Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government Intervention

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 12:32:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once you list what you think government should do within the economy answer three more questions:

1) Why do you think the government should do them?
2) What prohibits the free market from doing it effectively?
3) Are you willing to support the use of government violence to steal money from people in order to pay for these policies?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Enforce contracts between buyer and sellers and heavily fine scammers.

2) Regulate scarce essential resources for example: Regulating scarce bandwidth over the airwaves.

3) Give a tax break for the first year of a startup business.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 2:31:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 1:03:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
1) Enforce contracts between buyer and sellers and heavily fine scammers.

Why do you think government is necessary to enforce contracts? Contracts are necessary for the free market, but private defense agencies and dispute resolution agencies can do this.

2) Regulate scarce essential resources for example: Regulating scarce bandwidth over the airwaves.

Bandwidth is an essential resource? If you mean like food, water, natural metals, etc, I strongly disagree.

3) Give a tax break for the first year of a startup business.

So, you implicitly support taxes per se?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DontTreadOnMe
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 3:13:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:20:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Government should:

1) Protect property rights, enforce contracts

2) Have Earned Income Tax Credit

3) School vouchers (state level though)

4) Forced Savings, though opt out (for health retirement, and private accounts)

The first one is essential for the free market. The second option raises the incomes of lower income citizens which allows them to have greater purchasing power, and providing a strong incentive to work harder. The third option guarantees choice and competition with schools, I might be okay with making parents pay for the schooling themselves if I had some research on this topic, though school vouchers sound fine. Forced savings, meaning that people are automatically enrolled to do this but can opt out, is probably my most authoritarian economic measure.

I think people should be forced to save 10% of their wages put in an individual private account that the individual is free to use either in bonds or stocks, high dividend stocks, etc. This will ensure a sound retirement balance for the vast majority of seniors.

The second part of the forced savings is that people should put 3% of their wages into stocks, but once they retire, they can choose to liquidate these securities, and all the funds are accumulated into an account (Health insurance retirement account; HIRA). Then, annually a lump sum is deposited into the retiree's private HSA. This will let the market continue to work and many seniors to have good health security in their later years.

I also think that having employees putting 15% of their wages in a HSA would be a great idea, as it automatically causes health funds to accumulate for them. Currently, employees spend about (indirectly) 30% of their compensation on health care, this idea would cut it assuming health care market efficiencies.

If people weren't forced to save (initially) in retirement accounts, I think that many people would go and not choose to save. The best way for the real world to implement these services are to allow opt out for social security, like the rich already can. And for Medicare, tell the public of the $80 trillion + debt liabilities.

Also, clean air regulations and a fee and dividend are good ideas. Property rights could work in air, but it would be horribly inefficient (it would require tracking of wind patterns and such). An idea could be that property owners sue the polluters, but it would still be complicated. And I think that global warming is man made, so fee and dividend introduces a market incentive to reduce emissions.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:15:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 3:13:27 PM, DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy

have you ever posted anything that actually contributed to a conversation?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 1:11:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 3:13:27 PM, DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy Fix the economy

In response to asking what government should do, you replied, "Fix the economy [ad infinitum]." That is precisely the wrong answer. There are many structural problems in the economy today, but just take one for example. When governments try to combat problem 'A' head on, they frequently not only exacerbate problem 'A', but cause problems 'B' and 'C' based on that initial intervention. Voluntary people working together in a system of private property rights solve problems better indirectly than do governments directly.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 1:12:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:59:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Depends on the context and the goal you're reaching for.

Optimal production and employment.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 1:22:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:20:06 PM, Contra wrote:
Government should:

1) Protect property rights, enforce contracts
The first one is essential for the free market.

Governmental enforcement is not essential for the free market to function. It is essential for private property rights and contracts to be protected and enforced, yet private arbitration agencies not only can fulfill this function, but perform the role much better than government can or will.

If you make time for a brilliant and cogent speech, listen to David Friedman describe how the three most basic functions of government: police, courts, and national defense can be provided for on the free market to the benefit of the individual. ---->
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 1:30:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

1. Regulate businesses so they meet high quality environmental standards.
2. Progressively tax the population.
3. Should supply education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly.
4. Should nationalize all banks.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 3:51:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

Government needs to provide goods and services whose marginal benefit exceeds marginal revenue. This basically means that the amount of extra utility created by one more unit of a good or service is greater than the amount of revenue that a person could capture by producing that good or service. This is usually because of so-called free-rider problems, but are also known as "positive externalities". Government also needs to regulate certain industries when the marginal revenue exceeds the marginal benefit. This is usually due to pollution or other "negative externalities."

The reason for these regulations is very simple: When marginal revenue exceeds marginal benefits, more of a nation's scarce resources will be devoted to producing that good than other goods whose marginal benefit is equal to or less than marginal revenue. Or when marginal revenue is less than marginal benefit, fewer scarce resources will be devoted to those services, and more to others whose marginal benefit equals marginal revenue. The welfare maximizing price and quantity supplied of all goods is when their marginal benefit equals their marginal cost.

To use a real world example of positive externalities, let's invoke research and development. There are large economic benefits of research and development in creating new manufacturing and/or management technologies or methods. However, such services cannot be patented. As a result, other companies can copy these innovations in their own firms and free ride on the R&D of one company. For this reason, patent laws or government funding of research and development is a good thing.

Or, to use negative externalities, a coal fired power plant could generate so many units of power until the marginal cost equals marginal revenue and maximize profit. However, there are marginal costs over and above the costs to the company. Burning coal usually produces various forms of air pollution which reduce the welfare of third parties. Ideally, the marginal benefit and marginal cost would equal one another in the case of burning coal to produce electricity. Because of negative externalities, the marginal cost far exceeds the marginal benefit in market equilibrium. For this reason, government regulations to reduce the amount of coal burning are a good thing.

Government also needs to regulate monetary policy. When you have multiple competing currencies, it becomes very difficult for individual economic actors to plan their decisions for the future. As a result, because of this unneeded volatility, many mutually beneficial exchanges will not take place, and overall welfare is reduced. Historically, this has not been a problem for the central banks of advanced economies.

In terms of international trade, this is a bit harder to answer. On one hand, there are certain trade policies which, in theory, absolutely could increase the welfare of a nation. For instance, the United States is a very large economy, and as a result has a certain amount of monopoly and monopsony power. For this reason, a tariff on imported goods could change the terms of trade (raise the real price of goods we export relative to the goods we import, thus increasing our consumption possibilities) with other nations in our favor. However, it's difficult to see how such predatory policies would not provoke a trade war, and thus reduce everyone's welfare.

There's also the problem of increasing returns to scale, which make it theoretically possible that government should protect certain "infant industries." The problem, as economists from Thomas Sowell to Paul Krugman understand, is that it is extremely difficult for government policymakers to identify which industries, if protected, could give the nation a comparative advantage. Infant industries, by nature, do not have much political clout, and as a result it is very likely that older, inefficient industries would use such policies to protect themselves from foreign competition that would unambiguously raise the welfare of the nation's citizens. There are many examples of such theoretically sound ventures failing in Brazil, South Korea, and others.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 4:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2012 1:30:24 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

1. Regulate businesses so they meet high quality environmental standards.
2. Progressively tax the population.
3. Should supply education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly.
4. Should nationalize all banks.

http://www.funnyqanda.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 5:02:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2012 4:17:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/16/2012 1:30:24 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

1. Regulate businesses so they meet high quality environmental standards.
2. Progressively tax the population.
3. Should supply education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly.
4. Should nationalize all banks.

http://www.funnyqanda.com...

lol XD
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Numidious
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 6:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A)

The government should...

- Ensure the welfare of it's citizens, primarily those unable to work (the disabled, children), those too old to work, etc.

- Ensure that corporations don't monopolize the marketplace, and that businesses treat individuals fairly.

- Regulate banks so that they do not cause crashes such as those in 2008, 2000, etc.

- Preserve our rights and freedoms, particularly those pertaining to free speech i.e. you can write a book without getting shot for it.

B)

The "Free Market" is responsible for a large amount of poverty, illness, and general lack of well being in the world. Why do so many Americans die every year through lack of healthcare, and those in northern Europe with real healthcare systems do not? Why are 23% of American children living in poverty, and only 7.4% of Czech children living in poverty, when the Czech economy is so bad?

Free Market fundamentalism has caused many major problems in the world, and they're only getting worse.

3)

I would definitely prefer a constitutional, accountable government to get my money than some rich banker, or some rich CEO who, on average in the US, makes 411x as much money as his employees.

Taxation can be performed quite simply by deducting taxes before one is paid, this way the minimum infringement upon personal liberty exists.

But the question is this - if the person who posted this topic believes in freedom so much, why does he believe so strongly in things that are the antithesis of freedom, such as the marketplace, corporate power, and property rights? In a truly libertarian society slavery would be legal, and in some places wage slavery IS legal - the government is trying to minimize intervention in the free market.

Furthermore, without anti - monopoly laws, one may HAVE to buy from certain corporations in order to live. You COULD live without, for instance, a telephone built by Bell, but would you want to? The "marketplace," in reality, is an expression for a system where the few control everything, and where that wealth continues to narrow to to the top of the pyramid.

But essentially I'm with the creator of this topic - I'd like to see government end - but why stop there? That only eliminates part of the command economy that is the US (largely the corrupt coalition of bankers and bureaucrats that is the Federal Reserve) but why stop there? Why not eliminate the corporate aristocracy that are, let's face it, at the heart of this command economy? All you have to do is anarcho - socialize the place i.e. workers control where they work in a direct democratic way, rather than bureaucrats.

What is above is really more in tune with human nature - money is not part of what humans are. When you go on a camping trip, you don't charge for a berry bush you find. We only really search for immaterial happiness i.e. music, knowledge, etc. and if we placed importance in those rather than things that don't matter we would eliminate greed - which is at the heart of virtually every conflict in history.

In a society that truly had no government, and that was corporate run (as I assume my opponent means by free market) even more exploitation and power concentration would exist than does today.

As for the real free market, that doesn't exist. Wealth always concentrates in the few, and the few exploit the many.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 7:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 6:52:57 PM, Numidious wrote:
In a truly libertarian society slavery would be legal, and in some places wage slavery IS legal - the government is trying to minimize intervention in the free market.

Congratulations- you have reached the epitome of dumbfvckery.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Numidious
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 10:03:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Congratulations - you have reached the epitome of dumb****ery."

Free Market Fundamentalism - when you have no more ideas for how the free market will solve an issue by itself, insult the opposition.
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 9:22:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 10:03:56 PM, Numidious wrote:
"Congratulations - you have reached the epitome of dumb****ery."

Free Market Fundamentalism - when you have no more ideas for how the free market will solve an issue by itself, insult the opposition.

Eh, no. His comment was entirely warranted. You described such a society as a "truly libertarian society" which is a giant strawman. Who is to say that a "truly libertarian society" is necessarily a stateless society in which people believe in, among other things, the morality of slavery? Why could it not be a minimalist state, like Robert Nozick's night watchman state in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"?

I mean, if we are describing a "truly libertarian society", I think a safe assumption is that most conceptions of such societies are societies in which everyone is a libertarian. Well how could there be chattel slavery if everyone's a libertarian?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 3:43:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 10:03:56 PM, Numidious wrote:
"Congratulations - you have reached the epitome of dumb****ery."

Free Market Fundamentalism - when you have no more ideas for how the free market will solve an issue by itself, insult the opposition.

One acronym: NAP
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Numidious
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:29:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Eh, no. His comment was entirely warranted. You described such a society as a "truly libertarian society" which is a giant strawman. Who is to say that a "truly libertarian society" is necessarily a stateless society in which people believe in, among other things, the morality of slavery? Why could it not be a minimalist state, like Robert Nozick's night watchman state in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"?

Minimum government intervention - does that mean you permit wage slavery? Anyhow, the opening statement here was one concerning whether the government can do anything better than the free market - a radical libertarian statement, the kind of libertarian society I was evidently referring to.

And the SOCIETY, in a society that works only on the fundamentals of the free market and not on anything else, would have nothing to say about slavery whatsoever - and I'm certain that there are individuals in first world countries with low enough standards to practise slavery - wage slavery, as I have said, already exists in many parts of the world. Quite a large government is necessary to prevent that - yet advocates of the unrestrained free market (as, I repeat, the poster seems to be) seem unwilling to face issues such as this or poverty among the disabled.

I mean, if we are describing a "truly libertarian society", I think a safe assumption is that most conceptions of such societies are societies in which everyone is a libertarian. Well how could there be chattel slavery if everyone's a libertarian?"

Does this mean libertarianism doesn't work unless EVERYONE is a libertarian? If so, what a flawed system! That is simply not realistic - not everyone in our society is necessarily in favour of, say, laws against murder. For some serial killers, these might be quite bad.

The truth is that until the market system changes and, essentially, our minds change, there will be people ready and willing to exploit others. The government exists to stop this from happening.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:35:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:29:01 PM, Numidious wrote:
"Eh, no. His comment was entirely warranted. You described such a society as a "truly libertarian society" which is a giant strawman. Who is to say that a "truly libertarian society" is necessarily a stateless society in which people believe in, among other things, the morality of slavery? Why could it not be a minimalist state, like Robert Nozick's night watchman state in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"?

Minimum government intervention - does that mean you permit wage slavery? Anyhow, the opening statement here was one concerning whether the government can do anything better than the free market - a radical libertarian statement, the kind of libertarian society I was evidently referring to.

And the SOCIETY, in a society that works only on the fundamentals of the free market and not on anything else, would have nothing to say about slavery whatsoever - and I'm certain that there are individuals in first world countries with low enough standards to practise slavery - wage slavery, as I have said, already exists in many parts of the world. Quite a large government is necessary to prevent that - yet advocates of the unrestrained free market (as, I repeat, the poster seems to be) seem unwilling to face issues such as this or poverty among the disabled.

I mean, if we are describing a "truly libertarian society", I think a safe assumption is that most conceptions of such societies are societies in which everyone is a libertarian. Well how could there be chattel slavery if everyone's a libertarian?"

Does this mean libertarianism doesn't work unless EVERYONE is a libertarian? If so, what a flawed system! That is simply not realistic - not everyone in our society is necessarily in favour of, say, laws against murder. For some serial killers, these might be quite bad.

The truth is that until the market system changes and, essentially, our minds change, there will be people ready and willing to exploit others. The government exists to stop this from happening.

N fvcking A fvcking P.

Read, learn, and prosper.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Numidious
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:48:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"NAP"

Alright, suppose the NAP is in place, on a legal level. We shall also assume that there is some kind of police force to stop individuals from rounding up others and making them do what we want - we now have a government - let's go one step further - what about wage slavery?

This is very common in third world countries without effective governments. Individuals spend their entire lives working to pay off debts that they will never be able to pay off. Either that or, even worse, they make their children do it. Is this ethically justified? If not, how far would you go to attempt to stop these kind of conditions? If so, are you willing to create a society not unlike that of industrial Britain in the early - mid 1800s, when children could work 12 hour days?
Numidious
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:18:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"N fvcking A fvcking P.
Read, learn, and prosper."

Non - aggression principle logic =

A person is threatening to kill me. I do not try to stop him or "initiate aggression" until he's killed me.

BP hasn't affected anyone directly with it's oil spill, neither has it infringed upon any individual's property rights. Therefore to sue for money from them in order to stop the spill would be an infringement upon their property rights.

And with no government...

A disabled person, unable to obtain a job (and obviously with no welfare or benefits) has lost their parents. There are no local private charities. They starve to death.

How could any of these three situations be prevented by the free market, or with a minarchist state in which the non - aggression principle was utilized?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:32:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:48:08 PM, Numidious wrote:
"NAP"

Alright, suppose the NAP is in place, on a legal level. We shall also assume that there is some kind of police force to stop individuals from rounding up others and making them do what we want - we now have a government - let's go one step further - what about wage slavery?

That's not necessarily a government. You can have multicentric defense agencies performing the defensive functions of a State without it being one. So long as these agencies don't purport to monopolize their respective service or forcefully extract wealth from those they "defend" it's not a government.

This is very common in third world countries without effective governments. Individuals spend their entire lives working to pay off debts that they will never be able to pay off. Either that or, even worse, they make their children do it. Is this ethically justified? If not, how far would you go to attempt to stop these kind of conditions? If so, are you willing to create a society not unlike that of industrial Britain in the early - mid 1800s, when children could work 12 hour days?

You're assuming these are free market creations. Do you really think that without IP rights, subsidies, regulatory cartelization, externalized transportation costs, etc. on the general level or the protection of illegitimate property rights that the current conditions of the economy would still persist? Show why free markets = State capitalist ones and then we can talk.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So much fail in this.

At 9/20/2012 7:18:59 PM, Numidious wrote:
"N fvcking A fvcking P.
Read, learn, and prosper."

Non - aggression principle logic =

A person is threatening to kill me. I do not try to stop him or "initiate aggression" until he's killed me.

Do you know what aggression is in the context of the NAP? Of course not. Aggression is defined as force, fraud, or threat of force. Someone trying to kill you is obviously threat of force.

BP hasn't affected anyone directly with it's oil spill, neither has it infringed upon any individual's property rights. Therefore to sue for money from them in order to stop the spill would be an infringement upon their property rights.

You're presupposing that oceanic property rights are impossible. Under the current system, oceans are publicly or non-owned. That's the problem. Privatize that sh1t and let tort law run its course.

And with no government...

A disabled person, unable to obtain a job (and obviously with no welfare or benefits) has lost their parents. There are no local private charities. They starve to death.

K. And with government, the President takes control of the military and massacres the civilians. Look lol I disproved statism with a hypothetical scenario!

How could any of these three situations be prevented by the free market, or with a minarchist state in which the non - aggression principle was utilized?

How would these be prevented by a State? States and free markets are simply words for different ways to organize labor. One is violent, the other is not. One allows for the monopolization of force (which doesn't lead to quality consequences), the other allows for the decentralizing effects of competition. You're just presupposing States would always do good things which anyone who has heard of the 20th century should know is bullsh1t. It's like saying that a State would provide welfare to the disabled. I can just say voluntary organizations would provide charity too, but neither of those statements has prima facie warrant without external support.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 8:27:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

The government should enslave it's people, send the most physically fit to the mines and to hard labor, the least physically fit directly to education centers, and let the mentally handicapped-non physically fit run our economy. As bad as that sounds, our economy would actually probably be better off in the hands of the mentally handicapped... At least they won't fvck everything up!(This is a Public Service Announcement by Chicken)
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:29:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 8:27:40 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

The government should enslave it's people, send the most physically fit to the mines and to hard labor, the least physically fit directly to education centers, and let the mentally handicapped-non physically fit run our economy. As bad as that sounds, our economy would actually probably be better off in the hands of the mentally handicapped... At least they won't fvck everything up!(This is a Public Service Announcement by Chicken)

Win
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 10:25:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 6:52:57 PM, Numidious wrote:
A)

The government should...

- Ensure the welfare of it's citizens, primarily those unable to work (the disabled, children), those too old to work, etc.

Well, to a degree the states could do it, but private charities could play a good-sized role. Individuals will likely help these people out themselves.

- Ensure that corporations don't monopolize the marketplace, and that businesses treat individuals fairly.

Gov't has a strong tendency to create monopolies (i.e. regulatory capture). Fair cannot be defined. Let the market decide, based on the individual decisions of the millions of consumers. If I don't like one business, I am free to choose to go to another. Businesses need to earn their consumer's trust and money.

- Regulate banks so that they do not cause crashes such as those in 2008, 2000, etc.

Well, if you mean protecting property rights. Banks didn't really cause the crashes directly by a lack of regulations.

- Preserve our rights and freedoms, particularly those pertaining to free speech i.e. you can write a book without getting shot for it.

Ok.

B)

The "Free Market" is responsible for a large amount of poverty, illness, and general lack of well being in the world. Why do so many Americans die every year through lack of healthcare, and those in northern Europe with real healthcare systems do not? Why are 23% of American children living in poverty, and only 7.4% of Czech children living in poverty, when the Czech economy is so bad?

The free market has lifted more people out of poverty and has done remarkable things to improve the standards of living of everybody in society as a whole. A poor guy today is much, much richer than a poor guy in the 1850s. The radio in 1930 was much more expensive and basic than the iPod today, which is more affordable and more advanced technology.

Free Market fundamentalism has caused many major problems in the world, and they're only getting worse.

The private market/ public paying aspects of American healthcare has made Americans oblivious to their health care spending, and thus they have an incentive to use more money. Insurance regulations are very expensive. FDA reg. increase the cost of developing drugs. The free market efficiently allocates resources with prices, which reflect the value of goods and signal where things are in surplus or in shortage.

Gov't harms the poor. With personal responsibility and liberty, the poor would be better off. The gov't has a minimum wage that keeps many unemployed. The social security payroll tax prevents the poor from having higher incomes, and investing in high yield stocks. Gov't monopoly in public schools creates poor quality. Gov't redistribution and regulations shackle the private economy which leads to lower wages, less employment, and prevents businesses from expanding and creating new enterprises, which employs many. Gov't raises the cost of healthcare, harming and subtly killing many people. Gov't sends its people to war. Gov't uses the taxes of the poor to subsidize the wealthy. Gov't manipulates interest rates which leads to less economic confidence and a weaker economy. With a weaker economy, poor people are more unlikely to invest in their human capital, funded by themselves or their employer. Government prevents free trade, this equals less income for the poor and a weaker economy. Government criminalizes drug usage, which puts many of the poor in prison and causes social disruption. Government takes intelligence and wealth out of the market and slows down innovation and economic growth. Government also creates dependence, which harms the poor even more.

Gov't isn't a force of helping the poor.

3)

I would definitely prefer a constitutional, accountable government to get my money than some rich banker, or some rich CEO who, on average in the US, makes 411x as much money as his employees.

Leave it to the market. Competition will make it more likely that the wage of a CEO reflects his value.

Taxation can be performed quite simply by deducting taxes before one is paid, this way the minimum infringement upon personal liberty exists.

Well, I don't know.

But the question is this - if the person who posted this topic believes in freedom so much, why does he believe so strongly in things that are the antithesis of freedom, such as the marketplace, corporate power, and property rights? In a truly libertarian society slavery would be legal, and in some places wage slavery IS legal - the government is trying to minimize intervention in the free market.

Property rights would let a person have property rights, which includes themselves. I think the rest is directed at WSA.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jacob.stewart129142
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 7:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 12:24:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you think government should do within the economy? This includes regulation, monetary policy, services, goods, trade, etc. Please specifically list which services you think government should provide.

Local roads
Protect individual rights by taxing negative externalities for their collective cost and paying those who suffer them
Take advantage of market fear by utilizing monetary policy to gain advantages on other companies (operation twist)
Lower currency value relative to other countries in order to compete globally pay down debt with printed money while other countries currencies decline during fear/economic problems abroad (QE during Europe crisis)
Engage in heavy domestic policy that forces other countries to eliminate tarriffs/taxes on goods.

-Creation of Pseudo companies that are involved in areas of the economy where there is most demand for workers. These pseudo gov companies pay a pittance wage (much less than private sector) in order to provide retraining for structural unemployment and those workers who are discouraged. The pseudo company also encourages workers to seek jobs outside of pseudo company for better pay and provides interview training, job hunting skills after the 9 hour work day. No welfare will be given, no disability given unless citizens are severely mentally deficient. Also minimum wage will be eliminated, no money will be given tax credit wise for having and raising children. (Okun's law)

-Impose limits on majors that tie back to BLS labor demand statistics. (Okun's Law, Structural unemployment)

-Decrease/minimize barriers to entry to facilitate perfect competition.

-Mandate that all taxation be collected via income taxation (flat rate) and that capital gains be taxed as income while corporate tax is eliminated.

-Limited National Defense with no foreign aid, limitations on when a draft can occur (company faces realistic attack from another COUNTRY)

- Police (which are financed by taxation and fees) For example - arrested man convicted of rape - (seizure of X% of assets) in addition to death penalty Crimes broken down into two categories crimes that entail fines and crimes that entail death and fines.
: At 9/24/2012 9:36:56 PM, imabench wrote:

:Little noobs get banned all the time for trying to act like big shots and for blatantly insulting people who contribute to the site all the time.... you even reported one of the highest ranking people on here....

Internet Police