationalisations often go awry because they are too centralised .As you pointed out this often leads to alot of berucracy. Thats why i would avocate a decentralised version of socialisism akin to anarco-syndicalism where workers would run there industrys as directly as possible thus removing much of the need for burucrats and creating a comunal work ethic. That said i feel Nationalisation is often a better alternative to corporations as norway has demonstrated.
On the whole theres plenty of governments that have intervened in the country without everyone dieing. Like i said if it wasnt for government intervention myself and hundreads of others would be in a bad way medically if the government hadnt intervened and given us free healthcare. It i was healthy I would be working in a factory with no minimum wage and no chance of and education and the possibilty of haveing my arm cut off by machinary. Lukily for me after alot of pressure from the public the government has invervened and prevented this from happening. The logical path of action is to progessively intervene more where needed untill the economy is run democratically. The libertarian solution however is move society back a hundred years or so and leave the corporations to it. The more you remove legislation protecting people from coporate abuse the more room for corporate abuse there is. Surely whats needed is more of this legislation and not less.
As regards healthcare an active/healthy persons paying for an inactive/unhealthys persons healthcare no where near as unjust as a badly paid but unhealthily under weight mine worker earning the money for an obese c.e.os heart surgery. I think the socialist option is much fairer.
I wouldnt be in favor of abolishing the economy completely but i would be in favor of improveing state education by investing more [among other things] by taxing the rich more. This would mean some kids who would be privitely educated if it wasnt for the high taxes would end up going to state schools with lesser mortals but thats not something i am going to lose sleep about. That wouldnt mean dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominater that would mean creating equality of opertunity. It might create a level playing feild but that doesnt mean everyone is going to end up with the same jobs and such. On the contary the good jobs would go to those who where clever and actually worked for their qualifications.
If by "more privitised system" you mean corporate sponcerd schools then I dont think thats a very good course of action as it gives the rich to much influence over what is taught. For example if coca cola has influence over what is taught in a school it is inevitably going to play down the damages of unhealthy foods in science lessons. One university in america that was sponcered by coca cola banned a speaker from campus because he criticised the countrys actions overseas.
libertarian_knight said:First realize, that the US Market is more interventionist that what Smith wrote against. Poeple imagine that the dozens and dozens and dozens of resource control board and market "regulatory" agencies are somehow capitalist, they are exactly NOT capitalist. 12,000 pages of rules, regulations, and law in ONE Trade agreement (NAFTA) is not "free trade." Control over the printing and coining of money is not free trade. Arbitrary interest rates set by government fiat is not free trade. IMF and World Bank, are not free trade bodies. There are literally hundreds of large and small policies that I can list (and research) that are examples of not-free-trade.
The US and the West play lip service to free trade, and particularly when it benefits the state's (or state supporters) economic interests.
The Problem developing countries have, is that what they really need is free trade, what they get is international control over services and resources, and entry into unfavorable markets. When MOST State officials talk about free trade, especially politicians, they are lying. They, again, give lip service to the ideas of free trade, but never actually implement it.
Also, generally, most free traders are willing to allow government intervention into the economy when a pattern of behavior exhibits a systemic violation of life, liberty or property (which includes the human body).
Government involvement to promote and enforce business practices that protect life and limb, are generally acceptable to most libertarians and free traders. Yes, there are some people, including non-libertarians, that think the prosecution of and protection from injury could be handled by other groups, rather than the state.
However, when government interveins to promote a certain business or industry at the expense of other businesses or industries, comsumers, or taxpayers, that is wrong. When government tries to run the market, by setting price floors, price ceilings, quotas, VAT, Tariffs, export and import controls, anti-"gouging" laws, exemptions from crimminal and civil suit, use of emminent doamin for private business use, licensing products or services, and a multitude of other non-injury producing practices, these areas are where free traders get upset (these are in addition to all the other facets listed earlier as well).
These practices are not free trade, they are not capitalist either. They are halmarks of statist intervention, under BOTH the guise of socialism and capitalism, but in actuality is niether. The central element of "the middle way" (mixing capitalism and socialism) is the state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?