You know when Americans really worked hard? During Slavery.
Just sayin'. Perhaps we need some real Conservative thinking to solve our economic woes.
AnnoKano's forum posts
What does the law have to do with morality? nothing Are you one of those people who think it's inherently immoral to break a law? It has everything to do with morality! If I came to your door, and said I demand a payment from you, which if not paid, I would force you to pay a fine or incarcerate you, and then told that this was all in the name of bringing a better liveliness to you and your neighbors, you would think I was a joke. How is government exempt from this line of logic? Is government not a body of people? I personally don't break any laws that I'm aware of but that doesn't mean I am against the plurality of laws that exist today. I suppose the differences between the two are: One has an electoral mandate to demand money through taxation; one does not. One provides free public services which will benefit society; one only claims to do so. I think the way you argue about taxation is a joke.[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] When 60% of the American populace is not in favor of Universal Health Care, don't you think it would be immoral for the 60% to be forced to pay for the 40% who want it? Plus, yes, involuntary taxation is immoral. Why can an association of men demand a monetary payment, that if not paid, will bring an unjust punishment to you? What gives them that right?ChampionoChumps
Why should this role be handed to the local community? That would be impractical for a number of reasons: If there was a large disaster which affected the whole community, then there would be no-one to administer care; those without friends or family to care for them would be at a disadvantage; people living in isolated places would have no way of accessing care; access to healthcare would become dependent on where you live. Quite honestly, I can see absolutely nothing to be gained through what you are proposing. It will lead to fundamental problems and have a devastating effect on the economy, particularly in the event of a large scale natural disaster.A government protecting property rights and individual liberties is fulfilling their role of providing a legal system. A legal system itself also protects the right to life. (You go to prison if you kill someone). I personally do not think that it is the role to provide for and make sure everyone citizen is able to have the basic necessities to survive. That is the role of the local community (friends, family, neighbors).
Vuurk
Almost every developed nation in the world can afford it; and the United States is still an economic superpower so when you say it can't afford universal healthcare, what you mean is that it could afford it if it were to adjust its expenditure.Now, if resources were not scarce and we were not $15 trillion in debt, I would be all for universal health care and all of these other social programs. If resources were not scarce, then hell, I'd have the government provide everyone with a house, car, cell phone, etc as well. The fact is resources are scarce. We are $15 trillion in debt. And our government can not afford to provide universal health care.
Vuurk
Why is it that Libertarians are so gung-ho about getting rid of every service the government provides but are too chicken **** to argue in support of their position when they are confronted with the full implications of what they are advocating? Are you letting your conscience get in the way of your attempts to justify selfishness?I'm not going to argue which of us are right or wrong. I am just clarifying my position..
Vuurk
I can see right away on that page that it is based on Adam Smith's economic principles, and is published by the Wall Street Journal, so it is not really surprising that it shows freemarket capitalism in a good light. Secondly the ratings penalise government spending in their scoring, hence disadvantaging any socialist country by default. This seems to me to be an example of confirmation bias. The fact it supports what you are saying is not really surprising, because the criteria for doing well on that index are the same as the criteria you consider to be ideal. If you were to provide some relation between economic performance and say, happiness index, then you might have a point. But to say that countries with free market economies have the most market freedoms is tautological.I disagree. My premises are not based on assumptions but rather years of historical and empirical evidence. My first statement, that a free market capitalist economy provides individuals with the highest standard of living and well-being is backed by evidence. Take a look at this index of economic freedom. The countries who are most free have the highest standards of living, while the least free having the lowest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
No my friend, the point is that it is up for debate. The very nature of economics makes testing all possibilities impossible, so to say that it is not up for debate is simply not true. The fact that economists disagree with one another alone demonstrates that there is a debate!As far as my second claim that free market capitalism provides the most freedom. It is not up for debate.
Having freedom of choice is not really a choice when you are held at gunpoint. What is the difference between being kept in slavery and being so stricken with poverty that you are reduced to slavery? In one case you are forced by those enslaving you, in the other you are forced by the circumstances; but at the end of the day, you're still a slave aren't you?How exactly, would another economic system which controls the means of production or redistributes wealth be supporting individual freedom? That is a direct violation of individual freedom.
But that was not what I said; I asked you why you do not support anarchism instead, based on my understanding of your beliefs thus far. Of course, the whole point in doing so was to demonstrate that you do not believe free market economics work in every instance. You would not want to have something like law enforcement in the hands of private companies, would you? Thus, you cannot say that free market economies are inherently good things, without contradicting yourself. That is the point I was making, I was not calling you an anarchist, or even of being a would-be anarchist.Also, to make the claim that free market capitalism is advocating anarchism is ridiculous.
Thus, free market economics are not inherently good... rendering at least two of your premises void:You can still have a strong and purposeful government with free market capitalism. The role of government is to provide a legal system (in order to protect the individual and ensure rights and liberties are maintained), national defense, and to protect property rights.
1. I believe a free market capitalist economy provides individuals with the highest standard of living and well-being. 2. I believe that it is the only economic system that is morally acceptable and gives individuals the maximum amount of freedom and autonomy. .
But unless you provide everyone with the same opportunities, then the system is inherently unfair. I am not sure why you think not making any attempt to level the playing field will result in the fairest outcome, when historical evidence demonstrates that things do not work out that way. Having read some of your posts, in this thread and elsewhere, you seem to believe that communism is not practical, while free market capitalism is practical. This is correct, in the sense that free market capitalism is more adaptable than communism is; however the suggestion that free market capitalism along the lines you are proposing will yield the results you think it will is equally fanciful. Sure, free market capitalism is functional, but it will never yield a society that provides everyone with equal opportunity and operates purely on merit; for the same reasons that a communist system won't; greed. You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who has wealth will value individual merit over things like familial ties, friendship, conflicts of interest and so on. In that sense your proposal is a much a fantasy as that proposed by any communist. And I can tell you right now that if I had to rely on your free market ideals then I would not be able to be at university right now. And that's got nothing to due with any sort of laziness on my part, I can assure you.Finally, everyone has the opportunity to succeed, but not everyone takes advantage of their opportunities. Instead of working hard and putting effort into school/work etc. Some people choose to spend their resources and time inefficiently. They buy things that they do not need and invest time inefficiently. Then when they are not well off they complain and beg for a redistribution of wealth or hand-outs.
Thank you for the welcome, although unfortunately I don't expect it to last much longer after I post my response. Of course, I hope that's not the case, but I shan't hold my breath.First off, welcome to gamespot. ^^
The premises you are providing here are flawed for a number of reasons:Now as far as my focus on economics as a tool for determining how a society should run... I agree VERY strongly that economics is not infallible. However, all of the arguments that I make are based on the following premise:
1. I believe a free market capitalist economy provides individuals with the highest standard of living and well-being.
2. I believe that it is the only economic system that is morally acceptable and gives individuals the maximum amount of freedom and autonomy.
3. I do not look at issues regarding an entire society at an individual level, but rather a very macro level. In other words, in the society I am focusing on, yes their will be some people who have it very poorly off. However, I believe that overall society is MUCH better off and that also everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
First of all, this premise makes it impossible to argue against free-market capitalism, because it already identifies it as the best system when it states that it provides the highest standard of living and well-being. In other words, it's circular reasoning, Secondly you can replace the phrase 'free market capitalist economy' with 'socialist', 'fascist', 'communist', 'anarchist' and make the same claim to provide the highest standard of living and well-being. There is nothing about this statement which is purely free-market capitalism.1. I believe a free market capitalist economy provides individuals with the highest standard of living and well-being
This premise has the same problem as the previous one in that it uses circular reasoning, but also makes the assumptions that: 1. free-market capitalism provodes the most freedom and autonomy. 2. That freedom and autonomy are always good. If you believe that freedom and autonomy are always good things, then why are you not advocating a variety of anarchism rather than free-market capitalism?2. I believe that it is the only economic system that is morally acceptable and gives individuals the maximum amount of freedom and autonomy
If everyone has the opportunity to succeed, then why would some people be impoverished? If someone is suffering as a result of poverty, then why would they choose to remain impoverished rather than work to make themselves better off? Once again, this premise is based on the assumption that free-market capitalism is the best solution to the problem. It does not even allow you to consider the possibility of other systems providing better solutions to social problems.3. I do not look at issues regarding an entire society at an individual level, but rather a very macro level. In other words, in the society I am focusing on, yes their will be some people who have it very poorly off. However, I believe that overall society is MUCH better off and that also everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
It is not so much that we both want to achieve the same goal, rather that we both face the same problem. The differences in how to resolve that problem though are fundamental, and would have a profound impact on the every echelon of society. I find it hard to believe you would agree that a government operating socialist policies sounds good but accept they are impractical, and then become an advocate of something which is the polar opposite of it. That's like saying: "Absolute democracy just isn't practical; oh well, looks liek we'll have to have a tyrannical government instead!" But all this is to say nothing of your failure to provide evidence to back any of the statements you have made about capitalism and socialism. Unless you can demonstrate how it is counter productive to provide socialist healthcare rather than private healthcare (for example) then you should not expect anyone to be convinced by what you are saying, no matter how obvious it all may seem to you. You wouldn't be willing to take my word for it if I told you that Socialism is better than Capitalism; why do you expect others to do the same? tl;dr: Your premises are faulty. Please replace them.In the end, we both want to achieve the same goal. We both want society to be as well off as possible. I think that a free market economy is the best means for this to happen. It sounds very good that government should provide all of these things, but I think it is counter-productive and actually HARMFUL to the betterment of all society.
Log in to comment