Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="zachvac, post: 1146208, member: 26306"] Not at all. In fact the mindset assumes that all people are different and have different skills that all are important for an entire economy. While my analogy may have been simple, the extension of it really does apply imo. Instead of simply needing a few things to survive, now we have things like health insurance, entertainment, the internet, cars, air conditioning, running water, and so many other services that people use. As there get to be more and more people we can become more and more specialized and the economy can grow and grow as people perfect technology and get more and more efficient at what they do. What is a successful free marketeer? Most people are able to produce enough to support themselves. Even working at McDonalds for near minimum wage, most people are able to live. It isn't a glamerous life by any stretch of the word, but it is enough to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. It all goes back to the fact that people can do enough work to build a hut, hunt their food, and find water. If their skills are more specialized and they can produce more they will make more than that, but back to basics if one can work enough to provide for themselves there is no such thing as an unsuccessful free marketeer, apart from the disabled and the lazy (not grouping them together, two completely separate groups there). Educated insufficiently? Just the phrasing of it shows what I feel to be a misunderstanding. First off this is an entire other topic that I'll not go too far into, but I think the government running the schools is one of the biggest mistakes ever made. Instead of caring about learning, they care about results and test scores. One of the many reasons I attended private school through 8th grade, despite the fact that the money the private school spent per pupil was LESS than the money spent by the public school per pupil in the budget. So it wasn't like I went to a fancy private school, it was a non-profit Montessori school that spent its money on classroom materials rather than tests and textbooks. But let's go back to your point. Unfortunately you are right on the aspect that those with richer parents are going to be able to afford to get their kids better educated, and thus give them more value speaking in simplest terms. So what do you propose, we disallow parents from spending money on their kids? Is it a bad thing when a parent spends their money on a tutor for their child? This is where although there is an unfairness, it's an unfairness in life, and we really can't do much to change it. A person born to farmers who need them to work long hours on the farm and has little time to go to school is not going to be as valuable to society as someone who can go to school, get help from educated parents who can also afford to send them to a good college, etc. Even if it's the same person, the circumstances they were born change it all. And that's sad imo, but it's sad on the part of life, not free market capitalism. Some people are born to abusive parents, some are born to parents who can hardly support themselves let alone a kid. Some are born without a leg, some are born without sight or hearing. Life is not fair, but is your response to this to steal from the rich and give to the poor? Don't get me wrong I'm not against welfare or food stamps or other government programs that many others with my line of thinking would oppose. I personally think that if a person has had bad luck in life, and is unemployed and in need of money through no fault of his own, that I have no problem with the government helping them out. But if for example it's a high school dropout who didn't bother to acquire any skills and now all of a sudden is broke and living on the street because he ****ed up his life earlier, I think he should live with the consequences and to steal from others to pay for his bad decisions would be wrong. Nope, we still have laws. We're not talking about anarchy here, we're talking about a free market. This means that two consenting adults are allowed to make any agreement they wish. Please tell me how this would lead to anything having to do with Conan or Barbarian Hoards. Government regulation beyond anti-trust laws and enforcing contracts essentially is saying "well I know both sides are happy with the agreement, but we're going to prohibit you from doing that". This is the exact same approach anti-poker people take btw. We know you want to gamble the money, your opponents want to gamble the money, the casino wants to provide the service, but we know better for you so we're going to prohibit you from doing it. That's exactly what most regulations are, including laws like minimum wage laws. The government is here to protect our rights, including those of not being attacked by Barbarian Hoards. No the social contract is I will not kill you, harm you, steal from you, or take away your freedoms, and in return I expect these rights to be protected for me as well. Have you studied anything about the concept of the "Social contract"? Let me know when you can get me a reference where it talks about not allowing two consenting adults to enter a contract. Your version of the social contract seems to be more of a gang mentality with threats. I disagree, but it's hard to address something so vague. Please expand, preferably with examples. Can you please use some logic and explain what you're talking about rather than simply taking an editorial written by someone else at face value and repeating it here? Thanks. But note that if a system incorporates everyone regardless of effort, it does not reward effort. This hurts the overall economy. Look at the system today. Despite the fact that there are some super-rich, the poor in America are the envy of almost everyone in the third world. How many people in America today are literally starving on the streets? Despite a recession, the majority of Americans today do not have to worry about where to find the next meal. They may have to worry about not making the car payment, or lack of healthcare, but in so many countries in the world healthcare would be such a luxury they couldn't even imagine affording. It's been the underlying capitalistic economic system that has allowed this to happen. Why would people study for years at school and work long hours every week if they could just screw around in life and be picked up and "given a decent life"? It's the underlying flaw in socialism. Anyway, so many people criticize lack of regulation for everything without even mentioning what they're talking about. Read the factcheck.org article about the financial meltdown. Basically factcheck.org is an independent unbiased organization that basically investigates things politicians say as to whether they're factually correct or not. They have a great article on the financial melt-down and they show where despite what moveon.org would have you believe top Democrats and Republicans that are knowledgable in the area talked about how the bill relieving some of the financial regulations actually made the recent recession not as bad. article about the financial meltdown. Specific question for Zach, or any Pure Free Market Capitalist; What will you propose/do when 1/2 the folks around you are hungry and pissed?[/quote] You're telling me that 50% of the people would not be able to produce as much value as could feed them? That was the basis of my entire original analogy, that at worst case scenario most people can do something that carries enough value for the basic necessities in life. So I'll respond to that as soon as you can show how 50% of the people would go hungry even if we eliminate 100% of welfare (even though I indicated I have no problem with some welfare given that it is based on unfortunate circumstances and not because of laziness or bad decisions). I'll give you a hint. There's a lot of places like that with socialist/communist governments. I don't know of many like that with a capitalistic economic system. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us