Originally posted by WajomaThe sort of free society you want is a pipedream. At least at this moment in history.
In a free society (free markets and a free society are co-dependent) people are free to form groups and collectively purchase whatever they wish, they just would not be able to force ownership on others. In the internet age this is easier than ever.
Are you citing feudalism as an example of a free market?
Haha, of course not. I was responding to your rather inane post about rather living in a society with a few rich than a society where all are poor.
Which modern, big government society are you talking about where everyone is poor by the way? Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnarchism is mistaken intentionally for freedom by persons who desire tyranny (total control).
Ah I see, so an anarchist society (least possible regulation) has the "freest" market?
Government rightfully ought to prevent as much as possible force and fraud by prohibition, enforcement, and court arbitration of contracts. Inside those boundaries, individuals and businesses ought to enjoy freedom. Government actions beyond those basics invariably favor some factions in society.
Originally posted by LundosThe relative prosperity of north eastern Europe is not a long term thing by any means. These states also enjoy small size and relatively few cultural differences in their populations, at least at present.
The sort of free society you want is a pipedream. At least at this moment in history.
Haha, of course not. I was responding to your rather inane post about rather living in a society with a few rich than a society where all are poor.
Which modern, big government society are you talking about where everyone is poor by the way? Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark?
The relative size of rich vs. poor demographic is probably somewhat similar over human history. There have always been many more poor than rich. A great many so called lower middle class have been convinced that although they aren't rich, they aren't poor either, not that it really matters.
In a market driven society, without government interference, the way one gets richer is by providing products that the poor and middle class want and which improve their lives, best examples of which are Gates and Jobs. The personal computer, and various I devices make lots of people happy and keep them busy, and in some cases help them improve their earning power.
The rich getting richer by manipulation of currency, and rampant speculation on markets, often do so with the help of government oversight and manipulation. These non productive wealthy are the ones often funding one party or the other in politics, and couldn't be less interested in improving the lives of the poor. Does anyone believe that George Soros is more sympathetic to the poor than the Koch Brothers?
Originally posted by normbenignThe relative prosperity of north eastern Europe is not a long term thing by any means.
The relative prosperity of north eastern Europe is not a long term thing by any means. These states also enjoy small size and relatively few cultural differences in their populations, at least at present.
The relative size of rich vs. poor demographic is probably somewhat similar over human history. There have always been many more poor than rich. A ...[text shortened]... . Does anyone believe that George Soros is more sympathetic to the poor than the Koch Brothers?
Ah, the impending doom prophecy again! Glad to see you still have your crystal ball.
The relative size of rich vs. poor demographic is probably somewhat similar over human history.
Absolutely not. Where did you get this idea?
Originally posted by normbenignThe relative prosperity of north eastern Europe is not a long term thing by any means.
The relative prosperity of north eastern Europe is not a long term thing by any means. These states also enjoy small size and relatively few cultural differences in their populations, at least at present.
The relative size of rich vs. poor demographic is probably somewhat similar over human history. There have always been many more poor than rich. A ...[text shortened]... . Does anyone believe that George Soros is more sympathetic to the poor than the Koch Brothers?
Eh, okay. My guess is, your mistake is looking at present growth rates and extrapolate them.
The relative size of rich vs. poor demographic is probably somewhat similar over human history.
Eh, really?
the way one gets richer is by providing products that consumers desire and which improve their lives, best examples of which are Gates and Jobs. The personal computer, and various I devices make lots of people happy and keep them busy, and in some cases help them improve their earning power and overalll life.
Fixed.
The rich getting richer by manipulation of currency, and rampant speculation on markets, often do so with the help of government oversight and manipulation. These non productive wealthy are the ones often funding one party or the other in politics, and couldn't be less interested in improving the lives of the poor. Does anyone believe that George Soros is more sympathetic to the poor than the Koch Brothers?
Agreed. A part of government regulation includes finance, speculation and risk.