if you are going to go after corporate America, go after the ones that are fucking up people's health, the government, and the planet
Unless I misinterpreted your words, you have implied that the private sector has the ability to corrupt government. This is impossible. Because government holds a monopoly on the use of force, only government can allow, or generate, corruption in government. Even in the instances where government and private business have closely collaberated in corruption, at the root of the government's participation is government, not the private sector.
"Corruption" implies an initiation of force against others (fraud for instance). Since a private civilian cannot possibly force government to do something it doesn't want to, the only possible way for government to become corrupt is for government itself to allow corruption.
BTW I completely agree with the notion that business models should not be patentable (actually I do not support any type of patent whatsoever).
Re:Thankfully, this is no democracy
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
For an intro to Libertarian philosophy, see libertarian.org. As for monopolies, only government can yield a true (invincible) monopoly, because only government has the power to impose coercion (force) on consumers. Any other form of market dominance is temporary.
Good point.
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Another prime example is the US and its "war on drugs". By revoking the citizen's freedom to use or sell mind-altering substances for recreational purposes, the US government created a black market which has greatly accelerated the national crime rate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (1) the US currently has the highest ratio of inmates/population in the world, and (2) at least 50% of US inmates are in jail for non-violent drug offences. Can anyone put 2 and 2 together?
Incidentally, this prohibition directly benefits government in the form of justification for more tax revenue and power over the people. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Capitalism? The US is not even close. Nobody seems to understand that capitalism cannot work (at least not properly, let alone optimally) in parallel with socialism. The two economic systems are hostile toward each other. For every tax dollar collected and put towards socialism, there is one taken away from the private sector. For every dollar invested in the private sector, there is one taken away from socialism. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The public education system is heavily biased towards the "government knows best" mindset. Take the second amendment, for instance. Many government-mandated history books interpret the amendment for "government has the right to use tax dollars for military purposes" rather than the original intention of the founders (that individuals have the right to use firearms [force] in defense of force), which is quite obvious to any historian. The US government, like all socialist/pseudo-socialist systems, also spends many millions (bilions?) of tax dollars on propaganda.
My point? Always question the motives of government. Always. Government has the potential to do many times more damage than the private sector. Politicians, as well as unelected representatives and other "public servants", are driven by personal incentive just like the rest of us. There is noting wrong with personal incentive, of course -- this is the foundation of a healthy market economy. The problem lies in the fact that government does business by coercion (force), instead of voluntary association like the private sector. They do not play by the same rules.
eports from the Cato Institute are about as reliable as reports in The Weekly World News
This is simply not true. Cato is well-respected in the economics and political science fields. Perhaps you meant to say "biased", which is obviously true (Cato's goal is to promote free market economics, not socialism).
First of all, I am not trying to advocate anarchy. I subscribe to the Libertarian school of thought which advocates limited government. But hypothetically speaking, yes, security services could very well be run by private organizations. There is loads of theory on this, and some of it is very interesting. See anti-state.com if you are interested. For an intro to Libertarian philosophy, see libertarian.org.
Do not be fooled. In communism everything is owned by the organization which holds a monopoly on the use of force as a business model, i.e. government. If, as a citizen of a socialist society, I really did have part ownership in, say, the education system, then surely I would be able to cash out on my investment and voluntarity terminate my participation in centralized education. It's my investment, after all. Of course that's not the case: Under communism, you are forced (at gunpoint, if need be) to make a "contribution". This does not qualify as ownership, which implies control over the things you own.
So in your pure free market economy, roads pave themselves and schools magically appear.
Of course they don't "magically appear". They are built and managed by private organizations who do business through voluntary association, rather than through coercion.
Most countries in Europe have much higher tax rates than the US. They don't seem to be collapsing.
I would hardly contend that the US is "collapsing". And correct me if I'm wrong, but many of those European countries are experiencing major problems with their socialist solutions. Look at England and their centralized health care. The US is not exactly the pinnicle of capitalist health care, but here in our pseudo-capitalist system, we enjoy much higher quality health care, and much faster service than in England. There is a reason for this: Socialism is inefficient at best.
if the senators are indeed for sale, that is a sign that the country is not ready for democracy
The fact that politicians are "for sale" is an inherent characteristic of democracy. It is also, as many would contend, the major weakness of democracy. The fact that the people can "choose" who to rule over them does not change the basic laws of human nature, which at the root, are based on the profit incentive. ("Profit" does not necessarily imply money or material assets, but the simple concept of investing something of value in hopes of gaining something of higher value.) Everything that any human being does, "good" or "bad", can be explained by this profit incentive. Economics and psychology/sociology are very closely related.
Communism is socialism taken to its logical extreme. Everthing and anything (including your own body) is owned by the state. This is oppression in its purest form.
Anarchy is capitalism taken to its logical extreme. Everything and anything is owned by a private individual. This is freedom in its purest form.
Note that anarchy doesn't imply the absence of morals or social standards, namely those which concern the initiation of force. Anarchy simply requires the absence of a monopoly on coercion, also known as government.
1. So are there any examples of a pure free market economy in the world?
No, and there are no societies that are even close. The thirst for power (and the wealth that goes with it) is simply too great. There is always someone who thirsts to control others, and there are always those who blindly follow the power-hungry. This is exactly why there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism (the purely free market) in the world today. There is not even a such thing as a Libertarian state (limited government). We are not even close.
2. How would you respond to the suggestion that no pure free market economies exist for the same reason that no pure communist states exist?
My point was not that we need to establish a 100% pure form of capitalism, where the tax rate is exactly 0% per citizen per year (anarchy, by definition), in order to see the benefits of a free market. My point was that the benefits are directly proportional to the size of government. Under a government which takes almost half of the average citizens' earnings per year, and is in debt by trillions of dollars, we are simply not even close to experiencing the solutions which capitalism has to offer the broadband market.
Just because the market is free doesn't mean you are.
My point is that the market is not free. Again, you can't put the blame on capitalism when capitalism doesn't even exist.
instead of sold to corporations that didn't pay for them in the first place.
You have just described a problem with socialism, not capitalism. Under a free market economy, government would not own the roads, and would not be able to enforce a monopoly in the first place, public or private.
The broadband, telco, and cable markets are currently regulated to the bone (to the point of government-enforced monopoly, as you pointed out). In other words, goverment is deeply entrenched in these markets. Now, why should we believe that the solution to this problem is even more government?
We do not live under a free market economy. Not even close. The average US citizen is forced to give nearly 50% of his/her earnings per year to fedeal, state, and local governments. This is hardly a free market economy, which requires strong property rights, i.e. the freedom to spend your earnings on what you want, not what government wants. Competition can only arise when the people have a choice in how to invest their assets.
You can promote socialism all you want, but you cannot discredit an economic system that doesn't exist.
They are driven by the same motivations that all humans are, and that's exactly why I don't trust them.
You have just described the great paradox of government. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people are willing to blindly trust government to "do the right thing", when in reality, government is just as likely to "do the wrong thing" as any private organization. Government is nothing more than a group of human beings, who operate according to the [perfectly natural] profit incentive just as normal citizens do. Year after year, our government becomes wealthier and more powerful, and the private sector scrambles to get a piece of the coercive pie. This is no coincidence. The goals of government are identical to those of the private sector: profit (wealth) and market dominance.
The critical difference is that government does not operate by voluntary association. Government officials are not subject to the same set of rules as private citizens. Government does business by force, always and by definition. This, of course, is the precise reason why the founders of the USA, along with our early citizens, held government to the highest level of suspicion.
Who do you trust more: The man who does business by voluntary association, or the man who does business by legalized coercion? Now that's something to think about.
Socialism is something that Americans decided long ago would not be allowed in our nation
Are you aware that the US government (federal, state, and local combined) takes almost 50% of the average citizen's earnings per year? This is a far cry from the founders' original vision of a free market economy based on individual liberty and voluntary association.
Nope, the US today is just as socialist as most of Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I misinterpreted your words, you have implied that the private sector has the ability to corrupt government. This is impossible. Because government holds a monopoly on the use of force, only government can allow, or generate, corruption in government. Even in the instances where government and private business have closely collaberated in corruption, at the root of the government's participation is government, not the private sector.
"Corruption" implies an initiation of force against others (fraud for instance). Since a private civilian cannot possibly force government to do something it doesn't want to, the only possible way for government to become corrupt is for government itself to allow corruption.
BTW I completely agree with the notion that business models should not be patentable (actually I do not support any type of patent whatsoever).
For an intro to Libertarian philosophy, see libertarian.org. As for monopolies, only government can yield a true (invincible) monopoly, because only government has the power to impose coercion (force) on consumers. Any other form of market dominance is temporary.
Another prime example is the US and its "war on drugs". By revoking the citizen's freedom to use or sell mind-altering substances for recreational purposes, the US government created a black market which has greatly accelerated the national crime rate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (1) the US currently has the highest ratio of inmates/population in the world, and (2) at least 50% of US inmates are in jail for non-violent drug offences. Can anyone put 2 and 2 together?
Incidentally, this prohibition directly benefits government in the form of justification for more tax revenue and power over the people. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Capitalism? The US is not even close. Nobody seems to understand that capitalism cannot work (at least not properly, let alone optimally) in parallel with socialism. The two economic systems are hostile toward each other. For every tax dollar collected and put towards socialism, there is one taken away from the private sector. For every dollar invested in the private sector, there is one taken away from socialism. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
It's worth a try. ;)
The public education system is heavily biased towards the "government knows best" mindset. Take the second amendment, for instance. Many government-mandated history books interpret the amendment for "government has the right to use tax dollars for military purposes" rather than the original intention of the founders (that individuals have the right to use firearms [force] in defense of force), which is quite obvious to any historian. The US government, like all socialist/pseudo-socialist systems, also spends many millions (bilions?) of tax dollars on propaganda.
My point? Always question the motives of government. Always. Government has the potential to do many times more damage than the private sector. Politicians, as well as unelected representatives and other "public servants", are driven by personal incentive just like the rest of us. There is noting wrong with personal incentive, of course -- this is the foundation of a healthy market economy. The problem lies in the fact that government does business by coercion (force), instead of voluntary association like the private sector. They do not play by the same rules.
This is simply not true. Cato is well-respected in the economics and political science fields. Perhaps you meant to say "biased", which is obviously true (Cato's goal is to promote free market economics, not socialism).
First of all, I am not trying to advocate anarchy. I subscribe to the Libertarian school of thought which advocates limited government. But hypothetically speaking, yes, security services could very well be run by private organizations. There is loads of theory on this, and some of it is very interesting. See anti-state.com if you are interested. For an intro to Libertarian philosophy, see libertarian.org.
Do not be fooled. In communism everything is owned by the organization which holds a monopoly on the use of force as a business model, i.e. government. If, as a citizen of a socialist society, I really did have part ownership in, say, the education system, then surely I would be able to cash out on my investment and voluntarity terminate my participation in centralized education. It's my investment, after all. Of course that's not the case: Under communism, you are forced (at gunpoint, if need be) to make a "contribution". This does not qualify as ownership, which implies control over the things you own.
Of course they don't "magically appear". They are built and managed by private organizations who do business through voluntary association, rather than through coercion.
Most countries in Europe have much higher tax rates than the US. They don't seem to be collapsing.
I would hardly contend that the US is "collapsing". And correct me if I'm wrong, but many of those European countries are experiencing major problems with their socialist solutions. Look at England and their centralized health care. The US is not exactly the pinnicle of capitalist health care, but here in our pseudo-capitalist system, we enjoy much higher quality health care, and much faster service than in England. There is a reason for this: Socialism is inefficient at best.
The telco monopoly is a result of government regulation, not the free market.
The fact that politicians are "for sale" is an inherent characteristic of democracy. It is also, as many would contend, the major weakness of democracy. The fact that the people can "choose" who to rule over them does not change the basic laws of human nature, which at the root, are based on the profit incentive. ("Profit" does not necessarily imply money or material assets, but the simple concept of investing something of value in hopes of gaining something of higher value.) Everything that any human being does, "good" or "bad", can be explained by this profit incentive. Economics and psychology/sociology are very closely related.
Communism is socialism taken to its logical extreme. Everthing and anything (including your own body) is owned by the state. This is oppression in its purest form.
Anarchy is capitalism taken to its logical extreme. Everything and anything is owned by a private individual. This is freedom in its purest form.
Note that anarchy doesn't imply the absence of morals or social standards, namely those which concern the initiation of force. Anarchy simply requires the absence of a monopoly on coercion, also known as government.
The seperation of business and state is every bit as important as the seperation of church and state.
No, and there are no societies that are even close. The thirst for power (and the wealth that goes with it) is simply too great. There is always someone who thirsts to control others, and there are always those who blindly follow the power-hungry. This is exactly why there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism (the purely free market) in the world today. There is not even a such thing as a Libertarian state (limited government). We are not even close.
2. How would you respond to the suggestion that no pure free market economies exist for the same reason that no pure communist states exist?
See question #1.
My point was not that we need to establish a 100% pure form of capitalism, where the tax rate is exactly 0% per citizen per year (anarchy, by definition), in order to see the benefits of a free market. My point was that the benefits are directly proportional to the size of government. Under a government which takes almost half of the average citizens' earnings per year, and is in debt by trillions of dollars, we are simply not even close to experiencing the solutions which capitalism has to offer the broadband market.
My point is that the market is not free. Again, you can't put the blame on capitalism when capitalism doesn't even exist.
instead of sold to corporations that didn't pay for them in the first place.
You have just described a problem with socialism, not capitalism. Under a free market economy, government would not own the roads, and would not be able to enforce a monopoly in the first place, public or private.
The broadband, telco, and cable markets are currently regulated to the bone (to the point of government-enforced monopoly, as you pointed out). In other words, goverment is deeply entrenched in these markets. Now, why should we believe that the solution to this problem is even more government?
Correction: You cannot blame your disgust with the current state of broadband on an economic system that doesn't exist.
YES! Finally someone who understands. Capitalism and socialism cannot be mixed.
You can promote socialism all you want, but you cannot discredit an economic system that doesn't exist.
free-market.net
You have just described the great paradox of government. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people are willing to blindly trust government to "do the right thing", when in reality, government is just as likely to "do the wrong thing" as any private organization. Government is nothing more than a group of human beings, who operate according to the [perfectly natural] profit incentive just as normal citizens do. Year after year, our government becomes wealthier and more powerful, and the private sector scrambles to get a piece of the coercive pie. This is no coincidence. The goals of government are identical to those of the private sector: profit (wealth) and market dominance.
The critical difference is that government does not operate by voluntary association. Government officials are not subject to the same set of rules as private citizens. Government does business by force, always and by definition. This, of course, is the precise reason why the founders of the USA, along with our early citizens, held government to the highest level of suspicion.
Who do you trust more: The man who does business by voluntary association, or the man who does business by legalized coercion? Now that's something to think about.
libertarian.org
Are you aware that the US government (federal, state, and local combined) takes almost 50% of the average citizen's earnings per year? This is a far cry from the founders' original vision of a free market economy based on individual liberty and voluntary association.
Nope, the US today is just as socialist as most of Europe.
Whoa, there. I was referring to your username, not your political argument. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of "dw5000". Yes?
Ah, it's nice to see another drummer. ;)
Correction: I forgot the "not".