marshall wrote:
mcg wrote:
marshall wrote:
mcg wrote:
ellomo wrote:
TheDoctor82 wrote:
I already gave you proof: the example of West Germany Vs East Germany
you can't honestly get a better example of that.
1 example doesn't equate to proof. Have you forgotten about The PRC? It is far from a free market.
Actually, from an economic perspective the PRC is far MORE of a free-market than the United States. Since the loosening of regulations bounding market activity, China has experienced huge economic growth. As a result of free-market policies, the standard of living has increased so much that people over there love the government despite the social oppression.
The PRC isn't a very good example of either a free-market economy or a socialist economy. It's more like a fascist state, though nobody will call it what it is. Also, its economic growth wouldn't have happened without the massive trade surplus with the US.
The political structure of China is what it is (fascism isn't a bad word for it, actually). I'm simply saying when you consider the economic factors that affect business (like taxes, regulations, price floors and ceilings) China is much more of a free market than the US. Whether or not China's economic growth could have happened without a trade surplus with the US is neither possible to determine nor relevant to this discussion.
It is relevent since you claimed that free-market policies and laxed labor regulation in the PRC is what increased the standard of living while ignoring the trade surplus.
My point is this: without free-market policies, the standard of living in China would not have increased so quickly with or without a trade surplus with the US. The free market allows businesses to satisfy demand and that just happened to be where the demand was. If the trade surplus wasn't with the US it would have just been with someone else.
marshall wrote:
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Quote:
bee33 wrote:
The government has no financial interest of its own. It's not a for-profit corporation and doesn't have any stockholders.. It doesn't "take' any money for itself. Levying taxes and then using them to provide services is a way of creating a community that shares at least some of its wealth for the benefit of all. Sharing wealth for the greater good of the community has been the norm in all human societies from the beginning of time (except in cases where despotic rulers took over, like feudal kings, and in those cases the people suffered immensely). Imagine hunter-gatherers who wouldn't share the meat they had hunted?
(Whether the government chooses to fund the right programs or entities and whether those actually benefit the people is another matter.)
Well you can call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you don't support a particular policy and decide not to hand over a certain amount of money to the government then they will throw you in jail. How does that not qualify as 'taking'?
At least with the government you are, at least theoretically, able to influence how your tax money is spent through voting, writing to your local representative, etc. With a private company you have no influence.
You don't have to give your money to a private company if you don't want to. You DO have to give your money to the government if you don't want to. If a company set up a voting system to give you the illusion of influence, would that entitle them to a sum of money from everyone in America?
In some cases you do as I address below. The second statement is ridiculous. A private companies sole purpose is to make a PROFIT while a governments purpose is to serve the people. Of course you don't owe a private company anything if they don't have a contract to serve you.
Ok, then I'm going to extend my question a little. What if this company, a non-profit company, specifies in its company charter that its sole purpose is to serve the needs of the people of the United States. Then is sets up democratic voting system to allow all citizens to have a say in the operation of the company, including choosing the leaders in regular elections. Would this company be entitled to a sum of money from every person in the United States?
marshall wrote:
By being a tax-paying citizen, the govrnment has a contract to serve you through public facilities such as police, firefighters, public roads and transportation systems, etc... If you drive on the interstate highway and refuse to pay taxes you are in effect stealing from the government.
In the absence of coercion, some sort of mutual agreement could and would be reached for services where there was truly a need. If people didn't want to pay, then I wouldn't expect them to get benefits, but even if they did this positive externality is not inherently a problem. Look at public radio for example, everyone could easily get a free ride yet these companies are still supported through voluntary contributions. I don't think you could find a single example of a real-life situation where the so called "free rider problem" has prevented a service from being available to those willing to pay.
That being said, different groups of people have different wants and needs (and opinions on how those wants and needs should be fulfilled), so having a government monopoly trying to serve the needs of all seems pretty stupid.
marshall wrote:
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Consider this. What if all the grocery stores in your state had a monopoly? What if this monopoly suddenly decided to refuse to sell food to you because the owner doesn't like you and decided to blacklist you? This isn't coercion after all since it's *their* product and they have a *right* to not sell *their* possessions to you if they don't want to. Are you just going to take that sitting down? Are you going to put in hours of extra work to grow your own food while your neighbors can just buy thier food? What if you can't do this. Perhaps move to a different state? But what if the monopoly spreads to every state?
Your definition of "coercion" is completely academic. This company might as well be placing a gun to your head and there's nothing you can do about it. Nobody else is going to start a new grocery store just to sell to you. Nobody else has your problem because you're the only one blacklisted. Maybe they could donate some food to you charitably but they have no obligation to if they don't want to.
First of all, free markets tend produce far fewer monopolies than markets where regulations make entry into a market
expensive and difficult.
As for your blacklist example, there are far more historical examples of government abusing people like this then there are of business owners! Most successful business owners would rather take your money then blacklist you. A good example is bus companies in the south who were AGAINST segregation (which was imposed by GOVERNMENT) because most of their customers were black.
First of all, you don't even need to have a monopoly to see this kind of abuse. A collection of companies can simply decide not to serve people on a joint basis.
There are also many more examples of private companies in the south who refused to serve blacks or provided inferior service to blacks. The only thing that foced these companies to change was the eventual enforcement of the Civil Rights Act. Government coercion was NEEDED to protect a minority from unfair treatment.
Businesses that catered specifically to blacks would have opened if not for local government regulations forcing segregation. I don't think the civil rights act changed as much as you think, it was just the eventual change in public opinion that led to the better treatment of blacks. Also, the socioeconomic status of this group improved pretty quickly due to lesser minimum wage laws which made it easy for them to get training in the form of jobs.
marshall wrote:
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Quote:
I personally do think that there are people on SSI who truly are incapable of working, and as said before, I would gladly spend some of my own money to support those in my local community. Some people might not pay up, but I think it's wrong to force people to support my political opinions. I respect differences in opinions. You left-wingers do not afford others that same respect. You advocate forcibly taking other peoples money and spending it for YOUR OWN political views. That's just wrong.
The fact of the matter is people are personally effected by this and it could be a matter of life or death.
Consider this. You're locked in a room full of people for several weeks and you're the only one getting fed. You earn your food because the guard specially chose you as his personal servant, yet there is only one guard and he doesn't want more than one personal servant. Eventually the rest are going to kick the sh** out of you and take some of your food if you refuse to share. They aren't going to care that you consider the food "yours" since you're the only one that "earned" it.
That is a meaningless hypothetical situation that in no way represents the structure of a market economy.
That wasn't my point. The point is that everyone in a society feels entitled to certain basic things, yet you dogmatically cling to your idea that *any* forced sharing / spreading of the wealth in society is *wrong* with absolutely no exceptions. If you were one of the people in the room not being fed you would join in and steal from the person who was hoarding all the food. I can guarantee it. You have to put yourself in someone elses shoes and think deeply to see that things aren't so simple and black-and-white. It's the people who stand to benefit the greatest from this kind of black-and-white thinking (i.e. large corporations and their political lobbyists) who want to brainwash everyone into believing it.
You're right I would join in and steal the food, but I would also expect the other guy to do all in his power to stop me. I still don't see how that's relevant, though.
04 Jul 2010, 6:00 pm
