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.
In the first paragraph, if the product isn't up to the standards of the consumer they won't be duping people for very long once word gets out that they are dishonest (that's basically how eBay works). It's obviously immoral to deceive people, but consumers don't have a right to coerce anyone into proving their product works (which is inconvenient for us, but it's logically true.)
Second paragraph, yes they can purchase every competitor if the competitors want to sell their company to them. It's a mutual agreement, so I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think it's possible to have a monopoly in a true free market (a whole other debate but I think Stefan Molyneux has a video addressing it called "capitalism requires government - rebutted")....but even if it was possible, they wouldn't have many customers if their prices were so high. Eventually someone else would seize the opportunity to provide the service at a lower cost, and they would be stupid to sell to the monopoly because they'd be selling short on their earning potential. The monopoly would be forced to lower prices to compete with them. (I'm no expert on this and should review this subject, but I believe that's the general idea)
And no, companies lobbying the government is not something that should be happening. It completely messes up the free market and gives them an unfair advantage.
Last paragraph...there wouldn't be a government to cause those problems. I agree, a company working with government is not good for anyone but that company and the government.
I respect your ideology, and I agree with it - on philosophical terms. However, I'm a pragmatist. We have already tried sticking to the ideology you describe, and found that it doesn't exactly work as predicted. Anti-trust legislation didn't arise because we found monopoly to be benign.
Human nature (and history) tells us that money and power seek to perpetuate and inflate themselves. Markets can and have been manipulated by those with the power and money to do so, also seen historically.
With regards to the red, you are mistaken. That is not a task of the nation - especially through government coercion. I don't have to help you...you don't have to help me. If I ever need help to that extent - I can ask, but I understand the answer maybe no. Life can be tough.
Regarding the blue, yeah we had tough times. But why? You have got to answer that question. There will be different answers for different people - and it may not be a simple answer, but the truth needs to be figured out. Today stuff is so politicized that many people aren't interested in the truth. Who cares about truth - I just want my needs met... I just want my political team to win.
It's just not good to continue to give freebies over and over to the same people.
One more time: I said I believe the programs need to be reformed.
i.e. - if the group grants rights as they choose, they can take them away as they choose. Under collectivism therefore, your "rights" are a function of the group's whims at any given moment.
If there are no inherent, inalienable rights, then all humans are slaves to someone with greater influence of whim.
This is all good - for a philosophy discussion.
In the real world, our rights under the Constitution were ratified. We did, as a group, using democratic methods, grant ourselves the rights we chose. We, as a group, have taken them away (prohibition), and granted them again (repeal of prohibition). This is how it works.
We can philosophize to our hearts' content, but if we lose sight of reality, all the philosophy in the world becomes meaningless.
Pure Fantasy, the nobles you described never existed, anyone that true knows history knows this, you give the Nobles characteristics that they did not posses and make claims which are simply false. Like I said, nice fairy tail and something I am sure the children and grandchildren will love to hear told, but as an example of how the world really works it is not even close. Maybe you should try a different time frame or set of characters, that is if you can find a case where reality does not come into play.
Casper, what you didn't realize was that the preamble was not included but should have been: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."
What WCR wrote was not meant to have any relationship to or draw upon American, British or European HISTORY. As we know in much of western European history the various nations were ruled by absolute monarchists who claimed that their power came directly from god. The King was the only one who could grant land and titles and create members of the nobility, usually for providing the king with money and men (peasants who worked the nobles land for little more than a meager share of what crops they produced.) The nobles, more commonly referred to as the aristocracy did little work and were the idle rich.
Meanwhile in the Colonies, later known as the United States a rather small number of the educated land owners got together and wrote some radical stuff, (We hold these truths...) what we would come to call The Declaration of Independence which concludes with this final sentiment: "...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
I guess that today many people would consider such ideas to be socialism.
That was in 1776. It would be more than a dozen years before The Constitution was completed and ratified.
I respect your ideology, and I agree with it - on philosophical terms. However, I'm a pragmatist. We have already tried sticking to the ideology you describe, and found that it doesn't exactly work as predicted. Anti-trust legislation didn't arise because we found monopoly to be benign.
Human nature (and history) tells us that money and power seek to perpetuate and inflate themselves. Markets can and have been manipulated by those with the power and money to do so, also seen historically.
I understand your thinking. I don't think it's been attempted yet, though. We've never had a truly free civilized society where people understand the non-aggression principle and follow it. I don't want to parrot everything Molyneux says, but he also argues that human nature doesn't exist. It's like water and forms itself to the environment it's in. I do understand the skepticism and don't expect you to change your mind so quickly, but my skepticism has gone away the more I learn about it.
I understand your thinking. I don't think it's been attempted yet, though. We've never had a truly free civilized society where people understand the non-aggression principle and follow it. I don't want to parrot everything Molyneux says, but he also argues that human nature doesn't exist. It's like water and forms itself to the environment it's in. I do understand the skepticism and don't expect you to change your mind so quickly, but my skepticism has gone away the more I learn about it.
I agree with Molyneux on human nature. Beyond survival, there are huge differences between cultures regarding morality. As I see it, that fact alone precludes us from assembling the society you seek.
In the real world, our rights under the Constitution were ratified. We did, as a group, using democratic methods, grant ourselves the rights we chose. We, as a group, have taken them away (prohibition), and granted them again (repeal of prohibition). This is how it works.
We can philosophize to our hearts' content, but if we lose sight of reality, all the philosophy in the world becomes meaningless.
The Constitution only grants rights in the 6th and 7th Amendments. Everywhere else, rights assumed to exist are either expressly protected, or implicitly protected via the 9th Amendment.
And yes, we have as a group decided to abridge rights. We do it all the time. That means our rights are always subject to the whim of the majority. That the process to Constitutionally take away our rights is laborious does not mean it is impossible or even improbable.
At the end of the day, you have those rights you are willing to defend from the tyranny of the majority or other ruling force. Take your Prohibition example - plenty of people bought, sold, and consumed alcohol during Prohibition, same as people who shoot heroin and snort cocaine in the modern day. Just because a thing is made illegal does not take away your rights. You have to surrender the right to the concept that if a majority so chooses, the right is thus lost.
If tomorrow, a majority of citizens decides nobody can any longer say the word "hippopotamus" in public, the only way you lose the right is by acquiescing to that decree. If you choose to stand in the public square and say hippopotamus over and over, to the shock and horror of your fellow citizens, even if you get arrested, you still retain your right to say hippopotamus. All a majority decreeing a natural right illegal is really doing is trying to scare you away from individualism and your natural rights.
The Constitution only grants rights in the 6th and 7th Amendments. Everywhere else, rights assumed to exist are either expressly protected, or implicitly protected via the 9th Amendment.
And yes, we have as a group decided to abridge rights. We do it all the time. That means our rights are always subject to the whim of the majority. That the process to Constitutionally take away our rights is laborious does not mean it is impossible or even improbable.
At the end of the day, you have those rights you are willing to defend from the tyranny of the majority or other ruling force. Take your Prohibition example - plenty of people bought, sold, and consumed alcohol during Prohibition, same as people who shoot heroin and snort cocaine in the modern day. Just because a thing is made illegal does not take away your rights. You have to surrender the right to the concept that if a majority so chooses, the right is thus lost.
If tomorrow, a majority of citizens decides nobody can any longer say the word "hippopotamus" in public, the only way you lose the right is by acquiescing to that decree. If you choose to stand in the public square and say hippopotamus over and over, to the shock and horror of your fellow citizens, even if you get arrested, you still retain your right to say hippopotamus. All a majority decreeing a natural right illegal is really doing is trying to scare you away from individualism and your natural rights.
Agreed. This is philosophical, however. We live with the rule of law. Something a polsci professor told me long ago is this: The law doesn't say "You can't do such-and-such." It says, "If you do such-and-such, we will try to catch you doing it, and if we do, we'll do such-and-such to you."
This is reality, and reality is what matters. Indeed, if you try to kill me, I'll try to kill you first. We won't be discussing rights.
This is beyond my point, however. That is, that we collectively make these decisions through the democratic process.
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.
but I think Stefan Molyneux has a video addressing it called "capitalism requires government - rebutted")....but even if it was possible, they wouldn't have many customers if their prices were so high. Eventually someone else would seize the opportunity to provide the service at a lower cost, and they would be stupid to sell to the monopoly because they'd be selling short on their earning potential. The monopoly would be forced to lower prices to compete with them. (I'm no expert on this and should review this subject, but I believe that's the general idea)
