"they are obliged to follow the majority's rules until they CAN."
1. obligated, or forced? there is a difference.
2. Why?
"health care is CHEAPER and better in the those other countries! "
1. is there any other choice in those countries?
2. If it is really cheaper, you would have no problem finding volunteers to "opt in".
" Why ANYONE would rather see fellow Americans go without health care, or go bankrupt because of an expensive illness is beyond me! "
You have the option of paying for the care of anyone you wish. I do not advocate for the highly regulated and monopolized US medical care model. I favor a free market model.
"We should be AMERICA, not individual Americans! A TEAM, which is what DEMOCRATIC socialism requires, and the Constitution expects."
Serious question:
What prevents those who agree with you from forming a private medical care system, paid for by and available only to members, in the "democratic socialism" model? You could vote on who pays the most dues, using any criteria you wish (wealth, income, race, etc.) with those dues paying for staff (members, of course) facilities, supplies, etc.
If it is really a more efficient and better model, no one would want to pay for the less efficient free market model. If it isn't better, and only works if there is no legal alternative, then you haven't destroyed a superior system, to test an inferior one.
(ignoring the emotional rant)
As for the roads, money was stolen from producers, not leeches, to pay for them. The roads could be built privately, paid for privately by people who actually produce things that others value, instead of voting for the wealth that others created.
>"It's possible in all other industrialized countries,...OF COURSE, the taxes are higher."
Then it isn't voluntary, is it?
Voluntary would (at least) be the ability to opt out of both the service and paying for it through taxes.
Do you believe that there are enough people who want to be in the system to sustain it, if you were allowed to opt out?
>"How come "tax" is a four letter word in America, and only 3 in most countries ?"
It isn't. It is a five letter word..."theft". ;)
Also, your mises.org sources are nothing but ideological hogwash; libertarian nonsense.
Then refute the logic. Give examples of where it has failed, without interference.
I'll give you a topic:
The Austrian business cycle theory.
Prices may have fallen, but at the cost of a quality product.
evidence?
No, it is a libertarian think tank centered around classical liberal political and economic philosophy.
Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Can you describe the details of the market-socialism model?
On Medicare, are you saying that over 90% of Canadians are incorrect for loving their free health-care system?
Whether you enjoy it or not, it is theft. :/
This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.
They lowered prices for the consumer. That is good for the consumer. No firm has ever been able to follow through with the lower/kill competition/raise prices, formula. Competition always comes back.
So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?
Hoping, and ability are different. No one has ever successfully done it, and kept the market.
and by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers... in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance.
Prices for consumers have continued to fall, throughout the process, including the "monopoly" years.
And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.
not licensing. state governments have the only authority to license. State gvts have universally given the AMA the monopoly power to accredit med schools. This is one of the reasons for the high price of doctors and med schools.
One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.
Good info. Thanks. :)
First you make sure you have plenty of cash. Then drive down to the red-light district...
I concede this argument. iamdavidh & TheBogle88 have compelling arguments on the subject. Well played. :)
This is opinionated. Economic rights are very extensive, and and can very greatly. Influence in means of production should be included.
This is no less opinionated.
My list of rights do not have to be supplied by the action or labor of others, do yours?
If others must labor to supply your rights, that means you have a right to the labor of others. If this is true, then others have the right to your labor. If we all have equal rights, then each has a right to an equal share of everyone's labor, and the net gain in the right to the labor of others is zero. Why not just skip the middle man and agree that we only have a right to our own labor, and that no other may enslave us?
Each has influence in the means of production to the degree that he produces goods or services for trade. This keeps loafers from influencing things to which they have not contributed. Think of it like sharing a cab with someone who is broke. If they don't contribute to the fare, they should not decide where the cab goes.
I live in Canada. What you call sacrifice, we call mutual assistance.
If you can't opt out, it isn't "mutual assistance", it is legal robbery.
Capitalism with strong constitutional restrictions on government being able to treat market actors differently.
Unlimited. The nature of free-market capitalism is such that it is possible for one individual to control all means of production over a large geographical region.
This is an assertion, not evidence. By what mechanism would this happen?
Approved unanimously by the Founding Fathers and, prior to the Constitution, 12 of the 13 original colonies.
Yup, nobody's perfect. ;)
hopes to
Hopes to and being able to do so are different.
Ibm hoped to extinguish competition with microchannel, back in the 80s, too. Didn't happen. People tend to use what is most useful. Proprietary tech tends to be less useful.
If Standard Oil had been allowed to maintain a monopoly on the oil market, those 150 competitors would have been driven out of business, costing jobs and money for the US. If Standard Oil had survived to the present day, gas prices would certainly be much more inflated than they are now.
Another assertion. What is your evidence?
Most anti-trust legislation is brought, not because the company is gouging consumers, but because it is being more efficient than jealous competitors.
What do you constitute as help from the government?
Lobbying for special laws or regulations to keep competitors out of the market. An example would be the AMA, monopoly on medical school certification, and use of the medicare codes. Oil company and green energy company subsidies are also included, as are farm subsidies. The companies that rate bonds (whose names are written into law as the "official" rating agencies to comply with some regulations), licensing for crap that shouldn't need a license, like interior decorating, all keep competition out of the market.
When people go on strike, they are usually not paid or fired. The workers have their families in mind.
That's what unions are for. But unions should have no special bargaining privileges granted by government. They should be more like "employment insurance".
Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)
The only economic rights are the right to own property, and the right to the mutually voluntary trade of that property.
Without theft or fraud, how can these rights be infringed upon?
Most certainly economic power,
To maintain economic power, one must continue to satisfy the demands of the consumer.
political power can be bought.
Again, this would require government interference in the market. This is not capitalism, it is rent-seeking.
I would rather have slightly less income, then pay a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
Sacrifice is a noble thing, so long as it is someone else who is doing it. ;)
On the contrary; modern scientific discoveries have ruled out the possibility of the Abrahamic god that appears in the Bible, Koran, and the Torah.
But not the possibility of any god. Atheism is a definite belief that there is no god/gods. Otherwise they are just agnostic.
I don't believe in Vishnu, but that does not make me an atheist. ;)
Not according to your own logic. Anti-theism and atheism are two distinct factions.
I will concede this point. I will consider atheists who do not try to prove to others (unprompted) that there is no god to be true atheists. And those who try to convince others that there is no god (unprompted) to belong to the "anti-theist" religion.
Unlimited purchasing power and accrual of resources.
Unlimited? or just large?
If you know that someone will pay big bucks for something do you charge them little?
Microsoft controlling the prices of their products while ensuring competition remained virtually nonexistent.
Patents and copyright are government grants of monopoly on intellectual "property".
How did they ensure no competition?
I use Linux. My friends use Mac.
Being as all corporations are subject to regulations of the US, none.
I'll name a famous "monopoly" case: Standard oil.
They increased their efficiency, lowering prices, bringing them down so everyone could afford their products. Their competitors petitioned to have it broken up as a monopoly. At the time of their break up, they had no fewer than 150 competitors. There has never been a case where a harmful monopoly was successfully gained or maintained, in a free market. Even before the "anti-trust" laws.
The nature of free market capitalism makes it almost impossible.
However, these regulations can and have been overcome to build a monopoly on certain goods and services.
Name a case where a coercive monopoly has gained its position without the help of government.
"certain goods and services" compete with all other goods and services, for the money of the consumer.
If you want to know why money in the US seems to flow toward the richest (and it does) look no farther than the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system, enforced by our government.
This is not capitalism. It is government interference in the economy, through the most prevalent economic good: the medium of exchange.
Unfortunately this is very difficult in a capitalist society because there are always clear economic winners and losers.
Not always. There are only losers when there are people who do not produce.
The winners are those who produce wealth to trade (value for value). The losers are those who do not.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. When 2 people trade, they are both winners, because they each traded something they valued less, for something they valued more. If not, they would not trade.
Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.
Voluntary sharing is good, and foments goodwill. Socialism isn't about voluntary sharing. It is about forced sharing. Forced sharing foments resentment.
Let's say you studied hard for a class and got an A. Your classmate goofed off, and got a D. She complains to the teacher. The teacher decides that she wasn't as smart as you, and you didn't need an A to do well, so he lowers your score to a B (still good) and raises the dufus's score to a C.
How do you feel about the other student?
How do you feel about the teacher?
What is your incentive to study hard for the next class?
--------------
Let's say that you worked all summer and saved up for a car.
Now let's say that your parents tell you you must ferry your younger sister around, as much as you drive for yourself, because it isn't fair that she doesn't have a car.
Within the context of this situation:
How do you feel about your sister?
Your parents?
Saving up for that 4-wheeler you wanted?
and attempt to use debt as a means to control the population.
Interest rates are manipulated (by government) in the US to encourage debt. It is part of the Keynesian system, which bears no relation to capitalism.
Economic oppression is when people do not have what is necessary to live, and do not have control over production.
Labor is the primary component of production. Individuals have a great deal of control over their own supply of labor.
Capitalism becomes polluted because of some people are better at business than others.
So, they should be punished for their ability?
These people gain more and more money and put down competition.
By satisfying the demands of the consumer, more efficiently than the competitor.
They end up with the vast majority of power.
What sort of power?
Political? Keep government out of the market and this is not a problem.
Economic? As long as they are satisfying the needs of the consumer, the most efficiently, this is a boon for the consumer. If they stop giving value for value, they invite competitors (both in their field, and substitutes for their product) to gain market share.
They don't do better than those in Sweden :)
Actually, they do.
*"Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country."
( http://mises.org/daily/955 )
More links: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/
it is most prevalent in unregulated Capitalism where wealth and resources are able to be concentrated into a few hands.
What is the mechanism whereby resources are concentrated?
In well-regulated capitalism, this is deterred by regulations (especially anti-trust legislation).
Name a situation where an anti-trust case was brought against a business that was harming the consumer (not competitors).
Name a case where a harmful (to the consumer) monopoly was gained or maintained without the help of government "regulations".
Show me a country where a capitalist system failed, and I will show you the government interference (not part of capitalism) that caused it.
Capitalism originates as economic freedom, but it quickly becomes polluted and turns into economic oppression.
Define economic oppression.
What pollutes the capitalism?
How does the pollution turn into economic oppression?
On your second point, I would be much obliged if you would clarify.
The poorest people in the US (formerly much more economically free) are still doing better (have more wealth) than average people in many other industrialized countries.
Demand calculates need.
How is the demand communicated?
This is one thing that is similar to Capitalism. The result is sent to those who do the labor.
Socialism does not have the same communication system as capitalism.
