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.
They've discovered a new way of getting money. WORKING! Try it.
But that would require them deciding what companies to work for and they cant do that because then they would experience capitalism first hand and find out its good..
You are referring to a strict form of federalism, or are you favoring a severely limited state and local government as well?
I think we started out with a minimalist approach, but as people became victims of the greedy, deceptive, dishonest and manipulative citizens, the people decided they would acquiesce to more and more government laws and regulations to protect them. And then the greedy, deceptive, dishonest and manipulative citizens just switched from the private sector, to working within the halls of government instead.
To the point that they actually provide the first responder/LE/Judicial tasks, along with specific tasks for the local leadership - sure.
And yes, our country was founded on a minimalist government structure - and yes, politicians/leaders got greedy and began to grow the beast into what we see today. Granted, some parts of government were neccesary to add over the last few centuries, as technology has developed/evolved....but there's way to much redundancy between dept/agencies and even irrelevant dept/agencies that could either just go away or be completely done by private sector.
how naive, to think that working will provide the average person with the money needed to influence politics.
Thats not what he said.. he said working allows one to take part in capitalism and then choose to decide to vote on what businesses they want to take part in...
Or are you forced to only go to one store, buy one type of car, rent one house etc?
They've discovered a new way of getting money. WORKING! Try it.
Actually, I believe we have a two-track economy where one track consists of people who PRODUCE goods and services (e.g. manufacturing, agriculture) and the other track consists of a growing proportion of people who make their living off of other people without producing (e.g. welfare recipients, landlords, financiers, arbitrageurs),
The last two rooms I have rented I have rented from individuals who did not own the property, but who lived in the house for free by gouging others as middlemen enjoying a spread between the rent they paid and the rent they collected.
Really? How can that be the case where people without money have zero votes and people with more dollars can effectively prevent people with fewer dollars from voting at all (e.g. in regulated housing markets)?
It's hard for me to really respond to this with so little context given to how he meant this. Did he mean political democracy or the abstract idea of voting?
In regards to political democracy, he could be saying that people's ability to donate money to candidates is a secondary form of voting. This is problematic, as it means those with more expendable income have more votes. Beyond this, there are clearly loopholes as to what is considered a donation. Hillary Clinton can go to a college and make millions of dollars for simply making an appearance and giving a 10 minute speech. While it's not technically a donation, I don't think any person would reasonably think anyone's time is actually worth this much. There are questions of corruption as well; Bernie Sanders doesn't get paid nearly that much, however, he isn't significantly less popular. He has fewer delegates, but often loses in terms of number of votes by relatively slim margins. And since I was talking about college speeches, Sanders is preferred to Clinton on most college campuses. But not necessarily by the people who have the money.
As for the other idea, one that Libertarians like to bring up, is the idea of voting with your dollar in terms of businesses. When people complain about unethical business practices, the Libertarian would say that good businesses will survive and bad ones will die out based on how people spend their money. Pretty straightforward but it almost sounds too good to be true. Especially when you consider that larger corporations often promote regulations in order to choke out their smaller competition who maybe can't handle the cost of these regulations. Not to mention government subsidies. And while is stands to reason that pure capitalism wouldn't allow for subsidies, it does. Capitalism is a mostly unregulated system where all capital is privately owned and can be used in just about anyway, with the end goal being profit. As it turns out, getting government subsidies is sort of profitable. Having no regulation only creates more of a need for regulation, which I would say suggests that it's best to start with a baseline level of regulation and go from there. This doesn't necessarily totally invalidate what Levin is saying, assuming this is what he's saying, but it's worth thinking about.
But that would require them deciding what companies to work for and they cant do that because then they would experience capitalism first hand and find out its good..
WORKING? But that is positively UNAMERICAN in the 21st Century. The government will provide. Nobody should have to work and education, health care and cell phones should be free. Also cars. And gas.
The working poor are evidence that working is not entirely the solution to poverty. According to Mortgage News Daily, half of all low-income renters spend at least half their income on shelter. Working has not and will not lift them into home ownership.
Actually, I believe we have a two-track economy where one track consists of people who PRODUCE goods and services (e.g. manufacturing, agriculture) and the other track consists of a growing proportion of people who make their living off of other people without producing (e.g. welfare recipients, landlords, financiers, arbitrageurs),
The last two rooms I have rented I have rented from individuals who did not own the property, but who lived in the house for free by gouging others as middlemen enjoying a spread between the rent they paid and the rent they collected.
You say that as it were a bad thing? Thats no different than break bulk. Buy large quantity, and sell of in smaller qty at higher per-unit price. Smart businessman.
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.
