The Libertarian Nook

[Archy1221]

23 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Yep. When China started leaning West and opening its markets, it became an economic superpower. Don't think you'll find many people arguing that Mao brand Marxism is the better way to go, but pretending that's the alternative is how Capitalists can ignore the excesses of pure Capitalism. It also requires giving a lot of credit to the very large and powerful Chinese government for orchestrating and controlling its capitalists, and suddenly you're into Big Government. 

 

Likewise, a United States system, not unlike our European and First World allies, features robust support of free market capitalism, while at the same regulating its more insatiable qualities and using big government to ensure some stability, justice, safety, and community good in the public sphere. The notion that if we just left Capitalists alone they would lift all ships at sea always sounds pretty but it's bulls#!t, with zero historical precedent. 

 

Is this article suggesting Capitalists are getting a bad rap?

 

Boo-f#&%ing-hoo. There's a reason they call them One Percenters. 

 

 

 

Roughly zero people here are suggesting that there are to be no rules in our economic system.  You are presenting a strawman argument in its purest form.  

[BigRedBuster]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Roughly zero people here are suggesting that there are to be no rules in our economic system.  You are presenting a strawman argument in its purest form.  

We have seen one party strongly promote the idea of huge amounts of deregulation with, what seems to be, no worry about the unintended consequences of that deregulation.  We have also seen very bad outcomes of large amounts of deregulation.

 

Some in that party talk as though they think that all regulation is bad.  So....cut everything.

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

We have seen one party strongly promote the idea of huge amounts of deregulation with, what seems to be, no worry about the unintended consequences of that deregulation.  We have also seen very bad outcomes of large amounts of deregulation.

 

Some in that party talk as though they think that all regulation is bad.  So....cut everything.

We have also seen one partly strongly promote too much regulation with what seems to be no worry about the unintended consequences of those regulations. 
 

So who talks about all regulation being bad?  Who wants to…..cut everything?  
 

It’s a balancing act on the appropriate levels of regulation.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

We have also seen one partly strongly promote too much regulation with what seems to be no worry about the unintended consequences of those regulations. 

Yep, and that's why I want a reasonable party that counters that.

 

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

So who talks about all regulation being bad?  Who wants to…..cut everything?  

Pretty much Trump's administration.

 

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s a balancing act on the appropriate levels of regulation.

Yes.

[Lorewarn]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Do slaves still exist if free market first world societies?  

 

Yes. Here at home, the 13th amendment abolished slavery except as a punishment for a crime. So feel whatever way you want to about whether they deserve it, but many prisoners incarcerated are, sometimes de facto and sometimes quite literally, slaves.

 

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

prisoners who work so get paid and tough shut for them on how much.  Don’t break the law and go to prison.

 

 

First of all, many states pay prisoners $0 for their involuntary servitude, so you're already factually off the mark here.

 

But let's just ignore that. Imagine this picture - you get paid $.13c per hour for tough labor with zero workplace protections, you have no right to unionize, you work 80 hours a week, you will be arbitrarily punished if you refuse, there are no safety guarantees, you're not given access to adequate health care when you're injured on the job, and 70% of the $10.40 you made in a week gets taken from you by your 'employer' while your output goes towards $11 billion annually in goods and services.

 

All because you were falsely and wrongly accused of something you didn't do. Or because you got caught smoking weed. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

And if that’s the segment you have to go to in order to argue against capitalism, you’ve already lost the argument. 

 

You asked who capitalism doesn't benefit, I gave you an example. Not the only example, not the best example, just an example. You don't have to denounce capitalism to admit and agree that 'yes, capitalism does not benefit people wrongly incarcerated and compelled into slave labor'.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

btW…..They also get free room and board

 

 

They actually don't. A large percentage of the pennies they make is taken from them to help pay for their room & board, but btw... guess who else got free room and board?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

What low-wage earners are trapped in non compete clauses that compromise their ability to further their income?

 

 

Plenty. Entry level warehouse workers for Amazon are forced to sign non-competes that "they will not work at any company where they "directly or indirectly" support any good or service that competes with those they helped support at Amazon" for 18 months, as one example (gotta emphasize this because you're insistent on trying to frame single examples offered as being an exhaustive representative proof of everything).

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Your last sentence is bogus when it comes to modern capitalism.   How many of those people strive to immigrate to the US because of their current working conditions?   

 

 

All you're doing here is admitting that capitalism has a hand in creating the problems that capitalism is promising to solve.

[Archy1221]

41 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Yes. Here at home, the 13th amendment abolished slavery except as a punishment for a crime. So feel whatever way you want to about whether they deserve it, but many prisoners incarcerated are, sometimes de facto and sometimes quite literally, slaves.

Let’s go along with your ridiculous assertion on the US having slaves still…LOL. Sorry it makes me laugh….What country pays its prisoners a “living wage”?  And what does a countries economic system have to do with prison wages?  
 

41 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

First of all, many states pay prisoners $0 for their involuntary servitude, so you're already factually off the mark here.

 

But let's just ignore that. Imagine this picture - you get paid $.13c per hour for tough labor with zero workplace protections, you have no right to unionize, you work 80 hours a week, you will be arbitrarily punished if you refuse, there are no safety guarantees, you're not given access to adequate health care when you're injured on the job, and 70% of the $10.40 you made in a week gets taken from you by your 'employer' while your output goes towards $11 billion annually in goods and services.

 

All because you were falsely and wrongly accused of something you didn't do. Or because you got caught smoking weed. 

See my response above.    Good effort putting in the wrongly accused at the end.   Does an economic system in any other country pay those wrongly accused a “living wage”. 
 

Secondly, you are citing a Constitutional matter, not an economic system matter.  
 

41 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

You asked who capitalism doesn't benefit, I gave you an example. Not the only example, not the best example, just an example. You don't have to denounce capitalism to admit and agree that 'yes, capitalism does not benefit people wrongly incarcerated and compelled into slave labor'.

Again, that’s a Constitutional matter not an economic system matter.   Norway’s prisons pay the prisoners roughly $10 a day for their labor and they are considered the best prisons by many.   How much do Socialist or Communist countries pay for prison labor?   Sounds wonderful, ehhh. 
 

41 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

They actually don't. A large percentage of the pennies they make is taken from them to help pay for their room & board, but btw... guess who else got free room and board?

My bad….they pay pennies a day for room and board.   sorry for the confusion as I was off by a few pennies.  

 

 

41 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Plenty. Entry level warehouse workers for Amazon are forced to sign non-competes that "they will not work at any company where they "directly or indirectly" support any good or service that competes with those they helped support at Amazon" for 18 months, as one example (gotta emphasize this because you're insistent on trying to frame single examples offered as being an exhaustive representative proof of everything).

This is from way back in time, so not sure where your info comes from for your single example you bolded.  
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-removes-non-compete-clause-for-hourly-workers-2015-3

 

42 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

All you're doing here is admitting that capitalism has a hand in creating the problems that capitalism is promising to solve.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Let’s go along with your ridiculous assertion on the US having slaves still…LOL. Sorry it makes me laugh….What country pays its prisoners a “living wage”?  And what does a countries economic system have to do with prison wages?

Well, I would call sex trafficking slavery.  Sex trafficking is still a big problem in the US.  So....yes, there is slavery still in the US.

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, I would call sex trafficking slavery.  Sex trafficking is still a big problem in the US.  So....yes, there is slavery still in the US.

Ok…  

 

That’s what you are going with to say capitalism promotes slave labor  Really?!? 
 

Or are you just pointing out a law and crime issue that affects darn near every country on planet Earth?   Because you know we are discussing Economic systems here and sex trafficking is illegal here.  Right?  

[Lorewarn]

I'm confused what other word you would use to describe someone who is forcefully made to work with no freedom for no pay in such a manner that is explicitly legal.

[RedDenver]

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Do slaves still exist if free market first world societies? 

 You do realize slaves did exist in "free" market societies until governments forced them to stop. The US fought a civil war over that very thing. Society forced slavery out of capitalism - there was no "human flourishing" in capitalism that put a stop to it.

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

 You do realize slaves did exist in "free" market societies until governments forced them to stop

You do realize I said “still” 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You do realize I said “still” 

Yes, that word is doing a LOT of work in that sentence. But it doesn't change that capitalism was not the reason slavery was ended as you're clearly implying.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, that word is doing a LOT of work in that sentence. But it doesn't change that capitalism was not the reason slavery was ended as you're clearly implying.

I didn’t imply that one bit which you know.   

[teachercd]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, I would call sex trafficking slavery.  Sex trafficking is still a big problem in the US.  So....yes, there is slavery still in the US.

I mean, that means it exists in every single country, all 195  (or 193 now???) of them, in the world.

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, that word is doing a LOT of work in that sentence. But it doesn't change that capitalism was not the reason slavery was ended as you're clearly implying.

Bro, you sort of just dropped the ball on this one Hahaha

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I didn’t imply that one bit which you know.   

Then you wouldn't have included that sentence since the implication is the only reason to include it. And you led with that sentence as your argument. Everyone can clearly see what you're implying and how ridiculous it is.