#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.
|
Which side Government or No government
No government society
Side Score: 69
|
Government society
Side Score: 114
|
|
3
points
People have internal drive. Ultimately, the primary drive of humans is to survive. Humans are complex creatures. They can feel threatened in so many ways, thus triggering the fight or flight reaction. For example: I make a strong effort to look smart, for I feel that intelligence makes me strong. Calling me stupid usually causes a bad reaction in me resulting in insults and such. However, in spite of all the bad reactions we have the fundamental effort is to survive. The survival intent is applied to identity, art, family, country, music, science, and other things that humans hold dear. There is an imaginary scale between Universal Righteousness (what is a good for everyone/everything) and Self Righteousness (what is right for self.) We are all somewhere on that scale, where our actions are in between what is good for everyone and what is good for our self. As we realize that what is good for all, is also good for us, our behavior goes more and more toward Universal Righteousness. For example: Family is good for self and good for all. Community is a good for self and good for all. Spirit helps us unify. When people stop trying to defend themselves, but rather have internal strength to be what they want, without defending against or attacking others, government will become less and less necessary for happiness and prosperity. Side: No government society
2
points
Eventually, my goal is a "No Government Society." As a religious person, I believe in the power of spirit. Spirit is cool. It has rules, it has benefits, it's motivational, it's empowering, it's results are pretty universal. So for example: The Spirit of Hospitality. If everyone worked on, believed in, and practiced the Spirit of Hospitality, it would have a global and sweeping effort that would unite people in a good way. There would not be any need for government over that. Add to that: Honor: Rules can be rules without the need for government if people can be honorable. There could be billions of rules without the need to "government" if people could follow the rules. Something like the stock exchange. There are administrative costs, checks and balances, etc, that would need to be in place so that people could have confidence in the system, but that is more a system then government. Good systems do require monitoring. But that doesn't mean it has to be government. Because I believe that God is the Great OmniAwareness of the Universe, I believe that improvement of society will also lead to higher awareness. When we realize that when we hurt one, we hurt the whole, and when we hurt the whole, we hurt ourselves. Or to put it simply: What we do to others, we do to our self. It's is pretty much unchanging. Even if the methods are different, the effect is the same. Even if hospitality looks different in another culture, it's still meant to make you feel welcome. The Spirit of God loves everyone, sees the purpose in everything, respects everything, etc. We can do that, and live by that sort of spirit, government will not be necessary. Everyone can pretty much do whatever they want, but as long as they realize that what it is, it will influence them in the same way, then people will quit doing stupid stuff. Projects will be fun, filled with love and passion, but never been harmful. Side: No government society
No need to be mean. i agree that the argument is untenable, but let's debate nicely. The word government is interesting, in that it can mean other things besides democracy, monarchy, dictatorship etc. It also has a personal connotation--to be governed by your better nature, for example, or to be governed by your moral compass. But it simply means some system for regulating your behavior. It is unrealistic to expect or hope that we can be governed by Spirit or God, or whatever--but that there would not be rules or some sort of body to determine who has lived within the rules and who has not. Call it what you would, that would still be a form of government. Remember the Pilgrims? They tried to live the way you describe--and look what happened. They became as tyrannical and dictatorial as those they traveled so far to escape. Humans simply cannot live together in an orderly fashion without some governance. It has never happened in the history of human society. The question then becomes: which form of government suits which people the best? Side: No government society
1
point
Even I disagree with you, I am going to support your argument. People can be self governed. It is a lack of faith in human kind to say that we could never be ruled by the "spirit." I use the Word Spirit of God, (if I did use it) because it is the highest form of cooperation that I know of. However, I have seen that is Life is One as some of the old sages and prophets have mentioned. There is a level of consciousness within our subconscious that is not only sympathetic it literally feels the efforts that we have on others. When we get in tune with that layer, we stop hurting others. We begin working as one. I'm not talking about doctrinal rule, I'm talking about Spiritual Rule. As I said, the Spirit of Hospitality isn't a doctrine, it is a idea that actually inspires and motivates people. There are many other Spirits that can have similar effects, such as Team Spirit, Spirit of Music, Spirit of Hope, Spirit of Love, Spirit of Adventure, etc. Humanity is a capable of all of these. When they realize the truth of their existence, it will become natural. Side: No government society
Yeah! And if those homos would just have some faith we wouldn't have to stone them right! I mean they have it coming them being gay and all. And what's with these women crying "wah don't rape me, wah!" Don't they read the bible? If they didn't want to be raped they should have been married at thirteen after their dad gave some 40 year old a bunch of goats! Psh, that's what they get for not having faith. They get totally raped. Oh yea, and don't get me started on kids disrespecting parents! Totally chop their hands off just like the good book says. I mean, have a little faith you bastards! No really, great argument. Side: Government society
1
point
You should care, and if you don't care for varying opinions, then you should not be on a debate site. There are plenty of religious blogs where you can all reaffirm your insanity. I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity. It allows the things I mention in the instances where those things promote its own self-preservation. If a religion finds it can get more zealous followers then it find reasons it is "holy" to be so primitive. When things change it becomes less primitive and more encompassing only when it perceives this is the curve of humanity and what will benefit it. It is a dangerous and powerful thing. We are better not looking to unknown forces which can lead to this. We are better creating our own laws that are concerned with humanity, not the preservation of ideology. Side: Government society
1
point
You should care, and if you don't care for varying opinions, then you should not be on a debate site. There are plenty of religious blogs where you can all reaffirm your insanity. I consider this statement to be hypocritical. You obviously don't care about my insanity and think I should take it somewhere else. I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity. Religion, in spite of corruption, has always looked out for man even if occasionally misguided. I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity. Unknown to you doesn't exactly define something has as unknown. I am a student of the Gnostic Texts and Faith, making me a "knower." Ideology is more important then mankind. Man is nothing without ideology. Side: No government society
I consider this statement to be hypocritical. You obviously don't care about my insanity and think I should take it somewhere else. Contrary. I enjoy your insanity very much. This is why I am bothering to argue. It is when you cease debating and start preaching that I believe you should find a Christian blog to start a circle jerk on. Otherwise, carry on. Religion, in spite of corruption, has always looked out for man even if occasionally misguided. Always? Inquisitions? Holy Wars? Burning witches? Always encompasses an awful lot. From my perspective the charitable work of religions throughout history is far outweighed by those times they are "misguided." I mean, if the Mormon and Catholic church along with all of these hordes of born again cults were to pool the resources they spend on making sure gays can't marry, that teenage rape victims are forced to have kids, AIDS riddled Africa isn't allowed to have condoms, and that priests and clergy can continue raping little boys and girls, on say cancer research, the world would be a better place. Unknown to you doesn't exactly define something has as unknown. I am a student of the Gnostic Texts and Faith, making me a "knower." Yay! for you? Not sure what that has to do with I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity. but okay. Ideology is more important then mankind. Man is nothing without ideology. Finally, we've reached the fountain spring of evil within religion, the notion an ideology is more important than mankind. It is not. Mankind is capable of all sorts of good without ideology. They are not capable at all of atrocities and injustices on a large scale without ideology however. It is ideology which allows the worst in humans. It is the ability to pretend something horrid is the will of a god, and that an ideology is more important than those humans affected. Side: Government society
1
point
2
points
|
3
points
2
points
These groups and orders are emergent from the actions of the individual animals in the system and not imposed from outside the animal through some central authority. This is, by definition, anarchy. This is also proof that order can, and does, emerge without the imposition and enforcement of external rules and that anarchy need not be chaotic. Side: No government society
1
point
And groups and orders within the right government doesn't happen within the system? Today's democracies are by no means perfect, but the entire structure they are meant to convey is that everyone is within the system that forms the authority. If the point of anarchy is to give individuals influence upon the order they live within, then why prefer that over a proper democracy? A truly proper democracy prevents corruption by giving enough power to individuals to the point of politicians and state employees having their own power hanging by a thread held by said normal individuals. This basically ensures that everyone shares power and has a direct influence upon their life and order. The difference is that it also guarantees order, as where anarchy does not guarantee order. Side: Government society
1
point
And groups and orders within the right government doesn't happen within the system? I didn't say that. I was pointing out that the fact that animals form social groups is not an argument FOR forming a government, because the animals formed these groups without forming government; that these groups and orders form in a state of anarchy. Today's democracies are by no means perfect, but the entire structure they are meant to convey is that everyone is within the system that forms the authority. It also allows an individual to exercise authority that is divorced from the actual value that person has demonstrated to society. If the point of anarchy is to give individuals influence upon the order they live within, then why prefer that over a proper democracy? Because in democracy, you trade your ability to influence your life directly, for the obligation to follow the mandate of the majority, regardless of whether the majority voted to do what you would have chosen to do. Pure democracy is slavery to the "general will". Representative democracy is only slightly less so. A truly proper democracy prevents corruption by giving enough power to individuals to the point of politicians and state employees having their own power hanging by a thread held by said normal individuals. (assuming representative democracy) Such a democracy encourages corruption by making the position of the politician dependent upon pleasing only the majority of voters (not producers), even to the detriment of the remaining minority. It grants individuals equal authority in the society, instead of granting them authority based upon their contributions to the good of society, as judged by the members of society who deal with those individuals. This basically ensures that everyone shares power and has a direct influence upon their life and order. No, it ensures that the individual has as little direct influence over his life and order as possible, while concentrating the greater part of that influence in the hands of those who can influence the most people. The difference is that it also guarantees order, as where anarchy does not guarantee order. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” --Elmer T Peterson (disputed) Greece is a representative democracy. The UK is effectively a representative democracy, as is France. There is much unrest there lately, as their governments try to cut back on financially ruinous entitlement programs. Democracy does not ensure order. I would argue that the goal of a society should be the greatest liberty, not the most order. Prisons are relatively orderly. Side: No government society
1
point
I was pointing out that the fact that animals form social groups is not an argument FOR forming a government, because the animals formed these groups without forming government; that these groups and orders form in a state of anarchy. Touche. I am a vegetable. You'll have to bear with me if I miss subtle details. Or even blatantly obvious details. It also allows an individual to exercise authority that is divorced from the actual value that person has demonstrated to society. I'm not sure I've interpreted what you said here properly, but I'm not sure I haven't either. I could be just other-thinking it because you aren't using a simpler wording. I'd say a flawed democracy does this, but so what? A better, or perhaps I should say ideal, democracy would create a balance between elected and elector in which it doesn't matter whether the elected official is experienced or inexperienced, because it would give incentive to the politician that guarantees they don't deviate away from helping out the people whom elected them. Education or experience should just assist them in having credibility that gets them elected, while someone exceptionally intelligent or charismatic, but not educated or experienced, would need to prove themselves in some other way that isn't deceptive to have the same credibility. The point being, in a proper democracy, an elected official would not exercise authority directly related to their past value to society, because the power of the elector would be so great that the elected wouldn't have incentive to become corrupt. Furthermore, why should pre-established value to society automatically equate to having more power? We are all human beings. This isn't Beowulf. You shouldn't necessarily have more societal power just because you have done great things. Nor does the act of doing great things automatically mean you are fit to have societal power. Pure democracy is slavery to the "general will". Representative democracy is only slightly less so. In it's current, manageable state, it is. In the design we should be trying to achieve, everyone would be comfortably accommodated locally, and more generally accommodated the higher the scale of law being created. Furthermore, if most people disagree with you, you may want to rethink your opinions. Though, you moreover refer to the bullshit involving 51% over 49%, and with that, I agree it's stupid as hell. But to rectify such things on a national level, national lawmaking should simply not be extremely severe and frequent. Important things that relate on smaller scales should be the most important things to vote on, while unimportant things that don't have positively tremendous bearings on people's lives should be what's nationally voted upon. This isn't how things are currently done, but as I said, current democracy is not perfect, and we should be trying to constantly make it better. Getting rid of all order or all freedom is detrimental to our progression. We should be trying to build up to a utopia, not breaking ourselves down to a dystopia. Such a democracy encourages corruption by making the position of the politician dependent upon pleasing only the majority of voters (not producers), even to the detriment of the remaining minority. Not if the power in the elector is such that they have the ability to replace politicians they elect with the snap of their fingers. Like, say, take a senator from a state. The senator from the state does something that most people in his state disagree with. The people in that state immediately have the choice to pull him from office and replace him. In a democracy like that, no, corruption would not be encouraged. Not if each elected individual is at his or her wits end from trying to make sure they represent the their electors properly, knowing that making a mistake will cause them to be out of a job and paycheck that feeds them and their family. And if they would representing their electors on such a precise basis, it would be up to the electors to make sure that society is improving overall on every scale... unless an elected official wants to greatly risk loosing his job just so he can do something contrary to his reason for being elected. And hell, in our age of technology, I wouldn't be surprised if it could be possible to meaningfully vote people in an out of office at a convenient fly! And if that were to be done, then that further eliminates the power of the elected to contradict their electors. Furthermore, as long as nationally elected officials are not creating and voting upon laws that significantly change individual lives, then the worry of the majority opinions hurting the minority is a non-issue. If the smaller the scale, the more laws effect individual lives, then that just means people can conveniently live in cities, districts, and states which better accommodate their opinions on how the law should effect them. --Elmer T Peterson (disputed) This man's quote is absolutist. Since I fundamentally disagree with absolutism, I'm not going to bother picking apart his quote. Moreover, I think most of what I've already written throughout this reply already picks it apart. Plus it's fairly self-evident that speaking absolutely about something that is not absolute is a sign of someone foolish, misguided, arrogant, or some other some such trait that would cause them to illogically speak absolutely. I would argue that the goal of a society should be the greatest liberty, not the most order. Prisons are relatively orderly. The goal of society is to advance our species, like just about everything psychologically healthy humans do. I don't advocate more order, I advocate both freedom and order being properly applied in proper amounts as to create the most prosperity. And the complete elimination of either order or freedom is not conducive to this. Anarchy does not abhor order within itself, but it itself is not orderly. Order created within it was not orderly created, it was chaotically created. It was chance. It was not planned. And that's why it's unfavorable to me and what I think is best. If you have only order or only chaos, people are going to suffer, every time, and the more people that suffer, the less our species progresses. This is why the United States is a country preferred over some primitive tribal society or North Korea... because we don't eliminate one side of the spectrum or the other. We try and have a balance of both that creates as much prosperity as possible. Side: Government society
5
points
1
point
The point being, in a proper democracy, an elected official would not exercise authority directly related to their past value to society, because the power of the elector would be so great that the elected wouldn't have incentive to become corrupt. The saying about power corrupting, is true. Furthermore, why should pre-established value to society automatically equate to having more power? We are all human beings. This isn't Beowulf. You shouldn't necessarily have more societal power just because you have done great things. Nor does the act of doing great things automatically mean you are fit to have societal power. By power, I do not mean authority to control others. I mean more something like reputation, combined with wealth. A person must act kindly to be seen as kind, generous, etc. This is the social aspect. I was more speaking on the economic aspect.
In the absence of government favor, the only way for people to consistently gain wealth, is to produce even more wealth to trade (value for value). Real money is the equivalent of an IOU from society for a certain value of wealth, which one has contributed for society's use. Therefore, each person who trades with another is constantly "voting" on that individual's value to society. The more money or wealth (including the goodwill of others, for non economic transactions) you have, the greater value you have to society, as expressed by the members of that society. Not if the power in the elector is such that they have the ability to replace politicians they elect with the snap of their fingers. What if they do something to violate the rights of 40% to benefit 60%? What recourse does the 40% have? All of your arguments assume that everyone agrees on what "improvement" in society is. I favor more liberty. Others favor free stuff. Some favor more security. You can't have all these things. Furthermore, as long as nationally elected officials are not creating and voting upon laws that significantly change individual lives, then the worry of the majority opinions hurting the minority is a non-issue. If the smaller the scale, the more laws effect individual lives, then that just means people can conveniently live in cities, districts, and states which better accommodate their opinions on how the law should effect them. This is the purpose of the republic that was set up by the founders of the United States. The US was a union of states (governments) which had autonomy unless dealing with foreign powers, or unless the natural rights of the citizen of the state were being violated. The individual states chose what authority they exercised, through their individual constitutions. Citizens were then able to choose the sort of society they wished to live in, both through voting locally on laws which were within the authority of the state constitution, or by moving to a state which had laws that suited them. The essence of this setup can be seen by reading Article one, section 8, The 9th amendment and the 10th amendment of the US constitution. ~=paraphrased art 1 sec8 ~"this is what government can do (enumerated powers)" 9th amendment ~"the people have more rights than just those enumerated in the constitution" 10th amendment ~"If this constitution doesn't specifically give the federal government power to do something, that power may fall to the states, or is retained as a right of the people." In the absence of a government, the market would serve to give the most "influence" to the people who satisfied the demands of the consumer(the voter) most efficiently. The goal of society is to advance our species, like just about everything psychologically healthy humans do. There is no one goal of society. There are as many goals as there are people. I don't advocate more order, I advocate both freedom and order being properly applied in proper amounts as to create the most prosperity. A free market does this. And the complete elimination ... as much prosperity as possible. I will agree that minimal government helps facilitate some things, but any more than the minimum has government interfering in ways that cause the market and the society to be much less efficient in creating prosperity. The people are not the government. The people are the society and the market. To advocate social engineering, or that government "steer" markets, is to advocate government control of the people. Side: No government society
5
points
5
points
5
points
5
points
5
points
5
points
5
points
5
points
5
points
1
point
These groups and orders are emergent from the actions of the individual animals in the system and not imposed from outside the animal through some central authority. In a sense they are. The organizational hierarchy of social animals tends to be very consistent among populations or species for generations on end. It is instinct and evolution that are determining who will rise up the ranks. With humans, it is a much more complex game. We do follow instincts, we just follow a lot more of them and they sometimes conflict. Still, I know not of any naturally occurring civilization that did not have some kind of hierarchy (chief, elders, medicine man) and some kind law/system of punishment to guide individuals in the best interests of the group, and punish those who are not acting in those interests. The actual nature of these hierarchies and law systems has varied heavily from population to the next, but they have always existed in some form, and have tended to become more complex as the society becomes larger and more powerful. THIS is the order emerging, and it will inevitably happen in an anarchy. Side: Government society
There is no outside force manipulating mankind to create governments. Human governments are as natural as a pack of wolves. The idea that we are even capable of not having a government is absurd. It only would lead to 100% freedom for those with the most to exploit those with the least even further, this would lead to those with the least organizing (government) and revolting. Anarchy is not only utterly moronic, it is quite impossible for any length of time. Human nature is inevitable. Government works when it balances human nature, accumulation of wealth balanced against worker rights, greed balanced against creation and manufacturing, votes balanced against media campaigns, media balanced against government corruption, etc. Side: Government society
1
point
1
point
If there is order it is by definition not anarchy. Whether you call a set of rules followed and enforced government, vigilante justice, whatever you call it, it is the same entity. Democratic and representative governments allow the people to choose which laws are followed where historically it is the few who choose laws. Regardless, there will always be laws, there will never be anarchy. The difference is that this recent dangerous rock star popularity of these free-for-all theories do not lead to any more freedom, it takes the ability to determine law away from people, and gives it back to those with the most power. Any anarchy, as stated, would very quickly turn into tyranny. I'm curious, why do you believe we are headed toward tyranny now? This is a very, very odd idea and seems separated from reality, much like your insistence that anarchy of any type would actually lead to more freedom. Side: Government society
1
point
If there is order it is by definition not anarchy. Anarchy is , by definition, a lack of government, not a lack of order. Whether you call a set of rules followed and enforced government, vigilante justice, whatever you call it, it is the same entity. Democratic and representative governments allow the people to choose which laws are followed where historically it is the few who choose laws. Vigilante justice works outside any established law. I agree on Democratic and representative governments. Regardless, there will always be laws, there will never be anarchy. True. The difference is that this recent dangerous rock star popularity of these free-for-all theories do not lead to any more freedom, it takes the ability to determine law away from people, and gives it back to those with the most power. And presently, the gang with the most power is the government, who is steadily taking more from the people. You don't have to have an anarchy, for the thugs to gain and keep power. I actually do dot advocate anarchy. I advocate a constitutional minarchy, much smaller than what exists now. Side: No government society
1
point
Any anarchy, as stated, would very quickly turn into tyranny. Possibly. I'm curious, why do you believe we are headed toward tyranny now? This is a very, very odd idea and seems separated from reality, much like your insistence that anarchy of any type would actually lead to more freedom. For the last 100, and accelerated in the last 50 years, the "progressives" have worked to remove the safeguards of true rights (life, liberty and property) in the US government, circumventing, and sometimes outright ignoring, the constitution to push their agendas. This can be seen in several programs. The central banking system which funnels value from savings up to banks, by allowing them to inflate the money supply. This inflation of credit is the primary cause of booms and busts in the stock market and has virtually destroyed our economy. Legal tender laws, which make difficult to keep and trade in monies that could retain their value, by refusing to enforce payment of contracts in other than the legal tender. (This, along with the central bank, allows them to "fund" programs virtually at will, instead of having to ask permission from the people, in the form of a tax to pay for it.) The building of a welfare state through massive entitlement programs (paid for by debt), has made nearly half of the population reliant on the government for some, if not all, of their livelihood or survival. This government interference damages the market, causing less wealth to be produced. This forces people to choose between a smaller government and putting food on the table. Over the generations, it has changed the national attitude from one of self reliance, and pride in one's accomplishments, into one of entitlement, envy and fear. It has caused the government to be viewed as the great provider for a nation of children. In short, a religion of the state. to be continued... Side: No government society
0
points
... continued The PATRIOT Act, the NDAA and the recent stripping of citizen protections from FISA, all go far to remove any meaningful right to privacy we have. The constant barrage of gun control legislation which chips away at what ability we have to defend against any oppression the government decides is necessary for the "public good". Add to this the attempts by recent presidents to bypass congress (our lawmaking body) all together through thousands of executive orders over the last decade. So, you have a systematic degrading of the citizenry financially, socially and militarily, all resulting in an increase of government power. The case could be made that we are well on our way to tyranny. Side: No government society
You have an impressive stack of strawmen there. There is less gun control today then a decade ago, and who cares? You having a gun has nothing to do with freedom. And the shift of wealth from the middle class and poor to the rich and very rich has done more to corrode freedom than the patriot act. The for-profit media feeding suckers false information about, for instance, gun control, is far more dangerous than any of the executive orders made by either of the last two presidents. I'm not a fan of the patriot act, but equating it to the fall of democracy is silly. Side: Government society
3
points
Yeah, why do I need to cite examples? You even understood and got what I said even if I did not cite those examples that you wanted me too.. Well, just for the sake of argument, what kind of examples would you like me to site? Do you like me to cite a government without corruption? cause that would be really hard to do.. As we know, most of the governments nowadays have every form of corruption. Also, some governments may seem that they dont have any corruption ongoing, but of course why would they show that there is corruption there. They would hide it in the best way that they can. Side: No government society
3
points
A large society could function without government as long as rule of law still exists. Please provide an example of such a society that "we" would want to live in? How do you create effective law without organization (government)? Power and wealth can't concentrate without the use of force, and government is only source of legalized force. I think wealth and power will concentrate. How do you stop a class of people with more wealth and power from not gaining additional wealth and power? What stops the wealthiest merchant in a town from slowly buying more and more of the businesses in a town until he owns the entire thing? How does that process reverse once it's started? Side: No government society
1
point
In a free market capitalism, it would be impossible to concentrate power and wealth. The market regulates wealth and power more effectively than government. Even if a merchant had all the money in the world, it still would be impossible to own everything in one town or the world because purchasing any sort of property must be voluntary since there is no force. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, does he own everything in the town he lives? NO. The process would need to reversing since it would never start. Side: No government society
It may not be possible to own every thing immediately, but as each store comes up for sale he could buy it. When he dies his son can continue this "tradition". Why would he do this? He would have much more control over the market of the town, financial stability, etc. He does not have to own every store in every town, just every store in his town. Repeat this across the country (different guy in each town), now each town has a "Barron". There is no way or motivation for this process to go the other direction which would be needed if power was to stay "equal" (not concentrated). The only way this process goes the other way is if the Barron "chooses" to break up his property holdings. Please present an argument as to why this would not happen over time? The fact that Bill Gates did not do this is a not a good argument as to why nobody could in a free market. Side: Government society
1
point
Please present an argument as to why this would not happen over time? The fact that Bill Gates did not do this is a not a good argument as to why nobody could in a free market. If so much of the medium of exchange were concentrated in so few hands, that medium would lose its efficiency as a MOE, and the market would choose a different one, leaving the single rich person with a much less valuable commodity. Remember, governments are the ones who favor fiat currency. The free market adapts to what is most efficient. Side: No government society
Why? I mean the simple economy of scale would make many aspects more efficient. We can see in our economy that companies merge all the time to gain efficiency. Please provide details as I don't see why "concentrated in so few hands" means loss of efficiency? Side: No government society
1
point
Economy of scale actually becomes less efficient when companies get as big as many are now. The only reason that it seems different, is the protectionist regulations they lobby congress for, to reduce competition from smaller, more adaptable companies and the fact the fiat currency system forces the use of the "money" that the companies have amassed, for use in trade, preventing the market from choosing a more efficient medium of exchange. Side: No government society
I still don't feel you have proven your case? You have just sated that big business are less efficient and said some other things about our economy today. Reasons it will concentrate without intervention: - Economy of scale - Influence of power - History tells us it will since it always has in "economic" societies with our without government Side: Government society
1
point
- Economy of scale A large company is less able to adapt to changes in the market for the same reason a central planning authority is unable to adapt to the changing demands of the market as a whole. The more of a share of the industry a company has, the less sensitive to demand changes (communicated through market price) the company is. Smaller firms can ramp back, or ramp up production more swiftly to take advantage of that information. - Influence of power By power, I assume you mean government. The only role of government in a free market is to protect property rights, and enforce contracts. All other functions of the market are self regulating. If not government, then the wealth possessed by individuals in the market is directly related to the amount of wealth they have produced. Those who have much have earned it by making more wealth available to others (trading value for value). - History tells us it will since it always has in "economic" societies with our without government I think you are conflating "economies of scale" with "division of labor" The former has an efficiency curve. The latter (when combined with trade) does not. Side: No government society
A large company is less able to adapt to changes in the market for the same reason a central planning authority is unable to adapt to the changing demands of the market as a whole. Some times this is true but It does not have to be that way. For example Apple could easily spin off a group of 100 people and give them total autonomy, a unique name, and a huge pile of cash. This group would/could behave like any other start-up in terms of ramping up/down and responding to markets with the added benefit of the huge pile of cash and the security that if they fail they can all just go back to the old secure job they had before. Also, just because a company is big does not mean it needs to operate as a monolithic organization. For example they could run their 100 sub-companies independently and only "come together" when it's time to order "computer components". In that way they get the benefit of the scale, without the "red tape" of a huge company. By power, I assume you mean government. No, I mean in a free market large and wealthy organizations have a lot of power. When you have wealth (money or resources that you earned lawfully) that other people want, you have power over them. Like in the case of the banker and the person wishing to get a mortgage. The banker has the power. There is nothing wrong with someone having this wealth, the problem is that it concentrates and after a number of generations 1% of the society has all the resources and the 99% can be taken advantage of. I think you are conflating "economies of scale" with "division of labor" Possibly. I'm not sure I understand your point so I will restate mine: - Throughout history wealth and power has concentrated with or without government. But at least with government you have a way to counteract it and "cap" the concentration. Side: Government society
1
point
Simply, free market capitalism is the only answer, nobody has the legal use of force. This is just a statement not a logical augment? Free market capitalism is not the only answer. How about semi-free market capitalism like we have in the united states? In civilized society, things must be done for the good of the society. When you choose to join such society, you give up your absolute right to not be forced to do things. Side: Government society
1
point
Free market capitalism is a logical argument, you just refuse to accept it. Wrong, the U.S. is not a semi free market capitalism, it is a mixed economy being government ownership, a civilized society is one based on voluntary action and exchange rather than the use of force, the voluntary exchange is the very best for the good of society. The use of force is not civilized, it is barbaric. Side: No government society
Free market capitalism is a logical argument, you just refuse to accept it. True. But your original statement was "Simply, free market capitalism is the only answer..". You must prove that it is the only answer, not just the one you like the best. Wrong, the U.S. is not a semi free market capitalism, it is a mixed economy being government ownership, a civilized society is one based on voluntary action and exchange rather than the use of force, the voluntary exchange is the very best for the good of society. Sorry, my term may have been wrong but I think you know what I meant. We do have "market capitalism", it's just not 100% free. I don't want to repeat all my arguments in this debate (see all the other posts), but to summarize: - A "free market" will concentrate wealth and power until the 1% have total control over the 99% - Our society has decided that it's willing to sacrifice some individual rights for the good of the society. This is not a logical argument, it's just what we (and every other civil society) has decided to do. When you say individual rights are the most important, your talking about a new society, not our society. The use of force is not civilized, it is barbaric. A policeman shoots a gunman right before he shots a family at the mall. This is "civilized" not barbaric in my mind. From a species point of view, the whole scene is quite barbaric. Side: Government society
1
point
Free market is the only answer because it decentralizes power and wealth. Free market capitalism will not concentrate wealth and power because government intervention is the source of concentrated wealth and power through the use of force that defy economic laws such patents, licenses, subsidies, and tariffs. Of course, some use of force is civilized even in free society given the fact no person can act aggressively onto anyone. Side: No government society
I understand the "problems" with what we have now. Please tell me how a free market will control the concentration of wealth and power so that the 1% does not own and control everything? The reasons I think it can't is because on average, wealth and power goes one way not the other. It's hard for a poor man to become rich, but once rich its much easier to stay that way (or become richer). Side: Government society
1
point
It is impossible to concentrate wealth and power in free market capitalism because of the sovereignty of the consumer, consumers drive supply and demand in all products, thus, they are king, producers are powerless because they have no use of force in the marketplace where no monopolies can be established. Any other system relies on the use of force, which concentrates wealth and power even in the case of America today in patents, licenses, subsidies and more. Side: No government society
I understand that customers have the power, but customers don't know that power and wealth is concentrating. They only have access to very limited information. Just because you have power and wealth does not mean you have to create a "obvious" public monopoly. Smart business men will hide that fact that they are starting to own everything in a region or in a industry sector. How would the customer know about this? The wealthy and powerful (as they do now) will tend to congregate both geographically and socially. Deals between these members of this elite group will further benefit the members of the group. Nobody will know about this and or the connections and will have no way of finding out (no public records like we have now from the IRS and SEC). Side: Government society
1
point
Really, do you understand that customers have the power, then why do you still believe that power and wealth will concentrate? Consumers don't need any more information than you think they need. What does a public monopoly have to do with anything? Apparently, it is impossible to own everything just based on the fact of OPPORTUNITY COSTS? Way to many conspiracy theories this your response. Side: No government society
Yes I believe customers have the power and if perfectly informed, the free market may work. But, just look at our economy. We have no idea what the banks and Walmart's of the world are doing behind the scenes. Look at the mortgage collapse. Even as a mortgage customer I had no idea that all these "crazy" trading schemes were going on behind the scenes. I did not have the information I needed to make the "best" decision. The only reason we have some idea is because the government tells us (IRS, SEC, etc). If a consumer "sees" that Target charges 20% more than Walmart, that's "publicly visible", shoppers will go to Walmart. But, if it turns out the reason Walmart is 20% cheaper is because they dump their waste "incorrectly", or because Mr Walmart "owns" the garment industry, the consumer won't know this. It's not public information nor publicly visible. Mr Walmart can use this hidden information and his accumulating wealth to purchase more industries, etc. Apparently, it is impossible to own everything just based on the fact of OPPORTUNITY COSTS? Did you mean possible? I'm not sure what you mean by "OPPORTUNITY COSTS", but averaged over time, all other things being equal, money and power provides opportunities that others cant afford. Tell me how this is not true: All things equal, additional money and power are a benefit. Way to many conspiracy theories this your response. I don't think so? Free market is just a theory (as are my reasons it would be bad) and people, (especially when trying to make money and gain power) will conspire. Please provide a reason that business men would not conspire for their own gain in the free market? Business men try to conspire all the time, often for personal gain over their competition. Can you imagine if there was no limit to how far this "conspiring" could go? Why would a business man not try and own his market, the raw resources for his market, the production and transportation for his market? He could even do this for the benefit of his citizens (charge low prices, pay good wages, etc). But what happens after he owns everything (including the law), and hands the business to his son (who is not "good")? The population no longer has the leverage of a "free market" and has no legal recourse. Side: Government society
1
point
Please provide an example of such a society that "we" would want to live in? How do you create effective law without organization (government)? Chaos Theory Robert P. Murphy http://mises.org/document/3088 "...Murphy shows that out of chaos grows an ordered liberty. ..." Side: No government society
There are plenty of documented counter arguments to these ideas so this is by no means a guaranteed solution. For me the main problems with theses ideas (Libertarianism) are as follows: - The economy is not perfectly efficient and the people are not perfectly informed. This means that the ideal efficiency is not what happens in reality. People make bad decisions (shopping at Wallmart even though it creates a monopoly in the local community). - If you live anywhere but a city, choice is limited. Not every place has 10 grocery stores that you can choose from when one behaves "badly". These smaller comunities cant support multiple "security companies" and "law companies"? - You run over your neighbors cat by accident. That neighbor bans you from their grocery store which is the only one in convenient driving distance. Now you have to move because you can no longer buy food near your house. Who would want to live in a society with so much uncertainty? Your "property rights" are protected at the cost of very other "right" that we enjoy (right to not be discriminated against, right to EQUAL police and court protection, etc). Side: Government society
1
point
- The economy is not perfectly efficient and the people are not perfectly informed. This means that the ideal efficiency is not what happens in reality. But the free market has better information than any other system, because all information is acted upon using first hand knowledge of one's own situation. People make bad decisions (shopping at Wallmart even though it creates a monopoly in the local community). False, "all monopolies are bad" argument. (i can elaborate, at need) - If you live anywhere but a city, choice is limited. Not every place has 10 grocery stores that you can choose from when one behaves "badly". These smaller comunities cant support multiple "security companies" and "law companies"? People are at liberty to move. - You run over your neighbors cat by accident. That neighbor bans you from their grocery store which is the only one in convenient driving distance. Now you have to move because you can no longer buy food near your house. It is not the function of government to accommodate the choices of some, by limiting the liberty of others to act. Key word is "convenient". Who would want to live in a society with so much uncertainty? Myself, and many others. The benefits of such a society far outweigh the detriments, that any such "uncertainty' would cause. Your "property rights" are protected at the cost of very other "right" that we enjoy (right to not be discriminated against, right to EQUAL police and court protection, etc). You have no right not to be discriminated against by a private citizen. Individuals have a right to associate and/or trade (assuming mutual agreement) with whomever they choose. They also have a right NOT to trade or associate. Only government is rightly prohibited from discriminating. How does protecting property rights, deprive others of equal protection by police or a properly functioning justice system? May I reference your assertion to a right to "EQUAL police and court protection" in our other debate, where "EQUAL protection" is subservient to consideration of the relative wealth of the parties involved? ;) Side: No government society
But the free market has better information than any other system, because all information is acted upon using first hand knowledge of one's own situation. The fact that the free market is the best of all the imperfect economic systems does not mean it solves the problem. For the free market to work perfectly, it must be perfectly efficient, and people perfectly informed. If it's not perfectly efficient, then the bad things that start to happen (business start to get the upper hand, pollute the environment, etc). False, "all monopolies are bad" argument. (i can elaborate, at need) I'm not sure what argument your making? All I was saying is that people make decisions that are not always in their best interest. For the free market to work (not become corrupt, etc) people have to NOT make bad decisions and be fully rational which is not the way they behave. People are at liberty to move. True. So we agree that one of the side effects of Libertarianism would be that people would have to uproot their lives and move each time their "market" does not support enough competition to be "efficient" and fair. It is not the function of government to accommodate the choices of some, by limiting the liberty of others to act. Key word is "convenient". It absolutely is? When you decide to join a civil society the liberty of the individual is limited for the good of the society. For a large modern society to work, people need to be able to engage in commerce (buy groceries) as a right. Without this the society lags because the people have to engage in "inconvenient" commerce, or constantly move. A white person should be able to move to a black town and "know" they are allowed to engage in commerce and vise versa. Myself, and many others. The benefits of such a society far outweigh the detriments, that any such "uncertainty' would cause. I can't argue with that. Most people would not want to live in that world. Do you think that there is any way America would adopt that system? If not, shouldn't you focus your time and "thought" on how to fix the system we have? You have no right not to be discriminated against by a private citizen. Individuals have a right to associate and/or trade (assuming mutual agreement) with whomever they choose. They also have a right NOT to trade or associate. Again, your looking at it outside the context of a civil society. You live in a civil society and only a time machine or moving to another society will get you out of it because most people want to progress and become more civil (less individual rights for the good of the society). How does protecting property rights, deprive others of equal protection by police or a properly functioning justice system? Because as soon as you have to go on the free market and "buy" your police and court, more money means you get better quality. Additionally, inefficiencies in the economy create corruption in the very organizations that are upholding your rights. May I reference your assertion to a right to "EQUAL police and court protection" in our other debate, where "EQUAL protection" is subservient to consideration of the relative wealth of the parties involved? ;) I'm not sure the exact reference your making, but being taxed is not the same as being discriminated against. Low taxes is not a human right. I (and most people I think) don't see all the "rights" the same. I think you see everything under the umbrella of "property rights" and they are all equal. This is not the case in our society and never will be. People don't see the "right to discriminate" and the "right to free speech" the same way. The effect the right has on the society MATTERS. Side: Government society
1
point
For the free market to work perfectly, it must be perfectly efficient, and people perfectly informed. This is true of any system, so it is not a net argument against the free market. If it's not perfectly efficient, then the bad things that start to happen (business start to get the upper hand, pollute the environment, etc). Describe the effects, to the consumer, of a system where "businesses start to get the upper hand". Pollution of someone else's property is properly addressed by protection of property rights (see The Coase theorem), with or without the action of government. All I was saying is that people make decisions that are not always in their best interest. Who decides what is in your best interest? Is it not the right of each to decide that for himself? This is the "people are too stupid to know what is best for them, so the state must decide for them" argument. For the free market to work (not become corrupt, etc) people have to NOT make bad decisions... For the free market to work, all that is required is that consumers be free to choose the relative value of their available choices and be free to produce what they are better at producing to trade for those things which they value. The quality of the individual decisions is irrelevant, as a trade ALWAYS reflects that relative valuation, and communicates to the savvy producer, the demand for his product. The purpose of the free market is to efficiently allocate scarce resources. and be fully rational which is not the way they behave. People use means, to achieve ends. Because your ends are not their ends, and because they do not act in a way that will achieve your preferred ends, does not mean that they act irrationally. True. So we agree that one of the side effects of Libertarianism would be that people would have to uproot their lives and move each time their "market" does not support enough competition to be "efficient" and fair. The market, left to itself, is always efficient (that is its purpose. It is not the function of the market to be "fair", nor is it the function of government to make it so). To try to make it "fair" is to substitute political decisions for economic ones. This decreases the efficiency of ANY economic system, and is the primary reason that the economy is in the poor shape it is in. Because as soon as you have to go on the free market and "buy" your police and court, more money means you get better quality. Additionally, inefficiencies in the economy create corruption in the very organizations that are upholding your rights. Here is where people misunderstand libertarianism, and capitalism. If we are talking about government courts and police, then the less power you give government to do favors to one or another, then the less power they can sell to the highest bidder (in the court system). As for police, people already have a right to hire private security (increase the quality of their police protection). .. but being taxed is not the same as being discriminated against. It is, if you are being taxed differently from someone else, based solely upon your ability to produce. Low taxes is not a human right. Correct, but equal treatment by your government, IS. I (and most people I think) don't see all the "rights" the same. I think you see everything under the umbrella of "property rights" and they are all equal. This is not the case in our society and never will be. That is because many see access to resources as "rights". Nothing can be a right, that must be supplied by the labor of another. To argue that the resources of another are your right, is to argue that you have the right to the service of another. How is this compatible with the idea that slavery is unjust? People don't see the "right to discriminate" and the "right to free speech" the same way. The effect the right has on the society MATTERS. How people see it is irrelevant. In exercising your right to discriminate, you do not violate any of the rights of anyone else. Neither do you violate the rights of others when exercising your right to free speech, on your property, or property which you have rented/borrowed for that purpose. When you exercise your "right" to government services, paid for by the labor of others, you are violating their property rights. The effect this has had on society is increased poverty, generational welfare, the near destruction of the black family in the inner cities, the whole "entitlement" culture, a poor economy, the eroding of natural rights, a huge federal government, and massive debt. Negative Externalities and the Coase Theorem
Side: No government society
I wrote a long reply that did not show up so... The main point that makes me think a totally free market would be bad is I don't see how it prevents concentration of power and resources until the 1% owns everything. All things being equal, a small amount of extra money and power is beneficial right? That benefit tends to grow over time (takes money to make money). The ultimate conclusion is the 1% owns everything. Side: Government society
1
point
(These are not my explanations, but are good ones, nonetheless) "...it's actually very difficult to concentrate wealth in a free market because incumbent producers have to compete for their market shares. In a free market there's always some newcomer around who can do things a little more efficient or has a new idea. And with access to developed financial markets, anyone can finance their endeavors, not just those who already are rich. It's actually very hard to stay on top unless you constantly innovate to stay ahead of your competitors. But even then it's difficult because incumbents usually become lazy and risk-adverse while newcomers are lean, motivated and willing to work hard. Just the falling marginal utility of money implies that those who have less are willing to do the same job cheaper than those who have more. Wealth flows to the bottom first, like water. The natural tendency therefore (in a free market) is for the rich to lose their wealth and for the poor to gain it until they meet in the middle, and not for the rich to grow richer." --EmperorNero (mises.org forums) (emphasis mine) But even IF the wealth were to somehow concentrate in a particular income range... "...My problem with this kind of debate is that we often find ourselves fighting on their terms. I think we need to insist on our own. Our terms should be thus: The outcome of the distribution of wealth is irrelevant. It is the process that matters. If the process is just, the outcome must be accepted. If the process is unjust, then the outcome cannot be accepted." --gocrew (mises.org forums) source: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/ For the government to treat two citizens differently, and to protect their property rights differently, is (by definition) unjust. Side: No government society
I hope your quoting these out of convenience and not because you are unable to form your own arguments. You don't want to follow someone else's dogma without being able to form your own similar conclusions. It's actually very hard to stay on top unless you constantly innovate to stay ahead of your competitors. Innovation is very important when building tablet computers but 90% of what the market needs ,in terms of products and services, is not driven by innovation (food, policing, law, clothing production, energy, durable goods, etc, etc). These industries are not constantly innovating in a "market shakeup" way. They lumber along mostly driven by price and distribution which is something that monopolies are good at controlling. Also, the smart business man does not need to create 1 large business. He can just own 100 small, nimble businesses. His businesses can even compete against each other, all that matters is he owns them. Eventually, his "empire" can own them all and all the people in the society. But even then it's difficult because incumbents usually become lazy and risk-adverse while newcomers are lean, motivated and willing to work hard. So the success on the free market relies on the fact that no business man will remain smart and energetic once successful? It does not matter what MOST business men do, if only 1% or even worse .1% are smart they will eventually control everything. The outcome of the distribution of wealth is irrelevant. It is the process that matters. If the process is just, the outcome must be accepted. If the process is unjust, then the outcome cannot be accepted. You have to understand how crazy this statement is? It's great if your the 1% (chances of you and I being in that group is very small), but if your not then your in big trouble. When law, security and insurance (insurance companies are the new "government" under a free market) can be controlled by the 1%, the 99% can be mistreated, forced to work for nothing, have no security. All you have to do is look at the corporate corruption we have even with "rules" to see where the free market would lead over a few generations. Side: Government society
1
point
I hope your quoting these out of convenience ..similar conclusions. This argument, and the effects of charging interest on the supply of money, are the only parts of Austrian economics that I have not worked out for myself. But, yes, it is convenience. Innovation is very important when building tablet computers but 90% of what the market needs ,in terms of products and services, is not driven by innovation (food, policing, law, clothing production, energy, durable goods, etc, etc). All these but law, are constantly being improved, both in quality and in efficiency of manufacture. These industries are not constantly innovating in a "market shakeup" way. They lumber along mostly driven by price and distribution which is something that monopolies are good at controlling. Any innovation forces the market to adjust. Stagnation forces innovation. Name a coercive monopoly that forms, or is maintained, without government protection (present or past). Also, the smart business man does not need to create 1 large business. He can just own 100 small, nimble businesses. His businesses can even compete against each other, all that matters is he owns them. Eventually, his "empire" can own them all and all the people in the society. This supposes that there is no way for competitors to enter the market. What keeps them out? So the success on the free market relies on the fact that no business man will remain smart and energetic once successful? It does not matter what MOST business men do, if only 1% or even worse .1% are smart they will eventually control everything. They have the most to lose, by risking, therefore they will be more conservative in their endeavors. By what mechanism will they control everything? You have to understand how crazy this statement is? ... When law, security and insurance (insurance companies are the new "government" under a free market) can be controlled by the 1%, the 99% can be mistreated, forced to work for nothing, have no security. Again, explain the mechanism. All you have to do is look at the corporate corruption we have even with "rules" to see where the free market would lead over a few generations. What sort of corporate corruption? Was this corruption possible without government coercion or protection? Side: No government society
All these but law, are constantly being improved, both in quality and in efficiency of manufacture. This is true but what that boils down to is perceived quality and price. In practice, quality is very hard for the consumer to judge in the things I mentioned. Yes you can tell the difference between a really poor quality item (washing machine, hot dog, socks, etc), but can you tell the "real" quality difference between the "average" brands of these items? Most consumers can't and will just buy the socks from the first bin of socks they see at Walmart. Remember in a free market all of your "choices" from socks to police force are not determined by you, but are determined by the masses of consumers and their "informed" decisions. Imagine when the masses of "informed Walmart shoppers" are determining which police force stays in business in your town. As for price, how could someone with less money and power possibly out sell their competitor on that input by itself? PS. I have nothing against Walmart, it just seems like a good "symbol" of what consumers, given free choice, will gravitate to. Name a coercive monopoly that forms, or is maintained, without government protection (present or past). It does not have to be coercive to be bad. The simple formation of the monopoly and the "possibility" that it be coercive when ever it wanted is bad. At some point it's too late to stop it in a free market and it's at that point it could start to be coercive. Think about how non-democratic governments form. Have a revolution, concentrate wealth and power (seems OK at first, their the good guys), before you know it there is a new crooked regime that cant be replaced because they have too much wealth and power so you have to have another revolution. Plenty of monopolies have formed (coercive or not) or been prevented from forming. International Harvester and American Tobacco, Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, every non-democratic government/ruler. I'll let you provide arguments that show they happened because of the government. This supposes that there is no way for competitors to enter the market. What keeps them out? Competitors can enter the market, but again surely the guy with more power and resources, all things being equal, has an advantage over a new competitor? Not in every case, but on average and these "more times than not" add up over time. It's hard for the process to reverse direction (in the same proportion) which is what would be required to keep things even. If the average Joe can't beat the smart, wealthy, powerful guy at least 50% of the time, eventually 1% of the smartest, wealthiest, most powerful guys will own the world. They have the most to lose, by risking, therefore they will be more conservative in their endeavors. If their business is diverse they minimize their risk. They can create new autonomous companies that compete with the same "risk" level as another new start up. Obviously if your Microsoft and you try and create a car and flops, you could hurt your brand. But if your Bill Gates and you just start a new car company, there is no risk that any other new car company would face. No reason for Bill to be conservative. By what mechanism will they control everything? When the 1% controls 99% of the security companies, insurance companies, arbitration companies, real-estate companies, jobs, etc. they control everything except the poor workers personal property. Eventually, after a tipping point, the free market is no longer free and they can limit where you can shop, when you can shop, how much things cost, where you go to school, where you work, how long you work. Of course your "free" to be a salve to this, die or move to a new country. What sort of corporate corruption? Was this corruption possible without government coercion or protection? The only thing that makes bad corporate behavior corruption are our laws. So basically most of what we call corrupt behavior, would just be "business smarts" in a free market. There must be literally millions of specific examples but lets start here: Pyramid schemes, insider trading, financial coercion by company directors, theft, corporate espionage, environmental damage. Editorial: Wealth and power are some of the most powerful driving forces known to man. You want encourage a man to corrupt, steal, lie, kill, cheat or work himself to death....pay him. Free market allows these destructiveness tenancies to flourish to the extreme. Even with our progressive tax code and punishments, people still do crazy and terrible things for their wealth and power. Imagine what people would do with no punishments (except in the case of violating private property) and unlimited wealth (you keep every cent you make). I think the average free market proponent "thinks" they will be the one that will benefit in a free market, but look at your competition? The extremes of society will "win". The extremely smart or rich business men will own all the business, the extremely poor workers will own all the jobs. This is the most efficient is it not? I wish I was an extremely smart or wealthy business man, but chances are, over time, I'll get weeded out by those who are smarter or richer. The average man will be the poor worker. Just look at America today. It's taken a while, but you can see the market is separating the rich and the poor. If we got rid of unions, remove the minimum wage, remove the progressive tax system imagine where we would go? Nobody likes government, and you can make arguments that it's all the governments fault, but that is a way to simplistic view. The government is constantly changing the guard from one extreme to the other but the slow march of market capitalism continues to concentrate wealth and power and would do so even more were it not for minimum wage, unions, worker safety rules, progressive tax system, etc... Side: Government society
1
point
This is true but what that boils down to is perceived quality and price. In practice, quality is very hard for the consumer to judge in the things I mentioned. Yes you can tell the difference between a really poor quality item (washing machine, hot dog, socks, etc), but can you tell the "real" quality difference between the "average" brands of these items? Most consumers can't and will just buy the socks from the first bin of socks they see at Walmart. Remember in a free market all of your "choices" from socks to police force are not determined by you, but are determined by the masses of consumers and their "informed" decisions. Imagine when the masses of "informed Walmart shoppers" are determining which police force stays in business in your town. You keep using the word "informed". Each person is informed on their own needs. What makes your arbitrary decisions as to their array of choices, better than those choices refined by the value judgements of millions of market participants? PS. I have nothing against Walmart, it just seems like a good "symbol" of what consumers, given free choice, will gravitate to. What is wrong with spending one's scarce resources as efficiently as possible, according to one's own values? It does not have to be coercive to be bad. Yes, it does. in the standard oil case, the complaint was that prices were too low. Low prices are good for the consumer. The breaking up of standard oil was to "protect" its competitors, not the consumer. A non coercive monopoly is (by definition) putting scarce resources to their most valuable use, as judged by the ones who have demand for those resources. It is trading goods and services at the lowest price the market will bear. This is the core purpose of the market. If it does become coercive, it invites new competition to gain market share. In the absence of government protection, a coercive monopoly cannot survive. "[T]here has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing… claims of predatory pricing are typically made by competitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combating "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer…" source: The Myth of Predatory Pricing ( http://tinyurl.com/c3g8wbh ) with link to full policy analysis Plenty of monopolies have formed (coercive or not) or been prevented from forming. Non coercive monopolies are benign. International Harvester "Thus, in creating the Federal Farm Board, the precursor of New Deal schemes to prop up farm prices, Hoover appointed leading farm group representatives to the board, and named Alexander Legge, head of International Harvester, as its chairman. To Burner this was an anomaly, and he writes in some wonderment of the altruism Legge displayed in his new job: "Although he was an important businessman, Legge's sympathy lay with the farmers," and he pushed aggressively for farm price supports. The fact that International Harvester was the country's largest manufacturer of farm machinery and therefore benefited from these supports does not seem to register with Burner." source: http://mises.org/daily/4498/ American Tobacco "The American Tobacco holding company was broken up by the Supreme Court because of some vague intent to monopolize (again, as evidenced through mergers) but, like Standard Oil, there was a total absence of demonstrable (economic) injury to consumers of tobacco products." source: http://mises.org/daily/2694#4b Standard Oil " It never achieved a monopoly (in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf) that would enable it to monopolistically boost consumer prices." source: http://mises.org/daily/5274 U.S. Steel "The federal government attempted to use federal antitrust laws to break up U.S. Steel in 1911, but that effort ultimately failed. Time and competitors have, however, accomplished nearly the same thing. In its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. It now produces less than 10 percent." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel This last, is supporting evidence that the market does not favor "monopolies". to be continued.... Side: No government society
You keep using the word "informed". Each person is informed on their own needs. What makes your arbitrary decisions as to their array of choices, better than those choices refined by the value judgement of millions of market participants? It's important because for the free market to work in reality (not just theoretically) the consumers need to be well informed but consumers are not well informed on 99% if their purchases. Nobody has time to be well informed on every purchase they make. When I go to the grocery store I don't make "well" informed decisions on every item. I know what I need, if it's price seems reasonable, I get it and move on. If I'm buying a car then yes, I probably spend time researching the choices, but even then I don't know the companies environmental record, their transportation methods, etc. Basically I have my own life to live and there are not enough hours in a day to make sure every purchase is the "best" one including the companies environmental record, wages it pays employees, etc. If most people make the same "mistake" I do when shopping, a company can do bad things and NOT be driven out of business. What is wrong with spending one's scarce resources as efficiently as possible, according to one's own values? Nothing, but I think the consumer will support the cheapest monopoly or oligarchy around, not the "best" option for their community and ultimately for themselves. The consumer will support the cheapest option, wages will go down, further reinforcing the need to buy the cheapest stuff around. It's a race to the bottom for the worker. You could say "it's their own damn fault", but you and I will be dragged down with them regardless. Keep in mind that our security and all other "market purchases" will suffer the same fate. It does not have to be coercive to be bad. Yes, it does I don't think so. If I have a monopoly that makes it hard for competition to compete (though controls on price, or resources, distribution, not threats or force) it's bad. If this monopoly or oligarchy, can limit competition, drive wages down, keep prices "slightly" higher than they need to be, that's bad. If through there non coercive methods they are able to repeatably crush the competition, competition will stop trying as they will spend their resources someplace else that yield more profits. Side: Government society
1
point
It's important because for the free market to work in reality (not just theoretically) the consumers need to be well informed but consumers are not well informed on 99% if their purchases. They only need to be informed of their demands, and have accurate information as to the characteristics of the goods they purchase, for the free market to work reasonably well (better than government intervention). Bearing this in mind, how are the wal mart shoppers in your example uninformed? Nobody has time to be well informed on every purchase they make. and? Whose responsibility is it to make sure you know what you are buying, assuming that the advertizing is truthful? I don't know the companies environmental record, their transportation methods, etc. Basically I have my own life to live and there are not enough hours in a day to make sure every purchase is the "best" one including the companies environmental record, wages it pays employees, etc. If you care, you will. If you don't care, then the issue isn't important to you. Why should someone else force you to pay more for something you don't care about? If most people make the same "mistake" I do when shopping, a company can do bad things and NOT be driven out of business. Just because you see ignoring aspects of a business unrelated to the price and quality of the goods as a "mistake" does not mean others do. By what right do you force your value system on others? If enough people see it as a concern, they will start to act according to their own value systems. Nothing, but I think the consumer will support the cheapest monopoly or oligarchy around, not the "best" option for their community and ultimately for themselves. By what right do you decide what is best for another? Or to impose your idea of what is best for their community? It's a race to the bottom for the worker. You could say "it's their own damn fault", but you and I will be dragged down with them regardless. Keep in mind that our security and all other "market purchases" will suffer the same fate. Labor is a market good, just like everything else, and is traded as such. It is subject to the laws of supply and demand.
I don't think so. If I have a monopoly that makes it hard for competition to compete (though controls on price, or resources, distribution, not threats or force) it's bad. If this monopoly or oligarchy, can limit competition, drive wages down, keep prices "slightly" higher than they need to be, that's bad. If through there non coercive methods they are able to repeatably crush the competition, competition will stop trying as they will spend their resources someplace else that yield more profits. Name one monopoly that has ever been able to do this, without the help of government. If the competition cannot compete on the free market then they are supplying the demands of the consumer less efficiently than the existing firms. Seeking profit in a different field is healthy for the market, and good for the consumer. Standard oil (your example) caused the price of oil to drop dramatically, to the benefit of the consumer. Vanderbilt operated steamboats and gave free rides (made money off concessions) on steamboats (illegally) breaking a government supported monopoly. Both are cited as "robber barons" but both helped the consumer. Their competitors, advocates of "anti-trust" laws were the ones who were gouging the consumers. Side: No government society
They only need to be informed of their demands, and have accurate information as to the characteristics of the goods they purchase, for the free market to work reasonably well (better than government intervention). Your ignoring most of my point from my post. In a free market, all other actions of business (not just product price and quality) must also be regulated by consumers because there is no government (product safety, food safety, environmental protection, business ethics, etc). If the consumer is not considering these things, bad things will happen. How does the consumer get informed of these things? I think the Walmart shopper is uninformed because I don't think they have taken the time to be informed. I think most Walmart shoppers will say "it's cheap and convenient" as their reason for buying product X. and? Whose responsibility is it to make sure you know what you are buying, assuming that the advertizing is truthful? Right, it's the consumers responsibility. Are you prepared for the aggregate effect of all the consumers to decide the quality of your local security company? It's one thing for the "sheep" to pick cheap Chinese socks, it's another thing when they are picking your "law" (security, arbitration, insurance, etc). 10% of the population that does have time/energy to research every pair of socks they buy may have a "desire" to change the market, but their "voting with their wallet" is overruled by the masses just trying to survive their $100/week life. Truthful advertising, that's funny!! ;) In a free market does advertising have to be truthful? Doesn't the business have the right to make any claim they want about their own products? I mean the market will weed out false advertising... So here is part of the problem. The businesses will not only stretch the truth about their own products, but they will stretch the truth about competitor products. Competing "product magazines" (owned by the parent companies of the same business they are rating) will be awash with false claims. The consumer will not know whats truth or not. Even today most product reviews are done because of a "relationship" between the reviewer and the company but the consumers can't see all the connections. By what right do you decide what is best for another? Or to impose your idea of what is best for their community? The government does not have to decide everything, all it has to decide is whats bad for everyone: You can't pollute, you have to make some effort to keep your meat safe, if you want to work on the electrical system in someones house, you have to be qualified to do so, etc. Once the basics are covered, the market is "free" after that. These laws were not made up for no reason. They were made because men, in the pursuit of money, will break these "common sense" rules over and over. Labor is a market good, just like everything else, and is traded as such. It is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Yes, but unlike other goods, labor IS "the society". If it gets manipulated one way or the other there is revolution, or millions starve. It can't just fluctuate up and down like the price of a dozen eggs. Labor is at a distinct disadvantage. It's not mobile and can't efficiently just move around finding the optimal opportunities. One laborer has no leverage over the business and is in a much weaker position. Common sense (and history) shows what happens to labor over time. Just look at labor in the US now. What will happen in a free market when technology replaces all physical labor with machines (probably in 50 years)? I think we will need government intervention to make some serious changes about how economies and society works. Another thing comes to mind when thinking about this topic. My whole argument is that power and money concentrates and this hurts the people and labor in particular. Doesn't it seem like the future, even in the US is the big box store? The trend is relatively new and I don't see any reason it will reverse. This is the problem with concentration. It's hard to concentrate, yes, but to reverse is almost impossible. If Walmart and Home Depot get much bigger (can you say Super Walmart) how can most other retail survive? What happens when the entire economy or running on 20 big box stores (2 for durable goods, 2 for medicine, 2 for retail, etc). The American dream of "opening a business" won't be an option for 90% of the markets. What happens to the worker when there are literally only 10 employers in most markets? Concentration of power and money is already happening and it's not ONLY because of the government. It's mostly because it makes for good and efficient business. The problem is it destroys the society eventually. Perfectly legal. Perfectly efficient. Society still destroyed. Government must and will prevent this conclusion. Side: Government society
1
point
You're ignoring most of my point from my post. In a free market, all other actions of business (not just product price and quality) must also be regulated by consumers because there is no government product safety, food safety, These two can be handled by private certification, like the UL now. environmental protection, If you mean damage to property, there are ways to mitigate and recompense these outside of government. They are a bit cumbersome, but possible. business ethics, etc). What do you mean business ethics? The only ethic is to represent whatever you are trading accurately. If you don't people find out, and you go out of business. I think most Walmart shoppers will say "it's cheap and convenient" as their reason for buying product X. That is satisfaction of consumer demand & a sign of an efficient market. If the consumer cares for nothing else, then you have no right to force him to. I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out that the fact that you believe these things are important is no license to force others to act as though they mirrored your value system. How you wish others to act is irrelevant. They have a right to act according to their value systems, so long as they allow others to do the same. Are you prepared for the aggregate effect of all the consumers to decide the quality of your local security company? I will choose the value of my security company, according to my needs, and means. As will others. Yes, I would leave the array of choices to the sum of thousands of choices, instead of a single self-appointed "expert". Yes, the market weeds out fraud. The most successful companies in a free market are those who meet the demands of the consumer. Fraudulent claims for products get around, and the fraudster is run out of business. However, it opens up a niche for private certification agencies whose "product" is their reputation. Specialized agencies like the UL and the Better Business Bureau operate today , successfully, even with government competition. The government does not have to decide everything, all it has to decide is whats bad for everyone: You can't pollute If it affects only your own property, why not? you have to make some effort to keep your meat safe, private certification, or individual investigation. if you want to work on the electrical system in someones house, you have to be qualified to do so, Private certification and/or insurance on your work. etc. Once the basics are covered, the market is "free" after that. These laws were not made up for no reason. They were made because men, in the pursuit of money, will break these "common sense" rules over and over. Most of these laws were made to protect incumbent companies and trade guilds from competition from freelancers. Just like the anti trust laws were advocated by people who were being prevented from gouging the consumer. (See standard oil, and the carpenter's union support of the Davis-Bacon Act.) Yes, but unlike other goods, labor IS "the society". If it gets manipulated one way or the other there is revolution, or millions starve. It can't just fluctuate up and down like the price of a dozen eggs. Labor is at a distinct disadvantage. It's not mobile and can't efficiently just move around finding the optimal opportunities. Why not? Liberty and Labor One laborer has no leverage over the business and is in a much weaker position. Employers are in competition with one another for good laborers, just as they are in competition with one another for market share. The fact that medical insurance and other "benefits" are included as a matter of course in employment are a result of this competition for good workers. The gvt instituted wage caps after WWII and the companies had to compete for the best workers by increasing compensation without increasing pay. This was in a market with a very large supply of labor, as the men returned from war. Common sense (and history) shows what happens to labor over time. Just look at labor in the US now. If you mean the government privileged labor unions such as were seen recently in Michigan protesting right to work, then I say good riddance. Labor unions are not for the worker. They are for the union, and in the long run, even hurt union workers, by increasing the cost of production and increasing prices, lowering real wages, regardless of what nominal wages do. What will happen in a free market when technology replaces all physical labor with machines (probably in 50 years)? I think we will need government intervention to make some serious changes about how economies and society works. There will be a need for people to build the machines, and fix the machines. There will also be new demands for people to fill. This was covered by Bastiat, in "that which is seen" ( http://bastiat.org/en/ Another thing comes to mind when thinking about this topic. My whole argument is that power and money concentrates and this hurts the people and labor in particular. You haven't proven this point. Concentration of power and money is already happening and it's not ONLY because of the government. Name one big box that does not adhere to onerous government regulations, which it takes an army of lawyers with which to fully comply. Small upstarts have little or no chance of complying with such regulations, and maintaining a profit. It's mostly because it makes for good and efficient business. The problem is it destroys the society eventually. Perfectly legal. Perfectly efficient. Society still destroyed. Government must and will prevent this conclusion.
You know who lobbied for many of those regulations? The big businesses. The cost of the lawyers, is the price of keeping competition out of the market, which cost, they pass on to the consumer, in the form of higher prices. You want lower prices, and more competition, for labor and consumers? Make the market more free. The government interference is what concentrates the money and power, not the market. More government interference, in the form of more regulation, will not stop it. Side: No government society
These two can be handled by private certification, like the UL now. Sure but in the free market the UL has to make profits, can be owned by the oligarchy. If you mean damage to property, there are ways to mitigate and recompense these outside of government. They are a bit cumbersome, but possible. Yeah, but I don't think they will work. In the free market everything is driven by profit and there is not a lot of profit in environmental protection. There is much more profit in environmental destruction. To me "cumbersome, but possible" describes most aspects of free market. We can hope it works but realistically, would the informed public every vote for such a thing "hoping" that it works? I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out that the fact that you believe these things are important is no license to force others to act as though they mirrored your value system. How you wish others to act is irrelevant. They have a right to act according to their value systems, so long as they allow others to do the same. Point taken. Part of my argument that the average man is not smart enough, informed enough or have enough financial freedom to "do the optimal thing". Part of the point of the formation of civilized society is to use "experts" to make the best decisions so that society can be the "best". Modern civilized societies are not about social Darwinism or individual rights, they are about trying to make a good structure that won't implode after every 100 years. I will choose the value of my security company, according to my needs, and means. As will others. Yes, I would leave the array of choices to the sum of thousands of choices, instead of a single self-appointed "expert". Why? Why not vote on an actual expert in a specific election instead of just letting the market be driven by the "mundane" actions of "shoppers"? Simply picking experts is much more efficient that waiting for experts to slowly emerge from the shopping process. The "shoppers" would pick Justin Beiber to be the security chief? Concentrating the voting process to discreet periods seems more efficient than basically having to vote with every minute of every day? The average person is too busy to have to constantly be "perfectly informed" all the time. UL works because the government forces products to be certified. BBB is already criticized because it's supported by the every businesses that it's supposed to be monitoring. I'm sure there would be dozens of BBBs, all supported by various businesses touting the value of one business over another. In a free market wouldn't a good business model be to sell a "bad" overpriced "wonder product", then just close up shop once the public catches on? Wouldn't this practice be bad for all other honest businesses? Seems like the net effect over time would be a public very un-trusting of business making competing with monopolies much harder. If it affects only your own property, why not? The pollution of the ocean, groundwater, air, etc does not only effect your property. It's very hard to pollute in a way that does not effect the entire ecosystem. Why not? Liberty and Labor How can a iron worker quit his job when there is no other ship builder in his town? It's much easier for the the capitalist to find a new worker than for the worker to find a new job. If you mean the government privileged labor unions such as were seen recently in Michigan protesting right to work, then I say good riddance. No, I mean look at the income of the working class. I don't want to debate unions (the debate is already complex enough) but despite unions and that fact that on average unions workers are the only ones making a living wage, the worker is making less today than they were in the 60s while the cost of living is more. Workers are getting screwed because the capitalists are getting smarter and more efficient and the workers have no leverage. There will be a need for people to build the machines, and fix the machines. You can't look at the industrial revolution and say "look, people still had jobs". Secondly, creating machine that are built to replace labor is not the same as mechanizing one part of one industry. Name one big box that does not adhere to onerous government regulations, which it takes an army of lawyers with which to fully comply. The only reason big box stores have lots of layers is because they are trying to game system and they have a lot of public scrutiny. What onerous regulations does a small retail business have? A few hours of a lawyers time per year is all the small retail business owner needs. I don't think we age getting anywhere with this debate anymore? You don't seem willing to concede even the possibility of a single flaw with free market despite the long history of what many very smart people think really happens. I know you think government is to blame for everything and were going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I am quite willing to concede that the government has plenty of problems, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if it turns out your correct on 75% of the arguments, free market would still be a disaster on the remaining 25%. Side: Government society
1
point
Sure but in the free market the UL has to make profits, can be owned by the oligarchy. And when their quality suffers (rating does not reflect reality), they invite competition, same as any other market good. Yeah, but I don't think they will work. In the free market everything is driven by profit and there is not a lot of profit in environmental protection. The Coase Theorem has a way to deal with externalities of property rights. As to environmental protection, enforcing property rights, gives the incentive for the owner of the property to maintain the value of that property, including the natural resources associated with land. "Environmentalism" today is not concerned with protecting the environment, it is using the excuse of "protecting the environment" to institute redistributive policies. in short, to promote collectivism. "The watermelon strategy was announced and encouraged by one of the gray eminences of academic socialism, the late economist Robert Heilbroner, in a September 10, 1990, essay in the New Yorker entitled "After Communism." Written in the midst of the worldwide collapse of socialism, and the realization that socialist governments during the 20th century had murdered more than 100 million of their own people as part of the "price" of establishing their "socialist paradise," Heilbroner's essay was a huge mea culpa (see Death by Government by Rudolph Rummel). He even wrote the words, "Mises was right," about the inherent failures of socialism, referring to the writings of Ludwig von Mises in the 1920s and 1930s that explained in great detail why socialism could never work as an economic system (see his book Socialism)." ... "Heilbroner's suggested subterfuge was explained by him [Mises] as follows: There is, however, another way of looking at … socialism. It is to conceive of it … as the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with … the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment." Source: http://mises.org/daily/6089 (with link to Heilbroner's NEW YORKER article) Side: No government society
And when their quality suffers (rating does not reflect reality), they invite competition, same as any other market good. Yeah, I think this comes back to the fundamental problem that the market is not as efficient as the free market proponent thinks it is. People are only partially informed, make mediocre decisions, most markets are small (don't support dozens of competitors), labor is not mobile (can't move around the country to the "best employer), etc. You may be able to fix these specific problems if: - We crowd everyone and every business in to cities (consumers and labor have real efficient choice) - Some unbiased and truthful organization forms that fully knows and discloses all aspects of every business (who the owner is, how many other business they own, their environmental record/practices, labor practices, what their profit margin is etc). - The above information is available to every person during every market decision. As to environmental protection, enforcing property rights, gives the incentive for the owner of the property to maintain the value of that property, including the natural resources associated with land. I have had so many debates with different people on this topic and it's always boiling down to the same thing. There is a belief that government is inherently bad (the officials are all corrupt) and that a free market is some how perfect despite human nature and the "power" of profits to corrupt. The free market proponent will cite dozens of "opinion" pieces from mises.org as to why the free market is so great when most modern economist in the world think we need a mixed market. mises.org and it's paying supporters (mostly big business donations) would love nothing more than for a free market to form but most people would be hurt very badly in a totally free market. When it comes to economies and social engineering, there are too many unknowns. As long as both sides are informed, there is really nothing left to debate because it all comes down to opinion about human nature and the way economies and men behave in the real world. As far as socialism, I don't know anyone that thinks we should have Communism style socialism though I'm sure those people exist. Like most things in the world, the answers to problems are not as easy as you think. You cant have pure socialism, you can't have a pure free market, etc. To me society must have the following things: - The goal of the society is to create a cohesive community that minimizes suffering including poverty, discrimination, wild fluctuations in markets, etc. The society should respect individual rights when ever possible but not when it will hurt the society as a whole. - A governing body to define and manage the basics things the society needs (laws, protection from foreign invaders, a mechanism to counteract the total concentration of wealth and resources, etc) - A good democratic process to elect the governing body - A partially free market (keeping in mind the things above). We need the "free" market piece to put a value on resources and also to incentivise men to work and better their condition. However we don't "need" this market to be "unlimited". The resources on the earth are finite. Wealth is finite. Just because we "can" consume all the resources and one man "can" collect all the wealth does not mean we/he should. Side: Government society
1
point
Point taken. Part of my argument that the average man is not smart enough, informed enough or have enough financial freedom to "do the optimal thing". Part of the point of the formation of civilized society is to use "experts" to make the best decisions so that society can be the "best". Modern civilized societies are not about social Darwinism or individual rights, they are about trying to make a good structure that won't implode after every 100 years. This is the "people are too stupid to choose what is good for them, so they must be forced to choose 'good' options by 'elite' experts who are smarter than they are" argument. What makes the government "experts" (elected by these "stupid" people) any better at choosing what is good for these people, than the people would be, themselves? The only difference between the individual choosing, and the government "expert" choosing, is that with government choosing, the decisions are made by people who have contributed less, and who will suffer less, if the choices they make are poor ones. Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are supposed "experts" and the economic philosophy they follow is the root cause of every single stock market crash, for the last 100 years, our massive national debt and for prolonging the Great Depression for more than a decade. Side: No government society
This is the "people are too stupid to choose what is good for them, so they must be forced to choose 'good' options by 'elite' experts who are smarter than they are" argument. You can put it that way and make it sound bad and I can put it this way to make it sound good: "It's inefficient to have everyone be an "expert" in everything so it makes more sense to "choose" experts for certain management tasks in society. It's the basic idea of management. Every organization (societies included in my mind) need ho have a hierarchy because it makes no sense and is extremely inefficient to have everyone responsible for everything. I think we should have a team of Nobel prize winning economists making economic decisions, and a team of Nobel prize winning scientists making scientific decisions, etc. instead of the average person. Absolutely. Every politician in history (liberal or conservative) has been free to choose economic advisers. I'll leave it up to you to prove that they made a mistake every single time. Side: Government society
1
point
You can put it that way and make it sound bad and I can put it this way to make it sound good: Doesn't make my statement any less true. A polished turd is still a turd :P "It's inefficient to have everyone be an "expert" in everything so it makes more sense to "choose" experts for certain management tasks in society. It's the basic idea of management. Every organization (societies included in my mind) need ho have a hierarchy because it makes no sense and is extremely inefficient to have everyone responsible for everything. Yes, it is called the division of labor. The "experts" are chosen by those with whom they trade, according to the degree to which the "chooser" contributes to the economy. I think we should have a team of Nobel prize winning economists making economic decisions, and a team of Nobel prize winning scientists making scientific decisions, etc. instead of the average person. Absolutely. Obama won a Nobel prize for LITERALLY NOTHING. The Nobel organization has become a cheerleader to reward those who advance the statist philosophy, little more. Paul (alien invaders) Krugman won the prize for economics, and his favored philosophy (Keynesianism) has caused economic havoc wherever it has been applied. It ignores human action in economics (a social science), great swaths of the structure of production, The role of price and interest rate as a communication system and Say's law, within economics. The central theme of his "General Theory" is the so-called "multiplier effect" which was not only refuted before he was born, but his only supporting argument for it was "...surely it will...". Yet People like Nancy Pelosi still go on TV and tout unemployment benefits as "boosters" (Keynesian spending) of the economy, as though it were not the opposite. How "uninformed" do you have to be to elect someone who knows so little about that over which they exercise so much control? Your nobel prize teams resembles the "philosopher kings" of Plato's Republic. I encourage you to read it and see how much of your rationale for these "teams" matches Plato's. Side: No government society
Yes, it is called the division of labor. The "experts" are chosen by those with whom they trade, according to the degree to which the "chooser" contributes to the economy. In theory, isn't voting for experts once every 4 years in an election basically the same as voting for experts every 5 minutes in a market? I mean it seems like all the same "forces" are involved in a election (in theory). If you thought of a government as a business, and every 4 years you could "vote" that business out and bring in a new one of your choosing, whats the difference? One could argue that in a free market, voting every 4 years whether Walmart lives or dies would be even better than micro-voting every 5 minutes. I think Walmart would behave better if they knew all the "information" about Walmart would be concentrated and put forth every few years and that the people concentrated their vote to one day. It's very hard for poor people to consistently vote against Walmart with their pocket book when the pocket book is empty most of the time. What if the consumer could vote Walmart or Target every 4 years? Would Walmart and Target be better behaved or worse? My feeling is better. Obama won a Nobel prize for LITERALLY NOTHING. The Nobel organization has become a cheerleader to reward those who advance the statist philosophy, little more. Yeah, "Nobel prize" was just a token for "the best we can find". I'm not saying that is the best way to pick experts. As far as the validity of Keynesian economics, I'm not sure. I don't know enough about economics to truly know myself if one theory is better or not. You can say all the buzz words you want and cite numerous articles but for some reason it seems most experts still think Keynesian is the best philosophy. The "free market" (of economists) has been choosing "the best economist" for ever hasn't it? It's too easy in hind site, when you don't know what the alternative would have produced, to say "look it did not work!". For all we know the alternative could have lead to another civil war, WWIII or something right? A democratic government is nothing like a "philosopher king" in Plato's time (I did not read the book so I'm just going on the literal title which could be wrong). Our "kings" have to work within a legal framework, can be replaced at any time with some effort and easily every 4 years. And they are not "philosophers" like in the old days. Experts actually know a lot of stuff... Side: Government society
1
point
In theory, isn't voting for experts once every 4 years in an election basically the same as voting for experts every 5 minutes in a market? No, because to vote in the market, you have to contribute to that market by producing something to trade and the weight of your vote is directly related to the degree to which you contribute. With elections for government, you don't have to contribute, and can even be a net consumer of resources, and you have the same say in how that government conducts itself, as the most prolific producer for society. If you thought of a government as a business, and every 4 years you could "vote" that business out and bring in a new one of your choosing, whats the difference? Government produces nothing. It confiscates and redistributes the production of others. It is not required to give value to those from whom it gets its resources, only to satisfy the demands of a majority of voters, regardless of whether those voters contributed to the pool of resources. One could argue that in a free market, voting every 4 years whether Walmart lives or dies would be even better than micro-voting every 5 minutes. I think Walmart would behave better if they knew all the "information" about Walmart would be concentrated and put forth every few years and that the people concentrated their vote to one day. It's very hard for poor people to consistently vote against Walmart with their pocket book when the pocket book is empty most of the time. What if the consumer could vote Walmart or Target every 4 years? Who would get to vote? Would those who traded more value for value with wal mart get more votes? Would those who never traded get to vote? If so, why? What would happen if they voted wal mart out? This scenario assumes that the system should be set up to force people to care about the things that you believe that they should care about, when doing business. As far as the validity of Keynesian economics, I'm not sure. I don't know enough about economics to truly know myself if one theory is better or not. You can say all the buzz words you want and cite numerous articles but for some reason it seems most experts still think Keynesian is the best philosophy. The "free market" (of economists) has been choosing "the best economist" for ever hasn't it? No, the government actively supports Keynesian economic theory. It allows them to borrow to fund all sorts of programs ("entitlements" and huge "defense" spending) that the present taxpayer would not vote to fund, then "kick the can" of debt down the road, to future generations who have no say in current spending. (I did not read the book so I'm just going on the literal title which could be wrong). The Republic is a description of a society where the wisest men are set up as kings to dictate policy to the populous. I would encourage you to read it, and notice the parallels to "progressive" policies. Our "kings" have to work within a legal framework, can be replaced at any time with some effort and easily every 4 years." What keeps a large group from voting for someone who will transfer the resources of others, to themselves? Side: No government society
With elections for government, you don't have to contribute, and can even be a net consumer of resources, and you have the same say in how that government conducts itself, as the most prolific producer for society. Why should your say in society be tied to how much you produce? This scenario assumes that the system should be set up to force people to care about the things that you believe that they should care about, when doing business. Why not let everyone in the local community vote. The amount you traded with Walmart would not matter. If you don't like Walmart you wont trade with it so I'm not sure why the amount of trading would be a factor in your ability to vote. In my example your were voting between Walmart and Target (the 2 business that have expressed interest in a large retail building). If one is voted out, they vacate and the other moves in. No, the government actively supports Keynesian economic theory. I don't want to go too far down this path. It's the same opinion arguments that we have done before. Government has most of the same problems the free market has in my opinion. The people are not well informed, and are pretty lazy. This leads to bad outcomes in government and in the free market. The difference is in the case of government, the "worse case scenario" can be avoided because ultimately there are "kind" and "understanding" humans in control. If people were so well informed and active as you would have them be in a free market, most of the "problems" with our government would not exist. Entitlements and defense spending are what they are because the majority of the people want them that way, not because the government or Keynesian economic theory is bad or wrong. The Republic is a description of a society where the wisest men are set up as kings to dictate policy to the populous. I would encourage you to read it, and notice the parallels to "progressive" policies. Might be a good read but I don't see how it applies to the US? Our government is elected and can be 100% replaced every 4 years (except the judges which brings up the importance of the 3 branches that we have). It's not a dictatorship. When I think the american people are going to vote for a dictatorship, then I'll read it. ;) What keeps a large group from voting for someone who will transfer the resources of others, to themselves? If they have the majority, nothing. If it's not a good idea, they won't have the majority. Keep in mind the point of our society in the US is "the good of the people at the expense of the individual". Side: Government society
1
point
Why should your say in society be tied to how much you produce? Because if you produce nothing, you have not contributed to society. Why should you have a vote, if you have not contributed? Why not let everyone in the local community vote. Because not everyone contributes. In my example your were voting between Walmart and Target (the 2 business that have expressed interest in a large retail building). If one is voted out, they vacate and the other moves in. How does the other (or other competitors) stay in business, to compete for the slot in the next election? The difference is in the case of government, the "worse case scenario" can be avoided because ultimately there are "kind" and "understanding" humans in control. Have you met politicians, the corporate rent-seekers, or the obamaphone lady? THESE are the people choosing (people who contribute nothing) in such a system. Entitlements and defense spending are what they are because the majority of the people want them that way, not because the government or Keynesian economic theory is bad or wrong. Keynesianism is the rationalization for bribing the majority for votes with the minority's money. It is self-perpetuating until it collapses under its own weight, which we are going to see in the next 15-20 years. Might be a good read but I don't see how it applies to the US? It is a picture of the state as provider and protector, controlling the information and activities of the population according to the judgements of "experts" as to what is best for the people. This is the ultimate goal of progressivism. If they have the majority, nothing. If it's not a good idea, they won't have the majority. What keeps them from continuing to transfer resources? The kindness of their hearts? So long as they can continue to get resources for "nothing" they will stay in the majority. You didn't answer my question. Keep in mind the point of our society in the US is "the good of the people at the expense of the individual". No, the Idea of society in the US is the sovereignty of the individual; the protection of the minority (including the individual) against the force of the majority. Side: No government society
Because if you produce nothing, you have not contributed to society. Why should you have a vote, if you have not contributed? So are you saying the indicator of your "contribution to society" is how much money you have? I think most people don't want to live in a society where Donald Trump is considered to have "contributed the most" and Gandhi contributed the least to society. Is that the core of the free market proponents value system? How does the other (or other competitors) stay in business, to compete for the slot in the next election? In the case of the big box store, the rest of their empire in other regions is keeping them afloat. For small business they go out of business if they are voted out, just like a store slowly being driven out of business in a free market (but much quicker and more efficient). Keynesianism is the rationalization for bribing the majority for votes with the minority's money. It is self-perpetuating until it collapses under its own weight, which we are going to see in the next 15-20 years. I'm trying to relate your point to the real world: The majority is the middle class and the "bribe" is offering them goods and services I guess? And the minority is the wealthy? The middle class are not using all the services, everyone is and it's costing the middle class in taxes. As a matter of fact 15% in taxes is much more "painful" to the middle class than a 30% tax on a wealthy person (insert your own sliding scale). Lets say it were to be on the brink of collapse, all you have to do is make an adjustment (less benefits, etc) and it would not collapse. I think anything bad you can say about the US government/economy could be fixed though voting and rational decision making. The problem in not inherent in the government or Keynesian economics, the problem are the irrational people. When things get ugly enough, they will make a change. Just like they would in a free market. What keeps them from continuing to transfer resources? The kindness of their hearts? So long as they can continue to get resources for "nothing" they will stay in the majority The middle class is not paying nothing nor are they consuming most of the resources. I'm not sure I understand your argument? No, the Idea of society in the US is the sovereignty of the individual; the protection of the minority (including the individual) against the force of the majority. Partially, but I say "nope" to your statement. The founding fathers would not have created a democratic government if that was the "idea". Side: Government society
1
point
So are you saying the indicator of your "contribution to society" is how much money you have? Not exactly. It is a combination of wealth and goodwill. Someone who cannot produce must rely on the goodwill of others, who do produce, for his survival. That person must engender enough goodwill in others that they will voluntarily contribute to his upkeep. Someone who produces much, must rely on the goodwill of others to trade with him for those things which he cannot produce or he must produce much more to trade for those same things. This tends to create a society where you are either very social and personable, or you had better produce a lot of wealth to trade, because if you do neither, you will probably starve, and rightly so. I think most people don't want to live in a society where Donald Trump is considered to have "contributed the most" and Gandhi contributed the least to society. Donald trump is a bad choice. he made much of his money, rent-seeking, and taking advantage of bankruptcy law. This could not happen in a free market. I will use the example of Steve Jobs. Steve jobs was worth about $8B at his death. That means he produced (or caused to be produced) more than $8B worth of wealth for society, to have traded for that wealth. This includes both creating thousands of jobs for people in the US and abroad, the increase in efficiency of production realized by those who used Apple products, and the extra wealth people produced, so that they could trade for Apple products (Say's Law). Gandhi led a civil rights movement, and asked the wealthy to voluntarily donate their wealth to the poor, so that they might produce (with much success). He was very wealthy in goodwill. I cannot find information on his material wealth, but I will assume that he was not wealthy later in life. He did, however, always have enough to eat, if he chose. This implies that he produced more than enough actual wealth to trade for his upkeep. By following his philosophy, India, today, is a relatively poor country where people often have to bribe public officials and bureaucrats to perform duties that they are already paid by taxpayers to do. I would say that someone like Steve Jobs contributed more to the wealth of society, and should have more of a say in economic matters than Gandhi. Is that the core of the free market proponents value system? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Someone must pay for everything anyone consumes. The proponent of a free market advocates that no person should be forced to pay for another person's lunch. This is the essence of liberty. In the case of the big box store, the rest of their empire in other regions is keeping them afloat. For small business they go out of business if they are voted out, just like a store slowly being driven out of business in a free market (but much quicker and more efficient). This automatically favors larger, multi-site stores, and reduces competition, both for market share, and for available labor. This will lead to high prices and low wages. In such a system, the success of the business would not be based upon the efficiency with which the store provides goods and services, but solely upon whether others (not just customers) "like" the store. This is the equivalent of your entire community being able to vote to have you fired, instead of your employment being a matter between you and your boss. I'm trying to relate your point to the real world: The majority is the middle class and the "bribe" is offering them goods and services I guess? And the minority is the wealthy? No, the majority is any group or quantity, with a specific characteristic, that comprises more than half of a whole. In my example, a majority of voters and a majority of production. Let's say you have 10 people with the following incomes (amount of wealth produced).
A- $200 B- $200 C- $100 D- $10 E- $10 F- $10 G- $10 H- $10 I- $10 J- $10 The majority of wealth (resources) has been produced by 30% ( a minority of the voters). When these people vote on how incomes should be taxed, and who should receive the greatest share of what those taxes provide, how do you think they will vote? History shows that they will vote to transfer the wealth(resources) of the majority of producers, to the majority of the voters (who contributed less total wealth to the system). What recourse does someone who produces much, but is in the minority of voters, have to prevent this legal plunder of his productive effort? What is the incentive to produce wealth for society, if that wealth is confiscated to be redistributed to those who produce less? Such a system has the result of reducing incentive to produce wealth, leading to a less wealthy society, overall. Partially, but I say "nope" to your statement. The founding fathers would not have created a democratic government if that was the "idea". They created a democratic republic with many protections for individual rights (life, liberty and property) and checks on the ability of the majority to impose its arbitrary will on the majority (enumerating, not implying, and specifically limiting the powers of government, enumerating and implying the rights retained by the states and the people) [art 1 sec 8, 9th & 10th amendments].They even guaranteed a republican (not democratic) form of government for each state in the union. They did set up a system where enough of a majority could give government more power (the amendment process), but they made it purposely difficult and drawn out, taking years. Side: No government society
1
point
Why? Why not vote on an actual expert in a specific election instead of just letting the market be driven by the "mundane" actions of "shoppers"? Simply picking experts is much more efficient that waiting for experts to slowly emerge from the shopping process. see "stupid" and "expert" argument above. The "shoppers" would pick Justin Beiber to be the security chief? Would they actually PAY to have him as chief? Concentrating the voting process to discreet periods seems more efficient than basically having to vote with every minute of every day? You vote for/against products and services every time you buy or trade anything, without having to do anything but trade, and with no additional cost in time or resources. Seems pretty efficient. The average person is too busy to have to constantly be "perfectly informed" all the time. Covered before, consumer only has to know what he wants, and where to get it. UL works because the government forces products to be certified. BBB is already criticized because it's supported by the every businesses that it's supposed to be monitoring. I'm sure there would be dozens of BBBs, all supported by various businesses touting the value of one business over another. Sites like Angie's list, have found a niche, without government mandate and compete with the UL and BBB, to an extent. There is a market for the information. In a free market wouldn't a good business model be to sell a "bad" overpriced "wonder product", then just close up shop once the public catches on? Wouldn't this practice be bad for all other honest businesses? Seems like the net effect over time would be a public very un-trusting of business making competing with monopolies much harder. Nope, because the owner could be pursued for damages. Corporations are a government grant of limited liability. Business owners could be held responsible for the activities of the business, in a free market. :) How can a iron worker quit his job when there is no other ship builder in his town? It's much easier for the the capitalist to find a new worker than for the worker to find a new job. He can change professions, or residences. When the market was more free, labor was much more mobile. Easier, yes. Impossible, no. No, I mean look at the income of the working class. I don't want to debate unions (the debate is already complex enough) but despite unions and that fact that on average unions workers are the only ones making a living wage, the worker is making less today than they were in the 60s while the cost of living is more. Workers are getting screwed because the capitalists are getting smarter and more efficient and the workers have no leverage. The corporatists, not the capitalists. Corporations lobbying for protection from competition (through regulations) is not capitalism.Additionally, notice the increased environmental regs and increases in the minimum wage. All this increases the cost of production, increasing prices, and lowering real wages. This rent-seeking activity is just the broken window fallacy, writ large. You can't look at the industrial revolution and say "look, people still had jobs". Secondly, creating machine that are built to replace labor is not the same as mechanizing one part of one industry. I'm saying that after every major advancement in manufacturing efficiency, MORE people had jobs, and had more leisure time than before the advancement. There is no reason to believe that that will change. The only reason big box stores have lots of layers is because they are trying to game system and they have a lot of public scrutiny. What onerous regulations does a small retail business have? A few hours of a lawyers time per year is all the small retail business owner needs. I beg to differ. http://www.youtube.com/ I don't think we age getting anywhere with this debate anymore? You don't seem willing to concede even the possibility of a single flaw with free market despite the long history of what many very smart people think really happens. There are flaws with the free market, but these flaws are less pervasive, and cause less damage overall, than any other system. I know you think government is to blame for everything and were going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I am quite willing to concede that the government has plenty of problems, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if it turns out your correct on 75% of the arguments, free market would still be a disaster on the remaining 25%. Government INTERFERENCE is the primary cause of instability in the market, but I suppose we will have to disagree. :) I do not argue to convince my opponent, i argue to convince those following the debate. It is very difficult to sway them when my opponent has as well thought out arguments as you have given. Most of the time they wind up spouting ad homs, like nummi. :P We can end this thread, if you wish. We could each probably turn in our side of this one as a doctoral thesis. :D Side: No government society
Yeah. I Agree to disagree. Every point is coming down to opinion and I don't feel like I'm learning anything anymore. If you can come up with some new angle I'd be interested in hearing it. I would love for a free market to work, I'm just not convinced it would. Capitalists are clever and "naughty" people when the chips are down (myself included sometimes). My heart (and the facts the way I see them) says the long term effects of a free market would create a very bad place to live... Side: Government society
1
point
I'm not sure we even agree on what the free market is, but I will go ahead and drop this thread as "unresolved". If you want some good reading, I suggest: For a refutation of protectionist policies, a good, short, and very funny read is Bastiat's "A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting. " http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html Economic philosophy: -Bastiat's "That Which is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen" http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." http://mises.org/books/ ('one lesson" is an updated version of "that which is seen") -Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300 -Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State" http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp General political philosophy: -Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" http://www.scribd.com/doc/8291827/ (I disagree with some aspects of this, but his arguments are very compelling) -Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ (I disagree (morally) with some of the conclusions, but the logic is unassailable) Do you have any reading suggestions? Side: No government society
3
points
Power and wealth accumulate without force everyday. Rich people gather money, poor people throw it away. "ONLY LEGALIZED" force scares me. That idea screams of corruption. If there is only one "strong party" there is corruption. Two strong parties, less corruption. Three strong parties, even less. The more people watching from different perspectives makes other people more honest. Side: Government society
I think what controls "corrupt legalized force" in the US is: - Our multiparty democracy as you said - Free media. They make money (indirectly) every time they discover corruption. - The fact the our government workers, military and police personnel come from "the middle class" means that their actions directly effect themselves, their friends and family. Their corruption hurts them as much as everyone else. That not to say it does not happen, but these things keep it in check. Side: No government society
Ummmm...hello? Where do you think the rule of law comes from? Your argument is not logical. Someone has to make the rules and someone has to enforce the rule of law. It's called government. Who would benefit the most without a government? Power and wealth. So you have it backwards. Side: Government society
1
point
Yes, Governments are usually riddled with corruption and nepotism; however, what would be do with out a government? Should we entrust gangs, mafia, and corporations to build roads, schools, and provide security? I know it is imperfect, but we need a government managed directly by the people to keep things running smoothly. Anarchy just cannot work on a largue scale unless humans are perfect. Side: Government society
A society definitely needs government. Since the beginning of time, man has had some type of government. The problem with government is when there is too much, or too little. I believe in a system where there is limited government, like the founding fathers intended. A republic, not a democracy. Side: Government society
2
points
Oligarchy, by Merriam-Webster : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control They can be rich or poor for that matter. Our Republic is not an oligarchy. The Founding Fathers were rich, but they wanted a country that had checks and balances. Russia is not a limited government like ours. It is a federation, and a parliamentary democracy. If you think the Putin can still arrest people and accuses innocents of crimes against him legally, then you do not anything about the Founding Fathers. So stop assuming. Merry Christmas! Side: Government society
1
point
How did Romney want an Oligarchy? I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Now I believe that the rich should pay taxes, just like everyone else. But in France, they are taxed at 80% or higher! Look at how France is doing. They aren't any better. Look at California. They are increasing taxes, and people are leaving because of it. Hundreds of thousands of people have been leaving California to other states. The surrounding states have benefitted from this in the billions of dollars. Taxing works. Excessive taxing is foolish. Show me different. Side: Government society
1
point
I believe of a small central government, more powerful state governments. Smaller government means more people can get involved in politics, even more than now. Localized and small is better. State governments can take care of health, education, taxes, and social works. The federal government takes care of defense, foreign affairs, import/export, and some taxes. Side: No government society
1
point
you've said: "I believe of a small central government" and then "Localized and small is better" These are exactly opposite. Centralized gov does not work, it's extremely slow and ineffective. It was use during Communist era in Czech Republic. It was horrible fail. You need mufti layer system with efficient feedback. Ordinary people should not have vote on education, it's the most important area and must controlled by professionals. It cannot be defined by people's personal beliefs and feelings. Switzerland has direct democracy system which I find as the best. As ideology the best one is Communism but all it's previous and present applications are/were true fail. It's the final stage that any society could reach but it may take hundreds of years util people will be ready to live that way without turning US into North Korea 2.0 Making smaller government you do not solve any problem, you just restart the cycle. Side: No government society
How are they the exact opposite? Small, central government with checks and balances, and more of a say by the people through local say. Also, we already have votes on education. School boards are elected by the locals, and the board appoints principals and other executives. Education should be run by professionals, but influenced by the parents of the students. A total control of education by one person or a small group can turn into propaganda and wrongly influence students. Switzerland's government is very good. That example supports my thoughts. The locals meet at the town center and vote on an issue. It is very local, and everyone has more of a say. I do not believe in Communism. At the basic core of it, it is a smart idea, but it is not applicable for society. The only way communism has worked is by the force of the government. Why do you think the Soviet Union fell apart and China has turned more capitalistic. The only true communist government is N. Korea, and they are hated by everyone in the world. N. Korea kills its own people, control everything, and violates their people's basic rights. Side: Government society
1
point
Central and local are very different things. Switzerland has local system, China has Central system. Simple central system (with checks and balances) opens doors to extreme corruption, it's easy to see trough and those people are who works there controls more less everything soon or later someone will show up with an "envelop" to speed up the decision procedure (which would be very long) and it will became a standard as it always did and does, because nobody steps against, because it's not about their money, they do not want to have problems... This is a big problem in China, even with death sentence for corruption. Large mufti layer system like US gov are very complicated to get trough, everything goes trough many people and different departments it's not the fastest, cheapest or most efficient system but is very difficult to hack in. I've heard that in some states rednecks step up against biology, they have no clue how Evolution works but they feel that it's against their personal beliefs. What if they will be demanding to teach flat Earth theory as alternative for Geography because bible says so? Or teaching exorcism on medical schools as alternative to psychiatry? Do you realize that kids who undergo that kind of education will be same idiots as their parents and it will get only worst and worst with every generation. Also I saw interesting talk where group of parents demanded "reducing the amount maths" that their kids have to learn because it's hard... if it would pass it would in long term end up as a catastrophe. The key area cannot be touched by some some random people nor people who they elect. It has to be done by professionals. Side: No government society
I believe that there should be government but the government should serve the public. Today, the United States Federal Government is destroying our civil liberties through unnecessary regulations such as the Patriot Act. The government can now install a GPS in your car, and track you down. I believe that a good government should do the most good for the most people. Good government must pass laws which benefit the people. A good government must set the best humanitarian example for other nations. For a government to be more humanitarian we need to drastically reduce our military budget by 50% and focus our efforts more on the Peace Corp. The United States federal government spends way too much on war, and we need to avoid conflict at all measures. Side: Government society
2
points
Maybe I'm just getting old, but sarcasm in a debate is counter productive. In many situations it's not what you say but how you say it that matters. In debates, this is not true. What you say is more important then "how" you say it. If you express your ideas with sarcasm, for example: "without government we would be fine. Bandits running around and people killing people, etc, is good." There are actually people in the world and a couple of my neighbors that feel that way. Being cute in debates doesn't make your point clear. So in this case, I am going to take you for what you said. People killing people is already happening. Most of the time, we don't like it. We don't want it to be the standard system of justice. So, I dispute you. So there. Side: No government society
"Dispute" seems like the wrong term, but I really couldn't find a better reply version. I wasn't trying to be cute, I was just trying to get my point across in a better maner then the usually plain old words. Though, I'll take what you said into Consideration, and try to lower the amount of time I'm sarcastic. Side: Government society
1
point
That depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes a government, but by and large I would say this is a moot point. Government is more entrenched in collective patterns of human behavior than even religion and it is in the nature of human beings to order themselves into societies with some system of governance. If you would like a glimpse of what a society without government looks like, I direct you to the case of Somalia which has been without a functional government for some time. You will note that they have since been attempting to organize a functional system of government to replace the chaos the results from lacking one. Side: Government society
I favor a state. However, the only moral and legitimate function of a state is to enforce property rights and preserve liberty. Anarchists always say that a government can't possibly protect property because it must tax a citizen to do so, and taxation is inherently a violation of property rights because it takes a citizen's money without permission and may not use it for its stated purpose anyway. However, the reason why rights can't be better protected in a stateless society is simple: Rights don't exist unless others objectively recognize them. So, in a stateless society, your property rights could theoretically be violated by corrupt private DRO's and legal agencies perpetually without a monopoly on force in place. Sure, if every human was rational and sane the entire society would recognize rights as universal and we wouldn't need a state. But humans are not rational actors so we need rights to be declared objective by a monopoly on force to make sure that enforcement happens. Yeah, a state can be corrupt, but so can any private organization. There is simply no foolproof way to keep power completely in check; to believe otherwise is Utopian and frankly, really stupid. We're all human beings, not perfectly programmed machines. Side: Government society
1
point
No government is anarchy. Would be much like cave men lived. Think about it, without government you either live in a gang or you are a victem of a gang. If you are in a gang, chances are that the leader owns everything of yours including your spouse. How would you like that? If you are the leader of the gang you have to sleep with one eye open. I am with government and I would suggest a new form of genuine democratic government aside from any that exist today to be more specific. Side: Government society
1
point
|