|
|
| Page 9 of 11 |
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
 Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 01:17 Post subject: |
|
 |
May I at least know what you find so funny?
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 01:22 Post subject: |
|
|
to be completely honest... you're deluded.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 01:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | | to be completely honest... you're deluded. |
Thanks!
Coming from you I take that as a complement. 
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 01:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry. It does sound charming, but it's completely impossible. You're giving humanity too much credit. Way too much credit. No one, that I have met, has yet ever complained about the things you're complaining.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 01:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | | Sorry. It does sound charming, but it's completely impossible. You're giving humanity too much credit. Way too much credit. No one, that I have met, has yet ever complained about the things you're complaining. |
From a very young age I always felt something very wrong with the concept of centralized government, but I never gave it to much credit or deep thought, it was until the day when I got my first job that I began to question things more deeply, when I began working for an income of 800 euros (it wasn't even euros at the time, but Portuguese escudos) that I knew completely nothing about taxing, I was absolutely ignorant about the issue, and perhaps this infantile ignorance at the time triggered some very inquisitive part of myself, when I received my first income, happily waiting for my 800 euros, I receive a little more than 600 euros, and when I ask for my receipt, I saw the social security discounts, and in my infantile ignorance, I asked to my boss, what the hell was that 200 euros going for social security, I haven't signed up for any of that, and at the time, what he said was "look, I also don't want to pay this for those greedy bastards, but if I don't they'll take my business and your property", at the time I was really enraged by it, I protested, etc etc, the years passed by, I formed a family, had kids and stopped thinking so actively about it, working 8 hours a day really doesn't leave you much time to think, specially when you have a family, I then began working on IM, later quit my job and worked exclusively from home, with time I began to have lots of free time, to really read, inform myself and think about every aspect of my life, and the issue of taxation is ever present, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized how insane and illegitimate it is, I later began studying about political science and philosophy on my spare time, and that was how my anarchistic standpoints began to form.
This is all to make one very simple point, the reason why you don't know anyone who complains about the things I complain, it's because people's lives are very hectic and they don't really have the time to think about certain things.
They protest when the government raises taxes, when the government applies austerity laws, and etc, but they don't really understand why is it happening and most importantly they think they have some sort of empirical obligation to pay taxes, they don't even understand that the only reason they do, it's because they are coerced to pay them, the great majority of people doesn't even realize this.
And again, the issue isn't if you know anyone who complains about it or not.
The issue is that, there are people like me, who complain, and we haven't given our individual consent, therefore it's an ethical crime to tax us.
I have no problem paying the amount of money that I pay each year in taxes to support some services that I use, I just want the freedom not to pay when I don't want to use those services or when I disagree with them on principle.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 01:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Thing is, you apparently want your system to replace the current system purely out of selfish reasons (you don't want to pay tax for things you don't get anything from and that nobody asked you about), and this doesn't seem to be of interest to 99.9999% of the people who might be affected.
And in the end you're describing a personal utopia. Thing is, it's extremely non-pragmatic and non-practical. You don't take into account reality when you build up your utopia, for instance human nature, individual differences, greed and selfishness.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 02:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | Thing is, you apparently want your system to replace the current system purely out of selfish reasons (you don't want to pay tax for things you don't get anything from and that nobody asked you about), and this doesn't seem to be of interest to 99.9999% of the people who might be affected.
And in the end you're describing a personal utopia. Thing is, it's extremely non-pragmatic and non-practical. You don't take into account reality when you build up your utopia, for instance human nature, individual differences, greed and selfishness. |
I take them into account indeed, and in my view, the way I have envisioned an Anarcho Capitalistic system, I really can account for all those different people with different interests.
But regardless of all that, first, it is not 99.99% of people that support the current system, it is probably below 80%!
Besides, the majority can not ever voice the consent of any minority, however major the majority is, imposition by the majority is what's really at discussion here.
You seem to believe that if the majority interest is A, they have the rightful legitimacy to impose it on the minority, and the fact is that, they don't have that right, we are all individual organisms, and our individual consent is the most supreme attribute to be respected and uphold, our individual consent can never be broken due to societal needs.
All other attributes of the human experience and society come next in priority to consent, individual consent is the most important of them all.
World peace, stability and security are meaningless, if for that to happen you need to preemptively coerce one individual.
I have one analogy for this, if within one individual person, lies the key for the treatment of all diseases and perhaps even human immortality for the rest of mankind, and all you need to do is kill this person to have access to this secrets.
It is still wrong to do it without his willingful consent, and should never ever be done!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 02:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | You seem to believe that if the majority interest is A, they have the rightful legitimacy to impose it on the minority, and the fact is that, they don't have that right, we are all individual organisms, and our individual consent is the most supreme attribute to be respected and uphold, our individual consent can never be broken due to societal needs. |
That's probably your biggest problem: you see everything in black & white, no compromises, no balance.
Of course the rights of the individual must be protected. However, if a society is to even exist, balance/compromises between the individual and the group is necessary to reach the best possible solution. Your solution is 100% one way and good only for yourself and like-minded. You aren't the only living being to be concerned for/about. We're many people that have to get along, ie. a community, and at some point the community becomes a society with wishes and needs. Here's where the compromise and balance comes in. To make it as good a possible for the most amount of people must take precedence over a few people desire for absolute freedom and decoupling from the society.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 02:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | | You seem to believe that if the majority interest is A, they have the rightful legitimacy to impose it on the minority, and the fact is that, they don't have that right, we are all individual organisms, and our individual consent is the most supreme attribute to be respected and uphold, our individual consent can never be broken due to societal needs. |
That's probably your biggest problem: you see everything in black & white, no compromises, no balance.
Of course the rights of the individual must be protected. However, if a society is to even exist, balance/compromises between the individual and the group is necessary to reach the best possible solution. Your solution is 100% one way and good only for yourself and like-minded. You aren't the only living being to be concerned for/about. We're many people that have to get along, ie. a community, and at some point the community becomes a society with wishes and needs. Here's where the compromise and balance comes in. To make it as good a possible for the most amount of people must take precedence over a few people desire for absolute freedom and decoupling from the society. |
No, I don't see everything as black & white, quite on the contrary, what I see is the State as black & white, the State treats everything in society as an absolute, either something is illegal or something is legal, if it's illegal, then let us marginalize a whole faction of society because of the opinion of some people.
Drugs are illegal, prostitution is illegal, incest is illegal, etc, why, all those things exist between 2 parts that consentually agree in such economical or personal relationship, but since some people want to impose their will and their values on others, we are now marginalizing millions of people because we do not agree with their lifestyle, that's what I call no compromise.
There are many things that I'm personally against, but I understand that it doesn't concern me, if someone wants to prostitute himself, or have sex with their brother, who am I and who are you to have anything to say about this, it doesn't affect you in any way shape or form, but still we impose our opinion in those persons through penalization and laws.
Anarchism is exactly the willingness to respect other lifestyles and ideals that do not affect our personal freedom.
That is why Anarchists like myself will say that we can allow the state to exist as long as you don't force us to it, it is the State that doesn't compromise, it is the State that self proclaims itself as righteous and absolute.
But then of course, we are also aware that if the State allowed for this type of freedom and voluntary association, that people would turn from the State and reject it almost immediately.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 02:53 Post subject: |
|
|
The state is nowhere near black and white.
It does not consider it self the absolute on things.
It's really lol that you do see it as such.
And things that are legal or illegal are based simply because of how it affects people.
Drinking and driving - clearly illegal
Incest - is not illegal just frowned upon and once made a spectacle it'll be assessed by law to deem it illegal. Because what else can they do.
Drugs are illegal because they're bad mmkay.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 03:47 Post subject: |
|
|
you know rhonhrin (I'm dyslexic) I can start to psycho-analyze and play Doctor manhattan too and play revolutionary on my comfy chair (I don't own one it's a shitty wooden chair) and glossy screen on my comfy house (I live in an appartment and it's not that good of a sight) but what's the point? all I see is your inability to adabt and DEAL with the problem at hand, if you don't belong somewhere simply change places. if we're all barbaric capitalist fools with no mercy then why are you still with us, Dr Manhattan? go and create your perfect life form on another planet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 13:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | Frant wrote: | I can see how your society would be great for those that have a high income and can pay for all the services. Meanwhile, I can also see how such a society would struggle to evolve and become better since it's all voluntarily. Since the time has to be spent making a living in this rather harsh society (where education is reserved for the ones who can afford it) few will have time or resources to do any noticeable difference. And since it's voluntary it means the ones on the lowest end lives in gratitude for some handouts.
The picture that paints is quite grim. Classes will form automatically where poverty is very common, progress will be extremely slow since it's all voluntary and people in general tend to care mostly about their own lives and gratification.
A society perfect for wealthy and hell for the poor who can't afford healthcare, protection etc. |
As I often say, your predictions are not correct, but even if they were, look around you, that which you fear can happen without a state, is happening right now, and the thing is that we don't actually have any real control over the problems and solutions (even within the state) because it is a small group of individuals that make all the decisions for all of us.
The society that I described and promote will never be poorer than what it is beneath the state, it might be just as poor, but never poorer, it would never drive suck desctructive wars that kill millions out of the whim of a couple business man and politicians.
I believe it would be much better, but even if it weren't better, I know for a fact it would never be worse than the state.
Also, it is not a perfect society for the wealthy, because everyone was entitled to the same opportunities from the start.
When the economy collapses in the coming decades (and it will collapse), the millionaires and billionaries advantage over the common man will be greatly diminished.
All those non existent billions of dollars will simply cease to exist and this will ultimately lead to a more equal society, it will be a slow process, but it will happen. |
The funny thing here is that liberal markets (USA) have failed greatly. Which are the same markets you would have without a sate. And markets that are greatly supported by a state have done much better then liberal markets. Its classic Hayek vs Keynes.
And sure, at point zero everyone would be entitled to the same from the beginning, its very libertarian(read anarchism also, since it evolved from here). But what after 2 or 3 generations. You think the children from poor families will have the same opportunities, options and resources of a rich family. I can clearly tell you that they will not.
Thats facts..
And sure we might in the future have this kind of society, if the future is +250 years away from now. And say you believe all this is great, but it isn't reality. You can make the same fundamental human ethics theories/relations towards racism and warfare, it doesn't make it go away. We need something that work, and we need it now.
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helvete
Posts: 2727
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 15:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, maybe it didn't evolve from Libertarianism. However my point stands, his idea that everyone starts at the same place is very libertarian, and anarchism (whichever brand of anarchism you want) are closely linked to libertarian values/theories.
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helvete
Posts: 2727
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 15:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| fraich3 wrote: | | Fair enough, maybe it didn't evolve from Libertarianism. However my point stands, his idea that everyone starts at the same place is very libertarian, and anarchism (whichever brand of anarchism you want) are closely linked to libertarian values/theories. |
Not really. Most branches of anarchism only share the prinicple of the stateless society with libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism is much much older than libertarianism. Read my link for an overview of the history of anarchism. It's very interesting reading, even if you don't subscribe to the ideas.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 15:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| fraich3 wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | | Frant wrote: | I can see how your society would be great for those that have a high income and can pay for all the services. Meanwhile, I can also see how such a society would struggle to evolve and become better since it's all voluntarily. Since the time has to be spent making a living in this rather harsh society (where education is reserved for the ones who can afford it) few will have time or resources to do any noticeable difference. And since it's voluntary it means the ones on the lowest end lives in gratitude for some handouts.
The picture that paints is quite grim. Classes will form automatically where poverty is very common, progress will be extremely slow since it's all voluntary and people in general tend to care mostly about their own lives and gratification.
A society perfect for wealthy and hell for the poor who can't afford healthcare, protection etc. |
As I often say, your predictions are not correct, but even if they were, look around you, that which you fear can happen without a state, is happening right now, and the thing is that we don't actually have any real control over the problems and solutions (even within the state) because it is a small group of individuals that make all the decisions for all of us.
The society that I described and promote will never be poorer than what it is beneath the state, it might be just as poor, but never poorer, it would never drive suck desctructive wars that kill millions out of the whim of a couple business man and politicians.
I believe it would be much better, but even if it weren't better, I know for a fact it would never be worse than the state.
Also, it is not a perfect society for the wealthy, because everyone was entitled to the same opportunities from the start.
When the economy collapses in the coming decades (and it will collapse), the millionaires and billionaries advantage over the common man will be greatly diminished.
All those non existent billions of dollars will simply cease to exist and this will ultimately lead to a more equal society, it will be a slow process, but it will happen. |
The funny thing here is that liberal markets (USA) have failed greatly. Which are the same markets you would have without a sate. And markets that are greatly supported by a state have done much better then liberal markets. Its classic Hayek vs Keynes.
And sure, at point zero everyone would be entitled to the same from the beginning, its very libertarian(read anarchism also, since it evolved from here). But what after 2 or 3 generations. You think the children from poor families will have the same opportunities, options and resources of a rich family. I can clearly tell you that they will not.
Thats facts..
And sure we might in the future have this kind of society, if the future is +250 years away from now. And say you believe all this is great, but it isn't reality. You can make the same fundamental human ethics theories/relations towards racism and warfare, it doesn't make it go away. We need something that work, and we need it now. |
Do you think we ever had any free market?
No, you cannot have a free market when corporations and specific business receive funding from the State, when laws and regulations are passed to specifically protect this companies, which are reason there is such discrepancy in society and in business!
The market that we have today has failed, yes, but what we have today is not a free market and it has never been, never make a mistake about this!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 15:43 Post subject: |
|
|
wait... what? Lol.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 15:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | | wait... what? Lol. |
What is your question?
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 15:47 Post subject: |
|
|
im questioning what you said about the free market and how big corporations are protected by the government and little corporations are tossed aside...
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 16:22 Post subject: |
|
|
All I know is that I completely agree with Ronhrin that the 'free market' has never really existed. Not only in terms of government funding but more along the line of protectionism, building zones, etc.
8 out of 10 dentists prefer zipfero to competing brands(fraich3 and Mutantius)!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 16:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | fraich3 wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: |
As I often say, your predictions are not correct, but even if they were, look around you, that which you fear can happen without a state, is happening right now, and the thing is that we don't actually have any real control over the problems and solutions (even within the state) because it is a small group of individuals that make all the decisions for all of us.
The society that I described and promote will never be poorer than what it is beneath the state, it might be just as poor, but never poorer, it would never drive suck desctructive wars that kill millions out of the whim of a couple business man and politicians.
I believe it would be much better, but even if it weren't better, I know for a fact it would never be worse than the state.
Also, it is not a perfect society for the wealthy, because everyone was entitled to the same opportunities from the start.
When the economy collapses in the coming decades (and it will collapse), the millionaires and billionaries advantage over the common man will be greatly diminished.
All those non existent billions of dollars will simply cease to exist and this will ultimately lead to a more equal society, it will be a slow process, but it will happen. |
The funny thing here is that liberal markets (USA) have failed greatly. Which are the same markets you would have without a sate. And markets that are greatly supported by a state have done much better then liberal markets. Its classic Hayek vs Keynes.
And sure, at point zero everyone would be entitled to the same from the beginning, its very libertarian(read anarchism also, since it evolved from here). But what after 2 or 3 generations. You think the children from poor families will have the same opportunities, options and resources of a rich family. I can clearly tell you that they will not.
Thats facts..
And sure we might in the future have this kind of society, if the future is +250 years away from now. And say you believe all this is great, but it isn't reality. You can make the same fundamental human ethics theories/relations towards racism and warfare, it doesn't make it go away. We need something that work, and we need it now. |
Do you think we ever had any free market?
No, you cannot have a free market when corporations and specific business receive funding from the State, when laws and regulations are passed to specifically protect this companies, which are reason there is such discrepancy in society and in business!
The market that we have today has failed, yes, but what we have today is not a free market and it has never been, never make a mistake about this! |
No, we haven't had 100% free market, cause Governments/legislations are often times against it since letting corporations running wild and free would hugely decrease the social goods.
Ask any big corporations if they would like to be without government and the would say yes. Cause that way they could, in our public view, exploit loads more, take higher prices and create monopoly on various items/goods. Which would serve them, but not the public. Just take a brief stroll down history in the last 10 years, and you will find countless examples of this. Hence you have laws that make sure companies cant make monopoly with other companies, and that there must be a certain level of competitiveness. All which would falter away without governments.
And yes the market we have today has failed, but only because it has been more free then it should have been (One big reason, its fairly more complicated then that). So that we have an unequal distribution of wealth and few people sit with all this wealth desperately trying to hold onto it. We need new changes, but anarchy surely isn't the way to go, it would be another step back since it would let those people keep doing what they are doing.
All facts.
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 17:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| fraich3 wrote: | | Note: this it not true for all free markets, not everything is a monopoly of will evolve into one. But it would happen a lot more if no government/legislation was in place. |
This is just wrong, without external interference, protectionism, extraordinary funding and regulation (which is what the State does), if those things do not exist, pure competition becomes the primary and most influential drive of business, which means that all companies within a certain niche will equal struggle and compete with the remainder in trying to appeal the consumer to purchase their product rather than the other companies product.
Since the consumer will natually demand the product which offers a better quality/price ratio, competing companies will become much less likely to form monopolies, simple because they do not possess any exterior help or influence.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73208
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 17:50 Post subject: |
|
|
I was listening to Trump the other day on Piers Morgan Tonight, how China was stealing work and money from the US. How you ask? By doing shade deals? Robbing? Murder? Why no indeed, but offering cheap products that are as good or better than the American alternative. Allow me to " " here. Corporations do indeed need governments, the Ron Paul kind of governments, that will oppress and suppress any free trading and free markets to cater to retarded corporations in the name of capitalism. If governments would cease to exist and corporations would take over, the scenario that would ensue is not unlike many science fiction "prognoses" where corporations go to war over territory control. Not that this isn't the case already, just hidden in disguise of "holy war" and retards like Bush. The last few wars demonstrate this perfectly.
Also, as much as Trump would protest against America buying cheap from China, he has no problem of using Chinese slave labor to achieve the so called "American" products. It's just the low prices Chinese companies sell their products that are bothering him.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 17:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | I was listening to Trump the other day on Piers Morgan Tonight, how China was stealing work and money from the US. How you ask? By doing shade deals? Robbing? Murder? Why no indeed, but offering cheap products that are as good or better than the American alternative. Allow me to "" here at protectionism. Corporations do indeed need governments, the Ron Paul kind of governments, that will oppress and suppress any free trading and free markets to cater to retarded corporations in the name of capitalism. If governments would cease to exist and corporations would take over, the scenario that would ensue is not unlike many science fiction "prognoses" where corporations go to war over territory control. Not that this isn't the case already, just hidden in disguise of "holy war" and retards like Bush. The last few wars demonstrate this perfectly.
Also, as much as Trump would protest against America buying cheap from China, he has no problem of using Chinese slave labor to achieve the so called "American" products. It's just the low prices Chinese companies sell their products that are bothering him. |
I disagree, simply because wars need to be paid for, and if all companies have to equally struggle in trying to remain competitive and survive with a bare profit margin when compared to the competition, if a certain company has wrong intentions and starts to arm itself in preparation for war and conflict, two things will happen, the company will need to raise prices in order to pay for the upcoming war, and a raise in prices will translate into a lower revenue, because consumers will abandon this company and purchase their goods in the competition. Second thing it would happen it would be a major disruption within the company because it simply could not afford to pay it's employees due to lack in revenue.
And if such actions become explicit to the general public, actions such as the intention to start a preemptive conflict, then legal sanctions and penalization can be applied.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73208
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 18:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Preemptive conflict by who? Joe Dumbo Schmoe who couldn't care less who he buys from or the nutcases who see the Trump interview and go "I'll pay ten times more to buy American and not that Chink shieeet!  "?
Legal sanctions and penalization by who? The government is gone, the only sovereign body over the corporation is the corporation. Do you honestly believe now, if Microsoft was to raise a private army and arm itself to take out Apple, it would need any price raises? Or the Tobacco & Alcohol giants? This is naive. If a giant corporation decides to arm itself, especially if backed by a private military "company" (Blackwater, for example), fueled by its own shady interests, there is very little to be done to stop them even now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 18:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | fraich3 wrote: | | Note: this it not true for all free markets, not everything is a monopoly of will evolve into one. But it would happen a lot more if no government/legislation was in place. |
This is just wrong, without external interference, protectionism, extraordinary funding and regulation (which is what the State does), if those things do not exist, pure competition becomes the primary and most influential drive of business, which means that all companies within a certain niche will equal struggle and compete with the remainder in trying to appeal the consumer to purchase their product rather than the other companies product.
Since the consumer will naturally demand the product which offers a better quality/price ratio, competing companies will become much less likely to form monopolies, simple because they do not possess any exterior help or influence. |
No, there are countless examples of companies on the same field tying their firms together to maximize profit. The Oil people even have their own organization where they set the price, and there are countless of other examples where the competition only exist today cause of interference from governments/legislation. Bigger companies buy smaller companies everyday, to maximize profit and eliminate competition.
And name some companies or monopolies that are existing today cause of state interference, where the social good is lessen cause of it. Where everyone supposedly are better off.
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73208
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Feb 2011 18:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed. I can give two examples of this case. Our cellular providers and ISPs, where there is supposedly there is competition but prices are equally high all-around. It needed the ministry of communication to force price lowering and grant licenses for new bodies who guaranteed to offer lower prices.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 9 of 11 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
