How would you define "individualism"?

Originally posted by normbenign
It can only do so by remaining neutral, as an arbiter, protecting all from force and fraud, including protecting the corporations.

But that does not imply doing nothing. The local governments are bribed now to do nothing. It implies regulation and enforcement of those regulations.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But that does not imply doing nothing. The local governments are bribed now to do nothing. It implies regulation and enforcement of those regulations.

How to say nothing, aka loves the tic tic tic sound of his own keyboard.

Originally posted by Wajoma
How to say nothing, aka loves the tic tic tic sound of his own keyboard.

sounds like a lot of peeps we all know..😛😀

Originally posted by kmax87
sounds like a lot of peeps we all know..😛😀

Yes kmax you're one too.

FMF asks "Who enjoys this sovereignty?"

Wajoma responds specifically: "They all do"

kmax then asks again: "Who gets more sovereign protection?"

i.e. kmax asks the same question again.


normbenign just gets through saying "...protecting all from force and fraud..."

KN responds: "The local governments are bribed now to do nothing. It implies regulation and enforcement of those regulations."

i.e. KN says exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yes kmax you're one too.

I did say all.

And when it gets to the point of predictability that you have to agree albeit mockingly that I know how to dial your number, then we all may need to stand aside for a while and give some room to let a new opinion or three actually make it to the forum!

I'm not saying we've reached terminal boredom or plumbed the full extent of our respective world view's, but......

Originally posted by FMF
What about protecting the individual from the excess or abuse of power by corporations?

Yes and to protect the corporations against the excesses of individuals.

Originally posted by kmax87
Yeah for sure if by choice you mean that the worker had one less chance of being exploited by some foreign owned trans-national corporation! 🙄😲🙄

One less choice is one less choice. The fact that the "sweatshops" quickly hire as much staff as they need indicates that some of the other choices are worse.

The choices are only two. Let the market work, and free employers and free workers will see gradually improving conditions.

The other choice is put government in charge, applying force to employers improving the conditions of the workers. Of course, that option may make the employers reconsider their decision of where to locate. Is gradual improvement better than almost guaranteed regression?

There isn't any example of a demand/government controlled by force system of economics which has succeeded in improving the conditions of workers. Liberty and free markets have done so repeatedly whenever and wherever they are tried.