How Immoral Are Laissez Faire Ideologues? Ask About Drones

[milk]

All attempts at totally unregulated economies have failed, the libertarian leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of regulation in their economies.

nah

 

[tankasnowgod]

I think you edited your post as it mentioned something about proving the income inequality point... It's useful for reference anyway. The only easily accessible graphical format I could find is here:

Here's what income inequality looks like around the world

If you scroll down to the graph you can see all the lowest income inequality countries are mixed market social democracies - very far from the right wing. They're also some of the countries considered to have the highest quality of life in the world.

My confusion stems from the fact this thread is talking about right wing ideas at the same time as highlighting the corruptions of governments and corporate entities working together. Consistently, right wing governments are FUNDED by corporate entities and industrial lobbyists because they're willing to create policy to benefit said corporations.

If a corporation is getting what it wants then that's the opposite of what a human is going to want.

To highlight an example of useful regulation, we have a minimum wage here in the UK that stops many from living in abject poverty. It's still not really high enough but my point is regulation should be a force for good. If this was left to the market then poverty would be far higher, alongside crime and all the other domestic and social issues that results from poverty. These issues do not just affect those directly involved, they echo across society (I know that's stating the obvious but not everyone conceptualises beyond an individual level).

There are many examples of useful socially beneficial regulations, namely in those countries with highest qualities of life, so not all governments are purely corrupt.

It's weird because we effectively agree that those corruptions are an awful thing, and yet you're leaning towards the very sections of government that actively support those kinds of corrupt regulation.

I edited my post because your original post actually stated that the smallest governments have the most income equality. I agree with that. But I believe you meant the opposite.

Funny thing is, the article you posted confirms that point. Denmark has a much smaller government than the USA, for example. Sweden, much smaller government than China or the UK. Thanks for accidentally proving my point!

I don't think the minimum wage is a useful regulation. I think it hurts small businesses, reduces jobs, and reduces spending power of individuals. Minimum wage laws and efforts to increase them are funded by multinational corporations.

I am pretty libertarian, but not a koch brothers version of libertarian. That's just like calling neocons conservative. I don't think either is accurate.

"Right wing" governments are often funded by huge corporations..... but so are left wing. All governments are, and left wing more so these days. Look at the corps and megabanks that poured massive funding into things like the Clinton Foundation and the "Remain" campaign in the Brexit vote. I'll find that clip of conservative MP Daniel Haanan pointing this out when I am at a proper computer (just a tablet for a few days)

 

[cats]

The Democratic party isn't left wing. There are individuals and factions within it that are but the established, core group is not. They have a lot of left ish rhetoric (because it's what the base wants to hear) but actual policies trend centre or centre right.

 

[sunraiser]

the original purpose of minimal wage laws was eugenics-related. killing off the "genetically inferior" poor by excluding them from the workforce. setting the "minimal wage" high enough that employers would not want to pay that kind of money for the kind of work these people are able to perform.

it's a form of state interventionism. price regulation always has bad consequences. it was when maduro a few years ago started fixing the prices of food in venezuelan supermarkets in a crusade against "unfair prices" that the country began its plunge towards socialist hell. venezuelans are now eating street dogs. those who plunge us into hell always claim the best humanitarian intentions.

price is organic. supply and demand. the price of goods and services emerges organically. it's impossible to predict prices, it's impossible to control economies. all attempts at government-controlled economies have failed dramatically. the socialist leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of de facto capitalism in their economies.

Your first point makes no sense to me - minimum wage laws in the UK at and Northern Europe had absolutely nothing to do with eugenics! They were created with a social impetus in mind - National Minimum Wage Act 1998 - Wikipedia

A minimum wage law doesn't lower the demand for low wage jobs for employers - they still need the workforce for their businesses to function. They can either redistribute and pay up or they can downsize their productivity, market share and overall business. Businesses dry their eyes rather quickly when it comes to the crunch.

Regarding your second point - "price is organic" is just loose rhetoric and it avoids the point I was making. What if, in a free market with high barriers to entry a single entity has an extremely large market share and takes advantage of their monopoly to price out the competition, then decides to set the prices to whatever they want for a necessary commodity? What if a few businesses collude to set prices across the market to ensure profits for another necessary commodity? What if the person at the top of a company sets their own wages and decides in a drastically inflated value compared to the rest of the company? What if there's high unemployment and demand for jobs is so high that free market wages leave people in abject poverty?

There are literally millions of real world examples you could use - THAT is why regulation is needed. The free market isn't some pure force for good, it's just a useful framework and guideline for price setting that's very easy to take advantage of to the detriment of the consumer. Saying socialist leaders allow a small degree of defacto capitalism isn't a hint that they secretly believe in neoliberal economics, it's just that flat out socialism also isn't a very workable real world model.

I genuinely want to understand the perspective of people that aren't multimillionaires (I assume you're not, not because of your post content but just via basic probability!) supporting these kinds of economic approaches - it's self detrimental. It always seems to devolve into platitudes and not directly addressing the points at hand. I'm not attacking you, just saying that I'm interested while still disagreeing.

I edited my post because your original post actually stated that the smallest governments have the most income equality. I agree with that. But I believe you meant the opposite.

Funny thing is, the article you posted confirms that point. Denmark has a much smaller government than the USA, for example. Sweden, much smaller government than China or the UK. Thanks for accidentally proving my point!

I don't think the minimum wage is a useful regulation. I think it hurts small businesses, reduces jobs, and reduces spending power of individuals. Minimum wage laws and efforts to increase them are funded by multinational corporations.

I am pretty libertarian, but not a koch brothers version of libertarian. That's just like calling neocons conservative. I don't think either is accurate.

"Right wing" governments are often funded by huge corporations..... but so are left wing. All governments are, and left wing more so these days. Look at the corps and megabanks that poured massive funding into things like the Clinton Foundation and the "Remain" campaign in the Brexit vote. I'll find that clip of conservative MP Daniel Haanan pointing this out when I am at a proper computer (just a tablet for a few days)

I worded it incorrectly, well spotted - my bad! I also can't edit so hopefully people will understand via the context like you did. I'm not sure we mean the same thing via "small government" or "minimising government". Denmark and Sweden have in literal terms less members of government, but it's the absolute opposite when it comes to social policy. By small government I mean low government intervention, especially in the economy and spending on social infrastructure.

Denmark, and the majority of the countries at the low inequality point of that graph, have heavily regulated economies, free university education, public healthcare and large civil service workforce. They are the furthest things from small government you can get in the modern world. They have extremely high tax rates and the wealth is far more evenly distributed - the difference between the highest and lowest earners in companies is at a low ratio.

Whatever our differences of opinion, it's factually untrue to say libertarian or small government minded economies have the lowest income inequality. It's unequivocally the opposite! If you look at the graph with the above context it does show it.

It's important to outline that the high quality of life countries all run some kind of mixed market social democracy. Government spending is heavily directed towards social infrastructure and supporting those with the lowest level of privilege, with a higher tax burden on those with more means. China, while heavily regulated, are not a good example as they direct their spending towards military and arbitrary GDP raising methods as opposed to social infrastructure and citizen wellbeing.

With regard to minimum wage laws hurting small businesses and lowering jobs, they can TECHNICALLY have this impact, however it's important to put it into context. A lot of libertarian political rhetoric is focused on "jobs!" and "business!" as a default positive or force for good. Jobs and business, as distinct entities are not by default good things. A minimum wage is stating that your business can only be allowed to thrive and provide jobs IF it's able to pay its workers enough to live on - it means a business by default has a socially driven directive beyond just profit making.

A job in the above context is more likely to be a GOOD thing, and a business that sustainably grows while adhering to these boundaries is more likely to be a force for good in society as opposed to a net loser - a leech. If businesses grow via low and unsustainable wages they're just creating higher social cost via poor health of their employees later down the line, and adding to the social burden via higher crime and all the other ills that are increased in society via povery and ill health. It's really important to make sure terms used heavily in rhetoric are not arbitrarily defined as positive things - specific context is imperative!

I don't understand how minimum wages can possibly reduce individual spending power. The free market can still dictate the price of an item to an extent - in effect it's just lowering the ratio between the highest and lowest earners in a given business. I can assure you that, at least in my country, big business are not pushing for minimum wage laws - they consistently lobby against raises in the national minimum and throw their toys out of the pram, prophecise doom etc. They're consistently fine. Just greedy.

I think probably you're jaded by being in the USA. I don't know US government history a lot further back but you haven't had anything remotely approaching left wing for at least 30 years. The Clinton's and Obama don't share similar politics or social approach with the countries of lowest income inequality. You're right, they're backed by big business just like the republicans in the US. Bernie Sanders would be a good example of a supporter of mixed market social democracy more akin to Iceland, Norway etc, but sadly you didn't get the choice.

A huge amount of rhetoric and agenda was put across via the right wing media in the US - they knew people were desperate for an alternative to the status quo and they played on the idea that Hillary was a corporate shill etc while sharing very similar neoliberal economic politics that wouldn't change a thing. The whole idea of trickle down economics and free market worship isn't a sound theory, and throwing around the term "socialism" for anyone on the left that wants a mixed market is completely inaccurate.

I don't think anyone spouting about trickle down actually believes in it, it's more a thin veil to allow the wealth and status quo to stay where it is. The republicans and certain sections of the democrats in the US aren't political parties in a true sense - they don't represent people they're merely the political wings of the vested interests that fund them.

I have given this so much time as we're probably people in similar situatons and I see a lot of people who are feeling disenchanted and left behind by the corrupt and corporate interest based political model, and many very rich media entities have seized the sentiment and moved these people to supporting neoliberal and right wing parties, when in reality these parties support and uphold the very things that are a plague on society!

It's all posturing and rhetoric - the media are tools and there's always ALWAYS agenda. An easy rule, for me, is if a government actively increases income inequality and are backed by big corporate interests then they do not serve the people.

Everything in a society is connected - the people you encounter, their education, your education, the jobs available to you etc etc. These things are intricately connected and many are a result of public institutions. Libertarianism effectively means you are much more likely to be doomed into the situation you're born into - it removes social mobility. I do understand your sentiment, but the point I'm making is if you want to enjoy these aspects of society while not contributing to them then you can't really be a part of that society. You'd have to go and live in the woods or become a nomad, which is certainly an option. I do respect the feeling behind it though.

Lastly, a quick note on the Brexit campaign - both sides were backed by big business. Some businesses benefit heavily from free movement of labour while others suffer from tarrif free import and european climate and eco regulation. Both sides had big representation so it's not a good example of left wing. Jeremy Corbyn (the UK left) is funded by unions and labour party members/miniscule donations, not big business.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Your first point makes no sense to me - minimum wage laws in the UK at and Northern Europe had absolutely nothing to do with eugenics! They were created with a social impetus in mind - National Minimum Wage Act 1998 - Wikipedia

A minimum wage law doesn't lower the demand for low wage jobs for employers - they still need the workforce for their businesses to function. They can either redistribute and pay up or they can downsize their productivity, market share and overall business. Businesses dry their eyes rather quickly when it comes to the crunch.

Regarding your second point - "price is organic" is just loose rhetoric and it avoids the point I was making. What if, in a free market with high barriers to entry a single entity has an extremely large market share and takes advantage of their monopoly to price out the competition, then decides to set the prices to whatever they want for a necessary commodity? What if a few businesses collude to set prices across the market to ensure profits for another necessary commodity? What if the person at the top of a company sets their own wages and decides in a drastically inflated value compared to the rest of the company? What if there's high unemployment and demand for jobs is so high that free market wages leave people in abject poverty?

There are literally millions of real world examples you could use - THAT is why regulation is needed. The free market isn't some pure force for good, it's just a useful framework and guideline for price setting that's very easy to take advantage of to the detriment of the consumer. Saying socialist leaders allow a small degree of defacto capitalism isn't a hint that they secretly believe in neoliberal economics, it's just that flat out socialism also isn't a very workable real world model.

I genuinely want to understand the perspective of people that aren't multimillionaires (I assume you're not, not because of your post content but just via basic probability!) supporting these kinds of economic approaches - it's self detrimental. It always seems to devolve into platitudes and not directly addressing the points at hand. I'm not attacking you, just saying that I'm interested while still disagreeing.



I worded it incorrectly, well spotted - my bad! I also can't edit so hopefully people will understand via the context like you did. I'm not sure we mean the same thing via "small government" or "minimising government". Denmark and Sweden have in literal terms less members of government, but it's the absolute opposite when it comes to social policy. By small government I mean low government intervention, especially in the economy and spending on social infrastructure.

Denmark, and the majority of the countries at the low inequality point of that graph, have heavily regulated economies, free university education, public healthcare and large civil service workforce. They are the furthest things from small government you can get in the modern world. They have extremely high tax rates and the wealth is far more evenly distributed - the difference between the highest and lowest earners in companies is at a low ratio.

Whatever our differences of opinion, it's factually untrue to say libertarian or small government minded economies have the lowest income inequality. It's unequivocally the opposite! If you look at the graph with the above context it does show it.

It's important to outline that the high quality of life countries all run some kind of mixed market social democracy. Government spending is heavily directed towards social infrastructure and supporting those with the lowest level of privilege, with a higher tax burden on those with more means. China, while heavily regulated, are not a good example as they direct their spending towards military and arbitrary GDP raising methods as opposed to social infrastructure and citizen wellbeing.

With regard to minimum wage laws hurting small businesses and lowering jobs, they can TECHNICALLY have this impact, however it's important to put it into context. A lot of libertarian political rhetoric is focused on "jobs!" and "business!" as a default positive or force for good. Jobs and business, as distinct entities are not by default good things. A minimum wage is stating that your business can only be allowed to thrive and provide jobs IF it's able to pay its workers enough to live on - it means a business by default has a socially driven directive beyond just profit making.

A job in the above context is more likely to be a GOOD thing, and a business that sustainably grows while adhering to these boundaries is more likely to be a force for good in society as opposed to a net loser - a leech. If businesses grow via low and unsustainable wages they're just creating higher social cost via poor health of their employees later down the line, and adding to the social burden via higher crime and all the other ills that are increased in society via povery and ill health. It's really important to make sure terms used heavily in rhetoric are not arbitrarily defined as positive things - specific context is imperative!

I don't understand how minimum wages can possibly reduce individual spending power. The free market can still dictate the price of an item to an extent - in effect it's just lowering the ratio between the highest and lowest earners in a given business. I can assure you that, at least in my country, big business are not pushing for minimum wage laws - they consistently lobby against raises in the national minimum and throw their toys out of the pram, prophecise doom etc. They're consistently fine. Just greedy.

I think probably you're jaded by being in the USA. I don't know US government history a lot further back but you haven't had anything remotely approaching left wing for at least 30 years. The Clinton's and Obama don't share similar politics or social approach with the countries of lowest income inequality. You're right, they're backed by big business just like the republicans in the US. Bernie Sanders would be a good example of a supporter of mixed market social democracy more akin to Iceland, Norway etc, but sadly you didn't get the choice.

A huge amount of rhetoric and agenda was put across via the right wing media in the US - they knew people were desperate for an alternative to the status quo and they played on the idea that Hillary was a corporate shill etc while sharing very similar neoliberal economic politics that wouldn't change a thing. The whole idea of trickle down economics and free market worship isn't a sound theory, and throwing around the term "socialism" for anyone on the left that wants a mixed market is completely inaccurate.

I don't think anyone spouting about trickle down actually believes in it, it's more a thin veil to allow the wealth and status quo to stay where it is. The republicans and certain sections of the democrats in the US aren't political parties in a true sense - they don't represent people they're merely the political wings of the vested interests that fund them.

I have given this so much time as we're probably people in similar situatons and I see a lot of people who are feeling disenchanted and left behind by the corrupt and corporate interest based political model, and many very rich media entities have seized the sentiment and moved these people to supporting neoliberal and right wing parties, when in reality these parties support and uphold the very things that are a plague on society!

It's all posturing and rhetoric - the media are tools and there's always ALWAYS agenda. An easy rule, for me, is if a government actively increases income inequality and are backed by big corporate interests then they do not serve the people.

Everything in a society is connected - the people you encounter, their education, your education, the jobs available to you etc etc. These things are intricately connected and many are a result of public institutions. Libertarianism effectively means you are much more likely to be doomed into the situation you're born into - it removes social mobility. I do understand your sentiment, but the point I'm making is if you want to enjoy these aspects of society while not contributing to them then you can't really be a part of that society. You'd have to go and live in the woods or become a nomad, which is certainly an option. I do respect the feeling behind it though.

Lastly, a quick note on the Brexit campaign - both sides were backed by big business. Some businesses benefit heavily from free movement of labour while others suffer from tarrif free import and european climate and eco regulation. Both sides had big representation so it's not a good example of left wing. Jeremy Corbyn (the UK left) is funded by unions and labour party members/miniscule donations, not big business.

Again, I'll reply more in depth when I am at a proper computer, but your thinking about a minimum wage is flawed. Why would a teenager living with his parents need to earn enough to support a family? He wouldn't. Every time you raise the minimum wage, congrats, you just screwed a teen out of a job.

It also lays off existing employees and forced companies to close or consolidate. Look at what is happening to restaurant groups in New York and California. They are closing locations because they can't afford 15 bucks an hour to all employees. Don't trust me, ask a small business owner.

I'll get into us history in depth later, but suffice to say that both Bushes,Clinton's, and Obama supported the globalist/socislist/open borders policy, that is the hallmark of progressives and left wing agenda.

 

[vulture]

You're talking about corruption in the context of regulation , not regulation as a principle.

I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist, I was just stating why regulation is necessary.

Minimalised government (modern conservatism) and individualism are what create the highest level of income equality and these are the absolute enemies of widespread quality of life and social cohesion in society. That's pretty well documented and easily observable.

I'm surprised so many here are right wing! I don't know why but I'd expect it to lean the other way as there's a lot of counter culture. Or maybe you're anarchists?

I’m an anarchist at heart, but since there are some current technological limitations and it’s hard to wipe out state right now, I simpatice with classical liberalism or minarchist points of view.
I want as much freedom as possible and just as much authority and state as needed, excessive regulations is partly why MDs might not even think in suggesting or using Peat’s ideas, or what makes really hard or pricey for us to get what we need to perform experiments to improve our health, there’s authoritarian governments everywhere that could even tax us for eating butter instead of margarine...if it’s unhealthy to eat butter, then I’ll pay for it with my health, I don’t want anybody to pay for my mistakes if they don’t want to, neither want to pay for other people’s mistakes if I don’t want to.

 

[vulture]

I think you edited your post as it mentioned something about proving the income inequality point... It's useful for reference anyway. The only easily accessible graphical format I could find is here:

Here's what income inequality looks like around the world

If you scroll down to the graph you can see all the lowest income inequality countries are mixed market social democracies - very far from the right wing. They're also some of the countries considered to have the highest quality of life in the world.

My confusion stems from the fact this thread is talking about right wing ideas at the same time as highlighting the corruptions of governments and corporate entities working together. Consistently, right wing governments are FUNDED by corporate entities and industrial lobbyists because they're willing to create policy to benefit said corporations.

If a corporation is getting what it wants then that's the opposite of what a human is going to want.

To highlight an example of useful regulation, we have a minimum wage here in the UK that stops many from living in abject poverty. It's still not really high enough but my point is regulation should be a force for good. If this was left to the market then poverty would be far higher, alongside crime and all the other domestic and social issues that results from poverty. These issues do not just affect those directly involved, they echo across society (I know that's stating the obvious but not everyone conceptualises beyond an individual level).

There are many examples of useful socially beneficial regulations, namely in those countries with highest qualities of life, so not all governments are purely corrupt.

It's weird because we effectively agree that those corruptions are an awful thing, and yet you're leaning towards the very sections of government that actively support those kinds of corrupt regulation.

Hahaha bro sorry but that cult to equality is pathetic and unnatural:
Chile is one of the most unequal income countries, well, guess where most of the Latin American goes to live in Latin America? Chile. Venezuela isn’t that high in unequal income, but everybody dreams to get the hell out of there. I don’t care if my neighbors drive a Mercedes, it’s not my problem as long as they respect my rights, if they are smarter and well talented making business, then great for them. Maybe the guy is fat and invest no time in being healthier, and I do and look better, that’s unequal, but what’s wrong with that?
What’s the matter of unequal income where lowest incomes are higher than would be if it was more equal but the overall income would be way below? Cult to equal income is a resentful people discourse, you have no right to get paid more or to make someone earn less, it should be a free transaction, you don’t agree to pay 10,000 usd to a CEO? Well, don’t pay YOUR 10,000 usd to your CEO, you are no one to regulate other people’s decisions.
And don’t get confused with me, I’m not “right wing” as someone who praises privileges to certain corporations, that’s mercantilism, I want the state to be unable to make privileges to anyone, I hate when I have to pay more for meds just because there’s a lobby to protect the current administration funder. And that’s what mercantilist and socialist have being doing for years, there are almost no politicians with these ideas ruling in a century. Since WWII the leftists are dominating the whole political spectrum and people gets to chose socialism, communism or mercantilism. They get screwed with huge taxation, their freedom is devored year after year. Maybe one of the politicians who gets my attention right now is Jair Bolsonaro at Brasil, I hope he takes the boat where it should go, no matter the consequences, sadly leftist are dangerous and socially tolerated, but results of their ideas are human tragedies that shall be avoided at all costs, they threaten humanity, but it’s politically incorrect to even say it. How much people should die in hunger in places full of resources to realize that is enough with that non sense? Why doesn’t those leftist in “first world” countries go to North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela to live their distopia and leave the at least half functional human beings live? Let me guess, there’s no real socialism anywhere...because socialism is great until they start to implement it and fails in a decade or two. And the less regulated and free countries are places where people tries to get in, and the more regulated and socialist countries are where people tries to ESCAPE, socialist builds walls to avoid their slaves to escape.

 

[vulture]

the original purpose of minimal wage laws was eugenics-related. killing off the "genetically inferior" poor by excluding them from the workforce. setting the "minimal wage" high enough that employers would not want to pay that kind of money for the kind of work these people are able to perform.

it's a form of state interventionism. price regulation always has bad consequences. it was when maduro a few years ago started fixing the prices of food in venezuelan supermarkets in a crusade against "unfair prices" that the country began its plunge towards socialist hell. venezuelans are now eating street dogs. those who plunge us into hell always claim the best humanitarian intentions.

price is organic. supply and demand. the price of goods and services emerges organically. it's impossible to predict prices, it's impossible to control economies. all attempts at government-controlled economies have failed dramatically. the socialist leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of de facto capitalism in their economies.

Thanks you for making Venezuela’s misery visible, you really seem to have a clear idea of what’s going on there.
If minimum wage is such a great idea why not setting it on 200.000 bucks a year and then we all are millionaries? That’s because it’s not the regulation what gives quality of life, it’s the market.
“There are nine countries with no minimum wage (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy, Switzerland.)”
LOL they must be killing each other or starving without the state regulating the evil forces of a free market...thank god there are socialist countries like Venezuela where their tyrant is continuously raising minimum wage to avoid the exploiters to starve the proletariat...oh wait...

 

[vulture]

All attempts at totally unregulated economies have failed, the libertarian leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of regulation in their economies.

The most economically free nations are usually the more prosperous, Venezuela and USSR ended up starving while having a lot more resources than Chile or New Zealand, which economies are one of the most unregulated of the planet, there are no absolutely free (capitalist) nations, neither absolutely authoritarian countries, even in comunist nations there was a black market and even in mostly capitalist nations there are some regulations and state authority.
But obviously the facts prove that is not optimal to have a big state or lots of regulations or anything like it...it’s obvious where to go.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Thanks you for making Venezuela’s misery visible, you really seem to have a clear idea of what’s going on there.
If minimum wage is such a great idea why not setting it on 200.000 bucks a year and then we all are millionaries? That’s because it’s not the regulation what gives quality of life, it’s the market.
“There are nine countries with no minimum wage (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy, Switzerland.)”
LOL they must be killing each other or starving without the state regulating the evil forces of a free market...thank god there are socialist countries like Venezuela where their tyrant is continuously raising minimum wage to avoid the exploiters to starve the proletariat...oh wait...

You are really desperate. All of those countries have unionized jobs which guarantee minimum wage for their professions. They also have high social security payments so one one is forced to work.

Moreover you are not an anarchist. You still support the corporate structure, a private dictatorship. You are not pro market, because efficient market only exist under appropriate government regulation.

You are also pro poverty, because we have seen from countless studies that higher equality leads to higher productivity, stability, better health, more innovation and less crime.

You are pro tyranny.

 

[vulture]

You are really desperate. All of those countries have unionized jobs which guarantee minimum wage for their professions. They also have high social security payments so one one is forced to work.

Moreover you are not an anarchist. You still support the corporate structure, a private dictatorship. You are not pro market, because efficient market only exist under appropriate government regulation.

You are also pro poverty, because we have seen from countless studies that higher equality leads to higher productivity, stability, better health, more innovation and less crime.

You are pro tyranny.

What’s “corporate structure”?
What is an “efficient market”? What is an “appropriate” government regulation?

I’m not pro poverty, I’m pro freedom, I don’t focus on poverty, but go and take a look at the first ten countries in economic freedom index and the bottom ten, what a coincidence, freedom seems highly correlated with prosperity. I know what’s being what most of you might call “poor”.
I’m not pro tyranny, tyrants are the ones who think they have an authority to impose their way of life or moral over others, that take other people’s income and decide for them what’s “good for themselves”. Who are these people to impose their way of life just because they got 50%+1 of the voters? Do I have to tolerate their crap because of that? Who are those regulators to come and tell us if we should or not buy from China or Mexico, if we should eat saturated fat or if we should drink alcohol or not? If I use certain currency or not? If someone deserves X amount of money for a job or not? If the state have such power to threaten individual freedoms, then the ones with money will pay politicians to get the regulations to benefit them. If the state has a very limited power over those matters then corporations will have to look for voluntary ways to get our money. My relationship with the state is not voluntary, I don’t chose to pay them or if I want to go to their immigration offices or not. What would you think if the state uses its power to force saturated fat and sodium out of the market for our own benefit? I want as much purchasing power as possible for individuals, or at least me, if you want to have a fund to pay for its members education, fine, go on, if I don’t, then don’t force me. If you have freedom you could subscribe even living in a communist community sharing its members property in equal parts, it’s possible, but if you try to freely trade and live in a leftist country you could easily end up in jail or with a bullet in your head.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

The most economically free nations are usually the more prosperous, Venezuela and USSR ended up starving while having a lot more resources than Chile or New Zealand, which economies are one of the most unregulated of the planet, there are no absolutely free (capitalist) nations, neither absolutely authoritarian countries, even in comunist nations there was a black market and even in mostly capitalist nations there are some regulations and state authority.
But obviously the facts prove that is not optimal to have a big state or lots of regulations or anything like it...it’s obvious where to go.

Mixed economies with massive downward redistribution and strong regulation are the most prosperous. Back when the US was the most prosperous country in the world and you could feed a family, have a house and a car with one income of a high school graduate it had 70-90% marginal taxes, industrial policy and capital controls.

You don't even know the most elementary facts or economic terms related to discussion, which explains both your views and your desperate gish galloping.

 

[jondoeuk]