Question for Libertarians.

[Andy Bowden]

Libertarian ideology declares an opposition to large govt on the basis that it has too much power in peoples lives and can restrict freedom. This is a fair point, and something many Socialists and Anarchists would agree on.

However, is there not a danger that by destroying all regulations, large companies would restrict peoples freedom and have too much power, making them as bad as large govt?

Take for example, the influence of big business in the funding and manipulation of political parties and it's involvement in killing of trade unionists, eg Coca Cola in Columbia and Shell in Nigeria to name but two.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 17 2005, 08:17 PM
Libertarian ideology declares an opposition to large govt on the basis that it has too much power in peoples lives and can restrict freedom. This is a fair point, and something many Socialists and Anarchists would agree on.


I wouldn't say "agree on", more like "pay lip-service to", especially the socialists. Has there ever been a socialist state that has resulted in small government ?


However, is there not a danger that by destroying all regulations, large companies would restrict peoples freedom and have too much power, making them as bad as large govt?

Destroying all regulations would indeed do that. But don't forget the NIF principle- they would be bound by the laws surrounding that.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 17 2005, 08:17 PM





However, is there not a danger that by destroying all regulations, large companies would restrict peoples freedom and have too much power, making them as bad as large govt?

First of all, can you prove that regulations are doing anything to help now?

One of the problems with regulation is that it is very often HELPFUL to big business. The only reason many businessses are as powerful as they are today is because they took advantage of our country's flawed laws, or were the targets of government favortism.


Take for example, the influence of big business in the funding and manipulation of political parties and it's involvement in killing of trade unionists, eg Coca Cola in Columbia and Shell in Nigeria to name but two.

Once these companines are out of politics, they will have no strings to pull that get them out of criminal charges. If libertarian limits on government were followed, their donations could buy them no favor.

A libertarian court system would charge them and find them guilty (IF they are indeed guilty).

[SocialismIsCentrist]

SOMALIA

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/so-map.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41137000/jpg/_41137599_mog203afp.jpg

no government, no freedom.

[RedAnarchist]

Dont they have some sort of Government in Nairobi, Kenya?

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:37 AM
SOMALIA

no government, no freedom.
http://www.leninimports.com/the_final_solution_27.jpg

Full government, no freedom

[JudeObscure84]

Ha, How ya doing PJ? Great to see another Libertarian on board. :D

[Enragé]

nice one PJ

[Publius]

Libertarians are not necessarily anarchist.

Many believe in a government that exists only to protect rights.

[Guerrilla22]

However, is there not a danger that by destroying all regulations, large companies would restrict peoples freedom and have too much power, making them as bad as large govt?


There are large implications for getting rid of all regulations on business. For example, the potential for corruption/abuse is increased significantly. See Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and countless others.

I don't even consider libertarians to be leftist. They believe in complete unrestricted trade and commerce, which means they support the WTO and agreements like NAFTA.

[Andy Bowden]

What restrictions would libertarians remove then?
Would there still be a minimum wage?
Would Trade Union rights be restricted?

:huh:

[Enragé]

yes to the last 2 questions. Libertarians of the capitalist kind that is.

[Andy Bowden]

So what restrictions would be removed then?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 19 2005, 01:02 PM
So what restrictions would be removed then?
We've just said. All of them, except for the ones that govern the initiation of force.

[Jersey Devil]

No regulations on business would create monopolies. Monopolies by definition can influence prices at will. Thus it would actually hurt Adam Smith's concept of "the invisible hand" i.e., the price mechanism known as supply and demand, because the market is uncompetitive .

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 19 2005, 02:02 PM
So what restrictions would be removed then?
Think of what is considered a right.

Then do anything you want to do as long as you don't violate the rights of others. If anything stops you from doing anything you want to do and don't violate the rights of others then that restriction needs to be removed under libertianism.

Free health care, education, and work is NOT a right. They are privildges because demanding such things to be rights violates the rights of others.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 17 2005, 08:17 PM
Libertarian ideology declares an opposition to large govt on the basis that it has too much power in peoples lives and can restrict freedom. This is a fair point, and something many Socialists and Anarchists would agree on.

However, is there not a danger that by destroying all regulations, large companies would restrict peoples freedom and have too much power, making them as bad as large govt?

Take for example, the influence of big business in the funding and manipulation of political parties and it's involvement in killing of trade unionists, eg Coca Cola in Columbia and Shell in Nigeria to name but two.
Libertarians prefer big business over big government. They are pretty big hypocrits.

Yes, it violates other peoples rights to own really really expensive things. Healthcare, education, and work are rights you elitist fuck.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 18 2005, 07:04 PM



What restrictions would libertarians remove then?

Just about all of them.



Would there still be a minimum wage?

No. Minimum wage causes more harm than it helps. Why keep it around?

The average family income of a person on minimum wage is over $ 40,000. What does this tell you?



Would Trade Union rights be restricted?


Trade unions don't have rights, they aren't people.

[Publius]

No regulations on business would create monopolies. Monopolies by definition can influence prices at will. Thus it would actually hurt Adam Smith's concept of "the invisible hand" i.e., the price mechanism known as supply and demand, because the market is uncompetitive .

Name one monopoly that the free-market has created.

[Enragé]

No. Minimum wage causes more harm than it helps. Why keep it around?

The average family income of a person on minimum wage is over $ 40,000. What does this tell you?


Minimum wage is what keeps people from being exploited like they were in the 1800's.

YOU SHOULD TRY TO LIVE ON MINIMUM WAGE YOU PIECE OF SHIT

[Publius]

Minimum wage is what keeps people from being exploited like they were in the 1800's.

YOU SHOULD TRY TO LIVE ON MINIMUM WAGE YOU PIECE OF SHIT

How does it do that? Only 8% of workers are on minimum wage.

If the capitalists were only out to exploit us, and the government was the only thing saving us, wouldn't everyone be working for a government mandated wage?

And living on a family income of over 44,000 dollars a year is not terribly difficult.

http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics_state.cfm

[Enragé]

Trade Unions and a reasonable job market keeps wages up. As soon as the economic worsens and unemployment rises, the army of the unemployed will keep the wages low (because if a group of workers goes on strike for higher wages, they can just sack them and hire another group)

[Andy Bowden]

So do libertarians believe people have a right to healthcare? What if I have lost my job, of no fault of my own - lets say theres a recession - and can't afford healthcare. Is that me up a certain creek without a paddle?

And if you minimum wage, what is to stop companies from paying workers pennies in an atmosphere of high unemployment? Especially considering you would remove Trade Union rights, leaving workers without an organisation to fight their corner.

[slim]

Wouldnt liberatarianism mean that the workers have more power in their own companies? If so then the issue of lowering wages is unlikely.

[Publius]

Trade Unions and a reasonable job market keeps wages up. As soon as the economic worsens and unemployment rises, the army of the unemployed will keep the wages low (because if a group of workers goes on strike for higher wages, they can just sack them and hire another group)

Why will there be an army of unemployed? It would make economic sense to hire as many people as possible, to increase your production.

By not hiring those workers, capitalists are artificially LOWERING their output, which is stupid.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 20 2005, 12:17 PM



So do libertarians believe people have a right to healthcare? What if I have lost my job, of no fault of my own - lets say theres a recession - and can't afford healthcare. Is that me up a certain creek without a paddle?

Why should I be forced to pay for your health care?



And if you minimum wage, what is to stop companies from paying workers pennies in an atmosphere of high unemployment? Especially considering you would remove Trade Union rights, leaving workers without an organisation to fight their corner.

I wouldn't remove any union rights, as unions don't have any rights to begin with. They have privilages.

Would you work for pennies? Would anyone else? Who then, would work for pennies?

Why doesn't this happen now? Less than 8% of workers are on a government mandated wage, why aren't they all working for the bare minimum?

And why would there be these bad recessions in a free market?

[Andy Bowden]

why would there be these bad recessions in a free market?

Recessions always happen in free markets, and always will - even the most pro-capitalist commentators accept this. They can happen in circumstances outwith the control of the Country's govt or national economy - for example a spike in oil prices, or war etc.


why should I pay for your healthcare?

The purpose of a national health service is we all contribute to it, and when we are ill we use it, free of charge. It isn't about paying my or your health costs, it's about ensuring that everybody regardless of income can receive quality healthcare. So would I have no healthcare if I become unemployed in a libertarian society?


who then would work for pennies?

In times of high unemployment - eg Britain in the 80's - plenty of people took jobs which paid a pittance because they had little other option.


they (trade unions) have priviliges.(Instead of rights)

Is the right to strike a "privilige" or a "right" in your opinion? Would libertarians be in favour of outlawing strikes?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:11 PM
Healthcare, education, and work are rights you elitist fuck.
These are not rights, as they demand products and services from people regardless of the claimant's ability to pay or the provider's willingness to provide them. A right to healthcare and education thus amounts to a right to enslave doctors and teachers. And what ? A right to a job ? Does that mean I can put a gun against your head and demand that you employ me (whether you want to or not) ?

[Professor Moneybags]

why should I pay for your healthcare?

The purpose of a national health service is we all contribute to it, and when we are ill we use it, free of charge. It isn't about paying my or your health costs, it's about ensuring that everybody regardless of income can receive quality healthcare.

Except that people are usually forced to contribute to this scheme, which is immoral. If no-one was forced into it and there was a choice to opt-out and take private healthcare instead, then there wouldn't be a problem.

[Andy Bowden]

The vast majority of British people support an NHS, and no major political party has ever suggested it's disbanding for the simple reason that there would be a backlash from all sectors of society, right and left if it were.
If private healthcare was to be introduced, and an NHS scrapped how would those less well-off receive quality healthcare?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 PM
So what, according to you, is the primary role of the state?
The protection of individual (negative) rights.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM
The vast majority of British people support an NHS,
At one point in history, the vast majority of British people thought slavery morally right.


and no major political party has ever suggested it's disbanding for the simple reason that there would be a backlash from all sectors of society, right and left if it were.

That's what they said about ending slavery. This is also an appeal to force.


If private healthcare was to be introduced, and an NHS scrapped how would those less well-off receive quality healthcare?

In the unlikely event of anyone lacking it, they could always rely on charity.

[Andy Bowden]

Comparing slavery with a National Health Service is an absurd comparison which people, regardless of their position on the political spectrum can clearly see.


they could always rely on charity

Charities today have enough problems raising funds for Africa and domestic poverty, let alone providing a (presumably substandard) health service. What if charities do not have enough funds to treat a person? What will happen to them?

Opening health services to "market forces" is a recipe for disaster.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 20 2005, 03:10 PM




Recessions always happen in free markets, and always will - even the most pro-capitalist commentators accept this. They can happen in circumstances outwith the control of the Country's govt or national economy - for example a spike in oil prices, or war etc.

Wars are caused by governments and the reason oil prices are so high is taxation.

Market downturns will always occur, not 'recessions' don't have to by any means.


The purpose of a national health service is we all contribute to it, and when we are ill we use it, free of charge. It isn't about paying my or your health costs, it's about ensuring that everybody regardless of income can receive quality healthcare. So would I have no healthcare if I become unemployed in a libertarian society?

The purpose of PRIVATE insurance is for many to pay into it to use when they need.

You don't have a right to MY healthcare. Plain and simple

My money is my own to spend.

It would depend. Did you save money? What's your insurance policy?

You very well may be without insurance for a brief period of time.


In times of high unemployment - eg Britain in the 80's - plenty of people took jobs which paid a pittance because they had little other option.

Tell me, what caused this recession?

What ended it?




Is the right to strike a "privilige" or a "right" in your opinion? Would libertarians be in favour of outlawing strikes?

You have a right to strike and the employer has the right to fire you.

Is it my RIGHT to go to my boss and say "I demand a million dollars an hour, and until I get it, I'm striking, and since it's my RIGHT to strike, you have to pay me"?

[Publius]

The vast majority of British people support an NHS, and no major political party has ever suggested it's disbanding for the simple reason that there would be a backlash from all sectors of society, right and left if it were.
If private healthcare was to be introduced, and an NHS scrapped how would those less well-off receive quality healthcare?

Popularity has no effect on the innate merit of lack of merit of a particular policy or program.

If 3 out 4 Jews said the Holocaust was awesome, would that make it so?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:00 PM



Right. Individuals enter the political community as an agreement that they will not harm each other. But what you are ignoring is that they also enter this contract for proactive governmental protection.

In other words, negative rights, without the enforcement of positive rights, are a mere illusion. Negative rights are just a basic norm for social behaviour, while positive rights are the actual enforcement of the former.

Since the role of the government is the protection of negative rights, there must be political outlets that voice positive rights, I.e. if someone tries to kill me, I have the right to kill him in self-defense.

Or to put it more simply,If I have the right to not being killed, I have a right to life."

Admittedly, you stated that the primary role of the government is to protect these rights, correct? So, how would you justify neoliberal policies that endanger the very rights that the state exists to protect?

What about healthcare? The inexistence of public health implies that, if you don't have the money to afford an expensive treatment, it's okay for the state to let you die.

But how is this? Isn't this a very essential violation of an individual's [negative] right "Not to be killed," or his positive right to life?

Rights are ethereal.

Your right to life doesn't grant you a gun, a doctor or tank.

Your right to free speach doesn't gurantee you a printing press.

Your right to travel doesn't gurantee you a car.

Your right to do anything doesn't gurantee you anything.

You don't have a right to a CAT scan, you have a right not to be killed.

You don't have a right to Merdedes, you have a right not to be stopped without reason.

You don't have a right to a publishing company, you have a right to say what you want.

A right cannot influence or effect any innaminate object; it strictly effects you.

Since resources are scarce, none can have a 'right' to them, because that excludes others from using those resources.

If resources weren't scarce, you would be right. They are, and you aren't.

[Andy Bowden]

popularity has no effect on the innate merit or lack of merit of a particular policy or program

That would make your survey document you posted - "why do the globalised like being globalised" - wrong as well though wouldn't it?


you may well be without insurance for a brief period of time

What if during this "brief period of time" I develop cancer? Or suppose I have never been in work - or my companies health insurance policy has dissapeared due to the company collapsing - as many workers have lost their pensions due to drops in the stock market here in Britain.


Tell me, what caused this recession? What ended it?

Unemployment in Britain was one of the focal points of the Tories successful election campaign in '79 - a poster with a queue full of unemployed with the words 'LABOUR ISN'T WORKING" - a reference to the million unemployed. However, unemployment grew to 2 million during the Tories - so free-market policies did not increase employment, it decreased it.


you have the right to strike and the employer has the right to fire you.

So do you think it's all right for striking workers to be fired?
Supposing a group of workers in low-paid jobs strike for better pay - these people can be fired immediately for this? For an ideology that talks about freedom, it appears to be giving a lot of power to companies.

[Publius]

Right. My right to freedom of speech does not grant me a publishing company, but it should grant me with the means to make my voice heard, such as the right to form political parties.

My right to life does not grant me with a gun, but it does grant me with ways to ensure my life is protected, such as the right to kill in self-defense.

I apologize I didn't make myself any clearer. I didn't know you'd have such problems with abstract thinking.

But none of this grants you the right to use someone elses medicine or syringes.

Why does the right to life grant you health care but the right to self-defense doesn't grant you a gun?

You cannot logically make the distinction, just as you don't need health care if you don't get sick, you don't need a gun if you don't get attacked.

Society should not have to ffurnish you with either of these things.

You are given the right to life, meaning you can use all types of treatments, free from government intervention (For the most part), just as you are free to defend yourself with a gun (For the most part).

Once again, you have no right to MY health care.



No, because i don't live in isolation. Rights are only valid in a political context, as I wouldn't need them if I were a hermit. So the enforcement of MY rights will affect other people, as well as politcal institutions, policies and procedures.

Your rights only effect what others do to you.

Namely, not kill you, not steal from you, and not attack you.



So you don't believe in private property? Surprising . . .

Quite a mistatement I made.

Apologies.

I meant to say you don't the right to claim someone else's resources, as that excludes them from having them.

You cannot take my money (Which could be spent on health care) to fund your own health care.



Sure there's a limit to resources, but the fact that on this planet there's enough food to feed three times the earth's populations, and that Bill Gates has a 42 billion fortune while doing nothing, and workers who hold two jobs make no more than $10,000/year indicates that wealth is obviously disproportionately distibuted.

There wouldn't be that much food if not for capitalism, so your point is nonexistant.

Bill Gates is fully entitled to the money he's earned.

And I seriously doubt the example you provided.

[Professor Moneybags]

Since the role of the government is the protection of negative rights, there must be political outlets that voice positive rights, I.e. if someone tries to kill me, I have the right to kill him in self-defense.

What does this have to do with negative rights ?


Admittedly, you stated that the primary role of the government is to protect these rights, correct? So, how would you justify neoliberal policies that endanger the very rights that the state exists to protect?

They don't. Not unless you want to start trotting out straw man arguments.


What about healthcare? The inexistence of public health implies that, if you don't have the money to afford an expensive treatment, it's okay for the state to let you die.

But how is this? Isn't this a very essential violation of an individual's [negative] right "Not to be killed," or his positive right to life?

No it isn't. No force was initiated against him and if it was, it's the responsibility of the initiator to foot the bill.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 20 2005, 05:06 PM
Comparing slavery with a National Health Service is an absurd comparison which people, regardless of their position on the political spectrum can clearly see.


I've already explained the link, which you have not attempted to refute except by appealing to common belief.


Charities today have enough problems raising funds for Africa and domestic poverty, let alone providing a (presumably substandard) health service. What if charities do not have enough funds to treat a person?

That is unlikely. Plus, you evade the fact that the alternative involves initiating force.


Opening health services to "market forces" is a recipe for disaster.

Glib assertions won't get you far, I'm afraid.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 20 2005, 05:41 PM
Unemployment in Britain was one of the focal points of the Tories successful election campaign in '79 - a poster with a queue full of unemployed with the words 'LABOUR ISN'T WORKING" - a reference to the million unemployed. However, unemployment grew to 2 million during the Tories - so free-market policies did not increase employment, it decreased it.
That was an illusion. Labor had millions employed in Mickey-Mouse jobs.

[Professor Moneybags]

My right to life does not grant me with a gun, but it does grant me with ways to ensure my life is protected, such as the right to kill in self-defense.

Who is arguing otherwise ?


Sure there's a limit to resources, but the fact that on this planet there's enough food to feed three times the earth's populations, and that Bill Gates has a 42 billion fortune while doing nothing, and workers who hold two jobs make no more than $10,000/year indicates that wealth is obviously disproportionately distibuted.

1- Just because he has more money does not make it any less "his".

2- Wealth is something you create, not some anonymous product to be "redistributed". The marxist "pie" economic model has long been refuted.

[Professor Moneybags]

The same way, if you DO get a fatal disease, it is the duty of the state to provide you with an immediate means to keep your life, that being healthcare.

English translation :

If I get a fatal disease and can't afford the bill, it's the duty of the state to steal money of someone else to pay for it. Thus, the right to property (i.e. the time you spent earning money), which is an extension of your right to life, has been breached.


If we just stick to ONE RIGHT, the right to life, and if we work upon the libertarian assumption that the state is only there to protect that one right, the government should provide with public healthcare.

We should protect rights by violating them ?


For example, a Catholic school would HAVE TO accept my child as a student, even if I'm divorced.

That is up to the school.


First, I wouldn't take your money to service someone else. The money would be taken from everybody, to service everybody.

Same thing, only with obfuscations.


Now, this where the wide leftist spectrum would disagree. But for the purpose of this discussion I am just speaking of taxation according to income.

The moral difference between taxation and theft being minimal.


The owners of Wal-Mart don't have to move a finger to make their profits increase by millions. If capitalism's claim is that it rewards merit, you'd see this is nonsense.

There are people who slave away their entire lives and can barely feed themselves. Who knows how many Aristotles may be out there who are not able to realize to their full potential just because their hard-working, exploited parents cannot send them to school?

What you are suggesting is that someone's need generates a duty on the part of others to meet that need and that their short-comings entitles the government (or whatever) to violate the rights of these others by confiscating their wealth.


Sure, because we're in Capitalist society. But do you honestly think he has actually "produced" 42 billion dollars?

You don't know much about economics, do you ?

[Professor Moneybags]

For the libertarians, the state should only provide protection of ( :rolleyes: ) "negative rights." Nonetheless, neoliberalism endangers the very existence of the chief protector of these rights -- the state itself.

Or in your case, chief violator.

<snip the marxist boiler-plate>


If wealth was somewhat equally distributed, and/or if the state provided the citizens with public education and healthcare, people would be more or less satisfied, making the regime a very stable one.

i.e. by stealing wealth from some people and giving it to others.

<snip yet more boiler-plate>


Neoliberals and their policies are just asking for a revolution to emerge.

So it comes down a pathetic argumentum ad baculum. Well if that doesn&#39;t sum up the whole commie mentality...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:15 PM
Are you kidding me? You really don&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about, or are you just spamming?

You talk gibberish. Example :


"UNLESS"... right after that word you were supposed to place your argument. Still waiting. . .

Waiting for what ? What am I supposed to refuting ?


Okaaay. . . and who&#39;s going to make him do that? His conscience?

HINT: The state, as the enforcer of the victim&#39;s rights.

Yes. So ?

[Publius]

If nobody has a "right" to limited resources because that would exclude other from using them, how do make syringes or medicine belong to anybody?

And so we&#39;re onto the ownership of property, a debate we will never resolve.

The syringes belong to the person that bought them.


HOWEVER, in case that you DO get attacked, the state MUST provide you with IMMEDIATE means to protect your right to life, simply because that&#39;s why the state is there for. And since a policeman will probably not be with you at the moment you&#39;re being attacked, the state provides you with the IMMEDIATE means to protect your life by allowing you to kill in self-defense.

The same way, if you DO get a fatal disease, it is the duty of the state to provide you with an immediate means to keep your life, that being healthcare.

If we just stick to ONE RIGHT, the right to life, and if we work upon the libertarian assumption that the state is only there to protect that one right, the government should provide with public healthcare.

It&#39;s a point of contention among libetarians if the state should provide police services or not.

I think they should, but you should understand that there is no single definitive understanding of libertarian ideology applied to politics.

The state exists to best protect that right.

For example, you have a right to travel, but should the state make sure you have a car?

No, because the state is not as adept as the free market at making cars.

Apply this to healthcare.

Government best helps its citizens by staying out of things.

A police force is only sanctioned because it is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens. Since the right to health can be fully met by a free-market, there is no need to make a government program.

Single-payer health care is something I will not tolerate.


Well, please make up your mind. Are we talking negative or positive rights?
Before you said that my rights only affect what I do and what is NOT being done TO ME. This is what I contested. I argued that my rights would also affect how other would behave.

For example, a Catholic school would HAVE TO accept my child as a student, even if I&#39;m divorced. My child&#39;s rights would not affect the school by making it refrain from doing something (as a negative right.) Instead, my child&#39;s rights would affect the school by MAKING IT DO SOMETHING (i.e. accepting my child as student.) That would be a positive right, which in practice, amounts to the same thing.

By making the school REFRAIN from discriminating against my child, you make the school DO SOMETHING TO HIM (i.e.take him in) instead.


Just like my right to life infringes on your &#39;right&#39; to hit me in the head with a bat, your childs &#39;right&#39; to an education infringes on the schools&#39; right to admit who it wants.

There&#39;s no contradiction, only a disagreement.

The school should not have to accept your child.


First, I wouldn&#39;t take your money to service someone else. The money would be taken from everybody, to service everybody.

Now, this where the wide leftist spectrum would disagree. But for the purpose of this discussion I am just speaking of taxation according to income.

The owners of Wal-Mart don&#39;t have to move a finger to make their profits increase by millions. If capitalism&#39;s claim is that it rewards merit, you&#39;d see this is nonsense.

There are people who slave away their entire lives and can barely feed themselves. Who knows how many Aristotles may be out there who are not able to realize to their full potential just because their hard-working, exploited parents cannot send them to school?

This is human potential wasted. Possible contributions to our society that are dismissed because our system prefers to reward people who already have money with even more money, just BECAUSE they have money. THAT is stupid.

So it would be stolen from the top 50% to help the lower 50%. Depending on where I fell, it would be thievery or a handout.

The owners of Wal-Mart aren&#39;t taxed on income, but on their stock options, for the most part.

If Wal Mart started performing poorly, their revenue would dry up.

What&#39;s your point?

Very few people &#39;slave away their lives&#39; for a pittance, I can show you the numbers on income mobility if you would like, though I doubt it would have any effect.

How is it human potential wasted? You cannot prove communism would more effectively use human capital.

How did the Soviet Union and their egalitarian ways do against the U.S.? Which country more effectively used its human capital (To say nothing of the vast amounts of natural resources the USSR had over the US).

Losing an Aristotle and gaining a Henry Ford may not be such a bad thing. Aristotle was wrong about almost everything and Ford revolutionized manufacturing.

And Ford grew up poor.


What&#39;s the good in priding yourself in the "food" produced by Capitalism, if the ones who actually produce it are starving? Where is THEIR reward?

The money they&#39;re paid, and not starving to death like they invariably would under communism.


Sure, because we&#39;re in Capitalist society. But do you honestly think he has actually "produced" 42 billion dollars?

Computers are vital to the economy. 95% of computers use Windows.

Find the total amount of money computers have created in the last 20 years and take about 80-90% of that, and I bet you&#39;ll find 42 billion is miniscule.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Bill Gates has a 42 billion fortune while doing nothing, and workers who hold two jobs make no more than &#036;10,000/year indicates that wealth is obviously disproportionately distibuted.

Income and wealth aren&#39;t distributed.....they are EARNED.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 17 2005, 08:17 PM
However, is there not a danger that by destroying all regulations, large companies would restrict peoples freedom and have too much power, making them as bad as large govt?

Take for example, the influence of big business in the funding and manipulation of political parties and it&#39;s involvement in killing of trade unionists, eg Coca Cola in Columbia and Shell in Nigeria to name but two.
Correct. If Libertarian conceptions were implemented and the EPA was abolished, businesses would start dumping poisons in the water the next day. If the SEC was scrapped, insider trading and stock fraud would run rampant. If the USDA was done away with, meat would no longer be fit to eat. Regulation is good because there are lots of crimes that drive up profits. Government regulation has given us clean water, clean air, safe meat, sane child labor laws, and countless other things that we now take for granted. When proposed, these ideas were fought tooth and nail by industries that insisted the laws would be their death.

On the other hand, "Libertarians" argue that the free market should be the only regulatory power over business. Unfortunately, America&#39;s ill-informed consumers and investors can&#39;t always make the best decisions. Being completely informed on every single purchasing decision is a full-time job, and advertising and outright fraud make it close to impossible for consumers to choose products and services with perfect wisdom. Lying to consumers always works. And it costs more money to protect them from harm, obviously money that business doesn&#39;t want to spend.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2005, 06:46 AM




If Libertarian conceptions were implemented and the EPA was abolished, businesses would start dumping poisons in the water the next day.

Isn&#39;t that illegal? Wouldn&#39;t they be prosecuted for it? Wouldn&#39;t they be sued for it? Wouldn&#39;t that run them out of business?



If the SEC was scrapped, insider trading and stock fraud would run rampant.

Because the SEC has been SO effective, right?


If the USDA was done away with, meat would no longer be fit to eat.

You would buy and eat unsafe meat?


Regulation is good because there are lots of crimes that drive up profits.

Robbery drives up my profits, but we don&#39;t need the Federal Robbery Agency to stop it. We have police and courts to stop crime.


Government regulation has given us clean water, clean air, safe meat, sane child labor laws, and countless other things that we now take for granted.

Legislation hasn&#39;t given us any of those things, the free market has.


On the other hand, "Libertarians" argue that the free market should be the only regulatory power over business. Unfortunately, America&#39;s ill-informed consumers and investors can&#39;t always make the best decisions. Being completely informed on every single purchasing decision is a full-time job, and advertising and outright fraud make it close to impossible for consumers to choose products and services with perfect wisdom. Lying to consumers always works. And it costs more money to protect them from harm, obviously money that business doesn&#39;t want to spend.

Make the penalties for fraud stiffer.

[Publius]

I should note, I don&#39;t have a problem with those commissions existing as advisors to consumers, but I have problem with them existing as regulatory commissions like the FDA.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2005, 06:46 AM
Correct. If Libertarian conceptions were implemented and the EPA was abolished, businesses would start dumping poisons in the water the next day.
...And get sued by whoever owned the water. Isn&#39;t private ownership wonderful ?

Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons ?


If the SEC was scrapped, insider trading and stock fraud would run rampant.

Fraud is an initiation of force.


If the USDA was done away with, meat would no longer be fit to eat.

Just like everyone would hang themselves if there wasn&#39;t a law banning it.


Government regulation has given us clean water, clean air, safe meat, sane child labor laws, and countless other things that we now take for granted.

Yeah, let&#39;s just legislate clean water into existence. :lol:

How dumb we humans are. For the whole of our history, we&#39;ve been working, inventing and creating things to make our lives easier and safer...when all we had to do was ask the government to pass a law. :rolleyes:

[Andy Bowden]

Comparing slavery with the NHS is ridiculous, because one was a oppressive system of total exploitation and the other was to provide a safety net so that any and everybody, regardless of income could have quality healthcare.

Here is one question which I would like Libertarians to answer: I am poor and I have cancer - can you guarantee that I will receive exactly the same quality of healthcare a millionaire will recieve?

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2005, 05:43 AM

Bill Gates has a 42 billion fortune while doing nothing, and workers who hold two jobs make no more than &#036;10,000/year indicates that wealth is obviously disproportionately distibuted.

Income and wealth aren&#39;t distributed.....they are EARNED.
...by imposin&#39; monopoly, crappy software and shifty corporate tactic on everyone? Renember, "earned" implies that there are some effort involved....yeah, the effort Bill Gates required to take to pay PROGRAMMERS who did the real work a tenth, or worse, of what he "earned" sittin&#39; on his fuckin&#39; arse? ;)

[Andy Bowden]

Hasn&#39;t microsoft gotten into trouble recently for selling software which is only compatible with other Microsoft goods? I believe the term I heard they were charged with was "antitrust".

[Invader Zim]

First of all, can you prove that regulations are doing anything to help now?

If your entire income is based on jiro packets, I think so. Or if saftey regulations have saved you from losing limbs etc.

[Publius]

Comparing slavery with the NHS is ridiculous, because one was a oppressive system of total exploitation and the other was to provide a safety net so that any and everybody, regardless of income could have quality healthcare.

Here is one question which I would like Libertarians to answer: I am poor and I have cancer - can you guarantee that I will receive exactly the same quality of healthcare a millionaire will recieve?

And they gave food to the slaves, and some thought they were doing the slaves a favor because they were to ignorant to to live by their own means.

What happens if you don&#39;t pay taxes for the NHS?

No, why SHOULD you recieve the same care a millionare recieves?

All a natinoal health service does is make sure everyone recieves the same health care, not good health care.

[Publius]

Hasn&#39;t microsoft gotten into trouble recently for selling software which is only compatible with other Microsoft goods? I believe the term I heard they were charged with was "antitrust".

Why shouldn&#39;t they be allowed to sell that sort of product?

Anti-trust laws have no basis.

[Publius]

If your entire income is based on jiro packets, I think so. Or if saftey regulations have saved you from losing limbs etc.

No, I mean prove that safety regulations make things safer, can you prove it?

[Andy Bowden]

why shouldn&#39;t they be able to sell that product?

Surely this would help Microsoft create a monopoly, by ensuring rival software is unworkable.


Why should you receive the same care as a millionaire?

So Libertarians are in favour of a two-tier health service then? One for rich and one for poor? Don&#39;t you see a fundamental injustice at the better off getting better healthcare than the poor? What makes you think British people are going to throw away the NHS for this?

It&#39;s bad enough theres gross economic inequality, when you throw in inequality in healthcare....


All national health care ensures is people receive the same health care not good health care.

I&#39;d rather be poor and face same health care just now than be poor and have a sub-standard healthcare system under a libertarian society.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:25 PM



If your entire income is based on jiro packets, I think so. Or if saftey regulations have saved you from losing limbs etc.

No, I mean prove that safety regulations make things safer, can you prove it?
Quite simple, the number of deaths in the work place, prior to any regulation is well recorded by contmporaries, as being very high.

It is very rare to here of such events in modern times, if such an event does occur it is news, the company is usually closed down.

An example of successful regulation is the banning of children being used as trappers in coal mines, a profession of undoubted danger.

This was banned in the Mines act of 1842. Now children don&#39;t die down mines, because they aren&#39;t allowed in them. 100% successful.

You ask some stupid questions, i must say. Try doing a little research.

[Free Palestine]

You all posit under the assumption that somehow America&#39;s well-informed consumers and investors can always make the best decisions..

I can&#39;t be completely informed on every single purchasing decision, that is a full-time job. America&#39;s consumers aren&#39;t going to carry out a reserach project everytime they want to go to the grocery store. Moreover, advertising and outright fraud make it close to impossible for consumers to choose products and services with perfect wisdom, as you suggest. Lying to consumers works. And it costs money to protect me from harm -- money that businesses don&#39;t want to spend.

Most of your rebuff was unsubstantiated and begged the question. Please note arguments for reducing regulation aren&#39;t based on fact; they&#39;re based on greed, fear, and ignorance. The reality is the face behind calls for "smaller government" are industry lobbyist trying to relax the restrictions that protect your health. It&#39;s the CEO trying to make a profit from your kids. The politician lambasting the size of the federal government is just a tool of the people who have filled his pockets with fat campaign checks.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:24 PM

Hasn&#39;t microsoft gotten into trouble recently for selling software which is only compatible with other Microsoft goods? I believe the term I heard they were charged with was "antitrust".

Why shouldn&#39;t they be allowed to sell that sort of product?

Anti-trust laws have no basis.
Capitalism can only work when buisness compete, it is the primary basis of all libertarian theory, the market will regulate its self through supply and demand, which is rendered obsolite if competetion is not upheld.

But of course buisness doesn&#39;t like completetion, does it. That is why libertarianism can never work, as competetion is impossible to ahieve without laws being put in place, to force competetion. This of course cannot occur in a libertarian state, thus a libertarian state is impossible to achieve. It strives to eliminate intervention, but in order to work it requires intervention. Oh the irony. :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

Comparing slavery with the NHS is ridiculous, because one was a oppressive system of total exploitation and the other was to provide a safety net so that any and everybody, regardless of income could have quality healthcare.

One was a system of overt exploitation, the other is a system of exploitation justified by "newspeak" and a set of rationalizations.


Here is one question which I would like Libertarians to answer: I am poor and I have cancer - can you guarantee that I will receive exactly the same quality of healthcare a millionaire will recieve?

I can&#39;t guarantee anything and it wouldn&#39;t justify or invalidate the system if you couldn&#39;t.

[Professor Moneybags]

So Libertarians are in favour of a two-tier health service then? One for rich and one for poor?

I notice the issue of "What happens if you don&#39;t pay taxes for the NHS?" has been omitted. Why&#39;s that ?


Don&#39;t you see a fundamental injustice at the better off getting better healthcare than the poor?

Not any more than there is any injustice in my neighbour having a better car than me, providing he paid for it.


It&#39;s bad enough theres gross economic inequality, when you throw in inequality in healthcare....

Why is economic inequality "bad" and why is economic equality "good" ?


I&#39;d rather be poor and face same health care just now than be poor and have a sub-standard healthcare system under a libertarian society.

But you continue to evade how nationalized healthcare operates- by force.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2005, 09:00 PM
I can&#39;t be completely informed on every single purchasing decision, that is a full-time job.
So&#39;s thinking. Do you want to relegate that task to the government too ?


America&#39;s consumers aren&#39;t going to carry out a reserach project everytime they want to go to the grocery store. Moreover, advertising and outright fraud make it close to impossible for consumers to choose products and services with perfect wisdom, as you suggest. Lying to consumers works.

It&#39;s also fraud. i.e. initiating force. i.e should be illegal.


Most of your rebuff was unsubstantiated and begged the question. Please note arguments for reducing regulation aren&#39;t based on fact; they&#39;re based on greed, fear, and ignorance.

As opposed to these arguments, which aren&#39;t based on fear and ignorance :


If Libertarian conceptions were implemented and the EPA was abolished, businesses would start dumping poisons in the water the next day.


If the USDA was done away with, meat would no longer be fit to eat.

:rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

But of course buisness doesn&#39;t like completetion, does it. That is why libertarianism can never work, as competetion is impossible to ahieve without laws being put in place, to force competetion.

The only way competition can be stopped is by the government banning it.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2005, 11:03 PM

But of course buisness doesn&#39;t like completetion, does it. That is why libertarianism can never work, as competetion is impossible to ahieve without laws being put in place, to force competetion.

The only way competition can be stopped is by the government banning it.
You are clearly a very naive individual, who has never heard of price fixing, manopolies and other currently illegal activities which buinsesses would love to do could they get away with it.

But I wouldn&#39;t expect a libertarian to understand such realities.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 10:08 PM
You are clearly a very naive individual, who has never heard of price fixing,
Yeah, I&#39;ve heard of the minimum wage. That&#39;s price fixing.


manopolies

Which can only be enforced by the government.


and other currently illegal activities which buinsesses would love to do could they get away with it.

Which the government does every day.


But I wouldn&#39;t expect a libertarian to understand such realities.

Well it doesn&#39;t matter, because they&#39;re not.

[Invader Zim]

That&#39;s price fixing.

Possibly, but because of the flaws in free market capitalism, is necessary.



Which can only be enforced by the government.

Err, no. Buisness create and deliberatly maintain monopolies all the time in countries without any trouble.

Buinesses eliminate competition by lowering prices to such a rate that the competition cannot keep up. Thus the company has no competition and they can raise prices however high they feal like.

Government intervetion makes that illegal.


Which the government does every day.

Probably, but buisnesses can, would and have done far worse.



Well it doesn&#39;t matter, because they&#39;re not.

yeah they are, just because you refuse to see the obvious doesn&#39;t change it. Libertarianism has not, will not and cannot be implimented, because its a nonsense.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2005, 09:00 PM
I can&#39;t be completely informed on every single purchasing decision, that is a full-time job.
So&#39;s thinking. Do you want to relegate that task to the government too ?

Nonsensical slippery slope devoid of any logic or relevance



America&#39;s consumers aren&#39;t going to carry out a reserach project everytime they want to go to the grocery store. Moreover, advertising and outright fraud make it close to impossible for consumers to choose products and services with perfect wisdom, as you suggest. Lying to consumers works.

It&#39;s also fraud. i.e. initiating force. i.e should be illegal.

Do you think the USDA should be scrapped? Do you deny a need for a government authority to recall contaminated and potentially deadly food? Or should it be left to the "market"? Who will enforce performance standards to control the presence of pathogens in food? Who will define what safe food is and what is unacceptable? Do you expect companies to voluntarily create poultry inspection in an adequate process oriented, science-based system (not just sight, smell)? Do you deny the need for a uniform, mandatory and enforceable traceability system designed to protect public health?

Suppose testing proved that a particular food product is carrying life-threatning disease agents, there needs to be the authority to order them removed from commerce. Without the existence of a single agency with the responsibility and authority to recall the contaminated and potentially deadly food from commerce, who will recall it? Will you address these issues? Or will you continue to ignore potential food hazards and their impact on millions of sickened consumers each year and instead, continue worshiping Ayn Rand and living in fairy-tale land?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 21 2005, 07:24 PM




Surely this would help Microsoft create a monopoly, by ensuring rival software is unworkable.

Off hand I can name about a dozen OSs, espescially if you count seperate Linux distros as seperate OSs.

How can anyone monopolize a field of over a dozen competitors?

Hint: They can&#39;t.

A monopolist has to be the sole provider of that service, or he isn&#39;t a monopolist at all.

When you can use Linux, MS isn&#39;t a monopoly.


So Libertarians are in favour of a two-tier health service then? One for rich and one for poor? Don&#39;t you see a fundamental injustice at the better off getting better healthcare than the poor? What makes you think British people are going to throw away the NHS for this?

It&#39;s bad enough theres gross economic inequality, when you throw in inequality in healthcare....


Let&#39;s use an example here.

Under the capitalist system, the &#39;poor&#39; get a figuritive &#39;3&#39; out of &#39;10&#39;, 10 being ideal health care, wheras the rich get a figuritive &#39;6&#39;.

Under the socialist system, everyone gets a figuritive &#39;3&#39; out of &#39;10&#39;.

Which is the superiour system?

I&#39;m not saying this is literally accurate of how things are, but it&#39;s an illustration.

Eqaulity means nothing if it&#39;s equally poor.


I&#39;d rather be poor and face same health care just now than be poor and have a sub-standard healthcare system under a libertarian society.

You prefer inferiour health care to superiour health care?

And why would you be poor in a libertarian society? Almost assuredly, vast economic progress would quickly be made, raising the standard of living.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:30 PM



Quite simple, the number of deaths in the work place, prior to any regulation is well recorded by contmporaries, as being very high.

It is very rare to here of such events in modern times, if such an event does occur it is news, the company is usually closed down.

An example of successful regulation is the banning of children being used as trappers in coal mines, a profession of undoubted danger.

This was banned in the Mines act of 1842. Now children don&#39;t die down mines, because they aren&#39;t allowed in them. 100% successful.

You ask some stupid questions, i must say. Try doing a little research.

Why can&#39;t self-regulation work?

What employer would run an unsafe factory when he knows that a single death or injury due to his negligance will leave him broke?

[Publius]

You all posit under the assumption that somehow America&#39;s well-informed consumers and investors can always make the best decisions..

I can&#39;t be completely informed on every single purchasing decision, that is a full-time job. America&#39;s consumers aren&#39;t going to carry out a reserach project everytime they want to go to the grocery store. Moreover, advertising and outright fraud make it close to impossible for consumers to choose products and services with perfect wisdom, as you suggest. Lying to consumers works. And it costs money to protect me from harm -- money that businesses don&#39;t want to spend.

Most of your rebuff was unsubstantiated and begged the question. Please note arguments for reducing regulation aren&#39;t based on fact; they&#39;re based on greed, fear, and ignorance. The reality is the face behind calls for "smaller government" are industry lobbyist trying to relax the restrictions that protect your health. It&#39;s the CEO trying to make a profit from your kids. The politician lambasting the size of the federal government is just a tool of the people who have filled his pockets with fat campaign checks.

How do you know your toasters are safe?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:27 PM



Capitalism can only work when buisness compete, it is the primary basis of all libertarian theory, the market will regulate its self through supply and demand, which is rendered obsolite if competetion is not upheld.

But of course buisness doesn&#39;t like completetion, does it. That is why libertarianism can never work, as competetion is impossible to ahieve without laws being put in place, to force competetion. This of course cannot occur in a libertarian state, thus a libertarian state is impossible to achieve. It strives to eliminate intervention, but in order to work it requires intervention. Oh the irony. :rolleyes:

It&#39;s not ironic, it&#39;s obvious.

Name for me one monopoly that was formed soley by the market.

[Publius]

Possibly, but because of the flaws in free market capitalism, is necessary.

So price fixing, a &#39;flaw of capitalsism&#39;, is necessary because of &#39;flaws in capitalism&#39; such as price fixing?



Err, no. Buisness create and deliberatly maintain monopolies all the time in countries without any trouble.

Buinesses eliminate competition by lowering prices to such a rate that the competition cannot keep up. Thus the company has no competition and they can raise prices however high they feal like.

Government intervetion makes that illegal.

Name 5 market monopolies.

Name 3 monopolies.

Hell, name 1 monopoly.



yeah they are, just because you refuse to see the obvious doesn&#39;t change it. Libertarianism has not, will not and cannot be implimented, because its a nonsense.

Well when you put it that way&#33;

[Publius]

Nonsensical slippery slope devoid of any logic or relevance

That isn&#39;t a &#39;slippery slope fallacy&#39; at all.

You clearly don&#39;t understand debate logic.

You posit &#39;A&#39;, "I can&#39;t be completely informed on every single purchasing decision, that is a full-time job.".

You assert that because being informed on every purchasing decision you make is a full time decision, you cannot do it (Which is self-evidently absurd. You know plenty about every purchase you make. Have you EVER bought something without any knowledge about it? How is that even possible to do? You would have to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of a product to even want to buy it).

He responds with B: "So&#39;s thinking. Do you want to relegate that task to the government too ?"

He is referencing your statement that being informed on purchasing decisions is difficult, by equating it with thinking.

He is referencing your suggestion that government should do something because it is to difficult for consumers to do by applying to thinking.

A slippery slope would imply that he asserts that government control of purchasing would lead to government control of thinking.

This is not what he states at all, and is not even physically possible.

Futhermore, t is very clearly flawed logic that government should do something that people cannot, when you cannot; substantiate the fact that people cannot do said action, or prove that it is governments role to things that people cannot do, in the broadest sense.

People cannot fly, but we don&#39;t expect government to fly.

People cannot provide a common defense, but we do expect government to do it.

A distinction between the former and the latter obviously exists, but it must be stated.

State it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Price fixing? Did someone say price fixing?

That philosophy has been divorsed from capitalism since the 1970s and is regarded by free market economist as sucidal.

The only ones practising price fixing today are SOCIALIST countries. Price fixing has been a staple of SOCIALIST countries.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:41 AM
The only ones practising price fixing today are SOCIALIST countries. Price fixing has been a staple of SOCIALIST countries.
No &#33; Price fixing is capitalist. Also, opposition to price fixing is capitalist. Observe :


"(Capitalism is) rather flexible. It is able to shape and reshape itself to fit an amazing variety of situations. It&#39;s why it&#39;s survived for so long."

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, 2005

Thank heavens we have geniuses like LSD to do our thinking for us. :D

[Professor Moneybags]

Buinesses eliminate competition by lowering prices to such a rate that the competition cannot keep up.

Lowering prices is a "bad" thing ?


Thus the company has no competition and they can raise prices however high they feal like.

How can they simultaneously "raise prices" and "eliminate competition by lowering prices" ? :rolleyes:

You&#39;re as bad as LSD for contradicting yourself.


Probably, but buisnesses can, would and have done far worse.

When was the last time a business started a war ?

<snip the rest of the nonsense>

[Professor Moneybags]

Do you deny a need for a government authority to recall contaminated and potentially deadly food? Or should it be left to the "market"?

I&#39;m sure people will be quequing up to buy poisoned food. But then people are dumb and should have the government making all of their decisions for them, right ?


Suppose testing proved that a particular food product is carrying life-threatning disease agents, there needs to be the authority to order them removed from commerce. Without the existence of a single agency with the responsibility and authority to recall the contaminated and potentially deadly food from commerce, who will recall it? Will you address these issues? Or will you continue to ignore potential food hazards and their impact on millions of sickened consumers each year and instead, continue worshiping Ayn Rand and living in fairy-tale land?

English translation :

Suppose we have company A, which commits act B (which is illegal), which leads to situation C (which would result in criminal prosecution anyway), and people are stupid enough to still buy from company A, (which no one in their right mind would do) does that count as refuting laissez faire capitalism and justify setting up a massive, government-run bureaucratic system ?

My answer : No, I&#39;m afraid it doesn&#39;t. Last time I checked, selling poisoned food was illegal, as it would be under LFC. We don&#39;t need another dozen or so three/four-letter government agencies to enforce that law.

[Invader Zim]

So price fixing, a &#39;flaw of capitalsism&#39;, is necessary because of &#39;flaws in capitalism&#39; such as price fixing?

Yes, but only if one is foolish, crude and ignorant enough to consider athe minimum wage , price fixing, in the same manner that companies, fix the prices of material products. You are either a fool for making such comparisons, or on the other hand, trying to make a straw man argument. Sorry Pubes, but neither are good enough.




Why can&#39;t self-regulation work?

Simply because it is not profitable, which is why buisness attempt to manopolise industries.


Hell, name 1 monopoly.

Microsoft - OS , and don&#39;t pull that Linux or Apple nonsense with me. Linux is primarily used by &#39;power users&#39;, and Apple doesn&#39;t have nearly enough imput into the market to be able to compete with Microsoft, I doubt they ever will.

Another Manopoly, EA - on PC games.

A third Manopoly - Nestle Cerials.

Of course I am going by the market in the UK, but these companies clearly have a massive manopoly in the products stated.

[CrazyModerate]

Like I said earlier, Capitalist Libertarians are hypocrits because they are against big government but they are for big business.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:14 PM




Yes, but only if one is foolish, crude and ignorant enough to consider athe minimum wage , price fixing, in the same manner that companies, fix the prices of material products. You are either a fool for making such comparisons, or on the other hand, trying to make a straw man argument. Sorry Pubes, but neither are good enough.

Labor is nothing more than a commidity.

It is foolish, crude, and ignorant to assume otherwise.

Fixing the price of wages is fixing the price of a commidity, and labor unions are monopolies.


Simply because it is not profitable, which is why buisness attempt to manopolise industries.

I can try to fly, but it&#39;s not going to get me anywhere.


Microsoft - OS , and don&#39;t pull that Linux or Apple nonsense with me. Linux is primarily used by &#39;power users&#39;, and Apple doesn&#39;t have nearly enough imput into the market to be able to compete with Microsoft, I doubt they ever will.

Of course I am going by the market in the UK, but these companies clearly have a massive manopoly in the products stated.

Microsoft has a monopoloy on OSs? With Mac OSX (And all the other Mac OSs), Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, openBSD, netBSD, OS2, Amiga, Oracle, and the hundreds of variants on these OSs all existing as viable alternatives?

If everyone bought Fords, but yet there were a dozen car dealers right down the road, Saturn, Kia, Mazda, Totota, Honda, Hyundai, GM, et al, would you say Ford had a monopoly, just becuase 90-odd% of people had them?

You could, but your would be a moron, and more importantly, wrong.

You don&#39;t hate Windows because it&#39;s a &#39;monopoly&#39; but because it&#39;s &#39;popular&#39;.

There&#39;s a difference.



Another Manopoly, EA - on PC games.

Open up your Borland compiler and write your own game.

An open system cannot be monopolized.

And I can name for you, literally, 50 PC games being released in the near future that are not published by EA.

And since EA is made up of a dozen or so different developing houses, it isn&#39;t really can&#39;t monopolize anything.


A third Manopoly - Nestle Cerials.

The only company, in the entirety of the United Kingdom, that you can buy cereal from, is Nestle?

Bullshit.

5 minutes google reared me this result: http://www.britishsupermarketworldwide.com/

I&#39;ve solved your cereal problem&#33;

You can buy ceral from companies such as Kellog, Quaker, and Weetabix using this website&#33;

Nope, no monopoly here&#33;

Why even make such a stupid claim, when you knew I could disprove it in all of 30 seconds?

EDIT: More companies: Alpen, Birds, Jordan, Dorset, Weight Watchers, Flahavans, Ready Brek, Tesco, Scotts, not to mention that fact that you can&#39;t monopolize ANY food, because it can a) be grown anywhere b) people can just eat another type food (Fruit for breakfast for instance) c) Food taste is so varied you cannot appeal to all the different tastes.

2nd EDIT: A quick Google netted me the names of 14 other PC game publishers: cclaim, Eidos Interactive, Konami, Midway, Microsoft, Namco, NCSoft, NEC, Sammy Studios, Strategy First, THQ, Ubi Soft, ValuSoft, and Wanadoo.

Off the top of my head I can think of TakeTwo, Blizzard, vALVE and if I put the time and effort in, at least a dozen more.

And since games can be sold over the internet nowadays, through software like Steam, publishers themselves are no longer necessary.

Anyone can code their own game and sell it over the internet.

[Publius]

Like I said earlier, Capitalist Libertarians are hypocrits because they are against big government but they are for big business.

How am I for big business?

I propose NO regulation and NO favoritism; nuetrality, support for none.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:56 PM

Like I said earlier, Capitalist Libertarians are hypocrits because they are against big government but they are for big business.

How am I for big business?

I propose NO regulation and NO favoritism; nuetrality, support for none.
Having no regulation on business and saying it is fair is like having a "fair" wrestling match with no rules and no favouritism between Arnold Schwarzenagger and Bill Gates.

The reason no regulation isn&#39;t fair is because people don&#39;t all start out in the same position to be successful in capitalism.

Also, Big Business would benefit from not having to pay corporate taxes, from being able to pay virtually nothing to it&#39;s employees, not having to worry about the safety of the employees. The list goes on.

Regulations do hinder Big Business, and removing them would help big business.

[Publius]

So having a fair playing field, is unfair, but having an unfair playing field, is fair?

Right...

[Vallegrande]

Both sides make it unfair for each other (when they get the chance).

[Free Palestine]

Suppose we have company A, which commits act B (which is illegal), which leads to situation C (which would result in criminal prosecution anyway), and people are stupid enough to still buy from company A, (which no one in their right mind would do)

Oversimplification. We have already established it was illegal. That still doesn&#39;t address the question of who will protect public health. For example, who would enforce performance standards to control the presence of pathogens in food? Are you suggesting that we should trust companies to decide for us what safe food is and isn&#39;t acceptable? Do you expect companies to voluntarily create poultry/meat inspection in an adequate process-oriented, science-based system (not just sight and smell, which are inadequate)? Will a necesarry uniform, mandatory and enforceable traceability system exist designed to protect public health? Who will remove the contaminated product from commerce?

It seems to me that almost without exception you overlook the necessity of the regulatory function, especially when it comes to the environment. You also overlook what I think is a very critical clause in the Preamble to the Constitution: to promote the common welfare. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.. That’s government of the people, by the people, for the people - as opposed to the filthy rich.

[Professor Moneybags]

Oversimplification. We have already established it was illegal.

But you seem to think that risking several years in jail and having your company shut down isn&#39;t enough of a deterent.


That still doesn&#39;t address the question of who will protect public health. For example, who would enforce performance standards to control the presence of pathogens in food? Are you suggesting that we should trust companies to decide for us what safe food is and isn&#39;t acceptable?

We&#39;ve been through this already.


Do you expect companies to voluntarily create poultry/meat inspection in an adequate process-oriented, science-based system (not just sight and smell, which are inadequate)?

Would you buy produce from a company that didn&#39;t ?


You also overlook what I think is a very critical clause in the Preamble to the Constitution: to promote the common welfare. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.. That’s government of the people, by the people, for the people - as opposed to the filthy rich.

Creating a bureaucrat-ridden government doesn&#39;t promote the common welfare, nor was the US consitution written by marxists.

[Invader Zim]

I guess you aren&#39;t aware of monoply laws. You don&#39;t have to have total excusive control of an industry, just the vast control.

You do realise, despite your ignorant claims that several of the companies mentioned, (most notably Microsoft) are being taken to court over Monopoly laws?

Also if you think that any of the OS&#39;s mentioned are any real competition against Microsoft then you are saddly mistaken.

[Publius]

I guess you aren&#39;t aware of monoply laws. You don&#39;t have to have total excusive control of an industry, just the vast control.

I&#39;m aware of the monopoly laws, I think they&#39;re wrong.

There never has and never will be a market monopoly.

I implore you to prove me wrong.


You do realise, despite your ignorant claims that several of the companies mentioned, (most notably Microsoft) are being taken to court over Monopoly laws?

That&#39;s like saying that because blacks were being prosecuted under Jim Crow laws, they were doing something wrong.

Just because something is the &#39;the law&#39; doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s right. Monopoly laws aren&#39;t right.


Also if you think that any of the OS&#39;s mentioned are any real competition against Microsoft then you are saddly mistaken.

How are they not &#39;real&#39; competition?


Let&#39;s go back to basics:

Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).


None of the companies you have listed have EVER had &#39;exclusive control of the means of producing or selling a commidity or service&#39;.

No company that fits such a definition has been created by the market.

Monopoly isn&#39;t 55% of the market, or 85%, or 95%, it is EXCLUSIVE control.

The percentages are not important to the economic question of what is a monopoly. A better definition, one that economists use is, &#39;a company that reduces output while simultaniously raising prices, that has almost exclusive or exclusive control over the means of producing a commodity&#39;.

If a company does not raise prices while lowering output, it is not a monopoly.

Have any of the companies you listed, fit either of these definitions? No.

Therefore, they are not monopolies, therefore, you are making ignorant, baseless claims.

[Invader Zim]

I find it most ironic that you complain about minimum wage, while denying the exisance of monopolies, the simple fact is that in many areas some buisnesses hold a massive monopoly on jobs. Thus they could charge what they like, minimum wage stops that.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 06:57 PM
So having a fair playing field, is unfair, but having an unfair playing field, is fair?

Right...
YES BECAUSE MICROSOFT VS. ME WOULD BE FAIR, RIGHT?

[Publius]

I find it most ironic that you complain about minimum wage, while denying the exisance of monopolies, the simple fact is that in many areas some buisnesses hold a massive monopoly on jobs. Thus they could charge what they like, minimum wage stops that.

Right, like those monopolies EA, Microsoft, and Nestle?

You&#39;re a joke.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:03 PM



YES BECAUSE MICROSOFT VS. ME WOULD BE FAIR, RIGHT?

Why would Microsoft ever be &#39;versus&#39; you?

And it isn&#39;t just you, it&#39;s every other person.

If you COLLECTIVELY stopped buying MS products, they would wither away and die.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:06 PM

I find it most ironic that you complain about minimum wage, while denying the exisance of monopolies, the simple fact is that in many areas some buisnesses hold a massive monopoly on jobs. Thus they could charge what they like, minimum wage stops that.

Right, like those monopolies EA, Microsoft, and Nestle?

You&#39;re a joke.
No mate, you are totally ignorant, with your pseudo understanding of reality. You have no idea what life is like, you have no idea that your idea&#39;s will never be implemented, you have no idea that your ideas cannot be implimented, and you have no argument.

If the rich could profit by your ideas, they would, but they can&#39;t, dont and will not.

In short there is only one joke here, and its on you.

In answer to your question, no its not the same, and only a complete moron... or a troll incapable of anything other than strawman arguments, would ask that question.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:13 PM



No mate, your a joke, with your pseudo understanding of reality. You have no idea what life is like, you have no idea that your idea&#39;s will never be implemented, you have no idea that your ideas cannot be implimented, and you have no argument.

if the rich could profit by your ideas, they would, but they can&#39;t dont and will not.

In short there is only one joke here, and its on you.

It would only be on me if you happend to be sitting on me.

When you make claims such as Nestle having a monopoly on cereral sales in the UK, and I find the names of these other cereal makers, that sell in the UK, and provide you a link to website that will allow you to order that very cereal and have it delivered to your door, I have, in capitalist parlance, &#39;fucked your shit up&#39;, you can take your Kellog, Quaker, Weetabix, Alpen, Birds, Jordan, Dorset, Weight Watchers, Flahavans, Ready Brek, Tesco, and Scotts cereals, and choke on them.

You were lying to me and you know. You got busted and you know it. You&#39;re trying to bullshit your way out of this and I know it.

It&#39;s not happening. You will respond to my refutations if you have any plans of maintaning your intellectual honesty (Perhaps maintaining isn&#39;t the right word, I doubt you ever had any), but I know that you have absolutely no way to respond to the simple fact that you were wrong, so you take the easy way out and lash at me.

Are you going to continue this charade?

Or do we I need to post links to the dozens of operating systems that aren&#39;t MS Windows?

Or do I need to post links to all the game publishers that aren&#39;t EA?

As they say, &#39;if you can&#39;t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them bullshit&#39;, right? Well that doesn&#39;t work when I can use Google (Or one of dozens of other search engines) to mercilessly rebuke your every asinine claim.

[Invader Zim]

It would only be on me if you happend to be sitting on me.

Don&#39;t try and be funny, you haven&#39;t the wit or charm.

When you make claims such as Nestle having a monopoly on cereal sales in the UK

They do, you look on a supermarket shelf and you will see that the vast majority of products are Nestle.

Nestle have gone on a campaign in buying many of the companies which make cereals, and many of the companies you mentioned, a prime example being Tesco&#39;s don&#39;t manufacture their products,. They sell them, tesco&#39;s is a supermarket chain not a manufacturer, they buy their product from Nestle, Kellog, etc. Weetabix have only one major product, Alpen as I am aware only sell breakfast bars, rather than cereals. Other than Kellog and Quaker, I haven&#39;t even heard of the rest of them, which just goes to what limited companies they must be.

So in fact you haven&#39;t &#39;fucked anyone’s shit up&#39;, except you own. But don&#39;t worry, idiots who rely upon google nearly always come unhorsed at the first hurdle.


You were lying to me and you know. You got busted and you know it.

"I know it" do I? Listen up sunshine, your mind reading is crap, stick to your day job.

so you take the easy way out and lash at me.

lash you? You have to be kidding, the only &#39;lashing&#39; you have received is from your self when you when you were foolish enough to think you could get away with evading points by using pathetic attempts at strawman arguments. Which I may add, you still haven’t responded to the points you cowardly tried to evade.


Or do we I need to post links to the dozens of operating systems that aren&#39;t MS Windows?

Dozens of operating systems? Now lets think about this, how many of them are for 32bit home computers, thus excluding many operating systems. Aimed for novice users, rather than power users, aren&#39;t just different distributions of what is essentially the same operating system and aren&#39;t made by the same company/developers? On that basis you can forget you Amiga&#39;s, Acorns, etc. You can also forget companies like IBM, etc.

I think you will find that &#39;dozens&#39; is now reduced to around half a dozen at most, many of which can be discounted based on the insignificance of size. Really the only Three options are GNU-Linux distro&#39;s, Windows and Macs. The former, on the whole is still only accessible by power users, novices still can&#39;t grasp distro&#39;s such as Fedora, Ubuntu, etc and will probably never get slackware. Macs are an expensive joke and will probably never be able to keep up. Thus your only option is Microsoft products, that is a monopoly.


Or do I need to post links to all the game publishers that aren&#39;t EA?

EA aren’t just a publisher, they are a developer as well.

In regards to sports games, specifically Football (soccer) games, they hold an absolute monopoly, now. You cannot buy a modern PC football game which is not made and or published by EA, they don’t exist. Indeed, EA actually have exclusive licence rights, which means that any developer which makes a game on the genre cannot use actual names, etc.

Another example is Lord of the Rings games, how many games do you see on Lord of the Rings are not developed and published by EA? None that I can recall.

That is a monopoly. As for the games industry its self, EA has bought out a great deal of companies, such as Westwood, Bullfrog, etc. Most other developers are third party developers, doing contract work for EA, Eidos, Activision and Atari, etc. But EA is by far the biggest and most notorious publisher going.


As they say, &#39;if you can&#39;t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them bullshit&#39;, right? Well that doesn&#39;t work when I can use Google (Or one of dozens of other search engines) to mercilessly rebuke your every asinine claim.

Clearly not.

Now answer the points made earlier instead of focusing on the one small issue you think you have me on.

By the way are you related to this guy: -

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/strawman.jpg

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:47 PM





]

Don&#39;t try and be funny, you haven&#39;t the wit or charm.

That one gave you a chuckle and you know it.


They do, you look on a supermarket shelf and you will see that the vast majority of products are Nestle.

Nestle have gone on a campaign in buying many of the companies which make cereals, and many of the companies you mentioned, a prime example being Tesco&#39;s don&#39;t manufacture their products,. They sell them, tesco&#39;s is a supermarket chain not a manufacturer, they buy their product from Nestle, Kellog, etc. Weetabix have only one major product, Alpen as I am aware only sell breakfast bars, rather than cereals. Other than Kellog and Quaker, I haven&#39;t even heard of the rest of them, which just goes to what limited companies they must be.

So in fact you haven&#39;t &#39;fucked anyone’s shit up&#39;, except you own. But don&#39;t worry, idiots who rely upon google nearly always come unhorsed at the first hurdle.

The vast majority of the products? Not relevent. When there are still dozens of other cereals you can buy, they are not a monopoly.

You can have any one of those cereals delivered to your front door. When you have an alternative product to purchase, you are not dealing with a monopoly.

Plain and simple.

&#39;Mono&#39;poly. One. Singular. Is Nestle the one and only, singular, producer/seller of cereal in the UK? No.

You can even make your own cereal and sell it, if you are so inclined, meaning no company can ever have a monopoly on cereal unless they have a monopoly on grain/corn production.

It doesn&#39;t matter how &#39;limited&#39; a company is when it&#39;s product can be shipped to you in a matter of days. The reason these companies aren&#39;t more prevelent is that people don&#39;t buy them.

PEOPLE don&#39;t want these cereals. Take the issue up with your friends and family who buy Nestle if you simply must change things.



"I know it" do I? Listen up sunshine, your mind reading is crap, stick to your day job.

Forgive me. Lying implies you know what you&#39;re talking about and you willfully mistate the facts. You just didn&#39;t know what a monopoly was.



lash you? You have to be kidding, the only &#39;lashing&#39; you have received is from your self when you when you were foolish enough to think you could get away with evading points by using pathetic attempts at strawman arguments. Which I may add, you still haven’t responded to the points you cowardly tried to evade.

What points would those be?


Dozens of operating systems? Now lets think about this, how many of them are for 32bit home computers, thus excluding many operating systems. Aimed for novice users, rather than power users, aren&#39;t just different distributions of what is essentially the same operating system and aren&#39;t made by the same company/developers? On that basis you can forget you Amiga&#39;s, Acorns, etc. You can also forget companies like IBM, etc.

I think you will find that &#39;dozens&#39; is now reduced to around half a dozen at most, many of which can be discounted based on the insignificance of size. Really the only Three options are GNU-Linux distro&#39;s, Windows and Macs. The former, on the whole is still only accessible by power users, novices still can&#39;t grasp distro&#39;s such as Fedora, Ubuntu, etc and will probably never get slackware. Macs are an expensive joke and will probably never be able to keep up. Thus your only option is Microsoft products, that is a monopoly.

And the only blue car with the word &#39;Explorer&#39; blazoned the back is Ford Explorer. It must have a monopoly on the "Blue cars with &#39;Explorer written on them&#39; market, right?

I can find many 32 bit OSs, and your distinction between &#39;home user&#39; and &#39;power user&#39; is absolutely arbitrary.

And the fact remains the same; even with just Linux and Mac in the game, Microsoft is not a monopoly.

You still have an alternative (Hundreds if you count Linux distros, which you should, because anyone calling Knoppix, SuSe and Slackware the same thing doesn&#39;t know what they&#39;re talking about) to Windows, that is far better than Windows.

Windows is not a &#39;monopoly&#39;, it is &#39;popular&#39;, but there is nothing preventing anyone or everyone from using Mac, Linux, BSD,

Your claim that your &#39;only option is microsoft&#39; is ludicrious. I&#39;ve used many different Linux distros before, and will likely do so in the future.


EA aren’t just a publisher, they are a developer as well.

In regards to sports games, specifically Football (soccer) games, they hold an absolute monopoly, now. You cannot buy a modern PC football game which is not made and or published by EA, they don’t exist. Indeed, EA actually have exclusive licence rights, which means that any developer which makes a game on the genre cannot use actual names, etc.

Another example is Lord of the Rings games, how many games do you see on Lord of the Rings are not developed and published by EA? None that I can recall.

That is a monopoly. As for the games industry its self, EA has bought out a great deal of companies, such as Westwood, Bullfrog, etc. Most other developers are third party developers, doing contract work for EA, Eidos, Activision and Atari, etc. But EA is by far the biggest and most notorious publisher going.

Listen to Peter Molenuex talk about EA buying his company, he doesn&#39;t make it sound bad.

EA bought these companies they were doing things right. They were making good games, selling a lot of copies, and PLEASING THE COSTUMER.

Once, again, saying that just because you can only buy LotR games from EA, therefore it&#39;s a monopoly is like saying just because you can only buy computers with Gateway written on them from Gateway.

I could give a giant of list of games that play like the LotR games (The RTS was based off of WC3s engine and played almost exactly the same) or borrow heavily from the LotR franchise.

Eliminster is just a rip-off of Gandalf you know.


Now answer the points made earlier instead of focusing on the one small issue you think you have me on.

I don&#39;t recall what these points are, but I&#39;m sure the specious and vapid.

But tell me what they are and I&#39;ll happily respond to them.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:13 PM
If the rich could profit by your ideas, they would, but they can&#39;t, dont and will not.
They&#39;re not allowed to by law, that&#39;s why.

[Mrs_Farenheit]

*

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:23 PM
How can you get around my example without resorting to a typical Cold War child&#39;s one liner?



I&#39;ve pointed our the immorality of your argument, which you have evaded and replaced with an ad hominem.


Two things: First, we&#39;re not talking about my assumptions of how things SHOULD BE. I am talking about how things actually ARE in most modern democracies.

The fact that you didn&#39;t understand that shows that you&#39;re either mentally challenged, or just haven&#39;t been able to follow the discussion.

You&#39;re right about one thing; I haven&#39;t got a clue what you&#39;re babbling about.


Nonetheless, the fact that you think such judgement should be "up to the school" leaves me no other choice but to conclude that you are, in fact, a retard.

Don&#39;t give an explanation of why you don&#39;t think it should be up to the school, whatever you do.



The moral difference between taxation and theft being minimal.

Yet another cowboy punchy statement without any argument to back it up . . . You&#39;re really boring me.

Does the government ask you permission before it takes a cut from your paycheck ? Does a thief ask permission before he makes off with your car ?


But who are you to talk about rights, Mr Libertarian? I thought people had no rights, but only privileges? You&#39;re just a change-the-tune-follow-the-beat little monkey, arent you?

Here&#39;s a challenge for you : Search every last one of my posts and find one single statement where I have ever implied that "people have no rights, but only privileges".


And you haven&#39;t passed your highschool literacy test, have you?

You must be either a 14 year old, or a middle-aged man suffering from the decadence of old age, and a parrochial unschooled mentality.

You haven&#39;t given me ANY arguments to respond to. I&#39;ve only spent my time pointing out your inability to present and understand concepts.

Let&#39;s talk when you&#39;re older, okay?

Put the spliff away and get a job. :lol:

[Andy Bowden]

search every last one of my posts and find one single statement where I have ever implied that "people have no rights, only priviliges"


So you do believe that the poor or unemployed have the right to quality healthcare when they need it? This seems to contradict some other libertarian viewpoints that the poor should not recieve the same quality of healthcare as a millionaire.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 26 2005, 10:14 PM
So you do believe that the poor or unemployed have the right to quality healthcare when they need it? This seems to contradict some other libertarian viewpoints that the poor should not recieve the same quality of healthcare as a millionaire.
You&#39;re not getting this.

You do not have the right to products or services. You can only have what you trade or work for or what people agree to give you. If you have a (positive) right to such things, you are forcing people (by law) to provide you with them, whether they want to or not. You are initiating force against them because you are demanding (involuntary) actions from them.

Healthcare is a service, thus you do not have a right to it.

Negative rights demand inaction i.e. that you are forbidden to murder, steal or generally initiate the use of force. They demand no actions from anyone.

[Vallegrande]

People with the money (ie corporations etc) should pay for the health care, and the ones in need should demand it. That&#39;s welfare of the nation. Welfare isn&#39;t a bad thing. Our own politicians live off the best welfare imaginable.

[Andy Bowden]

healthcare is a service, thus you do not have a right to it

So should quality healthcare only be available to those who are wealthy - and if so why? Suppose I have worked all my life and become unemployed and am facing a very tough financial situation - would I still be able to recieve the same quality healthcare as anyone else?


And also, healthcare is not a mere "service" like fast food or cable TV - it is an internationally recognised human right, and in a world of such wealth it should not be something that cannot be implemented.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:02 PM
People with the money (ie corporations etc) should pay for the health care, and the ones in need should demand it. That&#39;s welfare of the nation. Welfare isn&#39;t a bad thing. Our own politicians live off the best welfare imaginable.
I agree people with money should pay for healthcare- their own.

Did you read what I wrote ? Do you believe that the initiation of force to be a morally appropriate way of dealing with other people ?


So should quality healthcare only be available to those who are wealthy - and if so why?

I have just explained this.


Suppose I have worked all my life and become unemployed and am facing a very tough financial situation - would I still be able to recieve the same quality healthcare as anyone else?

I have just explained the conditions on which you should be allowed healthcare.


And also, healthcare is not a mere "service" like fast food or cable TV

It does not differ in any way in terms of how it should be gained. I wouldn&#39;t put a gun against someone&#39;s head to provide me with free healthcare anymore than I would to provide me with cable tv.


- it is an internationally recognised human right,

They make the same mistake as you do- internationally.


and in a world of such wealth it should not be something that cannot be implemented.

Except that it requires confiscating wealth that you do not own (and without the owner&#39;s permission) and rest on the fallacious notion of "social wealth", the idea that an african tribesman is a deserving of you paycheck as you are, even though he has no association whatsoever with your or your job.

[Vallegrande]

If people could pay their own that would be the day. Maybe if healthcare was not privatized like it is now. I think it is the privatization that makes it difficult for people to even afford their own health care.

What would you call Canada&#39;s health care. They seem to have their shit down to the T. They have recognized national health care regardless of who has the most money.

[Vallegrande]

Anyways, I think doctors here are playing with the lives of those who can afford to have their life played with. It comes down to a trust thing, something which I have very little of in regards to the health industry.

I just dont trust them from what I am learning, that health care is privately owned, and that keeping people sick is the best way to keep that cash flowing to the health industry.

If health care was free, doctors wouldn&#39;t have the intention of keeping patients sick, because the patient would not be considered their source of income.