I will read the artical.. And after reading that Woodrow Wilson quote I can say That I completely agree with it. I think we have the same ending idea, i just looked at it the wrong way. Like we both want "10" you have 5+5..and I have 5-5 if that makes sense.
I never though if it like that. im glad I posted here now, i learned somthing new The thing im struggling with though it this: if there are no regulations whats stopping a corporation from taking over that has no intrest in the people, just money. And arnt laws regulations? someone has to make those laws...and the corporations are going to try to influence who ever makes them right?
Are you talking about what people like to call "natural monopolies" ie. Electric companies and the like?
I just mean in general, but that is a perfect example. Truth is im just a kid coming out of high school who is scared shitless about what things are gunna be like 10 years from now. I have no sense of security what so ever and feel as though there will not be a united states. what replaces is, i do not know. democrats = mom thats beats you for not breathing the right way...republicans = mom that left you to starve
It doesn't. 5-5=0 People and their purchasing power. You don't agree with how a corporation is operating? Don't buy their products/services. If enough people share your disagreement and also choose not to purchase said corporation's products/services, the corporation goes out of business.
Kind of a long read, but by the time you finish it you'll have a full understanding. Anarcho-Capitalism: The Solution To Monopoly and Cartels | Libertarian News
No! Don't run! Stay! Seriously made me think of this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmvFNR_6CZU]Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas - The Hitchhiker - YouTube[/ame] I'd like to talk about regulations for a second if you're interested. If you take an industry like grocery stores, it used to be you had a lot of smaller chains in small towns. If government had mandated something like a higher minimum wage, or increased grocery store legislation those wages and laws translate in to a cost the business has to pay for. Small businesses typically can't afford it, while larger business can. The larger business weathers the storm, out lasts the smaller chains and absorbs their customers and the reduction in competition enables them to raise prices - therefore the customer just ends up paying for the new wages or laws at the price of lowered competition. When a company like Walmart beats out competition it's because consumers are choosing Walmart. If WM ever changed what it was doing (e.g. raised prices, lowered quality) it would be possible for the old competition to come back. If you have a regulation that forces competition out of business it never comes back. This is exactly why we have a limited number of oil companies. 2nd thing -> In a free market there would be more than one Wall Street - or rather, Wall Street would not have the monopoly that it currently does.
Freedom doesn't mean that everyone wins. When you live in a free society you get ahead through the application of your skills and knowledge...also known as working hard. People in a society are not owed anything beyond the opportunity to apply their abilities in the market as they see fit. This belief that limiting one person's freedom somehow makes another person more free doesn't make any sense.
Haha, well they are regulated I suppose. But the black market itself isn't really a regulated market within it's own confines, it's born from regulation. That was a poor example though really because it's not exactly deregulated.
Argument from authority. Fallacy. Because that's worked out well hasn't it? Corporatism is a product of centralization, not decentralization. Without the power to create regulations there wouldn't be much point in lobbying.
Without regulation businesses wouldn't need to lobby, they could do whatever they please in the shadows.
Big business grows hand in hand with big government, you continue with this false narrative that left unchecked the corporations are going to rob you of everything. Without regulations created by the federal government, they actually have to provide you with something people are willing to buy in order to maintain their share over the market. Regulations act as a inhibitor of competition, further solidifying monopoly status.
Without government (which you can influence with votes) businesses are going in the prison business, the national defense business, the police business, the homeland security business, the education business. Your whole world will be controlled by a plutocracy that could care less how you would vote. And being that they would want to keep things this way a police state would be inevitable.
Businesses need customers in order to stay in business. What good is imprisoning the worlds population, there goes all your customers. If businesses engage in unethical behavior, you don't give them your business, there will be plenty others more suitable of doing a better job at catering to your wants as a consumer. I don't think most here are ready to make the jump to anarcho-capitalism, just living within the confines of the constitution, which still protects property rights, enforcement of contracts, and protetction against fraud. Not that anarcho-capitalism is something to be scared of, a recent example of this would be the OWS camp @ Zucotti. No government regulations within the camp, because there are (were) no police. Free flow of information and goods between the protestors, always seemed like a well behaved and safe environment to me. The boycott is more powerful then the election, every single time. How successful have we been in kicking out the status quo in DC, as opposed to boycotting specific business practices like BOA's $5 debit card fee. An organization is much more responsive to constituent demands when the funding is through voluntary means as opposed to forced extortion. When the money is taken by force, your opinion isn't needed. When the organization has to persuade you into doing business, you have much more clout as to what you would like to see being done. Go to a car dealership and tell them what you're looking to purchase specifically, then go to your local congressman's office and tell them what you want, note the difference in responsiveness. Your district has 1 member in the House, you have multiple car dealerships in the district.
But the lure of cheap products along with ingnorance of the concequences of production will always conquer the moral/ethical responsiblity as far as I'm concerned. If this worked, we would see this happening now wouldnt we? For example, nearly all major clothing manufacturers rely on slave labor in sweatshops. If your model of keeping corporations in check, morally were true we would see boycotts of these places but people either just dont know or dont care. And thats just the moral side of it. Theres also evironmental and other aspects. Do you really think enough people care enough about the environment that they would boycott a polluting company?
Scary thought, you mean the public actually has to use intelligence behind their choice in businesses? We can't trust em to do whats right, lets throw up some tariffs on all goods produced in China If a polluting company is damaging another person's property, you take them to court. Class action lawsuits? It's much easier to provide proof of environmental damage as opposed to sexism in the workplace in the recent case with Wal-Mart. Enough people would care if the pollution adversely effected them, however if the company is polluting land that they themselves own, and it impacts no other individuals, who are you to step in and say that what they are doing is in fact wrong? We may as well ban all trash disposal areas if that is to be the case.
Statists/progressives/etc are a scary bunch. It's one thing to be ignorant and believe in socialism, then you have the excuse of being ignorant, but to know about the advantages of the free market and a free society yet still cling to the destructive beliefs of statism is a truly scary thing. Of course only a small minority would actually chose that route if given all the facts. People who believe in socialism are political extremists imo. Similar to religious extremists. They believe blindly with an unscientific faith in the power of government to fix all issues. These blind followers (we all know who they are on this board) can't be reasoned with, just like religious extremists can't be reasoned with.