Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as a holocaust...I think that may be a bit extreme. The states have a role in assisting their poor. The federal government however does not. That is the issue with how many people interpret the views of Libertarians. We don't hate government...we just recognize that the federal government needs limitations...which is why the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did.
While you seem like a nice person with a heart, many right wing/libertarian people do indeed view the poor as sub-human. I read it on the Internet all the time.
While you seem like a nice person with a heart, many right wing/libertarian people do indeed view the poor as sub-human. I read it on the Internet all the time.
Thats the problem. Most people that inhabit these message boards are hateful morons...both on the left and right. Most people involved in the Libertarian Party recognize that the poor aren't bad people...most of the time they work a hell of a lot harder than I do. I volunteer twice a month at habitat for humanity and two other people in my local LP of Nebraska do the same.
Despite popular bullsh*t on the forums...Libertarians are actually pretty caring people...we just have different ideas on where payment for social problems should come from.
If this was the case, many currently large corporations would have met their demise years ago. Corporations, whose only incentive is to gain profit should not be trusted to regulate themselves. After all, much of this manufacturing globalism has taken place because large corporations have decided not to pay the workers their fair share, and with Free trade, they are able to exploit people in 3rd world countries to make cheaper products and to spoil the consumers.
If Ayn Rand's rabid followers had their way I'm pretty sure it would lead to systematic mass murder of the lower classes. Imagine the Holocaust except instead of ethnic groups being targeted, they would exterminate the homeless, welfare recipients, illegal immigrants, etc.
Not quite. I think they would see this as the job for philanthropy, not government. If there wasnt enough charity..."alms for the poor"... to address things like homelessness, etc, oh well.
In olden times it was the job of the localities to take care of the poor (as in 'the poor house').
Not quite. I think they would see this as the job for philanthropy, not government. If there wasnt enough charity..."alms for the poor"... to address things like homelessness, etc, oh well.
In olden times it was the job of the localities to take care of the poor (as in 'the poor house').
Yeah maybe they wouldn't go so far as systematic destruction of the lower class. But yeah I think you're right, I think there might also be pogroms against the lower class from time to time, and crimes committed against them including murder would not be taken seriously by the police since the police's purpose would be to protect the property and lives of the well-off.
I don't have a good enough view of human nature to think charity would be enough to take care of the poor. Look at what we have now, we have shelters sure but they're so bad that the homeless prefer to sleep on the street. Alms and charity might work better if we had more close knit communities but in a global consumer society, everyone is a stranger so many people would simply go unhelped.
If this was the case, many currently large corporations would have met their demise years ago. Corporations, whose only incentive is to gain profit should not be trusted to regulate themselves. After all, much of this manufacturing globalism has taken place because large corporations have decided not to pay the workers their fair share, and with Free trade, they are able to exploit people in 3rd world countries to make cheaper products and to spoil the consumers.
There lies the issue. The corporations aren't regulating themselves...the consumers of their product are the implicit regulators. Hypothetically...If Wal-Mart or Kroger is exposed in a scandal around child labor in Vietnam that wil face public scrutiny or PR issues which serves as external regulating factors. Further...Free Trade Agreements are a net benefit to each participant in the agreement...For example, if, regarding machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade the company's opportunity cost per shoe is two shirts. By trading, it's cost per shoe is reduced. We always hear these manufactured horror stories about the US farming off labor to Zimbabwe, Vietnam, or Thailand and paying workers two goats and three shillings per month of labor, and while there may be some of that going on it isn't the norm. Free Trade and subsequent globalization is brining up international living standards in countries that have embraced free trade like Singapore. Protectionist countries are the ones truly suffering.
Socialism, is a unconstrained idea. It really doesn't fit with how people really behave, or act. The socialist revolution is only possible if someone took a DNA splicer to our human brain, and re-imagined people.
What we know is that humans are pretty selfish, a bit self sited, beasts. We work for ourselves /family first, and everyone else second. We are built to find short cuts.
In that psyche is the root of failure. A government and its regulation can't out-think a 100,000 people. Every regulation, no matter how well intended, will be circumvented. Its a cost of government.
So I see a continued progress of capitalism. . .but you won't get rid of safety nets/etc. People also have unconstrained morality. . .so you keep your wage floors, and handouts, etc. Capitalism is built around not how we want to be, but how can we get the most out of who we really are.
We won't ever be 100%. Yet the idea of no individual ownership, and the ideas of marx are all but dead. Proven as unreliable at supporting innovation and growth as leaching at ending the plague.
yet both forms of economics are and will be impacted by Government. The risk - not of capitalism but of democracy - is that democracy is for sale. If you fight that battle, then you don't really have a lot to worry about.
Socialism, is a unconstrained idea. It really doesn't fit with how people really behave, or act. The socialist revolution is only possible if someone took a DNA splicer to our human brain, and re-imagined people.
I don't totally agree with that. Primitive societies did not base their economies solely on free trade. The members of the tribes were all expected to do their part if they were of working age, and able-bodied, but they generally shared their resources. The chief and his family might have got more than some others but there was definitely an element of communism in how their tribes distributed their resources.
We also have laws and taboos to restrain the uglier side of human nature. I have little doubt murder would be more common if it was legal. Does that mean we shouldn't "regulate" murder?
Socialism, is a unconstrained idea. It really doesn't fit with how people really behave, or act. The socialist revolution is only possible if someone took a DNA splicer to our human brain, and re-imagined people.
What we know is that humans are pretty selfish, a bit self sited, beasts. We work for ourselves /family first, and everyone else second. We are built to find short cuts.
In that psyche is the root of failure. A government and its regulation can't out-think a 100,000 people. Every regulation, no matter how well intended, will be circumvented. Its a cost of government.
So I see a continued progress of capitalism. . .but you won't get rid of safety nets/etc. People also have unconstrained morality. . .so you keep your wage floors, and handouts, etc. Capitalism is built around not how we want to be, but how can we get the most out of who we really are.
We won't ever be 100%. Yet the idea of no individual ownership, and the ideas of marx are all but dead. Proven as unreliable at supporting innovation and growth as leaching at ending the plague.
yet both forms of economics are and will be impacted by Government. The risk - not of capitalism but of democracy - is that democracy is for sale. If you fight that battle, then you don't really have a lot to worry about.
Not everyone is "built" like that...... I know a number of people who are not selfish and go out of their way to help others. I also know many (myself included) who have turned down more money to spend more time helping others.
I don't think global capitalism is a good thing..... it makes a few very wealthy and takes advantage of others, often through tolerated slave labor in other countries
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
