Fuck that noise. I'm a photographer. I have invested tens of thousands of dollars into equipment, travel, hardware and software, in order to create my work. If I were to create photos, and then lose all intellectual rights to them, it would be a pretty pointless career. If I invest $6000 and 3 weeks into creating a series of photos, what on earth would give give (for example) a bank in Boise, Idaho the right to use those photos on their brochure for their new company debit card?? What you are saying is that, as an artist, I have no right to sell my own work, but other people can take my work and make a profit off of it. I don't know about you, but I don't work for free.
Survival of the fittest, is pretty much their argument. Wonder if they will be saying that when they are 80
Does it work when our government does that? Do you like welfare? When I see welfare I see a well sculpted plan to make people dependent on the government and nothing else. It keeps people impoverished as much as it helps them. It is the whole "give a man a fish" deal. Also I don't understand why you had to throw rape and murder into your post. Gooch Goblin stated And I'm sorry, but I would rather see them be able to make that little bit of money than die in the street. This is not just survival of the fittest. Life is supposed to be full of hardships, that is what builds a man's confidence. Confidence is a necessary part of life. As of right now all of you people and your big government philosophies are taking that confidence away from people... No, you can't choose what wage to work for! No, you can't eat that! No, I'm taking some of your money! No, you sell that product! No, you can't smoke that plant! Do you understand how that might make someone lose their self-esteem?
Government regulations on the market distort it's pricing mechanism by increasing the financial burden on those regulated business. As regulations become tighter it becomes more costly to offer these services, like health care. As a result consumers end up paying more. Some argue that regulations are beneficial. While it might appear as such, in reality they are not. Regulations increase cost and create a barrier to market entry that limits market participation to those who have the most money, limiting competition needed to further reduce prices. As for child labor of the past one has to consider why these children were working in the first place. No one was forcing them to work in the factories. Most of the child labor came from families who at one time lived on the farm but moved into the cities. All members of the family took jobs working in the factories. But why would someone voluntarily do that? It is because, in their view, life was made better by the factory jobs. Farming was at best a subsistence living. By taking jobs in the factories families increased their earnings and had more comfortable lives. No one really gave much thought to children working in factories because if they were not working in factories then they would have been working on the farm. As for wages people are free to work for whatever wage they can get. If Job A offers someone $1.25 an hour and someone takes it it is only because they perceive their life as better off earning $1.25 a hour as opposed to nothing an hour. However Job B might offer them $5.50 an hour and they would hop on that for the higher wage. Minimum wage laws, while they seem like a good idea, in reality cause more unemployment. Low wage jobs that typically pay minimum wage employ people with no marketable skill. However, often these people can learn a marketable skill on the job or use that job to get them a better job down the road. But when government, by fiat, declares a certain wage per hour they are pricing certain people out of the market. A 16 year old kid offers nothing to an employer and are more often than not a hassle rather than a benefit. If a 16 year old's real market wage is only $5 an hour but an employer is forced to pay them $7 or $8 an hour then why would he hire them? They have no skills, bring nothing to the table and might just be more problems than they are worth. So that job now goes to someone else with a higher skill level gets hired or the employer just decides to do with out. Minimum wage laws also go a long way towards shutting down smaller businesses that cannot afford the wages, especially in hard economic times. They need help and there are people that need jobs but the employer cannot afford to hire someone for $7 or $8 an hour. But there are people out there that would gladly work for less because even getting $5 an hour is better than getting nothing at all. But none of that really matters does it? The economics is one thing, which most people will ignore. It better argument is that it's none of your business what someone pays another person. No one is forced to work in this country. If you choose to accept a job that only pays $.50 an hour that is your right. And if an employer is only willing to pay $.50 an hour that is their right. You are free to accept whatever job you wish for whatever wage you can negotiate.
kingmonkey, as usual, nails it. Seriously, if you guys don't know anything about economics, please don't be so outspoken against capitalism, because you seriously don't understand economics if you think child labor is a part of capitalism, and the hundreds of other misconceptions surrounding capitalism. It's getting really old of people repeating the same misconceptions and flat-out lies repeatedly on this forum. I wouldn't tell a gearhead how to best build an engine, and I wouldn't expect him to tell me how to best maintain an economy.
Please expalin because you didn't lay out any arguements, just made broad statements. In the 1870's in America (no minimum wage or child labor laws at the time) we had droves of child coal miners who wouldn't see the sun for weeks. So ask yourself would you rather have massive HUMAN RIGHTS violations and adhere stricly to your ideal that the market should be free, I think in a perfect world it should be free, but as I said humans are greedy corupt bastards and will fuck eachother over to make the smallest amount of money. In the Uk they did a study of people with sociopathic personalitys. They found unsuccesful sociopaths ended up as criminals in prison, the sussesfull ones became bussiness leaders. You know how they became bussiness leaders? by burning everyone around them and standing on their shoulders to get their. All they care about is money. A free market would only work if people accualy looked out for eachother, and it's pretty obvious they don't. Human influence and corruption/greed ruins any system. Now could you please respond directly to my arguement instead of just posting a qoute because as I said before you might aswell have just posted "Your dumb and I'm right"
Yes, yes we all know the sob stories. Oh, these poor kids worked in coal mines. Boo hoo. Ignoring the fact that they did so willingly and earned a good living for it, which afforded them better lives, it really has no bearing on society now. In the 1870's everyone was expected to work. That was the culture of the 1870's. If you weren't in school you were on the farm or in the factory helping your family. In today's society no one expects a child to work in a factory or do anything other go to school and learn how to function in the world. To assume that overnight our culture would change to where 8 year old's toiled for 15 hours a day in the salt mines because we got rid of child labor laws is just stupid. Playing off of the emotional fears of people is not a real argument against something either. You also have an irrational fear of the free market. You complain about greed and corruption in the market but you seem to ignore the greed and corruption in politics. All regulations are supported by one special interest group seeking benefits from the government. Politicians receive kickbacks (legal or illegal) to support these rules, yet you have no problem with that. Nor do you have a problem dictating how a person should live their lives or what they ought to do with it. What you fail to recognize is that the profit/loss mechanism of the market tends to keep businesses in check. Profit/loss dictates what wages will be paid, how employees are treated, how customers are treated, how contracts are honored and how products are produced. When a company is composed of greedy corrupt bastards, as you put it, they go out of business viz. Enron, WorldComm, etc. If company doesn't pay a good wage they get bad employees. Bad employees mean poor products and poor customers service, meaning fewer customers and eventually no customers. If a company produces bad products the market alerts them to this fact by means of consumers rejecting the products in favor of the competitions. The more customers they lose the more money they lose meaning they go bankrupt. I'm not sure why you speak out against the free market because you've never seen one. We have little enclaves of unregulated markets that demonstrate how effective the market is at self-regulation. The best example I can think of right now is that of computers. There is no computer czar and computer manufacturers and software designers do alright. It is unregulated. Consumes choose companies they trust that will deliver a good product. When a company is doing poorly, as Dell was doing recently, they find out why. Why would they do that? Because they need more customers to stay afloat. Rejecting the market because of some slanted bias you have is not an argument. A free market doesn't produce any of the things you fear. Oddly enough it is government regulations and special privileges that do.
I didn't make any arguments because it's kind of pointless to debate with someone who knows very little about economics, however I'll take a stab at your post. The thing is--and yes that is horrible--children back then wanted those jobs. It's not like the kids were swept up out of their homes and forced to work. They wanted to work because do you know what people did to survive before the Industrial Revolution? Apparently not. They were basically subsistence farmers, they all worked on farms, doing extremely exhausting manual labor, and made little to no money. When the Industrial Revolution came about, quality of life went up, wages were higher than working in the fields, and the work was far less exhausting. It was dangerous, sure, but so was working on the farm. Also, this argument is no longer applicable, right now we have a job shortage, if we had unrestrained capitalism, kids would not suddenly be working 120-hour work weeks. We live in an entirely different time period. Whose rights were violated when they WILLINGLY sought out a job. Remember now, no one forces you to work at your job, you oblige because you want to have a job. I worked when I was 14 years old, I had friends who worked when they were even younger, and they willingly evaded the law (By working 'under the table') and it gave me access to money I otherwise wouldn't have had. Link to study? I support capitalism, but I'm not a sociopath. I'm an objective, moderate, and reasonable human being. If I owned a business, I would realize that if I treated my employees well, and gave them a stress-free work environment, their productivity would rise. First off, that's not true at all. A free market works by putting decisions in your hands it's kind of like economic democracy. Don't like your job? Leave! Want to start your own business? Go ahead! Want to go to a 4-year school and major in something, and develop a career? Go ahead! The way free-market capitalism (Anarcho-capitalism) works, is by allowing the individual to chose. Your appeals to emotion are invalid, because they're simply not true. How come uneducated (In terms of economics) people such as yourself always rally against stuff like the child labor of the late 1800's, but never say a thing about how Socialist/Communist governments have killed tens of millions of people. Go look up Chairman Mao on Wikipedia, you'll find out that he inspired a catastrophe that caused tens of millions of chines to starve to death, because he told everyone how to run their crops (Collectivism) and tried to micro-manage the economy. That's ten times more valid of an argument than, 'IF WE LET CAPITALISM RUN FREE THEN WE HAVE 2 YEARS USING INDUSTRIAL SEWING MACHINES!'.
Since everyone else addressed the lack of sound economic principles that you based your judgment of a "free market" by, I'll go ahead an address this one. Addiction is marked by a couple of main things, but they all basically boil down to how it harms you. One major criteria of addiction is that it affects your social and professional lives. Guess what. The simple fact that it is ILLEGAL causes it to have adverse affects on your social and professional lives; Especially when the country you live in "declares war" on it, and spends a little under a century launching an all out propaganda campaign against anything even remotely related to said substances. Now, I'm totally cool with strict regulations on drugs that do have adverse physiological affects, but I'm totally against basing it on this vague notion of addiction that can be applied to any substance as long as it's illegal. To clarify, labeling a benign drug as illegal and then brainwashing people into believing straight up lies about it then automatically allows it to be classified as addictive, by societal and professional standards. EVEN THOUGH IT'S BENIGN. That is fucked up, and I'm totally against it. The regulations on these substances should be based on the specific substance, how its used, and the PHYSICAL affects on your body, and nothing else. Every other positive or negative association of the substance are a result of how the substance is regulated, and not inherent to the use of it. Fuck it, this one post was too fucked up to ignore. The limit on jobs in this country is created by these minimum wage regulations, and other said "regulations" that only serve the interests of coercive monopolies. Address that, then we can talk about if there a true limit on jobs. Aren't jobs created by industries, which are driven by consumption and demand from consumers, and consumers are a nations population? More people = more demand = more jobs. And did you really just say that you prefer someone starve on the streets than work below minimum wage? So monopolies can exist in a free market because of intellectual property laws (which, by the way, are totally against the concept of a free market) and then you defend said intellectual property laws? Can't you see how you're supporting a corporatist system that then requires unnecessary "regulation" to make it appear socialist? American consumers don't care about worker? The American consumers are the workers! I know, I know, with whole industries being outsourced to foreign nations, many of the workers aren't American, but guess what, first we (at least anyone who isn't infected by extreme notions of American nationalist machismo-ism) still care about workers in other countries, because they are fucken humans, fuck what country gives them their passport. Second, jobs are being outsourced DUE to coercive regulatory measures in the United States. In the end though, the point is, unless your a rich fucken spoiled brat who doesn't work and won't have to work their whole life (possible only in a corporatist system with protectionist policies that reward stupid shit like legacy), the consumers are the workers.
"Well you'll work harder With a gun in your back For a bowl of rice a day Slave for soldiers Till you starve Then your head is skewered on a stake" - Dead Kennedys
If we listened to Gooch_Goblin69 alcohol and a lot of prescription drugs would be added to that list, but you have the right idea. Banning drugs doesn't stop people from taking them. It discourages people and ends up making every addict into a criminal when they really should be a citizen in need of medical attention. Only education can truly stop people from doing harmful drugs. Legalization is the best solution.
I cite a quote from an economic intellectual, and you cite a quote from a Punk band... The Dead Kennedys are good and all, but hardly relevant in an intellectual discussion.
My point was people will exploit other people if there were no laws preventing them. A completely unregulated market would lead to a far larger rich/poor divide, to think it wouldn't would be naive. Capitalism has flaws which need to be controlled for the good of the majority, one of which being the big fish if left alone in the tank would eventually eat all the other fish. As for minimum wage I can see the arguments for getting rid of it but I think it will damage the people right at the bottom the most if they can't rely on being able to get a liveable wage; and it would give more power to businesses to abuse the labor market. Furthermore it forces companies to share more of the vast wealth with the people that help produce it. Not only that but adults who work at places like supermarkets on min wage are far more likely to lose their jobs to a teenager willing to do the work for far less.
Everything you have said in this thread is from your ostensible opinion but doesn't represent anything remotely factual. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. You, sir, have a very naive view if you honestly believe everything you espoused in that post. Your arguments aren't substantive, they're normative and uneducated. Here's a good example; You're exhibiting your lack of economic wisdom here, and are just proving me right. I made a thread today, showing that Minimum Wage leaders to higher unemployment, which HURTS the people at the very bottom the most. You assume that if minimum wage laws were repealed, employers would pay people a penny an hour. Well, that's not free market at all. A true free market employer would realize the value in having employees that performed at their peak, and by keeping them healthy and happy, they'll be more productive. What are you talking about. Regulations and Unions are the ones that distort labor markets. A businessowner can't distort a labor market as much as a regulation or law can, you're operating on a completely false platitude here. Unions wouldn't be able to survive by skewing labor markets and pushing for minimum wage increases, because it gives them a floor to being their collective bargaining. Once a Union establishes a work force of over-paid Union employees, they bully their way into labor markets, and force municipalities to give them labor contracts abusing Politics, at the detriment to non-Unionized workers. Free markets don't distort labor markets, what an asinine conclusion. Everything you said in this paragraph is exactly opposite from the truth, or is just so far out there, I don't even know what you're talking about. What do you mean when you say 'it forces companies to share more of the vast wealth with the people that help produce it'? Are you saying that removing minimum wage laws forces companies to share more revenue with it's employees? In which case you're directly contradicting yourself.
The problem with your analogy is that in a totally free market there isn't just one big fish to do the eating. The big fish, as you call it, has competition. It is that free and unfettered ability to enter the market place that keeps the big fish in check. It is a proven fact that time and time again the companies that are abusive towards their customers and/or employees never do well. And those that do usually have some special privilege afforded them by the government. You cannot run a successful company that cheats its customers or abuses its employees. Tell me something: Let's say you go to Dell to buy a computer but they send the wrong product and refuse to fix it. Are you ever going to shop with them again? Or would you go and buy an HP next time? I am going to assume you would shop else where. If you can grasp that concept then you have a grasp on how a free market in anything works. What you have failed to grasp is that what you think doesn't mean shit. It doesn't matter what you or I or the government or any number of people think. If you go down to get a job and they offer you $3.50 an hour and you accept it you have done so, not because someone put a gun to your head, but because you viewed $3.50 an hour far better than earning $0.00 an hour. No one forced you to accept that wage and no one forced the company to offer it. What is a "livable wage?" How do you define what that is? To me a "livable wage" is about $10 an hour, which is just about what I earn now. At $10 an hour I can pay all of my bills and still have some left over. But when I was 16 in high school a livable wage was far, far less than that. And what about the person who doesn't have a job but accepts one that only pays $5 an hour? They obviously felt that it was better to work for $5 an hour than nothing. Why should their opinion not count? Do you fear companies that will only pay their labor $1 an hour or something? If that's the case then I urge you to immediate go down and start talking to local business owners and ask them how many employees they would have if they did that. Do that. Ask them that very question. Ask them "How many employees could you have if you only paid them $1 an hour?" I'm sure most will look at you like you are crazy and laugh. In a free market place if you do not pay a competitive wage then soon enough you will not have employees. Like it has been said before, people have bills and wont work for what wont support them. I have yet to see a company that didn't hire people in for more than minimum wage. When I started at the job I have now I started at $7.50 an hour, $2.35 higher than minimum wage at the time. My job before that started me at $6.00 an hour, or about $.85 more per hour (don't laugh, it was Subway). I was damn glad to be getting that $6 an hour too. I had just moved back from Oregon and was overdrawn at the bank by $300. That $6 an hour job gave me a chance to catch up on my bills, buy a car and find a better job. The job I have now has allowed me to get my own place again, buy a computer, a new car and start a new business. Companies are not the business of "abusing labor." Abused labor goes somewhere else to get another job. Companies that abuse labor usually end up in the red and then out of business.
This article is a great example of what I was talking about. Cell phones are a nearly unregulated market, yet none of the things you people fear from the free market have come to pass with this industry. In fact the free market might be on the verge of punishing a massive actor -- AT&T. iPhone users are upset and, according to this article, if AT&T doesn't shape up and do something about it their business will suffer. The market in action. It really is a wonderful thing.
Ah yes, let's debase the other person because they don't agree with you. Where's your infraction? Oh wait, you don't get one because you're a fucking ballless freeper peice of shit. Oh well that's a load of bullshit. Fucking kids worked back then TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE! there was no minimum wage or no union or worker protection of any kind. The quality of life wasn't better by a long shot. the only reason people folded up farms and moved into the city was the dream of a better life, which was just that, a dream. It wasn't until our very bloody strugle with union with things like private armies sicked against worker, and P.I.'s used against people striking and hundreds of dead and injured people that things changed. Thanks to things like 40 hour work weeks, overtime, unions, and the minimum wage. YEah i meani f someone can only take a job working 2.50 an hour because there's no mimum wage and no one else will hire them, nobody's forcing them to take a job, just like nobody will force there children to starve when they don't have anything to eat. if that were true, they why the bloody labor study i talked about earlier, hm? If people always acted with humanity in mind and the greater good then why have any laws at all? Why make murder illegal? If it was legalized, then hypotheticaly only bad people should get murdered. seems like a good system by your logic. most of the time, lifes big decisions are never a choice. Especialy for those at the bottom. How about 20th century coal miners? do you think that they chose to become highly indebted to the company stores by being paid in scrip? Well aside from ya know, calling someone out for an appeal to emotion, then insulting them, then appealing to emotion yourself, i'd like to point out for the third time about our bloody labor history. Let's talk about the pinkertons, who engauged in subterfuege and violence to cohorce people from unionizing. Let's talk about Ludlow, where hundreds of people were massacared by machine gun and armoured car by private soldiers and the national guard. Let's talk about the battle of Blair Mountain, where after signing an agreement not to fight, anti-unionist shot unarmed people leaving town to go back to their homes. All of these incidents sprang forth from our roots of Anarcho-Capatalism. Now you can strawmen charimen Mao in if you'd like (Which i'm not sure what that has to do with simple things like workmans comp and minimum wage) but the truth is, the rules are there for a reason, and that reason is, we've tried it your way. It was an abject failure. Now I pray to god I get banned, because I cant stand a place where such dribble is celebrated as the height of enlightenment.
There is an incentive, paying more for better, happier, more productive employees. Why do you think most places offer employee benefits? Just like supply and demand dictates prices in the consumer market, it dictates wages in the labor market. Distortions only arise through coercion. I said exploitative monopolies. If you invent something and don't disclose proprietary information, and provide a beneficial product to a voluntary consumer, how is that exploitative? Corruption and greed is meaningless without the power of coercion. The only legal form of coercion is through the state. Consumers wouldn't allow for coercion from free market producers, that is illegal. "The system" is the state, the corporatist collusion between the politicians and their contributors. Every longstanding abuse you see from the private sector is a result of the public sector interfering.