#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Would Libertarian fundamentalism be a good form of Govnerment
Yes
Side Score: 41
|
No
Side Score: 43
|
|
3
points
2
points
2
points
Saying "history has shown" isn't really evidence. Take a particular example from history and I'll bet that some sleuth of a Libertarian can find the historical evidence why government interference rather than free markets caused the problem. The reason I would make that bet is because history has shown that whenever the government interferes and causes problems, they say that capitalism has failed. And history has shown that people believe them no matter how glaringly false it is. Side: Yes
1
point
How would you define the two which would indicate a difference? Libertarianism is actually a form of anarchism; we seek for limited control and maximization of individual freedoms. I understand that the word anarchy has been misinterpreted to mean "rioting in the streets" throughout the years, but this common misconception should not discourage people from defending the true meaning of the word. I am a libertarian/ anarchist, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Side: No
1
point
Anarchism means no government. If by government you specifically mean “state,” then yes. Governance itself is intrinsic to social interaction and not dependent on a state, so a government of some form still exists, it’s just more of a voluntary “self-governance” type. Anarchists object to systems which assert a monopoly in overseeing these social interactions which prevent them from being completely voluntary. Minarchism means minimal government Libertarianism has recently been described as minarchistic by the growing Libertarian Party but libertarianism has been used to describe anarchism for more than a century and still bears resemblance to its anarchistic roots. Even the use of the term as a political position was introduced by anarchist Joseph Dejacque. The Libertarian Party is minarchist in nature, therefore the Libertarian Party is not anarchist in nature. They are not mutually exclusive. Besides, minarchist views are arguably anarchistic in nature. Anarchism is largely non-dogmatic, but of the several nuances one can draw a very distinct theme being anti-state and pro-freedom. Both ideologies share this strong adherence to personal freedom and significantly limited amount of control. Libertarianism could be described as the antithesis of authoritarianism in that respect, as would anarchism. Granted anarchy could be described as the far end of a spectrum where no state exists; libertarianism would not be far off from that point in the spectrum. Side: No
1
point
That’s nice. So next time you say something like “You are confusing libertarians for anarchists. The two are not the same,” you should indicate that you are referring to the American Libertarian Party, and not libertarianism, because those two are not the same. Regardless, the American Libertarian Party and its recently dubbed "minarchistic" adherences are arguably anarchistic in nature. I don’t see why you keep insisting that they are mutually exclusive... they’re not. As I’ve pointed out: “Anarchism is largely non-dogmatic, but of the several nuances one can draw a very distinct theme being anti-state and pro-freedom. Both ideologies share this strong adherence to personal freedom and significantly limited amount of control. Libertarianism could be described as the antithesis of authoritarianism in that respect, as would anarchism.” There’s really no need to expound on the specifics of the Libertarian Party platform, the common theme in each of the tenets is a strong adherence to personal freedom and a significantly limited amount of control. You’re unwillingness to acknowledge these anarchistic attributes comes off as a case of denial at this point. To which I will reiterate my original statement: ” I understand that the word anarchy has been misinterpreted to mean "rioting in the streets" throughout the years, but this common misconception should not discourage people from defending the true meaning of the word.” Side: No
1
point
A pineapple is an apple, hence the name. A red panda is a panda, hence the name. Christians are Christ-like, hence the name. Despite claiming to be a melting pot of various cultures, Americans are often times naive to the world and history outside of their own country’s borders. As such, it is not uncommon to find people who mistakenly believe themselves’ to have an understanding in things which they know little about. They are in effect ignorant of their own ignorance. Unfortunately, this can cause people to be incapable of comprehending things which have a foreign origin and/or history. I recommend you research the history of libertarianism and attempt to understand that when the word “libertarian” is mentioned in literature or media, there is a meaning used by everyone else in the world that is not meant to refer to the American Libertarian Party. You might come to find out that libertarianism is not something you would feel too keen on ascribing to considering your apparent denial to associate with anarchism. Side: No
1
point
The Libertarian Party is libertarian. Ok. But you do realize that not all libertarians agree with the American Libertarian Party?
And that the history of libertarianism stretches a lot farther back than 1971? Try adding a couple centuries to that. They hold to libertarian ideals. While the American Libertarian Party does arguably hold true to the anarchistic nature that has been a historical trademark of libertarianism, you seem intent on denying this while ascribing to minarchism… which is in itself anarchistic in nature. You need to use facts, not unproven opinions. I have used nothing but, this isn't really a matter of debate or opinion, its a matter of history… honestly Dana, is your style of debate limited to useless one-liners and severe denial? I am a libertarian, I don’t object the principles contained in it. What pricks me is when people pontificate about things they know little about and misrepresent the movement. Like weekend Christians, these “libertarians” see something they like on Failbook and all of a sudden they think they’re experts on the subject. My only purpose in engaging you was to help you understand what lies at the core of the libertarian philosophy, something that most American Libertarians fail to realize. I cannot help but assume my words continuously fall on deaf ears. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
No I'm not. I used to be a libertarian, and I've read Ayn Rand. I know the difference. Libertarians are basically classical liberals that rely on "the market" to take care of everything. There is a symbolic element of individual freedom, but there is no aspect of their party line that protects workers, the environment, minorities, veterans, or anyone but the rich really. Most of the Libertarian Party is focused on benefitting business and deregulating markets, but what do we know from history? We know that when corporate entities have a sense of entitlement (like they do now), they will take advantage of any "liberty" you give them. Doing so creates monopolies, and unstable markets (boom/bust economy). We know that when there wasn't a minimum wage, people worked for no money. We know that when there were no workers protections, there were no weekends, and your six year old son worked along side you in a dangerous coal mine. We know that people were chained to machines ("liberty" indeed) in factories, and locked in the buildings (hundreds of women died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Building Fire) We know that in the latter half of the 19th century, we saw market crashes that were only topped by the market crash of 1929. We know that during that time, robber barons had more wealth than the rest of the people in the country combined (the late 19th century had the worst wealth distribution our nation has ever seen, but we are about to surpass it). Anarchists are a more extreme, utopian take on Libertarians. Anarchists want to smash the state, typically reject modernity, and are almost Marxist in some ways. Libertarians embrace some aspects of modernity, just not the parts that benefit anyone who isn't a rich white person. Libertarians sell me the idea of corporate feudalism by telling me I'll get to keep my guns and smoke weed, which is pointless if my rights have been trampled by a multinational corporation, or if I have so little money I am literally a slave to a corporation or I'll starve. The bottom line is, the Libertarian party exists to make me think that the interests of vile robber barons like the Koch Brothers, are also my interests, and I know too much about history to believe that. Side: Yes
1
point
No. I am well aware of what minarchism means. Remember when I told you I used to be a Libertarian? Minarchism means the government that derives its power from me, and is accountable to me, is weak. That doesn't mean no one will take over. That means the next in line takes over. So, with a weak federal government, big corporations take over. History has shown this is what happens. So, the end result is local corporate rule. As I mentioned in my previous argument, the 19th century is an example of minarchism. You had child labor, you had company towns that workers were tied to like serfs, and you had zero workers protections. The word "robber baron" is not a word that we project onto the past. Rather, it was a word that the people of that time used to describe the 1r;s that had all the wealth and power through usurpations and corruption. We have a federalist system. If you want minarchism, move to a subsaharan African hell hole where they have it. I like America, and I like civilization. I like a government that derives its power from me, and I like that I can vote for people that will protect me from future robber barons. I understand what Libertarianism is. It's not NO government, it's small weak government, which allows for corporate feudalism. History has shown how that kind of system works for people like me, and I would prefer that we did not go back to that. I've learned from history, and prefer we don't keep making the same mistakes. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Liberatarianism only supports one form of freedom. While you may like the idea of more Negative Freedom, you would be castrating any concept of Positive Freedom that this country has, which would have any number of negative effects on people all over our society, with specific emphasis on the lower classes and underprivileged. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
Are you even bothering to read the posts you are responding to, or are you just spamming the same thing over and over? I have not said that the Libertarian party is anarchist in nature, I said that both anarchists and minarchists heavily emphasize negative freedom while ignoring the immense damage both ideologies have on positive freedom. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
Based off of that response, I am certain you are unfamiliar with the terms "positive freedom" and "negative freedom" within the study of political science. Negative freedom is the freedom to do something without being limited or prevented by the government. That is the concept of freedom that minarchists and anarchists support. Positive freedom is the ability to do something that, under normal circumstances (or under the circumstances of extremely limited government) you would be unable to do. An example of this in developing societies would be things like education, since often the government is the only one capable of providing a framework for any kind of legitimate schooling. Another example could be something like the ability to travel on paved roads, something that requires a conceited effort, usually facilitated via a government. In this country. more common examples would be things like the social safety net, which allows people, who otherwise would be unable to afford it, to do things like go to an institute of higher education, receive funding to buy sufficient food, etc. Positive freedom is the help one receives from a government, negative freedom is the government not preventing you from doing what you wish. Both are important, but minarchists and anarchists only value the latter, completely ignoring the former, and thus completely ignoring the effects the lack of the former would have on society. Side: Yes
1
point
I do not agree with your claim that minarchists deny any kind of freedom, be it positive or negative. Unlike statists in the liberal or conservative camps, minarchists support freedom from both sides. Some examples: Minarchists support marriage equality, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, low taxes, a strong national defense, taking care of home first, and so on. Minarchists support freedom both negative and positive. Side: No
1
point
Can you please explain any form of positive freedom that minarchists support, within the actual definition of positive freedom? All of your examples are negative freedom, with the exception of a strong national defense which doesn't fall under either form of freedom. And please, don't just say "they support freedom" instead of actually explaining how positive freedom can fit into minarchist schools of thought. Side: Yes
1
point
With pleasure. First to define positive freedom: Positive liberty is the possession of the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint. [ 1] A concept of positive liberty may also include freedom from internal constraints. Minarchists support freedom of belief, voter's rights, economic freedom, the right to marriage equality, and so on. We also support freedom of speech. Side: Yes
0
points
Would you care to provide a link to that particular definition of positive liberty? And freedom of belief, freedom to vote, economic freedom (at least within the context you seem to be using), freedom to marriage whomever you would like all fall under the generally accepted definitions of negative liberty, which, as you said, is freedom from external restraints. I am confused as to how you can point to those as evidence that minarchists support positive freedom. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
Spoken like a true statist. It is a fact that minarchists support the positive freedoms that I mentioned. The right to marriage equality is a positive freedom. The right to contraception is a positive freedom. The right to petition government for redress of grievences is a positive freedom. The right to legal counsel is a positive freedom. The right to low taxation and representation is a positive freedom. The right to freedom of speech is a positive freedom. Side: No
1
point
Again, you did not mention POSITIVE freedoms, you mentioned negative freedoms. The right to get married without someone telling you who you can and can not get married to is freedom from an external inhibitor, i.e. negative freedom. There is no right to contraception, but there is a right buy what you would like without interference, i.e. negative freedom. The right to petition the government for redress is not a positive freedom, it is simply the ability to interact with your government. That is not prevention of an external inhibitor, though it is the closest thing you have mentioned to one. There is no "right to low taxation", and even if there was, that would be a negative freedom as taxation would be considered an external inhibitor. The right to representation is a mechanic of our system of government, not a freedom. The right to freedom of speech is the right to speak without an external inhibitor telling you that you can't. I am increasingly convinced that you don't understand what a negative freedom is, or at the very least are confusing it with a positive freedom. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Sitra, a right to contraception would mean that the government is required to provide you with contraception if you can not afford it. No such right has ever existed in this country, at any point, be it from a legislative or judicial means. IF such a right existed, THEN it would be a positive freedom, but it doesn't, so it isn't. Additionally, I really don't understand your response. I have simply questioned you regarding minarchism's views on positive freedoms, yet now you are pretending that I am attacking your political views. Lastly, anyone who says "I will not change my mind" has clearly shut themselves off from the world and assumes omnipotence, which is an unfortunate state of affairs. Never refuse to change your mind, because you will never know everything. To refuse to change your mind is to stop learning. Side: Yes
1
point
Lastly, anyone who says "I will not change my mind" has clearly shut themselves off from the world and assumes omnipotence, which is an unfortunate state of affairs. Never refuse to change your mind, because you will never know everything. To refuse to change your mind is to stop learning. I agree, I just disagree re the minarchist thing. Minarchism means minimal government. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Of course it means minimal government, which is why they dismiss the concept of positive freedom, which inherently requires a degree of government that minarchists do not support. With a minarchist government, there is just enough government to protect life and essential liberty. Essential liberty in this case can be defined as the negative freedom right to not be raped, murdered, or tortured. To protect against these three things, there is some regulation, but not so much that freedom dies. With anarchism, there is no regulation at all. This is why truely anarchist society is not possible, but a minarchist one is. Thank you for debating me. Feel free to ask questions. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Isn't an appointed government of one still smaller than an electorate of many? Why is there a term "minarchist" that seems to mean the same thing as libertarian? libertarianism promotes liberty, but minarchism seems only to support a small government, which could be accomplished even in tyranny. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I am a minarchist Libertarian I'm a minarchist monarchist. I believe there must be one ruler, one king. A big government is one bloated with politicians who do nothing but squabble. I believe in a small government based on the rule of one decisive leader who has total control. I am not a Libertarian. Side: Yes
0
points
Now I am confused. In so many of your posts with me you keep telling me that I am mixing up minarchism with libertarianism, and in other posts to other people you tell them that the libertarian party is inherently based on libertarianism. Now you are saying that the Libertarian Party, and therefore libertarianism, is synonymous with minarchism. Side: No
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
....I am entirely confused. I have not disputed any aspect of this. This entire thread of posts between us was me talking about how that school of thought inherently rejects the concepts of positive freedoms in lieu of overwhelming emphasis on negative freedoms. You denied this, then began to cite negative freedoms that minarchism supports as evidence that minarchism supports positive freedoms. I am not trying to be rude, but are you actually following our conversation? Because a lot of your responses don't really pertain to my posts that you are responding to. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
As I have said time and time again, I agree that they are different, and I never denied that they support NEGATIVE freedom. As I have stated many times, my issues comes from both ideologies views of POSITIVE freedom, and the way they inherently disregard it since it requires a degree of government that both (but especially anarchism) finds disagreeable. So yes, I recognize that anarchism and minarchism are not the same thing. That does not change the fact that minarchism denies the relevance of positive freedoms. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I don't think your system would work so well, and I don't really think it's very libertarian. If the government set aside land for private parks, they would then have the power to choose which private entity gets the land. After that, they would be able to make sure it was used as a park. This situation, if enforced, is more fascist than libertarian. Side: Yes
|
Government run by libertarians=corporate feudalism; that doesn't sound like a good world to be in the working class. Corporations can and do take your liberty just as easily (if not more easily) than a corrupt government. Why should I trade a government that derives its power from me for thousands of fiefdoms run by corporate entities that deny that they derive their power from me (which they do)? Ayn Rand was not a great thinker. Privatization of everything does not make for a better world. In addition to all this, places in history that have been run according to the libertarian vision have not been very good places in practice to live. Side: No
Government run by libertarians=corporate feudalism = slippery slope Corporations can and do take your liberty just as easily (if not more easily) than a corrupt government. I don’t see how this is an argument against libertarianism. Why should I trade a government that derives its power from me for thousands of fiefdoms run by corporate entities that deny that they derive their power from me (which they do)? I’m not sure what you mean here. This is not what libertarians advocate. Ayn Rand was not a great thinker. She had a few good points, but for the most part I agree. Privatization of everything does not make for a better world. Privatization of everything is not what libertarians advocate. I believe “limited control” of the government is what’s being promoted. In addition to all this, places in history that have been run according to the libertarian vision have not been very good places in practice to live. Examples please? Side: Yes
1
point
slippery slope = Historically proven. Ever hear of a Company Town? I don’t see how this is an argument against libertarianism. It is against libertarianism because libertarians are against regulation of corporate entities. If corporate entities are not regulated they will take advantage of that. Look to history at the 19th century to see what I am talking about. Corporate entities used to force people to work without drinking water like they did at the Wheatland Hops Ranch. Corporate Entities used to chain workers to their machines and infringe on their 1st amendment rights. Even today, corporations infringe on our rights, and people cheer for it for some reason. Libertarians will often say "it's their choice" when a corporation union-busts or uses coercion to scare workers into compliance. I’m not sure what you mean here. This is not what libertarians advocate. If you ever read John Locke or the Declaration of Independence, you'd be familiar with what political scientists call "social contract." Basically, the idea is, the government is ultimately accountable to you because you vote and pay taxes. In other words, without citizens, there is no government, so the government is supposed to govern in your interest. Corporations, ALSO derive their power from you. You buy their products, you work for them, and they SHOULD be doing things in your interest as a result. Without you, corporations do not exist. However, corporations deny this connection, and that's how they justify doing things that harm you and the environment. She had a few good points, but for the most part I agree. Which part? The Social Darwinism? Or the "greed is good?" Privatization of everything is not what libertarians advocate. I believe “limited control” of the government is what’s being promoted. Then why do libertarians always aim to privatize things? I cannot remember the last time libertarians were in favor of fully-funding public education. In an Ayn Rand paradise, there is no service provided by the government. Examples please? 19th Century America, for one. I can offer many more. 19th Century, and early 20th century America was a world where there was small government, and business had lots of power. There was no regulation, taxes were non-existent, there were no worker's protections, there was no minimum wage, there was no environmental laws, and there were no child labor laws. There was plenty of "liberty" to be had, but that "liberty" only existed for big business. We had the worst wealth distribution this country has ever seen, no middle class, market failure, monopolies, robber barons, and veritable slavery. Company towns were basically fiefdoms. Side: No
To be clear, there would be a few people that a Libertarian fundamentalist government that would think it's a good form of government, and those would be the same people who already benefit greatly from our society (the 1%), but would benefit even more from having no child labor laws, no anti-trust laws, no minimum wage, and no environmental regulations. So, it would be a good government for one percent of us, but it would not be good for the rest of us, who would lose a great deal. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm kind of jumping in the middle here, but what history has shown is that economies suck when they are just getting going, it's a short run feature. Free market ideas are good for the long run, not necessarily any given short run period. Now lets consider the company town: 1. You don't need special laws just for business to keep someone from chaining up someone else. 2. The company town can only function as a monopoly, it's power falls apart when there is even one other option. historically, monopolies last only with government help, this includes company towns. Given time (long run economics) and no interference (free enterprise), competition will undercut any company town situation. 3. If there was no factory before, where did the people of the company town live or work? Why did they come to the company town if it wasn't a better option than whatever they were doing before? This is the same idea for the sweat shop in the jungle...the jungle is still an option. Now some other points: 1. Laws concerning pollution are valid when there is demonstrable damage outside of ones own property, even in Libertarian philosophies. This means that certain environmental laws would exist. 2. Child labor persists until the people can afford to not have them exist...that's when they make a law about it. All we have done is switched child labor that made money for child labor at school (and not learning much). Do you know why school is out in the summer? So kids can work the farm. But at least we aren't libertarians. 3. The evidence against the disaster of no min wage is that most wages are above it. The min wage is usually set too far below the equilibrium wage to actually matter. Every time the min is raised, it hurts the poor. The min wage has historically benefited middle class and working class high school kids at the expense of adult laborers. Furthermore, every time the min is raised, it pushes inflation and after about one and a half to two years, it goes back to not mattering at all.. 4. Anti-Trust Laws. Whatever you believe about the goal of anti-trust laws, they are highly subjective and subject to wide interpretation. As a result, the very same laws have little impact today compared to the 20th century. The only reason for this is that the executive and judiciary arbitrarily decided to interpret these laws more lightly. They can turn around at any moment or in any situation and interpret them more strongly on a whim. This is not a proper way to have your laws. Side: Yes
You are a uninformed fool. No Libertarian wants to disregard the environment nor do they put anybody's rights over anybody else's. Every socailist has plenty of business lobbyists so its not like business wants to impose libertarianism or whatever you imagine. Libertarians understand what manipulated liberals and socailists cannot, that the voluntary world works, and the heavy hand of Government doesn't need to interfere to make the world work right. Though the alliance of power hungry corporations and beauracrats would manipulate the hell out of you into thinking you need and want to control everything, and you obviously believe that. There is no conflict between free market interests and common interests; that is just want insane beauracrats believe and want you to believe. Side: Yes
Allow me to retort. First let me begin this by telling you that I used to be a registered member of the Libertarian Party, and I believed in the party line wholeheartedly. So, I am well aware of what the Libertarian Party's agenda is, and I also know who it benefits, and who it hurts (which is why I am not a member of that party anymore). You are a uninformed fool. Argumentum ad hominem. Please provide evidence. No Libertarian wants to disregard the environment nor do they put anybody's rights over anybody else's. I would argue that SOME Libertarians do (particularly the rich ones), but the working class libertarians do not realize the horrible implications of their supposed philosophy. The reason I say that is because liberty is an abstraction which implies the absence of justice. Justice is a hinderance to liberty. Justice says that the liberty of the strong must be curtailed in the interest of fairness. Libertarianism, on the other hand, trades justice for liberty. That means the stronger party (the rich) can get on to the weaker party (everyone else). Since corporations are not the "government," the libertarians turn a blind eye to the usurpations of liberty of the individual citizen. THAT is why I am not a Libertarian anymore. If I thought it had anything to do with me having more liberty, I would still be one. No Libertarian wants to disregard the environment nor do they put anybody's rights over anybody else's. Then why does the libertarian party push to remove environmental regulation? Every socailist has plenty of business lobbyists so its not like business wants to impose libertarianism or whatever you imagine. I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Socialist Party of the United States is tiny. According to the NY Times, there are no less than 1500 registered socialists nationally. Moreover, there are ZERO seats in the House held by the Socialist Party, and ZERO seats in the Senate held by Socialists. Businesses do not typically support socialism because it runs counter to their interests. So, I don't know where you are getting your information. Libertarians understand what manipulated liberals and socailists cannot, that the voluntary world works, and the heavy hand of Government doesn't need to interfere to make the world work right. "Manipulated 'liberals and socialists'" is argumentum ad poplam. Libertarians forget history. In the 19th century (a time referred to as "the Guilded Age"), there was much less "government interference" in the markets. There was also monopolies, market failure, market crashes, child labor, and people being paid in company scrip. That is not a world I want to live in. I would argue that it is Libertarians, that are manipulated by corporate interests, and I can show you how the rise of the party was funded by vile elitists like the Koch Brothers. Though the alliance of power hungry corporations and beauracrats would manipulate the hell out of you into thinking you need and want to control everything, and you obviously believe that. This sentence does not make sense. I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. There is no conflict between free market interests and common interests There is a huge conflict. Employers want to pay me less than I am worth, and I want to be paid fairly. That is just one example of a fundamental dialectic between common people and corporate interests represented by the market: I want to earn and keep my money, the corporate non-human wants to take my money. It is the dialectic between fairness and efficiency that any survey economics class would discuss on the first day. that is just want insane beauracrats believe and want you to believe. What are you talking about? Who are these "insane bureaucrats" that you seem to think are pulling strings? Please provide evidence of how public employees are trying to make me believe something. Side: No
I would argue that SOME Libertarians do (particularly the rich ones), but the working class libertarians do not realize the horrible implications of their supposed philosophy. The reason I say that is because liberty is an abstraction which implies the absence of justice. Justice is a hinderance to liberty. Justice says that the liberty of the strong must be curtailed in the interest of fairness. Libertarianism, on the other hand, trades justice for liberty. That means the stronger party (the rich) can get on to the weaker party (everyone else). Since corporations are not the "government," the libertarians turn a blind eye to the usurpations of liberty of the individual citizen. THAT is why I am not a Libertarian anymore. If I thought it had anything to do with me having more liberty, I would still be one. From my understanding all Libertarians uncompramizingly support property rights. Liberty doesn't imply the absence of justice, it implies an ability to choose. And I do not believe there is a weaker party in the voluntary system that is the free market. I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Socialist Party of the United States is tiny. According to the NY Times, there are no less than 1500 registered socialists nationally. Moreover, there are ZERO seats in the House held by the Socialist Party, and ZERO seats in the Senate held by Socialists. Businesses do not typically support socialism because it runs counter to their interests. So, I don't know where you are getting your information. Some big business lobby for liberal canditates and socailist candidates because heavy regulation greatly diminishes competition. Its why democratic have so many business lobbyists. And the ultimate ends of liberalism is socailism because they can never have enough regulation or spend enough money. I was probably wrong to assume you were a liberal though just for a lack of faith in the free market. Libertarians forget history. In the 19th century (a time referred to as "the Guilded Age"), there was much less "government interference" in the markets. There was also monopolies, market failure, market crashes, child labor, and people being paid in company scrip. That is not a world I want to live in. I would argue that it is Libertarians, that are manipulated by corporate interests, and I can show you how the rise of the party was funded by vile elitists like the Koch Brothers. There was a banking crash caused by the Government in 1837, and there was a stock market crash in 1873 which coinsided with big losses in the rail road industry, and the failure of a major European bank. The combination of these things is what caused unemployment to go up so high. What are you talking about? Who are these "insane bureaucrats" that you seem to think are pulling strings? Please provide evidence of how public employees are trying to make me believe something. Beauracrats can never have enough rules, to me that is an inclanation to use maximum power over the industries they 'regulate.' Side: Yes
Some big business lobby for liberal canditates and socailist candidates because heavy regulation greatly diminishes competition. Socialism means hits to the bottom line because then rich people and corporate-entities have to pay back into the system, pay fair wages, allow free unionization, offer benefits that compete with the developed world and democratization of the work place. I would LOVE to see an example of a multination corporation that is in favor of that. Could you cite me an example? I am also not sure what you mean by socialism or left-leaning politics diminishing competition. So, if you could clarify that, it would be cool. Its why democratic have so many business lobbyists. It's actually because they are trying to buy-off politicians to not regulate their industry. They like Libertarians, because they have people like you thinking the interests of big business are YOUR interests, so with libertarians, they don't have to pay anything. And the ultimate ends of liberalism is socailism because they can never have enough regulation or spend enough money. That's a slippery slope fallacy, and an argumentum ad poplam. I was probably wrong to assume you were a liberal though just for a lack of faith in the free market. If you used the term "liberal" properly, you would be a "liberal." The word "liberal" actually means you're in favor of unregulated free markets. In the US, we misuse it. Adam Smith was a liberal. I put my faith in facts and evidence for what works. If it doesn't work, I don't put faith in it. The "free market" system works really well for some things (i.e.: producing consumer goods like TVs, Cars, food, etc), but the "free market" sucks at some things (i.e.: fire departments, police forces, the military, road-building, infrastructure projects, public education, and healthcare). Likewise, socialism works good for some things, and not others (just look that the same lists I gave you in reverse, basically). So, I am not against the free market. I am just against things that don't work. There was a banking crash caused by the Government in 1837 Actually, the Panic of 1837, was caused by deregulated banks doing unscrupulous things, and a horrible wealth distribution caused by a an unregulated market in an expanding economy. I suppose you could blame the government for not protecting the people and regulating the banks and businesses though. there was a stock market crash in 1873 which coinsided with big losses in the rail road industry The railroads lost nothing. They were actually artificially inflating prices at this time, and the "Big Four" (those were Stanford, Hopkins, Huntington, and Crocker; you'd like them they were horribly corrupt robber barons) were openly running the State of California because they were able to buy it, literally, and did not hide it. Beauracrats can never have enough rules, to me that is an inclanation to use maximum power over the industries they 'regulate.' That is an argumentum ad poplam. So, the lady that works at DMV and takes my registration paperwork wants more rules? Be aware that when you start talking about history with me, you're talking to someone who studies history for a living. History does not support classical liberalism (which has been re-packaged as "libertarianism" so we'll try it again). I know my history, which is why I am not a Libertarian anymore. It is an irresponsible, extreme, regressive political philosophy that has been proven to not work. I think we can both agree that the Soviet System did not work well. Most people say, "look at what how the soviet system worked, why should we do that again?" Or, look at how horribly the feudal system worked for most people. You might make the argument that "the feudal system did not work well for people like me, so we should learn from that, and not try it again." Well, we also know that classical liberal (libertarian) policies fail most people too. So, why should we try that gain, if it doesn't work? Side: No
2
points
How do you think that sort of mentality works for places like La Rinconada, where the government has little influence at all, work is voluntary, and the citizens are brutally extorted by their employers without any means of recompense? The free market desires the gold that they mine, but they don't desire that gold to have a higher price to help compensate for decent conditions for the miners themselves. And don't tell me that someone told me to believe that. Side: No
If the supply of labor were to shrink, wages would rise. The march of economic progress starts at the bottom. When other businesses set up shop to address demand for this or that, they hire people. In time, the demand for labor increases and the supply of labor becomes spread out. This causes wages to increase. This doesn't happen over night. It is however the reason why we have the term "race to the bottom" which references major corporations going to very low developed countries to take advantage of the cheap labor, they are beginning to skip cheap labor countries like China and India because wages are rising. They won't be hailed as heroes for bringing this development which will eventually lead to a higher quality of life, they will be vilified. On a side note. I knew a college professors of economics who came from the Bengali region of India and identified himself as a Marxist. He said that corporations going to poor countries was actually 'great'. Side: Yes
If the supply of labor were to shrink, wages would rise. Disproven by history. Wages rise when workers strike. When other businesses set up shop to address demand for this or that, they hire people. Businesses only hire people when they need people. They don't hire people for the sake of hiring people. In time, the demand for labor increases and the supply of labor becomes spread out. This causes wages to increase. This doesn't happen over night. There is no "iron law of wages" in practice. This has been proven false repeatedly in history. Wages go up when workers strike, or demand higher wages. Wages go down when employers are socially irresponsible. It's a dialectic between employer and employee who have interests that run counter to each other. That's how it has worked in practice. As long as employers can get away with paying nothing, they will. When workers have had enough of maltreatment, they strike, and wages go up after often bloody struggles against the class warfare from above. Our middle class wasn't born out of the benevolence of corporate interests, and it has been killed by the selfish interests of corporations and right wing politicians. they are beginning to skip cheap labor countries like China and India because wages are rising Note the social unrest and media attention to poor working conditions there. They won't be hailed as heroes for bringing this development which will eventually lead to a higher quality of life, they will be vilified. They should be vilified for using child and political prisoner labor; we should have never done business with Red China in the first place. On a side note. I knew a college professors of economics who came from the Bengali region of India and identified himself as a Marxist. He said that corporations going to poor countries was actually 'great'. That's because Communists want the capitalist system to fail so that workers of the world will unite against the capitalist class. That's why most socialists and communists actually cheer for deregulation and globalization: it creates a class consciousness amongst the workers. That's why it is in the interest of the corporations to ensure all of their workers have a good quality of life: the peasants won't be coming after them with torches. Unfortunately, unfettered greed will likely be their downfall unless they understand that. Side: No
Wages rise when workers strike A strike is a synthetic shrinking of the supply of labor. And it's very short run. Businesses only hire people when they need people. That's true, and the more businesses open, the more they'll need people. I didn't necessarily mean a literal shop. It's a dialectic between employer and employee who have interests that run counter to each other. This is patently false. If this were true, then why are MOST wages above minimum wage? When there was no law for minimum wage, why did people ever get paid? Note the social unrest and media attention to poor working conditions there. You'll have to show it to me. Was the the social unrest under Mao? or at Tiananman Square? They should be vilified for using child and political prisoner labor; we should have never done business with Red China in the first place. Many of these kids have a choice between trying to make some money working, or being a criminal/prostitute. I may be inclined to agree about China. That's because Communists want the capitalist system to fail... downfall unless they understand that. He believed that capitalism would succeed and grow into socialism. He seemed to love capitalism. He wasn't a socialist. I think he thought the revolutions were skipping steps. I never heard socialists cheer for deregulation. How come you're a History major that never references specific historical facts? Side: Yes
That's an antiquated theory that has been proven false. Wages are low because the employers there have no scruples and do not care about the welfare of the people who make that company what it is. This flies in the face of your theory that all businesses are benevolent and do good for the sake of doing good. Side: No
A lack of minimum wage doesn't mean employers can pay workers $1.00 an hour like you weak socailist fools would think, it means competition determines the base wage of unskilled workers so that unemployment in unskilled work is on par with the economy (to not create losers), and that workers cannot align with Government to mandate a more comfortable wage just because they think they deserve it because they want to think that. But their wages shouldn't inherently be too uncomfortable because a rising tide rises all boats. Anti trust laws were created because of a fear that mega sized trusts would destroy competition, but not because they actually accomplished that. Circumstantial evidence was used to break up large companies which were accussed of price gouging -- those companies were likely profiting off an excess in productivity though because they were growing at a rate faster then the economy. Libertarians would not just let people pollute as you imagin, they would create property based environmental protection which is in my Government design if you read it. Property based protection would eliminate the beauracracy which has unlimited capasity to grow. Child Labor happens because families in poor countries feel like they need their kids to work in order to get by at an acceptable wage -- in America, a allowing of child labor would not mean the same thing as it means in Africa; only parental choice. Corporations do enable families to do this, but I never read about any corporation which lobbied against child labor laws; kids get payed less because they are less productive so corporations really do not benefit greatly from hiring children. Side: Yes
A lack of minimum wage doesn't mean employers can pay workers $1.00 an hour like you weak socailist fools would think With all due respect, Steve, you are not aware of what I think. You've jumped to conclusions about what I think. HISTORY has proven that a lack of minimum wage means that employers will not pay their workers in money at all. Back before there was a minimum wage, employers did not have to pay you money at all for your work. As a result, they constructed Company Towns, and in these Company Towns, you were paid Company Scrip (which was basically gift certificates to buy things from the company you worked for). A system like that ties the workers to the company town, and removes the choice for the consumer out of where they shop. This is why I do not follow the Libertarian philosophy. It doesn't work well for people like me. You seem to believe in the benevolence of big business, and I have the education to know better. There is a reason that the minimum wage became the law of the land. Companies were abusing their "liberty." it means competition determines the base wage of unskilled workers so that unemployment in unskilled work is on par with the economy (to not create losers), This is highly theoretical and disproven by history. and that workers cannot align with Government to mandate a more comfortable wage just because they think they deserve it because they want to think that. Workers SHOULD be able to do that. That's because we have a government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The government represents the people. As President Abraham Lincoln said, our government is "for the people, of the people, by the people." The government is there to represent the interests of the people that it derives its power from, not corporate non-humans. But their wages shouldn't inherently be too uncomfortable because a rising tide rises all boats. This has been disproven by history. If that was true, our middle class would be grown, not shrinking, since the buying power of the minimum wage has dropped steadily since 1968, and you can see that on the BLS and DOL websites. Anti trust laws were created because of a fear that mega sized trusts would destroy competition, but not because they actually accomplished that. They actually did accomplish that. Regulation kept the market going. Without regulation, you get monopolies and market failure. These are all facts of history; that's another reason I'm not a libertarian anymore. Circumstantial evidence was used to break up large companies which were accussed of price gouging -- those companies were likely profiting off an excess in productivity though because they were growing at a rate faster then the economy. They were actually price-gouging, and not paying their workers fair wages (if at all). Libertarians would not just let people pollute as you imagine, Then why do Libertarians aggressively fight against environmental regulation? they would create property based environmental protection which is in my Government design if you read it. Where are you from? I'm from the United States. roperty based protection would eliminate the beauracracy which has unlimited capasity to grow. Could you clarify what you mean by "property-based protection?" Child Labor happens because families in poor countries feel like they need their kids to work in order to get by at an acceptable wage -- in America, a allowing of child labor would not mean the same thing as it means in Africa; only parental choice. In America, children had to work (this is a historical fact) in coal mines with no respirators because their fathers and mothers were not paid enough to raise a family off of (if they were paid money at all), and the Children had to drop out of school in 2nd Grade and do dangerous work in mines. If you want to know what Child Labor in America looks like, go do a google search of the Breaker Boys. That is a historical example that child labor is morally reprehensible, and just because it happens in the US, doesn't make it better. This is exactly why market interests and interests of the common man are different. It is in the interest of the Koch Brothers to employ children for 30 cents per hour in a coal mine with no worker protections. It is in the interest of the working class family to get paid a fair wage so that they can raise their family and send their kids to school. Corporations do enable families to do this, but I never read about any corporation which lobbied against child labor laws; Newt Gingrich wants to end child labor laws. Look at who is pulling his strings, and you'll see. kids get payed less because they are less productive so corporations really do not benefit greatly from hiring children. Children shouldn't be working anyway. They should be in school. Corporations do not care about the interests of the common people, or the six year old coal miner. So, we have to have referees ensuring the markets function properly and fairly, and that's why we have regulation. Again, I used to be a libertarian, but now I have an education, and I know better. I know history, and I know how things have gone when policies like what the Libertarian Party wants, were in effect. They did not benefit people like me. They benefitted factory owners, railroad companies, and robber barons. We had almost no middle class, and the US resembled a third world toilet. The "free market" is not the answer to every issue. Side: No
HISTORY has proven that a lack of minimum wage means that employers will not pay their workers in money at all. The vast majority of workers were payed money. And why would working have went to those mining towns if their pay was so terrible? The government is there to represent the interests of the people that it derives its power from, not corporate non-humans. Corporations are businesses OWNED by humans who made those jobs available for those workers. Beyond that, the entire history of industry shows that those companies had to keep their prices low for the most part, does it not? And the the businesses were charged with price gouging based on evidence that was not concrete. Children shouldn't be working anyway. They should be in school. Corporations do not care about the interests of the common people, or the six year old coal miner. So, we have to have referees ensuring the markets function properly and fairly, and that's why we have regulation. No family should be able to have their kids work to support themselves no matter what? Again, I used to be a libertarian, but now I have an education, and I know better. I know history, and I know how things have gone when policies like what the Libertarian Party wants, were in effect. They did not benefit people like me. They benefitted factory owners, railroad companies, and robber barons. We had almost no middle class, and the US resembled a third world toilet. The "free market" is not the answer to every issue. Actually living standards were lower then because of a lack of technology, and profits were high because that is what happens during the development of cities. Businesses develope rapidly so the demand for their goods causes profits to soar and them to need workers which makes cities grow rapidly. Side: Yes
The vast majority of workers were payed money. And why would working have went to those mining towns if their pay was so terrible? You evidently do not know much about history. Most people were not paid adequately, if paid at all; wage theft (if there were wages) was also very common. People worked in mines or in dangerous factories not for the money, they worked there because they had no other choice and they needed to feed their families. There was no choice in the matter, really. It was work for nothing or starve for sure. Often times there were co-ops where the wages of all the mining companies in the region paid the same wages, so you really had no "choice." The "liberty" remained in the hands of the stronger party--the employer. Corporations are businesses OWNED by humans who made those jobs available for those workers. Exactly, corporations are not people. People are people. This argument is exactly like saying, "the government is a person because people work for it." Most CEOs will tell you that their corporate non-human entity does not exist to create jobs. "Job creation" is something they say when its election time, or the people are asking them to pay taxes. If corporations really existed to provide jobs, today, with the horrible wealth distribution we have, EVERYONE would have a job that paid well. Beyond that, the entire history of industry shows that those companies had to keep their prices low for the most part, does it not? No. Not at all. When a corporation dominated an industry, its pricing was arbitrarily high. Look at the Central Pacific railroad's history. And the the businesses were charged with price gouging based on evidence that was not concrete. That is wholly untrue. The price-gouging was real. Look at the central pacific railroad. No family should be able to have their kids work to support themselves no matter what? Kids shouldn't be working to support themselves. Their parents should be paid enough to support their kids while they go to school and get an education. I cannot believe there are people like you who are against that now! That was such a basic thing for a long time in this country! Actually living standards were lower then because of a lack of technology, and profits were high because that is what happens during the development of cities. Actually living standards were lower because the wealth distribution was horrible, and corporations had so much power that they were able to do things without any regulation, which means things were not done safely. Businesses develope rapidly so the demand for their goods causes profits to soar and them to need workers which makes cities grow rapidly. History has never worked that way. When everyday people have money, there is demand in the markets because people buy things, and then the suppliers have to hire people to meet the demand. That's how it works in history. That's how we got out of the great depression. The great depression was created by deregulation and supply-side economic hypothesis, like you're talking about. Not to be a jerk, but could you use two asterisks before and after what you quote of mine so it's bold? Italics was hard to differentiate your writing from mine. Side: No
You evidently do not know much about history. Most people were not paid adequately, if paid at all; wage theft (if there were wages) was also very common. I never read that any wages were stolen in any of the history books that I have read. Can you prove this? And why would that be? because they didn't enforce labor contracts...? I doubt it. Low pay compared to today is what you expect; the economy was developing. How about how people were payed in 1600? Its not because they were 'underpayed' People worked in mines or in dangerous factories not for the money, they worked there because they had no other choice and they needed to feed their families. There was no choice in the matter, really. It was work for nothing or starve for sure. Often times there were co-ops where the wages of all the mining companies in the region paid the same wages, so you really had no "choice." The "liberty" remained in the hands of the stronger party--the employer. Yes you work because you have to live, duh. Why do you work? And there was supposed be another choice besides working to live? And, as far as no choice on what mining company they worked for. Nonsense, they chose to leave the city and go out to work at a mining town in the mining industry. Industies typically pay some base amount right? Exactly, corporations are not people. People are people. This argument is exactly like saying, "the government is a person because people work for it." No, I didn't say a corporation was a person, I said that it was a group of people which mutually own a thing and coordinate together to run it. Most CEOs will tell you that their corporate non-human entity does not exist to create jobs. "Job creation" is something they say when its election time, or the people are asking them to pay taxes. If corporations really existed to provide jobs, today, with the horrible wealth distribution we have, EVERYONE would have a job that paid well. That is an ad-hominem against CEOs. And um, corporations like to create jobs because that means they expanding, selling more stuff and making more money. No. Not at all. When a corporation dominated an industry, its pricing was arbitrarily high. Look at the Central Pacific railroad's history. Prove it Kids shouldn't be working to support themselves. Their parents should be paid enough to support their kids while they go to school and get an education. I cannot believe there are people like you who are against that now! That was such a basic thing for a long time in this country! Tnat was an impossibility in that time because our economy was not developed enough. Actually living standards were lower because the wealth distribution was horrible, and corporations had so much power that they were able to do things without any regulation, which means things were not done safely. I just tol you the reason for that gap in income distribution. And things were inherently dangerous. History has never worked that way. When everyday people have money, there is demand in the markets because people buy things, and then the suppliers have to hire people to meet the demand. That's how it works in history. That's how we got out of the great depression. The great depression was created by deregulation and supply-side economic hypothesis, like you're talking about. Not to be a jerk, but could you use two asterisks before and after what you quote of mine so it's bold? Italics was hard to differentiate your writing from mine. Whatever. Side: Yes
I never read that any wages were stolen in any of the history books that I have read. Can you prove this? Why do you seem to be dedicated to the idea that powerful people will not shaft descent people? One idea that comes off the top of my head is the Wheatland Hop Riot in 1910 (it might have been 1911, but it was in that period of history). This is not the best example, it's just what popped into my mind. Anyway, so Ralph Durst who was an illegitimate agribusiness robber baron had thousands of migrant laborers working on his corporate hops ranch (this guy was a business man, not a farmer). He paid his workers almost nothing, and took 10% of their wages for what he called a "completion bonus" to force them to not quit, and 10% was taken out of their checks without their permission for store credit in Durst's Company Store which sold supplies like medicine or food at incredibly inflated rates. Well, he also had only eight open-pit latrines for the thousands of workers and their families. His workers lived in tents. His workers were not allowed to drink water when they were on the clock. If someone died while working, they would just go grab someone else. This was a common practice. Back then, corporate farms would form co-ops, where they would set the price for the industry and set the wages for the industry, so you couldn't just go walk down the street and work on another ranch and get a better deal because they all offered the same deal. So, in closing, in many cases in the 19th century and early 20th century, wage theft was common, and choice was not in the hands of the consumer/worker. Unregulated markets do not benefit people like us. Read about the Robber Barons: Rockafeller, Carnegie, Duke, JP Morgan, and all the other Robber Barons. They were called Robber Barons by their contemporaries; that is not a term projected onto them by modern historians. Read about the Central Pacific Railroad; there's a reason people back then hated the rail roads. Read about the Wheatland Hop Riot here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WheatlandHopRiot And why would that be? It was that way because it is in the interest of the business to pay the lowest wage possible for the most amount of work. They do not WANT to pay a fair wage if they don't have to. Just as it is in your interest to get paid the most for the least amount of work, it is in their interest to have the opposite. Businessmen look at the bottom line of their business. Your welfare is not taken into account. because they didn't enforce labor contracts...? I doubt it. Are you implying that unions had a voice in the 19th century and early 20th century? When strikes happened, businesses would hire thugs to go bust the unions up. They would also use fire hoses, and machine guns. They would also send the police in and round up the people leading the strikes, and they would spend the rest of their lives in filthy prisons and called "communists." It isn't that the did not enforce labor contracts, it's that there WERE NO labor contracts. Labor contracts is something new in our history BECAUSE of those days. Low pay compared to today is what you expect; the economy was developing. That pay would still be low if it wasn't for backlash against the unfettered greed that ran the economy for a century. Social change, and labor movements are why pay was descent for the latter half of the 20th century, it was not through the benevolence of business. How about how people were payed in 1600? In the 17th century, most of the world was still in an agrarian economy. So, the wage system had not really been put into place yet. If you farmed a plot of land, you ate food off it, and traded your extra food with people growing other things. You might work someone else's land for a few days a week too, but you weren't paid wages for it. The wage system came about with industrialization. Yes you work because you have to live, duh. I said what I said, because you implied that people worked in those mines because they were nice places to work and the pay was good. And there was supposed be another choice besides working to live? There were no social safety nets back then. And, as far as no choice on what mining company they worked for. Nonsense, they chose to leave the city and go out to work at a mining town in the mining industry. Industies typically pay some base amount right? You're still caught up in the idea that powerful rich people will never take advantage of their position and shaft people, and that is not true. If you think the government is power-drunk, why don't you think robber barons are power-drunk? Same people most of the time! As mentioned earlier, mining companies would often form co-ops where they colluded (now illegal due to "regulation") to set industry prices, and wages. Those wages did not have to be money at all, because there was no minimum wage. Most of the Company Towns that existed were mining towns. Let's say you're a miner, and your father was a miner. You couldn't just go to a community college and learn to do something else. Being a miner was something you were, so your only choice would be to WALK down the road (you don't own a car because you've never been paid enough to buy one, and that's if cars even exist yet) to another company town, who may or may not hire you to work for company scrip (the same amount you were earning before). That "base amount" you're referring to, was not enough to live off or raise a family off. It was usually $1/day, or less, and (as with the Wheatland Hops Ranch), 20% of that would be withheld by your boss without your permission. No, I didn't say a corporation was a person, I said that it was a group of people which mutually own a thing and coordinate together to run it. Exactly, so is the government. Neither are people, and neither should be treated as people. They are entities, and they should be performing their functions with the good of the people in mind. There's a whole history that goes into that too. That is an ad-hominem against CEOs. It is NOT ad-hominem against CEOS (why are you so dedicated to defending powerful aristocrats anyway?). There is NO businessman who runs a business for the sake of creating jobs. It's about profit margins. Businesses are not started for the sake of the public good; that is exactly why they need to be regulated; it's a check on self-interested power. And um, corporations like to create jobs because that means they expanding, selling more stuff and making more money. No, corporations like making money. "Job creation" is a byproduct of that but it isn't even intended. Labor is a huge cost for corporations. If they can get a factory to run 100% automated, they would because it would be CHEAPER FOR THEM. It's about the bottom line, not how good YOU have it. Why don't you understand that? Corporations do not exist just to do morally good things; that's the basis of Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" speech. Even Adam Smith, the father of modern Capitalism said, "it is not through the benevolence of the baker that we get our bread, but his own self-interest." Smith (a libertarian, basically), said that the government that governs least, governs best. He was a total classical liberal (libertarian) thinker. Read Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus; they are all capitalist thinkers that created the ideological framework for our "free market" system. Prove it Do you really doubt that monopolies do not price-fix? That's why monopolies are bad! So, the Central Pacific Railroad (I mentioned them in my statement before you said "prove it," you should have just looked up the Central Pacific Railroad). The Central Pacific Railroad (CPR), had a transportation (stage coach lines, river boats, and docks too) monopoly west of the Mississippi at the latter part of the 19th century. There was no competition, because if someone tried to start a railroad company, the Big Four (Crocker, Stanford, Hopkins, and Huntington), would buy them out before they got started. The Central Pacific Railroad was really a great example of why unregulated markets are bad for me. When the CPR had a monopoly, a train ticket from Chicago to Sacramento would cost $112 in those days' dollars. After the government stepped in to limit the power of the railroads, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad started, that price dropped to $12 in those days' dollars. That's how markets work. If there is one seller for a market, they can fix the prices at whatever they want. That's why competition is good in a market; that's why we have anti-trust laws. History. Tnat was an impossibility in that time because our economy was not developed enough. Not true. Children were made to work in dangerous factories or mines because they didn't want to hire grown men at a substandard-yet-higher wage. This goes back to what I said about capitalism: it does not exist for providing public services, companies exist to make money. Labor is a cost. That does not mean "free markets" cannot exist without morals, they can, but because they never have in history, we regulate it. You don't need a "developed economy" to have child labor laws. You're making excuses for powerful aristocrats' poor behavior. Do you do this with all forms of power (i.e. do you blindly make excuses for politicians too)? I just tol you the reason for that gap in income distribution. And things were inherently dangerous. That did not answer why things changed in history though. In history, they did not change because our "economy developed" they changed because people went on strike, people demonstrated, people stood up to the aristocrats to get things done. The social unrest of the early 20th century is why there are regulation and workers rights; it is not because the robber barons decided to be nice on their own. Roackafeller ran from the police for weeks before he went into court and said "you call this a monopoly, but I call it free enterprise." He did not regulate himself and bust his own trust, it happened because people clamored for it. Do not forget history. Whatever. So, does that mean you'll actually add the extra asterisk because you're a nice guy? Or are you too lazy for that? The reason you have not heard of most of this is because much of this country's labor history has been swept under the rug or forgotten about (there are people who benefit from you not knowing about it and thinking the powerful aristocrats have always had your interests at heart). In many ways, the history of labor in this country is like the history of the native Americans: it is the story of injustice, defiance to that injustice, but sadly, the bad guys win a lot. Look at how Rockafeller treated his workers. It was not uncommon to chain people to machines and deny them breaks. It was not uncommon to force people to vote for pro-corporation candidates, literally. It was not uncommon to pay starvation wages or worse. It was not uncommon for children to die on the job from poor working conditions and dangerous tasks. These things were not because we had a "developing economy," it's because classical liberalism (libertarianism) was the order of the day. There was no regulation, the robber barons were able to get away with not paying much in taxes, there was political corruption, and what government there was, existed to protect wealthy aristocrats. The 19th century was libertarianism in action; it was not awesome for people like us. It would not be different if it were tried again. Exploitation and greed never change. Side: No
You obviously have no faith in total freedom, and I am not going to change your mind. About the mining towns though, that mustv'e been an adaptation to the time. And people mustv'e went there for the mining jobs, and then if they didn't like them, they couldv'e caught a road out of there. With the railroads, I heard the companies bought up all the land for cheap or something...chrony capitalism. As for the other monopolies...they were only consired that for their scale and lack of immediate competition. As for the 'pay inequity,' the dollar amount workers are paid doesn't matter because prices will be lower with competition if pay is lower, which will cancel everything out. Because the only thing that matters is buying power...unless you are saying that the inequities were caused by monopolistic powers that companies held. Side: Yes
You obviously have no faith in total freedom, and I am not going to change your mind. I do have a ton of faith in total freedom, for individual people, but not corporate entities or governments. That's why I am not a libertarian. You are told that in that philosophy, YOU get a total freedom, but they fail to mention how the corporate non-human entities ALSO have total freedom to shaft YOU and impose on YOUR freedom. About the mining towns though, that mustv'e been an adaptation to the time. And people mustv'e went there for the mining jobs, and then if they didn't like them, they couldv'e caught a road out of there. They didn't have a choice. There was no "learning a new trade at a community college." If you walked down the road (which is how you'd leave the company town), you'd find another company town that offered the same deal. I'm sorry man, your speculation about how things worked in history is not true. Workers did not have a choice when corporations had total freedom to shaft their workers. With the railroads, I heard the companies bought up all the land for cheap or something...chrony capitalism The railroads were given, as part of their compensation, vast expanses of land along the railroads themselves in an alternating checker pattern. It was part of how the government paid them for providing a public service. The corruption came when the railroads would go to a town, demand tens-of-thousands of dollars, and a bunch of free services, and if the mayor declined, the railroad would threaten to build a town 20 miles down the line, which would effectively make the mayor's town a ghost town. So, that's just one example of how the railroads were corrupt and exhorted people and entire towns. Those towns they built to destroy existing towns were called "spite towns." Fresno California is a spite town, and the railroads still own most of the land there. That's just a tidbit of information that doesn't directly matter, but I'm studying to teach history, so I always like passing along things from history for people. As for the other monopolies...they were only consired that for their scale and lack of immediate competition. That is exactly what a monopoly is. That is why we regulate markets. As for the 'pay inequity,' the dollar amount workers are paid doesn't matter because prices will be lower with competition if pay is lower, which will cancel everything out. That is not true, and it has never worked that way in history. Here's a contemporary example: Costco pays their workers about $15/hr with full benefits and paid vacation and allows workers to form unions (they don't really need to). Walmart pays minimum wage, offers no benefits, and keeps their workers on welfare to pay their labor costs. Those two places are competitors, and there is a HUGE disparity in worker treatment. The way corporate non-humans treat their wealth creators (the workers who make the company exist) is totally up to the business executives, and they are accountable for the actions of their entity. To quote Glen Beck, "100% liberty and 100% responsibility." Because the only thing that matters is buying power...unless you are saying that the inequities were caused by monopolistic powers that companies held. I am saying that very thing. Those monopolies, and robber barons are exactly why Classical Liberalism (now called "libertarianism") is a bad system. It has been tried before, and it sucked miserably. My point is that I do not trust the powerful (that is why I used to be a libertarian). I think there should be checks on power, but checks on power mean that there is a limit on how much political "liberty" billionaires have. The sad fact is, no one benefits more from libertarianism than the Kochs, the Waltons, and the other modern day robber barons who already buy and sell our government. One man=one vote. America is built on checks on power, and just because someone rules with an iron fist from a corporate office does not mean that their absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. Corporate entities should be checked just like governments. I am not talking about mom n pop grocery stores, or small business. I am talking about the corporate non-human entities that dodge taxes, shirk responsibilities, destroy the environment, threaten liberty, and challenge the power of democracy. In addition to that, we know that monopolies and deregulation do not work to improve the quality of life for people like us. Don't you see? Only the rich and powerful benefit from you thinking that. Side: No
|