Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080406 - 11/07/03 11:07 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

i'm not sure but i think we can both see that welfare, medicare, social security, corporate subsidies, and the like are all excluded.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2080535 - 11/07/03 12:07 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

union negotiations are alive and well in america..it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits.

But you are aware of the history and *slight difficulty* people had in "persuading" the corporations to give them any working rights, to pay a decent wage or allow unions? Do you think business simply handed over workers rights out of the kindness of their heart? It took a hundred years of violent struggle in the face of ferocious intimidation by corporate power, ably assisted by the police (that you claim we should rely on to protect us..) to get these laws and rights.

To simply demolish government and hope the robber barons and police will look after workers rights is ludicrous. Our only protection is a government strong enough to enforce these laws that is accountable to us and can be VOTED out of power - NOT to rely on a utterly unaccountable corporate structure assisted by a police force that can be bought and paid for by anyone with enough money to do so.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080650 - 11/07/03 12:42 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Did you read what mushmaster wrote alex?


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080656 - 11/07/03 12:45 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

But you are aware of the history and *slight difficulty* people had in "persuading" the corporations to give them any working rights, to pay a decent wage or allow unions? Do you think business simply handed over workers rights out of the kindness of their heart? It took a hundred years of violent struggle in the face of ferocious intimidation by corporate power, ably assisted by the police (that you claim we should rely on to protect us..) to get these laws and rights.

alex... the reason that there was so much trouble back then, and not as much now, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT CERTAIN MINIMUMS ARE GUARANTEED BY GOVERNMENT. we have better police protection now. that's the only difference.

it would be one thing if the minimums set by the government meant that unions no longer existed. the fact is, unions do. they are just as active in their bargaining today as they were 100 years ago. unions are still campaigning for greater wages than those guaranteed by the government, greater benefits than those guaranteed by government, and better hours than those guaranteed by government, just like they were 100 years ago . so why are they no longer beaten and harassed?

To simply demolish government and hope the robber barons and police will look after workers rights is ludicrous.

a blatant STRAW MAN.

here:
_________________________________________________________

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
________________________________________________________

read up. i never said ANYTHING about "demolishing government" or leaving the "rights" of the workers in the hands of the "robber barons".

NOT to rely on a utterly unaccountable corporate structure assisted by a police force that can be bought and paid for by anyone with enough money to do so.

straw man, alex, straw man. that is not what i'm suggesting and you know it. that's EXACTLY what exists in your third world country examples, and it is NOT free market, it is NOT capitalism, it is NOT what i'm proposing, and it is NOT the result of the system i AM proposing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2081027 - 11/07/03 02:57 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

So are you saying governments are unnecessary because Unions have successully lobbied companies directly in the past?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2081055 - 11/07/03 03:05 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

So are you saying governments are unnecessary because Unions have successully lobbied companies directly in the past?

no. i am saying that violence is not a part of the free market, and that a government's lack of interference in the free functioning of the market in no way signifies, indicates, predicts, or causes a lack of protection of individuals from force.

on the contrary, in order to preserve the free funcioning of the market, the government MUST protect individuals from violence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2081097 - 11/07/03 03:18 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT CERTAIN MINIMUMS ARE GUARANTEED BY GOVERNMENT. we have better police protection now. that's the only difference.

Having the right to join a union or get paid a minimum wage has nothing to do with the government passing a law giving you that right? Then what is it to do with? Do you seriously think a corporation is going to give you that right for any other reason? Then why havn't they done so in south east asia?

South east asia wouldn't benefit by a government passing a law giving them the right to form unions and get paid a minimum wage? All they need is "better police protection"? I don't think "police protection" is what they need at all. Police can be bought. What they need is government laws ensuring minimum rates of pay and massive corporate fines if these laws are not met. Lawyers and accountants would be more effective at enforcing minimum wages, not policemen.

just like they were 100 years ago . so why are they no longer beaten and harassed?

Not sure where you're coming from. Why arn't they beaten and harrassed in the US? Because US workers already fought for and died for those rights? Obviously in south east asia there is still brutal oppression and ferocious intimidation being implemented by the same western corporations who operate in the US. They clearly behave differently in the US for some reason - I would suggest the power of the government to affect the operation of their business is the major reason. Along with union power.

Do you come from a working class area mush? I come from an area right on the front line during the 1984 miners strike. I saw on a regular basis precisely how the police protected workers rights. With truncheons and size 10 boots down quiet alleyways. Perhaps the police might protect workers in libertarian textbooks, the real world is a little different.

and it is NOT the result of the system i AM proposing.

Then what are you proposing? At the moment you seem to be saying remove power from the government and hand it to the police.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2081173 - 11/07/03 03:40 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Having the right to join a union has nothing to do with the government passing a law giving you that right? Then what is it to do with?

no alex. the minimums i was referring to were forced minimum wages, benefits, pensions, etc. i was not refering to ones right to form a union. forming a union is a voluntary, non-coersive activity. therefore, individuals have a right to be defended from force while doing so. never did i suggest otherwise. if i did suggest that individuals were not guaranteed the right to form a union (a non-coercive activity) it would be quite a deviation from the principles of liberty i have been arguing for. we've had this exact discussion before in previous threads, and you are using the exact same arguments, remember? they are just as fallacious now as they were then.

South east asia wouldn't benefit by a government passing a law giving them the right to form unions and get paid a minimum wage?

unions- see above comments.

not a minimum wage law. a minimum wage does not increase production. it does not increase efficiency. it does not increase the amount of goods and services available to the people. it does not alleviate poverty. it just moves money from one place to another in a way that is to the detriment of all.

All they need is "better police protection"?

to protect people from violent acts, what else is there?

Police can be bought.

all more easily if they are in a backwards thirdworld country with a stifled economy.

What they need is government laws ensuring minimum rates of pay and massive corporate fines if these laws are not met.

and the corrupt police services would enforce these laws because...?

Lawyers and accountants would be more effective at enforcing minimum wages, not policemen.

wrong. lawyers and accountants cannot enforce anything. that is the job of the police.

Not sure where you're coming from.

i can tell.

Why arn't they beaten and harrassed in the US? Because US workers already fought for and won rights?

and are they not still fighting for better pay, conditions, and benefits today?

Obviously in south east asia there is still brutal oppression and ferocious intimidation being implemented by the same western corporations who operate in the US.

correct.

They clearly behave differently in the US for some reason - I would suggest the power of the government to affect the operation of their business is the major reason.

correct again... if in the "operation of their business" you are including forceful intimidation of unionizers.

Then what are you proposing? At the moment you seem to be saying remove power from the government and hand it to the police.

no. the hand of government's power IS the police. all laws passed by government are enforced by the police. i say they should enforce laws against violence. you say they should use violence to enforce laws against paying what you feel is too little.

you say the police will not enforce laws against violence, but they'll enforce a minimum wage. why would the same cops who are in the pocket of a western corporation who beat down unionizers suddenly turn and enforce a minimum wage? jeeze. think about things.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSlapnutRob
Toolhead

Registered: 03/31/03
Posts: 520
Loc: Michigan
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2082125 - 11/07/03 09:34 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

I'd just like to point out that while that map of the counties was very interesting

GORE STILL WON THE POPULAR VOTE, GOD DAMN IT


This country isn't mostly liberal or conservative... I think it's pretty much right down the middle. Half are fed up with high taxes, half are fed up with high prescription drugs... and so on.... and so on.. and so on....


--------------------
Anything stated above is fictional roleplay dialog by the character that is Slapnut Rob, in no way representing the actions or beliefs of the man behind the keys.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083049 - 11/08/03 04:42 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

no alex. the minimums i was referring to were forced minimum wages, benefits, pensions, etc.

You're forgetting that 99% of the benefits were put in place thanks to unions tho. You don't find too many benefits and workers rights in south east asia right? Or is it just coincidence those are the places where unions are most heavily oppressed and brutalised?

it does not alleviate poverty

So paying some kid a dollar an hour instead of 10 cents an hour isn't going to alleviate his poverty? It's sure gonna help don'tcha think?

and the corrupt police services would enforce these laws because...?

The government that owns them would be voted out of power if they didn't?

wrong. lawyers and accountants cannot enforce anything. that is the job of the police.

So you expect old cop Joe down the street to go into a multi-billion dollar corporation and say "Y'all better be paying all those workers the correct benefits and pension rights y'heah"?

No, we need more lawyers who can fight multi-million dollar court cases to enforce workers rights. Not cops on the beat.

you say the police will not enforce laws against violence, but they'll enforce a minimum wage.why would the same cops who are in the pocket of a western corporation who beat down unionizers suddenly turn and enforce a minimum wage?

No, I'm saying the GOVERNMENT will enforce the minimum wage. If the cops don't do what the GOVERNMENT tell them to do then the government will hold the police accountable otherwise the government will be voted out of power.

The GOVERNMENT is the key here mush. Because it's accountable - if it doesn't do what you want, it gets voted out of power. If the corporations don't do what you want they arn't accountable. It's about accountability.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083217 - 11/08/03 07:20 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

i am saying that violence is not a part of the free market

Could you explain what you mean by "free market"? It's a right-wing buzzword that doesn't mean anything. No corporation wants a "free market". What every single corporation on earth wants is the market all to themselves.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePsilocybeingzz
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 14,463
Loc: International waters
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083239 - 11/08/03 07:30 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

YES

First, there is an assertion that natural processes are self-regulating. And this is a valid truth. We see it at work in nature, for example, where the renewal of life in spring comes on its own. Where we mate for our own pleasure ? and in so doing help in the rebirth of the world. In like manner, we serve the economic polity best by serving ourselves. The drive to make money is what gets us out of bed in the morning, and brings us to do our part in holding the world together. Our economic drives are part of the natural order, and are trustworthy. We do well to take comfort in this assertion.

But invisibly imbedded in free market ideology is a second assertion: that corporate and trade governance structures embody the natural order. And this assertion does not follow logically from the first. For it glosses over the institutionalized power of corporations, and of wealth. To call the stockholder-centered corporate structure "natural" is reminiscent of the ancient claim that the monarchy was the only "natural" way to structure government.

A truly natural free market would free all groups to compete equally, to have a chance to pursue their own self-interest, to have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and their needs considered. Real free markets are not about enshrining the self-interest of one group alone in law. Privilege like that has no place in a free market. Even in an imaginary one.



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2083255 - 11/08/03 07:48 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

I like the sound of that psilo. If free means everyone gets the chance to make whatever they want and put it on the market at whatever price they want, as opposed to giving large corporations the power to undercut and drive competitors out of business, arrange secret monopolies amongst themselves etc then I'm all for the free market.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePsilocybeingzz
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 14,463
Loc: International waters
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083347 - 11/08/03 08:59 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

in the book I posted about and my other thread

you can see the signs again and again

We dont have real capitalism anymore, Adam Smith would be ashamed !
Free market?
Free trade???

well first of all alot of the time its FORCED trade with CONDITIONS, which makes it hardly free.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
    #2083355 - 11/08/03 09:07 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

What I meant is are you saying that it is not necessary for government to involve themselves in enforcing minimum wages, workers rights etc because unions have been doing this more successfully by themselves?

I thought that was what you meant when you said:

Quote:

if so, you'll have a hard time explaining the myriad of concessions that businesses and unions have made in the united states over the years. if peaceful negotiations are such a dangerous foray, it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits. it would be hard to explain why the minimums set by the US government pale in comparison to the agreements negotiated by the unions.





--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083755 - 11/08/03 01:22 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

You're forgetting that 99% of the benefits were put in place thanks to unions tho.

simply not true. business pay for labor like they do for anything else they buy... by paying the market price. collective bargaining helps raise the price a little, but not by much.

You don't find too many benefits and workers rights in south east asia right? Or is it just coincidence those are the places where unions are most heavily oppressed and brutalised?

that certainly has something to do with it, but not everything. the areas you talk about are poor. they have backwards economies that produce little wealth per capita. they have a low standard of living. there are many, many uneducated, unskilled laborers for hire. a lack of a minimum wage does NOT cause poverty, nor does the existence of one eliminate it. as long as those nations are overflowing with unskilled laborers and have unproductive economies, there will be poverty.

So paying some kid a dollar an hour instead of 10 cents an hour isn't going to alleviate his poverty? It's sure gonna help don'tcha think?

giving one person a 1000% raise would certainly help that one person, but things are a little different when you give everyone such a raise, especially when that raise is forced and is set above the market price. when you're looking at economics, you cannot just look at the short-term effects on ONE individual.

suppose this guy's labor just isn't worth $1 per hour to the company. well then they certainly aren't going to keep him around and pay him a dollar an hour 'cause the gov't said so... he'll be fired.

it simply is not that easy. if it was, we could elliminate poverty tomorrow if we enacted a mandatory $20 an hour minimum wage. there are very real market consequences for such laws, consequences that you do not seem to understand, or at least haven't yet considered.

here is a short peice that pretty objectively sums up what minimum wages can and cannot do. you would do well to read it:

________________________________________________________

Minimum Wage Laws

WE HAVE already seen some of the harmful results of arbitrary governmental efforts to raise the price of favored commodities. The same sort of harmful results follows efforts to raise wages through minimum wage laws. This ought not to be surprising; for

a wage is, in fact, a price.
It is unfortunate for clarity of economic thinking that the price of labor's services should have received an entirely different name from other prices. This has prevented most people from recognizing that the same principles govern both.

Thinking has become so emotional and so politically biased on the subject of wages that in most discussions of them the plainest principles are ignored. People who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and denounce opponents of them, without misgivings.

Yet it ought to be clear that a minimum wage law is, at best, a limited weapon for combating the evil of low wages, and that the possible good to be achieved by such a law can exceed the possible harm only in proportion as its aims are modest.

The more ambitious such a law is, the larger the number of workers it attempts to cover, and the more it attempts to raise their wages, the more likely are its harmful effects to exceed its good effects.
The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $50 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $50 a week to an employer will be employed at all.

You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less.
You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.

The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization.

It may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers.

Such shifts, however, are not easily made, nor are the consequences of artificial wage-raising so easily escaped. A higher price for the product may not be possible: it may merely drive consumers to the equivalent imported products or to some substitute.

Or, if consumers continue to buy the product of the industry in which wages have been raised, the higher price will cause them to buy less of it. While some workers in the industry may be benefited from the higher wage, therefore, others will be thrown out of employment altogether. On the other hand, if the price of the product is not raised, marginal producers in the industry will be driven out of business; so that reduced production and consequent unemployment will merely be brought about in another way.

When such consequences are pointed out, there are a group of people who reply: "Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether." But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment.

A nice problem, moreover, will be raised by the relief program designed to take care of the unemployment caused by the minimum wage law. By a minimum wage of, say, $1.15 an hour, we have forbidden anyone to work forty hours in a week for less than $46. Suppose, now, we offer only $30 a week on relief. This means that we have forbidden a man to be usefully employed at, say $40 a week, in order that we may support him at $30 a week in idleness. We have deprived society of the value of his services. We have deprived the man of the independence and self-respect that come from self-support, even at a taw level, and from performing wanted work at the same time as we have lowered what the man could have received by his own efforts. These consequences follow as long as the relief payment is a penny less than $46. Yet the higher we make the relief payment, the worse we make the situation in other respects. If we offer $46 for relief, then we offer many men just as much for not working as for working...

... We cannot distribute more wealth than is created. We cannot in the long run pay labor as a whole more than it produces.

The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise labor productivity.
This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation--i.e., by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided; by new inventions and improvements; by more efficient management on the part of employers; by more industriousness and efficiency on the part of workers; by better education and training.

The more the individual worker produces, the more he increases the wealth of the whole community. The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid.

Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.

-Henry Hazlitt

________________________________________________________

So you expect old cop Joe down the street to go into a multi-billion dollar corporation and say "Y'all better be paying all those workers the correct benefits and pension rights y'heah"?

i don't know who you think enforces laws if not the police.

No, we need more lawyers who can fight multi-million dollar court cases to enforce workers rights. Not cops on the beat.

of course, lawyers are a part of it. again... why you think that cops, courts, and lawyers will be any more able to go after a corporation for paying a voluntarily agreed upon, but illegal wage, but not after them for sicking their security men on unionizers, is beyond me.

No, I'm saying the GOVERNMENT will enforce the minimum wage. If the cops don't do what the GOVERNMENT tell them to do then the government will hold the police accountable otherwise the government will be voted out of power.

see above response. why do you think cops, lawyers and courts would do better at enforcing a law against voluntary transactions between consenting individuals than they would at enforcing laws with real victims to turn up dead or beaten?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083798 - 11/08/03 01:33 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Could you explain what you mean by "free market"?

a market structure in which individuals are free to make voluntary transactions without forceful intervention.

It's a right-wing buzzword that doesn't mean anything.

actually, the definition is pretty specific. see above.

No corporation wants a "free market". What every single corporation on earth wants is the market all to themselves.

and if that market share is indeed not held through peaceful means, and it is indeed a deviation from free market ideals, then they are in violation of the law and shall be held accountable.

so the free market does not pander to the desires of a few would-be forcefully-monopolizing thugs. how is that an argument against free market capitalism?

so a few people would rather steal, defraud, and intimidate their way to market dominance... the law exists to stop these people.

what's your point?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #2083822 - 11/08/03 01:41 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

To call the stockholder-centered corporate structure "natural" is reminiscent of the ancient claim that the monarchy was the only "natural" way to structure government.

a claim is made. nothing whatsoever is done to back it up. you may think that has a nice ring to it, but it's a totally baseless statement. WHY is that true?

A truly natural free market would free all groups to compete equally, to have a chance to pursue their own self-interest, to have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and their needs considered.

yes.

Real free markets are not about enshrining the self-interest of one group alone in law.

correct again.

Privilege like that has no place in a free market.

yep.

hey, you forgot to include the link for this bit of cut-and-paste action:

http://www.divinerightofcapital.com/newpage14.htm.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
    #2083840 - 11/08/03 01:46 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
No corporation wants a "free market".



You are wrong, and you have no way to back up your statement.

Quote:

What every single corporation on earth wants is the market all to themselves.



You have no way of knowing what every single corporation on earth wants.

Please refrain from making specious claims.



--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
    #2083844 - 11/08/03 01:48 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

what i meant when i said:

if so, you'll have a hard time explaining the myriad of concessions that businesses and unions have made in the united states over the years. if peaceful negotiations are such a dangerous foray, it is rather curious that unions in america have persuaded business to voluntarily agree to countless regulations, wage guarantees, pensions, and benefits. it would be hard to explain why the minimums set by the US government pale in comparison to the agreements negotiated by the unions.

is that its absurd to make the claim that minimum wage laws are what are responsible for a safer environment for collective negotiations. alex seems to be stating that by enforcing a minimum wage, the burden on unions to negotiate for themselves (where they'd only be beaten by anti-union thugs) is eliminated, or greatly reduced, or something of that matter. at least that's what it seems like he's arguing. it's sort of hard to tell.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Media: Liberal Bias or Conservative Bias? Baby_Hitler 957 10 02/25/03 07:31 AM
by Evolving
* If libertarians/conservatives believe govt welfare leads to dependency
( 1 2 3 all )
Tao 4,037 52 12/09/04 10:56 PM
by nycomyco
* Conservatives and racism
( 1 2 all )
LearyfanS 4,959 26 08/16/04 10:03 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Why are conservatives so heartless and cruel?
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 4,331 48 03/06/03 11:12 AM
by EchoVortex
* Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 4,953 39 11/02/04 05:11 PM
by Phluck
* Libertarianism
( 1 2 all )
newuser1492 2,630 24 05/14/05 12:14 AM
by shroommachine
* a liberal's response to the death of william f. buckley jr.
( 1 2 3 all )
vonhumboldt 2,920 56 03/15/08 01:49 AM
by Madtowntripper
* Liberal vs. Conservative silversoul7 1,471 4 09/19/04 10:34 PM
by RandalFlagg

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
11,242 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 19 queries.