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's not simplistic at all. The freest market is one with no regulations.
No it isn't, because government is not the only entity that can hinder the free market. A market ruled by mob rule is hardly free. No regulation would allow companies to use violence to keep its competitors away.
To ensure fair competition you will need some regulations. You will also need a justice system to make sure contracts are upheld.
Quote:
The 25 examples clearly show that freer the market is the more environmental and other problems we encounter.
Those 25 pictures have been debunked before and you stopped defending them. Don't try to pretend it didn't happen. For instance one of your pictures came from Bangladesh, but they came at place 130 in the ease of doing business ranking. Do you think moving them from place 130 to 160 would have prevented the disaster?
And what about the environmental problems in China?
Quote:
If we were to have a completely free market there would be no way to police polluters. That is a fact.
First off a completely free market is impossible. But to make it as free as possible, then you will need environmental regulations.
In a free market you are allowed to do what you want on your property. You are not allowed to destroy other people's property and that includes pollution.
I think that businesses that sell candy that explodes in their customer's mouth will not last long...just a hunch. Another hunch is that no sane person would have that exploding candy idea as a business plan. It is...surprisingly...not in their own best interest...LOL
Big Business has lobbyists and spends big political campaigns. If you think that they don't expect the people they put into office to roll back regulatory bodies by denying them funding, you would be wrong. You can have regulations on the books but if the enforcement arm is underfunded. You can't enforce the regulations. That's what is happening. People want to claim the regulations don't work when the regulators are underfunded to the point where they can't do their job.
They are not underfunded. You are referencing budget rhetoric which is constantly used to acquire more. If you bothered looking at the actual accounting, CAFRs and the multitude of government investment funds you could see how the money is being made. They make more money from the investments. Why do you think they offshored everything? When these TNCs profit so do they. Lobbying is just part of the gravy thrown to the corporate employees.
Govt and so-called Big Business are just 2 sides of the same corporate coin. They are intertwined.
The Laissez-faire argument has always been made in regards to the government. So, mentioning mob rule is a Red Herring. Even if we accepted your scenario "the mob" would be the de facto government. Hence it is not really saying anything.
I stopped defending the pictures? Where did that happen?
These ease business rankings are bs. Large Corporations have no problem doing business anywhere they want.
Private property rights run into problems when it comes to things like pollution. Let say I own some land that a river runs through and there is a coal mine on my land. I mine the coal and put the tailings in the river polluting the water. How am I not within my rights to do that?
Private property rights give me the right to pollute. In a free market you have no right to regulate what I do on my land. Do you see the problem here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
No it isn't, because government is not the only entity that can hinder the free market. A market ruled by mob rule is hardly free. No regulation would allow companies to use violence to keep its competitors away.
To ensure fair competition you will need some regulations. You will also need a justice system to make sure contracts are upheld.
Those 25 pictures have been debunked before and you stopped defending them. Don't try to pretend it didn't happen. For instance one of your pictures came from Bangladesh, but they came at place 130 in the ease of doing business ranking. Do you think moving them from place 130 to 160 would have prevented the disaster?
And what about the environmental problems in China?
First off a completely free market is impossible. But to make it as free as possible, then you will need environmental regulations.
In a free market you are allowed to do what you want on your property. You are not allowed to destroy other people's property and that includes pollution.
Some Libertarians admire how things are done in Somalia and that is a fact. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't even bother to elaborate on what you say or accept the logical consequences of the libertarian world view.
I know you want to change the subject. But, let's try to focus here.
Sure, soon as you give us something to focus on. So far you've just spewed standard liberal anti-business drivel that been said over and over and over again for decades.
Quote:
Do you really believe that having clean air to breath and clean water to drink is actually an imposition on business?
What I really believe is that you're using the old false dichotomy tactics that liberals use so often. Like "Do you support Obamacare or do you hate sick children?" or "Do you support free birth control or do you have a war on women?" In your case it is "Do you support all EPA regulations or do you want dirty air and water?" You phrase the question so that it is impossible to answer. It's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.
Quote:
I put people over profits and not the other way around.
Which is again a false dichotomy. Profits generate investment. Investment generates jobs. Jobs help people. So your choice between putting people or profits first is a false choice.
Quote:
Your right to profit does not trump my right to clean water and air.
Says who? Where is your proof of that? It's your opinion so therefore it is universal truth?
Of course, I agree with clean water and air being more important than increased profits. But the the way in which you pronounce it is as if it gives you the right to impose whatever restrictions and regulations you please.
Quote:
You don't have the right to poison me or my children.
Nor do you have the right to deny people their property rights. The EPA goes way beyond reasonable and well into unnecessary infringements on people's businesses and property.
Quote:
Why do you think you have the right to poison me and my family?
Again with the blatantly stupid false questions. Do you have the capacity for an intellectually honest discussion? If so, you aren't showing it so far.
You don't have to like the LOGICAL consequences of the libertarian position. But, they are what they are. You need to look your self in the mirror and have an intellectually honest discussion. The very fact that you ask for proof shows that you don't know what you are talking about. It is pretty much common knowledge that the leading libertarian voices support changing the Environmental Protection Laws to allow industry to pollute. The Koch Brothers are the money behind much of the Libertarian movement. They founded the Cato Institute and continue to have a heavy influence over it. The Libertarian leadership the Koch brothers push for dismantling the EPA. They are pushing for this because they want to pollute. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about it. These are the facts. Libertarians live in a fantasy land where there is no need to regulate industry to prevent industrial pollution. Face it there is no false dichotomy. That's just a dodge to stop from having to answer the hard questions and face the consequences of your own positions.
Profits generate investment? Do you really think every venture capitalist makes money on every company he invests in? Consumer demand is what generates jobs not investment. If people don't buy your product or service you are out of business.
Profits over people is not a false choice. Capitalists make that decision all the time. Have you ever heard of cost benefit analysis? Corporations often calculate out the CBA before the recall a defective product that kills people to figure out whether to go through with the recall. So, don't act like it doesn't happen. Because it does all the time.
At least you admit clean air and water are important.
Sure, soon as you give us something to focus on. So far you've just spewed standard liberal anti-business drivel that been said over and over and over again for decades.
What I really believe is that you're using the old false dichotomy tactics that liberals use so often. Like "Do you support Obamacare or do you hate sick children?" or "Do you support free birth control or do you have a war on women?" In your case it is "Do you support all EPA regulations or do you want dirty air and water?" You phrase the question so that it is impossible to answer. It's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.
Which is again a false dichotomy. Profits generate investment. Investment generates jobs. Jobs help people. So your choice between putting people or profits first is a false choice.
Says who? Where is your proof of that? It's your opinion so therefore it is universal truth?
Of course, I agree with clean water and air being more important than increased profits. But the the way in which you pronounce it is as if it gives you the right to impose whatever restrictions and regulations you please.
Nor do you have the right to deny people their property rights. The EPA goes way beyond reasonable and well into unnecessary infringements on people's businesses and property.
Again with the blatantly stupid false questions. Do you have the capacity for an intellectually honest discussion? If so, you aren't showing it so far.
Last edited by Spinoza 1454; 09-08-2014 at 03:03 AM..
I think that businesses that sell candy that explodes in their customer's mouth will not last long...just a hunch. Another hunch is that no sane person would have that exploding candy idea as a business plan. It is...surprisingly...not in their own best interest...LOL
What if the company making that exploding candy also was in a coffin candy? What if the candy instead of exploding would kill you slowly so nobody could easily find a correlation?
Sure, soon as you give us something to focus on. So far you've just spewed standard liberal anti-business drivel that been said over and over and over again for decades.
What I really believe is that you're using the old false dichotomy tactics that liberals use so often. Like "Do you support Obamacare or do you hate sick children?" or "Do you support free birth control or do you have a war on women?" In your case it is "Do you support all EPA regulations or do you want dirty air and water?" You phrase the question so that it is impossible to answer.
Not at all. We simply know how dirty was the water and the air before EPA was established and we know why was the EPA established in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Which is again a false dichotomy. Profits generate investment. Investment generates jobs. Jobs help people. So your choice between putting people or profits first is a false choice.
Oh really? So maybe slavery wasn't that bad as it certainly generated profits?
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.
