"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.
Okay Milton Friedman ;)
LOL, you flatter me. :D
Decision-making is made by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level.
How do they calculate the need?
How do they communicate the result of the calculation?
What you are calling capitalism is interventionism, corporatism, and rent-seeking.
---------------------
Capitalism does not involve a private central bank setting interest rates.
Capitalism does not involve a private central bank adjusting the money supply.
Capitalism does not involve a system of fiat currency that requires legal tender laws to make people use it.
Capitalism does not involve protection for lenders, such as commercial bank bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve protections for investors, such as FDIC deposit insurance or investment firm bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve a government responsible for spending 40% of the nations GDP.
Capitalism does not involve massive amounts of regulations on business.
Capitalism does not involve government subsidies to certain industries.
Capitalism does not involve government contracts with corporations.
Capitalism does not involve using tax payer dollars to clean up private corporate disasters.
Capitalism does not involve government buying up the majority of resource rich land, then leasing that land out to favored corporations, such as major oil producers and mining corporations.
Capitalism does not involve restrictions on private property owners being able to harvest resources from the land they own.
Capitalism does not involve tax payer backed mortgage firms.
Capitalism does not involve a massive military industrial complex that makes all of its profits from tax dollars, unwillingly taken from the public.
Capitalism does not involve government seizing private property through eminent domain and then handing that land to private developers.
Capitalism does not involve government creating jobs.
Capitalism does not involve taxes on money (real money, such as gold and silver).
Capitalism does not involve corporate lobbying for government contracts, kickbacks, tax breaks, subsidies, favorable regulations, regulations that hinder competition, regulations that hinder startups from competing, or any other government involvement in industry.
Capitalism does not involve forcible redistribution of wealth.
Capitalism does not involve a heavy progressive income tax on people's labor.
------------------
What does capitalism involve?
Protection of private property rights, where a person can use their property as they see fit.
Protection of private property rights, where a person gets to keep what they produce (money).
Protection of private contracts, where people are free to negotiate voluntary contracts with each other and have the courts uphold those contracts.
Free markets, where people can voluntarily exchange goods and services with each other as they see fit.
Protection of money's value, where those who counterfeit and artificially inflate the money supply are charged with a crime, rather than be rewarded with profits.
-------
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
-Benito Mussolini, author of The Doctrine of Fascism, Italian Fascist Dictator (Duce) 1943 – 1945
Socialism seeks to eradicate poverty. Capitalism encourages poverty. This cannot be denied.
I deny it, as does reality. Everywhere there is more economic freedom, there is greater prosperity.
A higher standard for some, but not all.
The poorest people in the US, even running on what is left of the capitalist system, is higher than that of countries with a greater degree of central planning (socialism) in the economy.
Central planning also looks at what people need and to an extent, what people want.
How do they know?
How is this calculated?
This information is passed on to producers.
how?
How would a new type of product, such as an iPhone, be invented and produced under socialism?
The goal of socialism is beautiful and poetic.
The effect of socialism is poverty.
The goal of capitalism is cold and calculating.
The effect of capitalism is a higher standard of living for everyone in the society.
Capitalism makes a general rule of one of our most base- personal greed.
Capitalism has each of us competing to fulfil the needs of our fellow man. Whoever does this the best, prospers the most.
How is information about demand communicated to producers in a socialist society?
How is capital for building new projects/factories raised?
Who decides what projects get built and how?
Atheism isn't a religion genius.
It is a definite belief about a deity.
Atheists tend to preach atheism and proselytise as much as Christians, with no more proof of the position than any other religion.
I would say that modern atheism has become more anti-theism, and has many of the hallmarks of religion.
IMHO, atheism is a de facto religion.
I would go farther and say that there should be a separation between government and all enforcement of an active morality. This would include forced charity (welfare) and all other forms of transfer payments.
If I expect you to own a ferrari, does that create a need for you to own a ferrari?
Does having gadgets make you more accepted by society?
Do you really want to belong to a society that does not accept you unless you own these gadgets?
Desire and need are different.
Is revealing the existence of a thing (advertizing) the same as forcing you to want that thing?
Did you see Mal's urinal/sink on Firefly?
Something like this:
Urinals should just be standard for all restrooms. problem solved.
Home bathrooms, too?
I find it offensive to call them fags. They should be called by their true name. "Aeromatic Hydrocarbon Dispensers".
I wondered if anyone would pick this. This is my preferred method.
:) sorry, many of my debates go like that. I think the ambiguous wording of some of the questions is to blame.
In this one, we have television and cinema, sex and violence, and censored v. not censored. This allows for 8 different views, even if we only keep to the specific topics discussed. :/
Children have and always will get into things their parents try to keep from them.
That's where the "explaining to them" comes in. You tell them what you expect, and what happens if they do not comply.
Do you mug people? Why not? :) Do the police watch you 24/7? You fear the consequences of being caught. Same with kids and parents. Additionally, explaining the reasoning behind a restriction reinforces the respect between you and your kids. They know that the rules have a purpose and are not arbitrary. It is not 100% fool proof, but it is better than having government control all media to a great degree.
>Implying that gun and 2nd amendment advocates also advocate the initiation of violence with guns.
Parents can't police their children all the time,
Why not? It is called parenting. You allow what you feel is appropriate, and explain to them why what is inappropriate, is inappropriate and unacceptable. It is not the responsibility of the government to raise children. To allow government to raise your children, if you are unwilling, is laziness.
If you want less risky or unacceptable behavior, show and allow people to suffer the consequences of risky or unacceptable behavior.
I would say ebola, but the infection period is too short. No time for the thing to spread. Bubonic plague is good, only it's blood-bourne.
Some variant of flu, probably.
Defending the Advertiser:
"Advertising has long had a "bad press." The case against it is detailed and seemingly compelling. It is claimed that advertising entices people, forcing them to buy products they would otherwise not buy. It preys on the fears and psychological weaknesses of people. It is misleading, with its juxtaposition of a beautiful woman and a commercial product, implying that she is somehow part of the deal. It is foolish, what with its contests, marching bands, and jingles. It is an insult to our intelligence...
...How strong is the case? First, it seems clear that advertising does not lure or force people to buy what they would not otherwise buy. Advertising attempts to persuade people — perhaps in ways some members of the community find objectionable. But it does not and cannot coerce. (Fraudulent advertising is logically equivalent to theft, and is not to be confused with advertising per se. If the seller advertises wheat but delivers rocks, he has actually stolen the money price of "wheat.")"([Excerpted from Defending the Undefendable (1976; 2008). Walter Block]
You mean worst, as in least effective? I'm gonna have to go with body lice. :P
I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms at play.
The primary mechanisms are contained within the Austrian theory of the business cycle (Mises/Rothbard) and the broken window fallacy (Bastiat/Hazlitt).
The business cycle theory explains the role that prices and interest rates play as a communication system in the structure of production, and in the incentive to produce.
The Broken window fallacy explains the destructive nature of diverting resources to purposes other than those which the producer of those resources intended.
Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New Economics'" is a point by point refutation of Keynes's 'General Theory'.
Keynes's theory is the basis for our current failing monetary/economic system, and is the primary cause of the boom/bust cycle.
Most government interference relates to interference in the economic system, because it involves the diversion of resources from the role of production as a means to the ends of the individual to production as a means to the ends of the government. The entire incentive to increased production is diminished if there is little or no perceived increase in benefit to the one producing. This makes for less wealth, and a lower standard of living, over the entire society.
Please describe the mechanisms (or give references) and incentives associated with government intervention making things better. Please avoid phrases such as "I feel" or "it seems to me".
It just says the feds can do what the constitution says it can do.
No, it also says that if the constitution doesn't give the fedgov the power, that power is reserved to the states or the people.
falling on def ears here. ;)
;)
What would make government fail at everything where other large organization don't seem to?
All large organizations have the same problem, information.
The more centrally planned (larger) the organization, the less efficient it is at meeting the demands of the individual consumer.
Other large orgs. rely on trade with the people. Government relies on its ability to force people to its will.
ttfn, will probably write more later. have a good nite. :)
All government intervention including vouchers distort markets because of taxation.
True, but "baby-steps, you know. :)
Allow the parent to control the funding through vouchers. The parent chooses the best school for the child. If the school is bad, it will not be funded, but no kids will be there any more, so they can't be hurt. They went to a better school.
