Total Posts:202|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism Through the Free-Market

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist. A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:36:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
That's called a labor coop, and though it's certainly compatible with Capitalism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional meaning of socialism-- state control of the economy.


Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes
Targeted tax cuts isn't libertarian, taxes existing at all is incompatible with libertarianism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:40:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:36:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
That's called a labor coop, and though it's certainly compatible with Capitalism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional meaning of socialism-- state control of the economy.

That is completely untrue. The very word Libertarian first meant Socialist. Libertarian only meaning Capitalism is purely an American concept.


Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes
Targeted tax cuts isn't libertarian, taxes existing at all is incompatible with libertarianism.

But certainly it's more Libertarian than not having the cuts.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:41:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
I'm pretty sure that only makes a really big board of directors that also happen to be the workers on the ground level.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist.
It's really interesting how you word "there are more incentives to become socialist" as "somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist". It's as if you're saying that Socialists don't believe that people respond to incentives.

Oh wait! :D
A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Not free market if you're talking about making this stuff happen through tax incentives. Which are not natural nor free market, if you didn't know. Which you should, if you were an anarchist. Clearly, you aren't, and weren't...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:43:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist. A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

That assumes that the capitalists own the capital legitimately.

The state capitalists should be dispossessed of the means of production and should be awarded no compensation.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:44:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:43:16 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist. A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

That assumes that the capitalists own the capital legitimately.

The state capitalists should be dispossessed of the means of production and should be awarded no compensation.

I think I agree, but not the common business owner.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:45:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.

No. That's owning stock, and that already exists.

I assume, however, that you mean it in the sense of a buyout. I honestly don't think that your proposed version of "collective buying" is going to work, because it destroys the hierarchical structure necessary to run a business. You can't have everyone being "the Boss", or it's going to be ridiculously inefficient.

Additionally, do you really think that a wealthy employer is going to sell a profitable business to the people who work for him?

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist. A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Cutting taxes =/= eliminating taxes.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:40:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:36:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
That's called a labor coop, and though it's certainly compatible with Capitalism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional meaning of socialism-- state control of the economy.

That is completely untrue. The very word Libertarian first meant Socialist.
Erm, no, it first had nothing to do with politics whatsoever, and you have it backwards, since what you say implies it means the usual meaning of socialism (it never did), rather, socialism MAY HAVE at one point meant something resembling libertarianism (but whether it did or not it doesn't today).



Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes
Targeted tax cuts isn't libertarian, taxes existing at all is incompatible with libertarianism.

But certainly it's more Libertarian than not having the cuts.
No, actually it isn't. The next nearest libertarian thing to no taxes is flat taxes, not social engineering by targeted tax cuts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:46:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:40:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:36:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
That's called a labor coop, and though it's certainly compatible with Capitalism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional meaning of socialism-- state control of the economy.

That is completely untrue. The very word Libertarian first meant Socialist. Libertarian only meaning Capitalism is purely an American concept.

The word libertarian was first used in the context of the free will debate, opposed to determinism.

The word later came to be used by anti-state socialists to separate themselves from the state socialists. That is the anarchists referred to themselves as Libertarian Socialists.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:46:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:41:02 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
I'm pretty sure that only makes a really big board of directors that also happen to be the workers on the ground level.

Yep. I want worker ownership.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist.
It's really interesting how you word "there are more incentives to become socialist" as "somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist". It's as if you're saying that Socialists don't believe that people respond to incentives.

Oh wait! :D
A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Not free market if you're talking about making this stuff happen through tax incentives. Which are not natural nor free market, if you didn't know. Which you should, if you were an anarchist. Clearly, you aren't, and weren't...

Like I said to Ragnar; isn't it more so Libertarian to have the tax cuts than otherwise?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:47:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And just so I get it before PB&J does!

At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:45:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.

No. That's owning stock, and that already exists.

I assume, however, that you mean it in the sense of a buyout. I honestly don't think that your proposed version of "collective buying" is going to work, because it destroys the hierarchical structure necessary to run a business. You can't have everyone being "the Boss", or it's going to be ridiculously inefficient.

I think it should at least be tested on a large scale before you can say that.

Besides, would it even matter saying that a dictatorship is more efficient than a Democracy? If I could form a business as a Minarchy rather than a Democracy I would go for that, but I don't see how that works.

Additionally, do you really think that a wealthy employer is going to sell a profitable business to the people who work for him?

Hence, the incentives.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist. A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Cutting taxes =/= eliminating taxes.

Like I said to the others; isn't it more so libertarian to have the tax-cuts than otherwise?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:52:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:46:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:41:02 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Not free market if you're talking about making this stuff happen through tax incentives. Which are not natural nor free market, if you didn't know. Which you should, if you were an anarchist. Clearly, you aren't, and weren't...

Like I said to Ragnar; isn't it more so Libertarian to have the tax cuts than otherwise?

lol. so uh, I'm going to rearrange your argument's word order.
Tax cuts: More Libertarian
Otherwise: Not as Libertarian

Now let's go to my rebuttal.
Counterexample: No taxes

Hypothesis Test: Is "No taxes" More Libertarian than "Tax cuts"?
Answer: Yes!
Corollary: FREEDO's argument fails.

Would you like another rearrangement?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:52:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:45:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:40:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:36:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.
That's called a labor coop, and though it's certainly compatible with Capitalism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional meaning of socialism-- state control of the economy.

That is completely untrue. The very word Libertarian first meant Socialist.
Erm, no, it first had nothing to do with politics whatsoever, and you have it backwards, since what you say implies it means the usual meaning of socialism (it never did), rather, socialism MAY HAVE at one point meant something resembling libertarianism (but whether it did or not it doesn't today).

Whatever it meant back then it really doesn't matter, you know what I'm talking about now.



Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes
Targeted tax cuts isn't libertarian, taxes existing at all is incompatible with libertarianism.

But certainly it's more Libertarian than not having the cuts.
No, actually it isn't. The next nearest libertarian thing to no taxes is flat taxes, not social engineering by targeted tax cuts.

Good point.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:54:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:50:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop using the word socialism to describe syndicalism.

Worker ownership of the means of production is Socialism, no?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:54:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:50:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop using the word socialism to describe syndicalism.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Part of the Politics series on Socialism[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:55:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:52:08 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:46:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:41:02 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Not free market if you're talking about making this stuff happen through tax incentives. Which are not natural nor free market, if you didn't know. Which you should, if you were an anarchist. Clearly, you aren't, and weren't...

Like I said to Ragnar; isn't it more so Libertarian to have the tax cuts than otherwise?

lol. so uh, I'm going to rearrange your argument's word order.
Tax cuts: More Libertarian
Otherwise: Not as Libertarian

Now let's go to my rebuttal.
Counterexample: No taxes

Hypothesis Test: Is "No taxes" More Libertarian than "Tax cuts"?
Answer: Yes!
Corollary: FREEDO's argument fails.

Would you like another rearrangement?

Oh come on. Would you rather have the tax cuts or not?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Hey guys, do you have $1.5 mil lying around?"

"No, I'm still paying off a mortgage. Why?"

"Because we'd make more if we owned the company."

"Really, how much more?"

"About $1500 a year."

"Fu<k that!"
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:56:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:53:07 PM, Nags wrote:
It hasn't been tried and never will because it's a terrible business model.

Can you explain why?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:57:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:54:44 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:50:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop using the word socialism to describe syndicalism.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Part of the Politics series on Socialism[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Communism is listed under the Socialism umbrella as well. There's a clear difference between the two.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 4:57:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:45:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But certainly it's more Libertarian than not having the cuts.
No, actually it isn't. The next nearest libertarian thing to no taxes is flat taxes, not social engineering by targeted tax cuts.

"The consumption tax… can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:00:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:57:02 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Communism is listed under the Socialism umbrella as well. There's a clear difference between the two.

You are using the Lenin's definitions. Don't.

"Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism." - Wikipedia[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:01:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:57:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:45:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But certainly it's more Libertarian than not having the cuts.
No, actually it isn't. The next nearest libertarian thing to no taxes is flat taxes, not social engineering by targeted tax cuts.

"The consumption tax… can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax." - Murray Rothbard

Consumption tax is not flat tax.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:01:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:50:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:45:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:32:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Socialism can be achieved through the free-market. I'd like to know if any of you Capitalists have a problem with this.

How it would happen is extremely simple:

The workers BUY the businesses from the employers. Tu-duh, Socialism.

No. That's owning stock, and that already exists.

I assume, however, that you mean it in the sense of a buyout. I honestly don't think that your proposed version of "collective buying" is going to work, because it destroys the hierarchical structure necessary to run a business. You can't have everyone being "the Boss", or it's going to be ridiculously inefficient.

I think it should at least be tested on a large scale before you can say that.

I think we should refrain from testing it. There isn't any feasible way for a business to run if there isn't a clearly defined hierarchy of authority within a business through which decisions can be made and passed down. There's no structure if the workers "buy out" the owner(s) and form a huge board of directors. If that's the case, no one would have any authority to make decisions, much less carry them out. Different sections of businesses have to be run differently. The people working in accounting shouldn't be able to determine how the manufacturers do their job just because there are a sh*tload of accountants on the "board of directors".

Besides, would it even matter saying that a dictatorship is more efficient than a Democracy? If I could form a business as a Minarchy rather than a Democracy I would go for that, but I don't see how that works.

Businesses aren't democracies.

Additionally, do you really think that a wealthy employer is going to sell a profitable business to the people who work for him?

Hence, the incentives.

Yeah, because getting less money from the sale than you would get from overall sales revenue is definitely a reason to sell your profitable business.

Great argument.

Also, might I add, Libertarian incentives can be made for accomplishing this. Such as cutting taxes on all non-business owning individuals so somehow it is paradoxically more Capitalist to go Socialist. A natural free-market transition. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because people just don't think about it.

Discuss.

Cutting taxes =/= eliminating taxes.

Like I said to the others; isn't it more so libertarian to have the tax-cuts than otherwise?

Either something is libertarian, or it isn't.

It's like asking someone if they'd rather have their penis or their pinky cut off, when the option exists to discard the knife altogether.

Incidentally, would you rather have your penis or your pinky cut off? Or, if you want, I can refrain from mutilating you altogether.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 4:56:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Can you explain why?

There's a reason why there's a CEO and a few other higher executives in companies and corporations. They allow decisions to be made more smoothly and efficiently. The anatomy of business structure has been developed for many many years. Now, college students receive degrees such as the MBA (Master of Business Administration) and they learn how businesses are run most effectively. Businesses aren't run effectively by the workers. If so, that's how all businesses would be run.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:04:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 5:01:41 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:56:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Can you explain why?

There's a reason why there's a CEO and a few other higher executives in companies and corporations. They allow decisions to be made more smoothly and efficiently. The anatomy of business structure has been developed for many many years. Now, college students receive degrees such as the MBA (Master of Business Administration) and they learn how businesses are run most effectively. Businesses aren't run effectively by the workers. If so, that's how all businesses would be run.

Already said it. He won't listen. :P
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:05:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 5:01:41 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:56:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Can you explain why?

Businesses aren't run effectively by the workers. If so, that's how all businesses would be run.

Reasoning: Look there's $20 on the ground!
Nags: It can't be. If there were then someone would have picked it up already.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2010 5:06:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/31/2010 5:05:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/31/2010 5:01:41 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/31/2010 4:56:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Can you explain why?

Businesses aren't run effectively by the workers. If so, that's how all businesses would be run.

Reasoning: Look there's $20 on the ground!
Nags: It can't be. If there were then someone would have picked it up already.

True. I didn't appeal to probability.