Sign in to follow this  
Karl

split from "sometimes I feel that" thread

Recommended Posts

...the greatest thing we can do for ourselves, is to do something healing/teaching/good for someone else..

 

Which is why I like free market capitalism. People free to provide for the needs of others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I like free market capitalism. People free to provide for the needs of others.

 

Aahhh yes, the kindness of free market capitalism. It must be the dream of millions to be cared for by the tender mercies of companies like Monsanto, Shell Oil, McDonald's, Kraft Foods, etc., etc. 

 

I take it your statement about a system like this providing for the needs of others, was so thickly coated with irony that the only truth in it was the full stop at the end ?

Edited by ThisLife
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aahhh yes. the kindness of free market capitalism. It must be the dream of millions to be cared for by the tender mercies of companies like Monsanto, Shell Oil, McDonald's, Kraft Foods, etc., etc. 

 

I take it your statement about a system like this providing for the needs of others, was so thickly coated with irony that the only truth in it was the full stop at the end ?

 

I did say 'free' market capitalism and not 'crony' market capitalism. Pro-consumer, anti-business in other words.

 

Monsanto and the other agri chem businesses are most certainly at the crony end of the spectrum, other businesses to a lesser extent, but all like state regulation and other edicts to stamp out their potential competitors. It applies equally to Taxi drivers seeking to prevent Uber and unions who want the 'living wage' to prevent labour price competition. Everyone is at it to some extent, trying to feather their nests at the expense of everyone else by touting for state privileges.

 

So, true, free markets without any coercive state interventionism are individuals essentially working hard to make each other happier and by doing so, make themselves happier. Perfect service to fellow man and increasing peace and prosperity for everyone.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a big fan of you both (Not sure if you'll see the random emoji, but, picture a little orange octopus with two of his tentacles held up in a cheering position. Either that, or he's being busted for crimes against humanity.)

 

I'm assuming you mean the Koch brothers ?

 

Never really got a handle on what they were, they aren't free market supporters that's for certain. Both Mises and Rothbard would have nothing to do with them, despite being initially duped into Supporting the creation of their institute.

 

They seem to be Neo Cons ? hell bent on hijacking the term 'libertarian' for their own use. A kind of Orwellian Neo con think tank. Seem to have shown their horns more over the recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So, true, free markets without any coercive state interventionism are individuals essentially working hard to make each other happier and by doing so, make themselves happier. Perfect service to fellow man and increasing peace and prosperity for everyone.

 

You mean like the massively powerful American gun lobby which is passionately against any form of government interference whatsoever ?

 

This is presumably so that they can continue to provide the "Perfect service to fellow man and increasing peace and prosperity for everyone",that they did in venues like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary School, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean like the massively powerful American gun lobby which is passionately against any form of government interference whatsoever ?

 

This is presumably so that they can continue to provide the "Perfect service to fellow man and increasing peace and prosperity for everyone",that they did in venues like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary School, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

 

There isn't an argument there against the free market there , but plenty against the need of a central state and coercive Government.

 

Those school murders were not the result of guns, those were just the tools used-we had a recent multiple murder using a transit van home made pipe bombs and passenger aircraft. None of which involved the use of guns.

 

How many people die every year from government agent gun killings on your home soil ? How many die on government roads ? Why are children stuffed full of FDA drugs ? Why are there black ghettoes full of crime and single parents/no parents families ?

 

Gun crimes are a good excuse for Government failure, but guns aren't the cause, it's the social problems that exist behind those that use the weapons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those school murders were not the result of guns, those were just the tools used

 

How many people die every year from government agent gun killings on your home soil ? 

 

 

post-31080-0-82137500-1438954612_thumb.jpg  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good article here which gives a balanced view of the use of statistics on both sides of the guns for and against arguments. When you pluck statistics to support an argument things get confused. The gun lobby argument goes 'more guns, less crime' and cites the violent crime rate in the UK as indicative of that conclusion-incorrectly. The same can be said on the anti gun lobby which fails to mention US falling gun ownership and that only 47% of the population own guns. Neither does it mention that violent crime in the UK was already falling steadily in 1990 a full 7 years before harsher gun laws were introduced.

 

Anyway worth reading even if it has nothing to do with free markets.

 

 

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

 

 

Sent from my iPad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who can't discuss any topic without immediately resorting to polarising political debate, I suggest signing up at the Drudge Retort:

 

http://www.drudge.com/

 

It's far more condusive to that kind of dialog and you're sure to find more kindred spirits there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marooned here: wasn't the original OP about providing service for people in terms of healing etc ? and isn't providing service a two way street ? I provide service to you and you also provide service to me. Two humans engaged in mutual spiritual gain. That seems very non political.

 

Anyway, as I have my own slot. A nice little video from the wonderful Walter Williams showing how spiritual necessity is met through economic freedom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, true, free markets without any coercive state interventionism are individuals essentially working hard to make each other happier and by doing so, make themselves happier. Perfect service to fellow man and increasing peace and prosperity for everyone.

 

Sounds nice. However...

 

Everyone is at it to some extent, trying to feather their nests at the expense of everyone else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds nice. However...

 

 

 

 

That's the danger of having a state and government. If you present an easy way for some to get wealthier on the back of the rest, then that's what will happen. The Government itself shows the way of how to get paid for producing nothing, so with that kind of lead, others will naturally follow. Each vested interest will then measure their privileges against everybody else. Best remove privileges completely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that happens, and then suddenly everyone doing business is ethical and considerate of other people? Nah. The fault does not lie in government...the fault lies in people's greed. Take away government and that is even more pronounced.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that happens, and then suddenly everyone doing business is ethical and considerate of other people? Nah. The fault does not lie in government...the fault lies in people's greed. Take away government and that is even more pronounced.

The market takes care of itself. There will always be cheats, but they don't have the monopoly on force that the state has which can use laws and regulations to benefit one group over another in return for votes.

 

Bad actors can't stay in the market without state blessing. Today's financial institutions are state cronies and without looking much further it's clear the damage that is done by that relationship. Bail outs, bail ins, artificial low interest rates etc.

 

Most of us just want to get along and serve each other, we like to be appreciated as good actors in the market. By being a good actor we build a reputation and keep business flowing to our doors, bad actors tend to collapse without state largesse. The word 'greed' is a very emotive one. After many years in business, as a customer and as an employer and employee I've never met a greedy person. One or two who have operated sharp practices, but they are few and far between. I'm always surprised at the length some businesses will go to pay employees during down turns or go the extra mile for their customers. Take a look at EBay to see how much star ratings matter to sellers.

Edited by Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your entire point was that the government helping certain businesses (especially harmful ones like Monsanto) is a bad thing, I would completely agree...so we could forget about that aspect.

But your point is that the free market is basically beneficial for society and all people in it...of course that's not true. Once again, you stated the fault of that idea yourself...

 

 

Everyone is at it to some extent, trying to feather their nests at the expense of everyone else...

The typical business owner doesn't have any motivation to pay their employees a reasonale wage, unless it comes down to them not being able to hire anyone because of such low wages (which isn't really possible in America, because we have a minimum wage instead of having sweatshops)...so long as there is a person who needs the job, they don't give a damn about that person's living. There are numerous examples of this...even to the point of denying employees their benefits by lowering their hours below full time, as in the case of Papa Johns.

But people keep ordering delivery, right?

 

That's because the free market philosophy doesn't work in reality. The world becomes a survival of the fittest, rather than anything resembling cooperation.


Only the most educated and stubborn people "vote with their dollars". The rest just buy whatever is most convenient. The lowest common denominator, which is most, watch Keeping up with the Kardashians. What use do the Kardashians serve to society? None...yet money is going their way in the free market.

Edited by Aetherous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your entire point was that the government helping certain businesses (especially harmful ones like Monsanto) is a bad thing, I would completely agree...so we could forget about that aspect.

But your point is that the free market is basically beneficial for society and all people in it...of course that's not true. Once again, you stated the fault of that idea yourself...

 

 

 

 

The typical business owner doesn't have any motivation to pay their employees a reasonale wage, unless it comes down to them not being able to hire anyone because of such low wages (which isn't really possible in America, because we have a minimum wage instead of having sweatshops)...so long as there is a person who needs the job, they don't give a damn about that person's living. There are numerous examples of this...even to the point of denying employees their benefits by lowering their hours below full time, as in the case of Papa Johns.

But people keep ordering delivery, right?

 

That's because the free market philosophy doesn't work in reality. The world becomes a survival of the fittest, rather than anything resembling cooperation.

 

Only the most educated and stubborn people "vote with their dollars". The rest just buy whatever is most convenient. The lowest common denominator, which is most, watch Keeping up with the Kardashians. What use do the Kardashians serve to society? None...yet money is going their way in the free market.

 

Simply in a state controlled system the worst actors climb to to top. Those least suited to take power become the immoral custodians of everybody else.

 

Therefore this simplifies into a free market ( that, by the way does not mean everyone doing whatever the hell they like just in case, as this is the typical way it is portrayed) which does not have a bunch of immoral, scheming, elite who control all laws, regulations and violence.

 

Employers generally pay what they can get away with, but in a free market they are competing with other businesses for the labour pool, just as they have to compete with others for land, space, power, materials etc. that means an employee is free to leave and find a better employer. That said, not all employers pay the market rate, some prefer to pay a bit more, some, a lot more as the recent business crackup of the guy who paid $70k minimum. Henry Ford did a similar thing, but for the good of his business and not the employees benefit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply in a state controlled system the worst actors climb to to top.

 

Perhaps that happens regardless of if there is a state or not, and a government could exist that limits such a thing for the good of the society rather than promotes it.

 

Employers generally pay what they can get away with, but in a free market they are competing with other businesses for the labour pool, just as they have to compete with others for land, space, power, materials etc. that means an employee is free to leave and find a better employer. That said, not all employers pay the market rate, some prefer to pay a bit more, some, a lot more as the recent business crackup of the guy who paid $70k minimum. Henry Ford did a similar thing, but for the good of his business and not the employees benefit.

 

That's how things are currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>...denying employees their benefits...<snip>

This phrase pinpoints a common misunderstanding. Benefits are not rights or entitlements, they are gifts -- or, rather, they are supposed to be until generally well-intentioned societal manipulators got involved. Literally, "benefits" derive from the Latin "benefactum" or "good deeds."

 

Often overlooked, however, is the basic premise that the civil society depends upon good and moral people, hinges upon virtue, in fact. The point is not to spin off into the philosophic snares of semantics -- people generally know "right" from "wrong" on a broad scale. Instead, the point is that we are taught through the ages in culture after culture that ethical people needn't worry with just laws and that charity comes from the heart and not from the point of a spear.

 

As Portia said, "The quality of mercy is not strain'd".

 

This is a crucial but generally misunderstood lesson in Chapters 57 - 59 of the TTC -- people of good character should be left to care for themselves and for each other, and attempting to control and manipulate them progressively makes things worse, resulting in a steepening downward spiral.

 

Advocates all across the so-called political spectrum, however, tend to completely mistake the significance of this, in my opinion -- and we see it on this forum daily as well as throughout society's behavior. The solution is not increased control & manipulation as this further damages society and the solution is not sudden dissolution of the current structures & regulations as society is already damaged. The solution, instead, is cultivating virtue in the individual. By cultivating virtue, the need for coercion begins to evaporate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if all people involved in business miraculously started cultivating virtue, there would be no need to coerce them into doing the bare minimum required of being civil toward others. They would naturally pay a living wage and above, and provide benefits, considering these others as equals to themselves, and thinking about their quality of life as much as thinking about their own.

But most don't naturally want to do that, so what's the solution? Let them be, and just hope that they see the error of their unvirtuous yet profitable ways, and will some day decide to sacrifice a bit of their money for the sake of doing right by others? I wonder how that would work out...

 

POng9wL.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if all people involved in business miraculously started cultivating virtue, there would be no need to coerce them into doing the bare minimum required of being civil toward others. They would naturally pay a living wage and above, and provide benefits, considering these others as equals to themselves, and thinking about their quality of life as much as thinking about their own.

 

But most don't naturally want to do that, so what's the solution? Let them be, and just hope that they see the error of their unvirtuous yet profitable ways, and will some day decide to sacrifice a bit of their money for the sake of doing right by others? I wonder how that would work out...

 

POng9wL.jpg

No, not "all people involved in business" -- all people. "People involved in business" is EVERYONE except for those who subsist entirely on the state's dole. This divisive perspective is a significant part of the problem, the idea that "people involved in business" are some other group of people who are greedy bastards responsible for society's ills.

 

And not "miraculously" either. That is a false dichotomy and a nihilistic one to boot -- either a miracle has to occur or totalitarianism is inevitable.

 

Just as the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, the reintroduction/reinforcement of virtue into/in society, and the eventual dissolution of the need for a coercive government, begins with individuals.

 

You and me.

 

It is curious that people speak in lofty terms about cultivation and ending suffering and enlightenment and immortality and such, and debate the higher meanings of ancient scriptures and sutras and Taoist canon ad nauseam, but then so often throw up their hands in defeat & despair when it comes to applying those very principles.

 

Whatever happened to "be the change that you wish to see in the world?"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this