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.
It sound nice and it does warm my leftist heart to read it even though I know it to be untrue. There are and have been "Capitalist" where making the most amount of money wasn't the most important thing and certainly not making it no matter the cost.
Which brings us back to the original question, there is no unified end goal of a free market.
But the point of Capitalism over other forms is to make money. People like Newt Gingrich have advocated removing child labor laws and plenty of Republicans want deregualtion. They want this because it allows for them to make more money the easiest way possible.
They are not universal, they are a private creation and many places do not have them.
Government is not at all involved with these private restrictions (often called "deed restrictions") other to enforce them as contracts through the courts when disputes arise.
Government IS involved in Houston. Even in these private creations you speak of. Free market assumes being free to do what you choose to do with your own self/property. Do you not? Or, do we step into the premise of regulations now?
How exactly is it private, and freedom, if others have control over what you can or cannot do with your own property?
Government IS involved in Houston. Even in these private creations you speak of. Free market assumes being free to do what you choose to do with your own self/property. Do you not? Or, do we step into the premise of regulations now?
How exactly is it private, and freedom, if others have control over what you can or cannot do with your own property?
Covenants, easements, and licenses are granted voluntarily (usually). As such, you did choose what to do with your own property in that respect.
As for government regulations, sure, zoning restrictions exist, that's just simple logic, no one wants their neighbor to be able to turn their backyard into a tire burning facility or something.
Can cell phone towers be erected anywhere by an airport in Houston? Could one buy a land in any residential neighborhood to open a gas station, liquor shop or perhaps a strip club?
On a visit or two there I remarked to my companion that some of the mixed residential/commercial/warehouse/strip mall areas reminded me of Tijuana- without the (debatable) charm. It was very unattractive and depressing. To each it's own, I guess. On the other hand, the area where the Bushes have a home has NO factory with a smoke stack, a liquor store, or a porn shop anywhere near, and is pristine...so this is how it falls out......Surprise, surprise.
Free markets cannot exist without government protection from monopolists and thieves. They can also be destroyed if the government is corrupted by businessmen that want to eliminate competition in their section of the market.
They can also be destroyed by corrupt politicians who want to choose winners and losers and bail their buddies. And that's what we have today.
Under Capitalism it is to make the most amount of money no matter what. Capitalism cannot be considered "moral" when in this system money is valued more than a life. It is one of the most, if not the most, vile economic system out there.
No economic system is more moral than capitalism. It's the only one that rewards people according to their contribution. All others reward the rulers at the expense of the workers and that's why they fail. Just read the history of the Soviet Union over the past 60 years.
No economic system is more moral than capitalism. It's the only one that rewards people according to their contribution. All others reward the rulers at the expense of the workers and that's why they fail. Just read the history of the Soviet Union over the past 60 years.
Well, seeing as how the Soviet Union hasn't existed for the past 20 that may prove difficult.
Giving people money for doing whatever does not make it moral. In fact, when money is involved morality tends to go down.
You could make the argument that it isn't the least moral, but it certainly is not the most moral.
Covenants, easements, and licenses are granted voluntarily (usually). As such, you did choose what to do with your own property in that respect.
As for government regulations, sure, zoning restrictions exist, that's just simple logic, no one wants their neighbor to be able to turn their backyard into a tire burning facility or something.
But zoning often goes further and says this like No Apartments in This Neighborhood, or Maximum Two Unrelated Individuals (the owner of an 8BR house was thrilled to learn no more than two unrelated could rent it). Renters literally need ALL the rental housing supply the private sector is willing and able to provide. Zoning throws that out the window and imposes higher rents on the working class and the poor..
I say zone all you want as long as you provide renters just compensation for the higher costs you impose, but I've ever seen a property owner agree.
You could make the argument that it isn't the least moral, but it certainly is not the most moral.
Clearly, most of the people on this forum believe zoning is the most moral.
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.
