A question to the Laissez-faire cappies

[ComradeRed]

In Laissez-faire what would prevent corporations from getting too muh power? Or from oligopolies or even monopolies from forming?

[RedRevolution]

nothing....except the morals...which they are lacking...

[Y2A]

Right.......

I believe that since they believe in the end of corporate welfare, that this would help to stop the creation of monopolies. I've never heard a libertarian explain this in detail however.

[synthesis]

They think that simply because the government isn't suppressing new businesses and upwardly mobile capitalists, that means that there can't be any suppression of entrepreneurism at all.

You see the same pattern a lot with capitalists. If the government's not doing it, it's perfectly fine.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:26 AM
In Laissez-faire what would prevent corporations from getting too muh power?
What kind of power ?

[ComradeRed]

Well, what would even stop the corporations from forming? Let alone oligopolies or monopolies

[__ca va?]

I support laissez-faire in a certain way: it is not bad if the middle and upper classes investigate in business! This brings profit to the state, so the government can focus on the working class. And the government wouldn't have to bother too much about the economy, because laissez-faire makes an economy really powerful. And the government can still regulate businesses. If they are watched correctly so they can't abuse they freedom. But why not grant them?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2004, 03:42 PM
What kind of power ?
Any kind of power; say forming an army.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:25 PM
Any kind of power; say forming an army.
Erm, no. There are people called anarcho-capitalists who favour the idea of competing governments and private armies, but I am not one of them. There should be only one army and it should remain under the control of the government.

[Trump_$$$]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:15 AM
nothing....except the morals...which they are lacking...
Are you insinuating that the keyboard commies that are crying for revolution do have the 'morals' that would be required to live under a silly economic system like
communism?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are you insinuating that the keyboard commies that are crying for revolution do have the 'morals' that would be required to live under a silly economic system like
communism?

Another thing about communism: people are autonomous.

Your personal morals would only affect yourself. Peoples' basic socialist freedoms are already established.

But I think I'm missing exactly what you're saying...

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 7 2004, 07:26 AM
Erm, no. There are people called anarcho-capitalists who favour the idea of competing governments and private armies, but I am not one of them. There should be only one army and it should remain under the control of the government.
Who pays for this army?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:45 AM
Who pays for this army?
What the- a socialist asking "Who pays ?"

Well I never...

Maybe it can be voluntarily funded, especially by defence contractors.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2004, 10:48 AM
What the- a socialist asking "Who pays ?"

Well I never...

Maybe it can be voluntarily funded, especially by defence contractors.
So you don't see anything inherently wrong with the wealthy and powerful having direct control of the military?

[Professor Moneybags]

So you don't see anything inherently wrong with the wealthy and powerful having direct control of the military?

Which part of :

"There should be only one army and it should remain under the control of the government."

...did you not understand ?

I can't remember who with, but I've had this conversation once already.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 10:42 AM

Which part of :

"There should be only one army and it should remain under the control of the government."

...did you not understand ?

I can't remember who with, but I've had this conversation once already.
You're contradicting yourself. At first you suggest it be controlled by the government, then you suggest it should be "voluntarily funded" (privatized) by arms corporations. Make up your mind.