Originally posted by wedgehead2Neither pro nor anti business, to say that Libertarianz are pro would suggest possibly protectionism, crony capitalism, corporate welfare.
But they are pro-business- they say that they will try to get rid of all taxes, and place all industries and utilities in the possession of private firms!
Libz stand for none of those things.
Neither pro nor anti business, a total devision of business from guvamint.
Originally posted by WajomaThey would get rid any rid of welfare, and increase free trade in oder to benefit businesses! The government would be weakened, in order to strengthen business interests.
Neither pro nor anti business, to say that Libertarianz are pro would suggest possibly protectionism, crony capitalism, corporate welfare.
Libz stand for none of those things.
Neither pro nor anti business, a total devision of business from guvamint.
Originally posted by wedgehead2They would increase the freedom to trade but do nothing to increase free trade. So neither pro nor anti.
They would get rid any rid of welfare, and increase free trade in oder to benefit businesses! The government would be weakened, in order to strengthen business interests.
Originally posted by WajomaThink it says "free trade" on their website. Anyway, freedom to trade between countries is a part of globalisation- as opposed to protectionism. Globalisation, at least at the minute, acts as a boost to business at the expense of poorer nations and governments all around the world- which is why the left oppose it and the right support it.
They would increase the freedom to trade but do nothing to increase free trade. So neither pro nor anti.
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2I didn't say I disliked the country or it's people.
So why didn't you like it?
The question is, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to leave Cuba? Could it be the government and it's socialist policies?
Why would they choose to come to the "evil" U.S. when there are so many other wonderful countries in that area to which they could go?
Originally posted by monster truckIsn't america the nearest country to Cuba! The people leave Cuba leave because of the restrictions on their ability to become wealthy. If you're smart and want make money- america's the place to go. They hate Castro- America is Castro's opposite.
I didn't say I disliked the country or it's people.
The question is, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to leave Cuba? Could it be the government and it's socialist policies?
Why would they choose to come to the "evil" U.S. when there are so many other wonderful countries in that area to which they could go?
Originally posted by wedgehead2No, Haiti is closer. So if you're smart, you leave a socialist country?
Isn't america the nearest country to Cuba! The people leave Cuba leave because of the restrictions on their ability to become wealthy. If you're smart and want make money- america's the place to go. They hate Castro- America is Castro's opposite.
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaFair enough you believe in something it seems, the right's of property. I believe in the right's of property, but I also believe that labour whether commodified or not has right's. While that may sound like Marxism of a sort to some, I believe its just common sense that capitalism needs more than just entrepreneurial actors to be a dynamic vibrant reality. If the system in place overtly looks after those who have capital and are willing to take risks, at the expense of those who will end up being the workers in that system, then that in my book, sounds like a system with a limited shelf life that will eventually implode because of the tensions that will eventually develop in that society to tear it apart.
It should be made clear there is no such thing as a monopoly in the free market. There is something called market dominance....Here’s how things proceed: You run off to wiki and dig up some examples;.... I then run off to wiki and dig up some examples .... and round and round we go. So I prefer to argue from the property rights position. Whose product is it? Whose company is it? ...
You can commodify people's labour, but when people themselves are increasingly treated as commodities, you have to ask the question how long can a stable society be built on a base that is used and disposed of as needed, without any concern shown for the welfare of those that make all that wealth realizable. This is not altruism or socialism, just common sense. If the truth is that the vast majority of people will form the workforce that will make your society function, then why build a model of society that particularly favours only the smallest minority?
Your argument includes an observation that possibly due to a lack of understanding or insight on my part, the 'round and round we go' of wiki fuelled examples was something I engaged in because I had run out arguments.
But the most basic of my questions you still have not made an adequate answer to.
You said, "As I have also pointed out numerous times in a free society groups may form voluntarily there maybe the Labour Party Group whose members donate 49% of their income which is then redistributed by grey shoe wearing bureaucrats. The difference being they would not be able to take 49% of a persons income if they did not belong to their club."
To which I replied, " How do you propose to levy taxes from the populace to establish the laws that 'you' think are necessary, based on the individuals determination of what they consider is appropriate"
Granted there were insults and asides that we may have been more focussed on slinging at the time, but it should be noted that it was you after my very first post in this thread that decided to enlist the argument of some expert in the field, and I had to google him just to find out that he was a darling of a very neo con institute. I was quite happy to have remained arguing the point using arguments based on logic and rudimentary rhetoric instead.
In answer to my question as to why competition would survive in a free market economy you posted a reply that said that you had turned my standard oil argument against me as proof, which in my view would have to rank as one of the greatest non-sequiturs of all time. How does it follow that your appropriation of someone else's argument in a cut and paste rebuttal of anti-trust qualify as a rebuttal of why competition would not survive in a free market.
The point is that antitrust laws are part of the reason we have not seen market dominance develop into monopolies. The establishment bureaucrats in their wisdom probably anticipated how easily corporations could move to a position of overwhelming control of a sector of the market, and you would probably find that the Sherman Anti Trust legislation was no doubt enacted in part to ally the concerns of those who would have rightly determined that corporations, as self interested entities, while an important aspect of economic activity and secondary unintended benefit to others, may not necessarily be of lasting value to the whole of society. Their dominance of the market would ultimately lead to unhealthy outcomes as their concerns were not first and foremost to the consumer base that bought their goods but only to themselves and their shareholders.
How could a stable healthy society develop out of a model that was not interested in the social cost of its actions? The march of civilization for over a thousand years was in direct opposition to ideas that were only interested in the short term pendulum swing of profitable business cycles.
What is the basic difference between the first and other worlds? We have legislation that caps off the freedom by which capital can easily exploit the available workforce. Want to see Libertarianism in action? Go to any developing nation and see how business rides roughshod over the populace and see how comfortable it is to exist in your free market utopia. Hey come to think of it you're welcome to it. Tell us what you think of Libertarianism when you are forced to sell off your sister or your daughter just to stay ahead!