need intelligent people to refute anarcho-cappi arguements -

[red head]

i've been reading a lot of laissez faire liturature lately, and libertarian right-wingers actually do have a lot of good ideas that have made me question my beliefs a bit. i was hoping some left and right-wingers could comment on some of these arguements.

1. the employer/employee contract is voluntary, and therefore non-oppressive. if you don't like your job, just quit. if you're well-qualified, you can find another job, especially with a free market, which would allow for more business and therefore more jobs. if an employer wants use racist hiring practices, or mistreat his workers, his reputation would suffer, so it'd be in his best interest financially to be fair to his employees and customers.

2. if someone works harder, they should make more money. virtually everyone is capable of earning a liveable income, and more business would mean more competition between employers for workers, so wages would rise. "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is absurd, as it rewards laziness. i should be rewarded for doing a good job.

3. socialism enslaves individuals to society. socialism disallows people from keeping what they earn. if wealth is being redistributed through wellfare-state taxation, my work is helping others instead of myself. why have everyone helping everyone instead of simply giving people greater means through which to help themselves? doing away with taxes and allowing business to flourish freely gives everyone more options and more ways to aquire wealth. without government intevention, it will be hardworking, intelligent individuals who profit, not those who have the most friends in washington. these people will be able to create more jobs as their business expands, thus making life better for everyone.

please comment/criticise

[red head]

*arguments

[Nateddi]

For #1, let me quote vox:
For the rich, there are many options, but for the poor, there are not. That's why when libertarians say that everyone is free to take a job or reject it, people point out that it's really the freedom to starve that they mean, which is the alternative for the poor.

The libertarian argument posits the situation as one of choice, but very often the only option to working for a poverty wage is to live in the street and starve to death. This is, of course, no option at all.

Basically, the job of society is simply that. Libertarians wish to abolish society, they wish to abolish public property, and so forth. It grinds down to the philosophical basics. Libertarians have their own philosophy of individualism. They value freedom above everything, above society, above progress, above justice.


#2:
Its amazing that a “leftist” would not let out a chuckle after reading such a comment. For one, capitalists need for everyone to earn a fair income; for if they do not, their labor force is, well, dead. The competition decreases over time. This is why we have only a few people control all of our basic human resources, such as energy, telecomm, transportation, construction, and other I cannot remember off the top of my head. Competition is nonexistent; simply look at Microsoft. They jack up their prices, they eliminate all the little guys which try to compete. If one lucky break gets you greater wealth for expandability, you can eventually control the whole market. You can drop your prices against any “little guys”, and wait until they go out of business for not being able to keep their prices as low, before jacking your prices up again. This argument only works in a complete barter system; it only works in a village, where competition can be more or less fair and actually productive.

#3
Frankly, if you personally do not understand why such an idea is wrong, you should completely drop your title as leftist. Why did you even become leftist if you consider that as a legit argument? Anyway, I am sorry if this offends, I am not trying to be mean. This question takes a longer explanation to the average apolitical person which may find an aspect of it as appealing. Let us just say that society is more important than individual. Especially since individualism is a village concept in practice. In practice, it corrupts utterly on the global scale. The reason why taxes were introduced was because the rich controlled everything, and they raked in all the profit. In theory, there should be “competition”, however it is greatly lacked.

This may all sound disconnected and blurry if you are really unsure about these arguments. I am not used to doing this, so if you are still unsure, go pick up a marx study guide, or mass PM vox, he should help.

[antieverything]

"1. the employer/employee contract is voluntary, and therefore non-oppressive. if you don't like your job, just quit. if you're well-qualified, you can find another job, especially with a free market, which would allow for more business and therefore more jobs. if an employer wants use racist hiring practices, or mistreat his workers, his reputation would suffer, so it'd be in his best interest financially to be fair to his employees and customers. "

Go ahead, quite your job and go do something you enjoy. Tell me if it works. The free market would't create more jobs, it would create higher unemployment.

"2. if someone works harder, they should make more money. virtually everyone is capable of earning a liveable income, and more business would mean more competition between employers for workers, so wages would rise. "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is absurd, as it rewards laziness. i should be rewarded for doing a good job."

Do you really think that rewards are based on merit or the value of one's labor? A janitor is just as important as any rank and file suit in a corporation. Everyone has a part to play in society, everyone who plays their part should be free from financial worry. Wealth doesn't come from hard work, it comes from exploitation.

"3. socialism enslaves individuals to society. socialism disallows people from keeping what they earn. if wealth is being redistributed through wellfare-state taxation, my work is helping others instead of myself. why have everyone helping everyone instead of simply giving people greater means through which to help themselves? doing away with taxes and allowing business to flourish freely gives everyone more options and more ways to aquire wealth. without government intevention, it will be hardworking, intelligent individuals who profit, not those who have the most friends in washington. these people will be able to create more jobs as their business expands, thus making life better for everyone."

Socialism is democratic...it doesn't enslave individuals, they are already enslaved. It enslaves the means of production to society, not the people. How is having a say in how your workplace is run, or recieving your fair share of the wealth society creates slavery? What really happens in a free-market is that wealth becomes polarized...not because the lazy get poor...because the rich get richer because they can more efficiently exploit the poor.

Seriously, this stuff is bullshit. I don't want to sound mean, but if one actually stops to look at this stuff objectively and intelligently it is obviously based on false assumptions.

Read some stuff about the Chile experiment if you find yourself believing this.

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-chichile.htm

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC11.html (this one is better but longer)

Here are some refutations of free-market myths that you should read.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secCcon.html (From an Anarcho-Socialist FAQ)

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/loot9...ree-market.html (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/loot9401-free-market.html) (this is an excellent letter written by Noam Chomsky)

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-exploit.htm (an answer to the myth that unregulated capitalism is good for workers)

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-mobility.htm (response to the myth that mobility makes up for inequality)

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-spectrumfour.htm (a very comprehensive essay about the merits of regulation)


Honestly, the anarcho-cappies (an insult to all real anarchists) would have good ideas if the assumptions that these ideas were based on were not fundamentally flawed.

[antieverything]

Good point, Nate.

As it has been said before, the freedom to choose between slavery and starvation isn't a choice at all, it's a threat.

[antieverything]

Oops, you asked for intelligent people to respond...just disregard whatever I said!

[BOZG]

#1 Added to what Nate just said, here is a quote from Alexander Berkman

When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.
Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live, and so must your wife and children. You can't work for yourself, under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes to the same: you must work for him . You can't help yourself You are compelled .


#2 How do you judge whether someone is working harder than another? I will use a very very basic example to illustrate this. A scientist has an output of 1500 units a week using up 10% of his ability while someone else working as a garbage man (no disrespect) has an output of 1000 units a week though he works at 100% of his ability. The garbage man puts a hell of a lot more into his work, even though he has a smaller output. In a capitalist system, the scientist will be rewarded far more than the garbage man even though he is the lazier of the two.


#3 It is not necessary to acquire more and more wealth. Only a society of wants creates a situation like that. The same society that is responsible for mass exploitation and destruction of the environment for wants. From such a society, classes emerge. We need to concentrate on getting everyone what they need to survive before we even consider wants.

[vox]

Just to add a bit.

The question of "voluntary" employment has already been answered, but I think we should go a bit deeper, for the question assumes two thing: one, that consumers knowing about unfair labor practices would hurt a company and two, that information is accessible.

Joseph Stiglitz, the former head of the World Bank, won a Nobel Prize in 2001 for his work on "asymmetric information" in which he clearly showed that in any transaction one party often possesses more information than the other and therefore has an advantage.

But even if consumers know something, will it matter? Not necesarrily. For example, it's known that the condition of labor in factories that Nike used was/is very deplorable, but I, acting alone and simply not buying Nike products, cannot change that. Indeed, if we assume the stance of the anarcho-capitalists (libertarians by another name), we may even be able to show that "enlightened self-interest" would make me want to buy products made by people in dreadful conditions. It is the central conceit of this manner of thinking that everything takes place in a vacuum and has absolutely no social context, but that, of course, is foolish.

The argument also assumes, irrationally, that what is best for the employer is also best for the employed, though the relationship is clearly antagonistic.

The second statement, about working "harder," is built upon a misunderstanding of the nature of work. There is an old saying, "If hard work made you rich there would never be a poor coal miner." I don't think anyone would say that the coal miners who toiled in mines, working 12 hour shifts, didn't do some very hard work, but did that make them rich? No, not at all. Indeed, there's a reason why the union movement in the US was so popular with mine workers: they made very little money. Given that mines were not located in the middle of established cities, mining towns would spring up, and workers could then be paid with "chits" instead of actual cash. The chits were only good at the company store. You may remember the old song "Sixteen Tons:"

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store.

So we have here an example of what labor looked like in the US before there were labor laws, the very situation that libertarians wish us to return to.

You state that "virtually everyone is capable of earning a liveable income," but this isn't a truism. Barbara Erhenreich wrote a book called Nickel and Dimed: On NOT Getting By in America in which she relates her exeriences as a low-paid worker. Her goal was to take a job, keep it for a month and see if she could pay her rent at the end of the month. She worked as a waitress, a maid and as a retail clerk. She could not pay her rent, though, and this was during the Nineties, when unemployment was quite low and, according to you, wages should rise. They did start to rise, slowly, but were still inadequate. So here we have someone working a full-time job and unable to live. That's the reward that working can provide you if you're doing a job that is quite necesarry (after all, I don't think businesses pay people to do work that isn't required, do you?) but one that isn't specialized enough to demand a higher wage. And that's what this is really about, specialization, rather than hard work.

Your third statement assumes a few things, as well, that don't really have a basis in the lived world. For example, you say that doing away with taxes would allow business to flourish, but you must know that many businesses don't pay taxes anyway, right? In 2000, Microsoft and Cisco, both large companies, paid zero in taxes. Nothing.

The statement also assumes that business will always expand. I call this the myth of perpetual expansion. At some point you reach a state of market saturation, and that then forces the price of whatever widget you're selling downward. Also, demand for widgets may decrease, for whatever reason, across the board. Expansion, therefore, isn't a given. Also, there is a tendency toward consolidation rather than competition. The anti-trust laws in the US were not dreamed up by Leftist agitators but were, in fact, the response to an actual, real situation that was detrimental to the citizenry. In this era of deregulation we see the same thing happening, with, for example, deregulated financial institutions merging with each other. Far from demanding competition, the "free market" is much more comfortable with monopoly ownership which actually reduces employment, for any time two companies merge some jobs become redundant. When Cheney's Haliburton acquired Dresser, 10,000 people were laid off. That's what the real world looks like, and it's nothing at all like the Utopian "free market" dreams of libertarians.

We should also talk about taxes. There is a myth that taxes redistribute money downward in the US today, but that's not the case, for far more money is spent on "corporate welfare" than on the poor. Now I understand that libertarians are supposedly against that, too, but their arguments all have to do with how poor people, who, apparently, don't deserve to live, are taking your money. That notion can be dismissed out of hand, for the stats just don't back it up.

On a broader level, though, the idea of taxation as being bad in and of itself is hopelessly naive and provides a good opening into the faulty premise of libertarian ideology, being the idea that there are only individual needs and not any social needs at all.

One clear example is roadways. How foolish it would be to expect anyone who buys a car to also build the road on which to drive it. As more people in the US owned cars, a need for more and better roads was created, and this was a public need, and it was paid for with public money.

Another example is public education. We, as a people, decided that public education is a good thing, and it's shown itself to be regardless of whatever problems some districts may be facing right now. Libertarians would have us return to the days of illiteracy, for if a job can't even provide a roof over one's head, how is it to provide an education for people who do not work at all? (Of course, the repeal of child labor laws is one of the more disgusting aspects of the libertarian agenda.)

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Your ability to recognize the truth in these statements leads me to believe that you are capable of knowing that which is great from that which is absurd. Keep investigating for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I am sure that you will realize where you stand in all this. Whatever the outcome, I hope we have acquired another proponent for the ideas of freedom, democracy, and self determination. If not, it would be a shame to have one more body litter the battlefield when the ideas proposed by left wingers put unwitting people in dire opposition with those of us who will protect these basic tenants of truth at the risk of death.

[antieverything]

The truth is that the people are going to get fed...one way or another. That is the only truth of existance.

I believe in freedom. That is why I am a socialist. I believe in a democratic society. That is why I am a socialist.

[Stormin Norman]

"The truth is that the people are going to get fed...one way or another. That is the only truth of existance."

How, by magic? Why then are food shortages so prevalent in countries that have vowed allegiance to the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism? I have asked you before and you repeatedly produce the same answer.

SuffianR,

This is how communism/socialism resembles religious doctorine. The leaders and followers of these groups are much the same. The leaders say, "not to worry, everything will come out okay in the end, but only if you have the faith to endure." Where the followers take it as a matter of truth and repeat the utter nonsense they failed to investigate for themselves as fact. A clear similarity exists. For both religion and communism to exist, there must be the ruthless people on top that wish to distort reality and subjugate the unthinking, and the sheep on the bottom that do not question things for themselves and allow themselves to be led away to the slaughter. Then there are those like me that present a problem. In order for the leadership's role to go unanswered and unchecked, it becomes necessary to extinguish those like me who disrupt the perceived legitimacy of such institutions.

[antieverything]

What I mean is that revolutions are never fought because the people are educated about the evils of capitalism en mas. The revolt because they are starving while others are well fed.

Free-Market whores such as yourself tell us that we shouldn't worry about economics, that if we just leave things alone and let ourselves be exploited, everything will work out okay. They say that the lower our wages, the better off we will be. They say that the market will take care of everything as if it is an actual benevolent entity and that if we are poor, it is our fault...that we must not be rightous.

What is the difference? Which is a religion, the ideology that says that if you are a good servant to your master, you will be well rewarded or the ideology that says that we should be in control and free ourselves from slavery?

Maybe both...but I don't buy into these sort of ideologies at all. When it comes to economics, democracy is the solution. Do what is best for the people. What works in the USA may not (has not and will not) work for the people of South America.

fucking hypocrite.

[antieverything]

I rest my case.

[red head]

let me reitterate, i'm no right-winger, but i do think its necessary to continually analyze and refute their arguments. i also must say that i take issue with a lot of whats been said on this post.
for one, my dad left home when he was 16, and didn't graduate from high school. in spite of this, he ended up moving from illinois to tennessee and starting two different successful private businesses, both of which he eventually sold. these businesses are both still active today. he later moved out in the woods and bought about 8 acres of land. he now lives on this land and is self-employed as a carpenter. my dad's example shows me that it may be hard not to work for a big corperation, but it is possible. also, everyone who's telling me that i shouldn't even even think these things if i call myself a leftist can go fuck themselves. sorry if i'm not dogmatic enough to run for president of your little left-wing club or whatever. i see a lot of misconceptions about the libertarian right on this board and i think its important to know your enemy's arguments. free-marketers don't worry abou economics? ever heard of ludwig von mises, murray rothbard, milton friedman or the austrian school of economics? these are people and institutions all left-wingers should be familiar with. i think that if anything, right-wingers have a firmer grasp on economics, since they can draw on actual events, and the successes of the US economy, where left-wingers have little more than Marx quotes and maybe a few brief triumphs in the Soviet Union and Cuba. this does not mean they're right, it simply means that they're a foe worth recognizing and understanding.

[antieverything]

Nobody was attacking you, redhead. I commend you on trying to understand the arguments of your opponents.

The thing about your dad is that sure, a few free-spirited people are going to be able to live on their own terms but the vast majority of people can't. If they tried to, society would break down. The labor force is what makes our society possible.

[red head]

as i've seen it explained, the defining characteristic of a free market is a constant job shortage. sure, things aren't going to be equal, but the quality of life will be better for everyone. if a rich man can make a fortune without government assistance and without initiating force against anyone or anyones property, more power to him. if someone aquired his wealth through inheritance, he's going to lose it quickly if he doesn't use his money wisely. again, it wouldn't be equal, but rights will be ensured and the quality of life would be higher for everyone.

[antieverything]

Using wealth wisely means exploiting workers as much as possible. How is the quality of life improved for everyone when there are those who must work hard in order to maintain their subsitance?

[red head]

if there's a job shortage, there are more job options. workers can work for whoever will pay the most. as the market flourishes, the more jobs will spring up, and the the more each business will be able to pay its workers. if they don't pay enough, they won't get workers. its not exploitation, its a voluntary contract.

[antieverything]

It isn't a voluntary contract, it is choosing slavery over starvation.

How can there be more job options in a job shortage? I think that you must have gotten your words mixed up.

Workers can work for whoever will pay the most but their employer will go out of business because he won't be able to compete with his competitors who pay less.

Employers almost never pass on profits to workers. They always pay the least possible amount. American worker productivity has increased a ton in the last few decades and because of this, profits have increased. Yet, since 1973, real hourly and weekly earnings, in inflation-adjusted dollars, have already dropped respectively by 13.4% and 19.2%.

Always remember that full employment is not attainable or desirable to capitalists...Being forced to pay workers a wage that is still below a living wage is considered an attack on personal freedom.


(Edited by antieverything at 3:36 am on Oct. 9, 2002)

[redstar2000]

The ultimate poster-boy for anarcho-capitalism: AL CAPONE!

Nuff said.

[Anarcho]

I used to belive in Anarcho-Capitalism, but I have found that, just like a socialist state, modern man is not capable of making it work in a large group. Enron, Worldcom, et al are good examples of why.

antieverything- You have a few statements that I'd like to call you on.

1-"Using wealth wisely means exploiting workers as much as possible." To a certain extent, this is true. But the problem arises that people equate expecting a full day of work with exploitation. I can't even tell you how many budding your socialists I've talked with who are all about how "the Man" at their mcjob is keeping them down by not giving them days off, or not letting them leave early. A job is just that, a job. you're supposed to do it. as for wealth being grown by exploiting the workers... well, history has shown that you can only exploit so far before you start loosing workers. Eventually equilibrium is reached.

2- "What I mean is that revolutions are never fought because the people are educated about the evils of capitalism en mas. The revolt because they are starving while others are well fed." No offense, but complete and utter bullshit. Almost every revolution that I've read about was started either by the upper class that didn't want to follow the rules of society or by the educated student base.... once they start reading Marx and other Socialist philosophers, they start thinking that it's a good way to live, without the insecurity of having to make it in "the real world" after college.
And after most revolutions, those that were starving before, continue starving. Little changes for the people at the bottom rung, regardless of the noble goals of the revolutionaries.

[Stormin Norman]

"Anarcho-Capitalism"

In all my years of studying history, politics, and economics, I have never heard this term. Could one of you please explain it to me? Thanks.

[peaccenicked]

Anarcho capitalism=Objectivism=MaxB=Dont give a fuck about anybody='There is no such thing as society'=Redneck "values".

[antieverything]

"To a certain extent, this is true. But the problem arises that people equate expecting a full day of work with exploitation. I can't even tell you how many budding your socialists I've talked with who are all about how "the Man" at their mcjob is keeping them down by not giving them days off, or not letting them leave early."

I'm not talking about kids at mcdonalds here.

"No offense, but complete and utter bullshit. Almost every revolution that I've read about was started either by the upper class that didn't want to follow the rules of society or by the educated student base...."

I should have said popular revolutions, and while the leaders (or the people who hijack the revolution) are educated, the people who do the fighting are the exploited masses. If they weren't being exploited, they wouldn't tolerate the new oppressive regime that almost always is put into place.

[red head]

norman-
anarcho-capital is a relatively recent invention. it has a lot more in common with right-wing libertarians and even some conservatives than with traditional anarchist movements. basically, it is the belief that laissez-faire capitalism is the ideal system, and that it would be most humane and most productive with no government. www.anti-state.com is a good resource if you're interested, and murray rothbard is a good name to start with on a search engine.

[Capitalist]

Capitalism in a free society is nothing more than free Enterprise.

Those who contribute to their society are rewarded for their contribution.

Those who are lazy are repaid with poverty.

Capitalism and Free Untaxed Enterprise is essential to prevent laziness and contribute to new technology.

It is the drive that creates a productive and free country.

Present Day USA is Capitalistic.

The fall of our World Trade Center has not dampened our capitalistic spirit, and now today, Afgahnistan is a better place because of our attack on our Capitalism. More than 2 million people have flocked across the Pakistan border into Afgahnistan because now this country is free from tyrant forces such as the Taliban.

Capitalism = Rebuilding = Productive and Free Societies!

[honest intellectual]

red head,
Laissez-faire capitalism puts no checks on employers. They are free to treat their workers however they want. One might argue that competition for labour would improve the conditions of workers, but history has disproven this. Workers were treated as no more than wage slaves during the laissez-faire era until the foundation of the trade union movement.

[Iepilei]

It's kinda funny how capitalism requires war to pull it's ass out of the mud when it falls, OH SO MANY times.

You ask yourself which feeds more on death.

And as for your quote "those who are lazy are repaid with poverty", how does that explain most of the upper classes... you know, the ones born into wealthy families who have NO NEED to act in any productive form as their heratige supplies it all for them?

You make it sound as if every rich person works their ass off. I can be the first to tell you this is false, and you can't say otherwise - I have connections to people in the bourgeoisie (not the petty, mind you - guys who could throw millions away w/o a blink).

Let us not forget the stock market whores. Guys earning money off the work of others, how do you explain them? Did you know in a capitalist society you're actually NOT supposed to have your money work for you in such a fashion? I guess you should be advocating the ban of the market then...

I could go on how about you work more you earn more, but it's really pointless. Basically capitalism is a kiss-ass society for the workers, who are thrown to the curb in a blink if the upper doesn't pull his desired salary.

How lovely.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 2:53 pm on Oct. 9, 2002
Anarcho capitalism=Objectivism=MaxB=Dont give a fuck about anybody='There is no such thing as society'=Redneck "values".


Actually the anarcho-capitalists despise Objectivists.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 2:48 am on Oct. 10, 2002)

[Anonymous]

I guess you could say I'm sort of a minarchist. However, the only issue I have with them is that of national defense, as I am a strident supporter of military intervention in the middle east and other areas.

[antieverything]

In the free market, the people who do all of the work are repaid with poverty and the people who do none of the work live in incredible wealth. The right-wing argument that actually does require some thinking to refute is that income inequality is desirable because the rich will create more jobs to increase their wealth...the supply side theory...this is still wrong but it isn't nearly as nonsensical as saying that capitalism rewards hard work and punishes laziness.

[red head]

about those who inherit money, if they don't invest or manage their business wisely, they're gonna be poor quickly. and why does it matter if there are a few people at the top making money and not doing anything? they're employing thousands, producing goods, and improving quality of life.

[antieverything]

They have people who do the money management for them...then they sit back and run for public office.

[red head]

by having people manage their money, they create jobs. in anarchy, they can't run for office. also, the quality of life has been steadily improving in the united states and other countries for years. yes, there's some poverty, but even that would diminish without government interferance.

[antieverything]

Nope, you are right, they don't even have to run for office to be in control.

America has far less government interference than western european countries but also has the highest poverty rate!

For the countries that are still developing, the only way for the majority to improve their standard of living would seem to be for them to work for increased economic growth. But while income per capita has increased in the so-called 'tiger economies' of South East Asia, which have attained high levels of growth over recent years relative to other countries, it is far from clear that more growth necessarily means a higher standard of living for the majority. Sure, they produce more wealth, but the vast majority of the wealth goes to the capitalist class... these countries see slight increases in standards of living but at the same time, the wealth becomes even more polarized.

Standards of living are actually declining in America (or at least they were as of '96)...the average increase in American's wages hasn't kept up with the rate of inflation!

When it comes to the rest of the world, since 1980 over 100 countries have had stagnant or declining incomes that have reduced living standards for 1.6 billion people. In 1980, the riches 20% were 30X as wealthy as the average person but now they are well over 60X!

Even if standards of living were increasing, it doesn't mean anything. Standards of living were increasing rapidly among the slaves in slave societies before the civil war...is that an argument for slavery? Slave owners thought so.

And back to the fact that America has lower taxes and a freer market than almost any country in the world, has the highest worker productivity, and produces the most wealth...guess what? It still doesn't have the highest standard of living. Yep, we still have the world's highest per capita buying power but ...fuck it, just check out the statistics for yourself!

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.htm

Interesting, no? You will notice that Germany has the world's highest standard of living, has 10% more taxes on average and about 25% more taxes for the richest part o f the population, has WAY more social services, has only 18% of families bringing in two paychecks (as opposed to our 58%...and they say that liberals are responsible for the breakdown of the family!), an average national debt per person of about 15 times less than us, has WAY more income equality (the average CEO only makes 6.5% of the average worker while it is 17% in America), has double the union membership, has a much larger middle class, 12% less poverty, a higher life expectancy for men and women...and on and on and on.

Yet, Germany has a faster growing economy than us and has the strongest economy in Europe. Still think that economic anarchy is a good thing?

[PaulDavidHewson]

red head,

You started this thread correctly. You liked some aspects of the free market and such. This is good and this is ecactly what you should be doing. Draw your own conclusions.
It's kinda silly to ask on a board, with the majority being Socialist, if you should support elements of right wing economics. The reason for this that you'll mostly get Anti-capitalist propoganda squirted at you, hoping to change your convictions. The capitalist would do the same I imagine.

So if you look those things about free market you should incoperate them in your current beliefs and mingle them with the aspects you like about socialisme.
I could very well imagine that the goverment controlled healt-care part is very appealing about Socialisme, but the idea of being able to participate in the free market is very nice about capitalisme.

Thus you create a hybrid form, taking the best from each.

[better off with]

I think it is worth noting that there are more Libertarians than just the anarchic variety. The arguments that Red Head posted are supported differently by the different groups.

Also for point #2:

Rewards have nothing whatsoever to do with laziness or diligence, they are tied to _usefullness to others and replaceability_ That is: Yes, we couldn't get along without the garbage man, but if he quit we could train someone to replace him in less than 15 minutes. The same is not true of an MBA (okay, _some_ MBAs). This is the same problem that afflicts teachers: No one would claim we can do without them, but they are easy to replace.

The idea that rewards should be tied to how hard you work is one of the misunderstandings that seems to doom socialist experiments to massive inefficiency.

[antieverything]

Actually there are teacher shortages in many areas in the US...that is why they aren't alowed to organize or engage in collective bargaining. Garbagemen have gone on strike before...it wasn't a pretty picture.

[better off with]

The plain fact remains: garbage men are easily replaced when the law allows. I believe in unions, but their strength needs to be in their true value and not in laws which prevent them from being replaced when they aren't as irreplaceable as they thought they were.

[better off with]

Antieverything, correct me if I am wrong, but most states allow collective bargaining, and teachers can and do strike. If I recall, some states even REQUIRE union membership to work at public schools.
After some searching:
http://www.psrf.org/issues/teachers.jsp is informative on this.

[red head]

the teacher shortage is another reason why laissez-faire capitalism is supperior to socialism. in the united states, most schools are public, or state-run. even with 30-40% tax rates in some income brackets, the schools still can't get enough money to pay their teachers adequately. if they were privatized, schools would have to pay their teachers well to stay in business. through competition, only the schools that paid teachers well would stay in business.

[BOZG]

When education becomes a business, that is not superiority.

[doolally]

-l loved this:

>>The fall of our World Trade Center has not dampened our capitalistic spirit, and now today, Afgahnistan is a better place because of our attack on our Capitalism. More than 2 million people have flocked across the Pakistan border into Afgahnistan because now this country is free from tyrant forces such as the Taliban.<<

-where were your *American Liberators* of the oppressed Afgahnis on Sept 10 2001?

-dool

[Capitalist]

I agree - where were was the USA on Sept. 10? - Great Point and I agree totally - WHERE WAS THE USA on SEPT.10??? I knew it was coming - but nobody seemed to really care.

If it were up to me - the USA should have taken out the Taliban starting in 1998 - when it bombed our embassy in Kenya - killing mostly innocent Africans instead of Americans.

If it were up to me, Fidel Castro should have been taken out exactly 40 years ago when he almost caused WWIII and Nuclear War.

Unfortunately the USA is full of liberals and isolationists.

As for Capitalism - this is an excellent site - I agree with about 98% of what it says - I don't agree with their view on abortion or drug use.

http://www.capitalism.org