America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Charity of violence? I mean, if we are talking about choice making, couldn't one just make the choice to learn another language and go live where they find the laws and regulations more fitting to their whims?

If a government is sufficiently interested in ignoring rights, no. Those states aren't terribly fond of people leaving.

Besides which, striving to change your homeland for the benefit of all (even those who are unaware that they will benefit) is a more laudable aim than selfishly abandoning it to those who would seek to change it for their own benefit (even while those it harms defend and even champion them, and tell naysayers to move away if they hate it so much).

 

[Danoff]

Charity of violence? I mean, if we are talking about choice making, couldn't one just make the choice to learn another language and go live where they find the laws and regulations more fitting to their whims?

It has nothing to do with who is living there. These are the two ways of helping people:

1) Let people choose to help them
2) Let people choose to force others to help them

Those are your options. In either case, you have people motivated to help their fellow man (what one might describe as charity). Some people choose to provide the fruits of their own labor to help, and others choose to use guns to force others to give up the fruits of their labor. These are the options.

Some people on this board are so enamored with the 2nd choice that they think any system that isn't built on that is wrong and evil.

 

[Rallywagon]

See, this is the way I've always felt about it. I live in a society. Part of my civic duty, being a part of said society, is to make sure that society is as healthy as it can be. There in is were the responsibilities of governement should be concerned. Constabulary forces, fire fighters, environmental regulations. I feel healthcare and welfare of sorts should also be included with that. While others have distrust or disdain for governement (in it's current form, I feel that isnt unwarranted), but I think that the decay of government is a symptom, not a cause. I personally find that as a whole, especially on the front of charity, a business is far more likely to be untrustworthy than the governement. I mean, look at entities like good will and and Susan Komen.
That being said. I also think there should be a firm of opt out. You don't want to pay taxes within said community, be it a city or state, that's fine, but you then also opt out of thise benefits. No fire protection, no police protection, no healthcare, none if there benefits of that society. You are free to find your own way, be it foregoing or finding private means.

 

[Exorcet]

I live in a society. Part of my civic duty, being a part of said society, is to make sure that society is as healthy as it can be.

Cooperation only makes sense, it benefits everyone.

There in is were the responsibilities of governement should be concerned. Constabulary forces, fire fighters, environmental regulations. I feel healthcare and welfare of sorts should also be included with that. While others have distrust or disdain for governement (in it's current form, I feel that isnt unwarranted), but I think that the decay of government is a symptom, not a cause.

For me it's not so much about distrust or disdain. I'm living in the greatest era of human history and modern governments are part of the reason for that. However they still violate rights at will, your contribution to society is mandated and there isn't much you can do about it. That's not right.

 

[UKMikey]

Should the government coerce individuals to participate in mass vaccinations against infectious diseases? Or would it be better to leave this to the private sector so it doesn't infringe upon our right to get sick?

 

[BobK]

Should the government coerce individuals to participate in mass vaccinations against infectious diseases? Or would it be better to leave this to the private sector so it doesn't infringe upon our right to get sick?

The government shouldn't coerce anybody to have vaccinations. However, those who refuse should be banned from all public places, since these people are a health hazard.

 

[Exorcet]

Should the government coerce individuals to participate in mass vaccinations against infectious diseases? Or would it be better to leave this to the private sector so it doesn't infringe upon our right to get sick?

The choice to vaccinate is yours, but so is the choice to interact with those who do or don't. If a community came together and wanted to enforce vaccination among their population it would be the government job's to defend their choice.

 

[Danoff]

Should the government coerce individuals to participate in mass vaccinations against infectious diseases? Or would it be better to leave this to the private sector so it doesn't infringe upon our right to get sick?

The choice to vaccinate is yours, but so is the choice to interact with those who do or don't. If a community came together and wanted to enforce vaccination among their population it would be the government job's to defend their choice.

In this (difficult) scenario, we're talking about making medical decisions as the guardian of a child - one who is not yet able to make decisions for themselves. There are standards below which cause significant harm to the development of the child.

I think parents have to be able to choose whether or not to vaccinate. And certainly public and private locations have the option of whether or not to accept people in an unvaccinated condition. But I also think we might prosecute parents who lose (or essentially stunt or deform) a child to an entirely preventable illness, when they were told how preventable it was, for child abuse.

 

[ryzno]

In this (difficult) scenario, we're talking about making medical decisions as the guardian of a child - one who is not yet able to make decisions for themselves. There are standards below which cause significant harm to the development of the child.

I think parents have to be able to choose whether or not to vaccinate. And certainly public and private locations have the option of whether or not to accept people in an unvaccinated condition. But I also think we might prosecute parents who lose (or essentially stunt or deform) a child to an entirely preventable illness, when they were told how preventable it was, for child abuse.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. You want to give them a choice but punish them if something happens to the child.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. You want to give them a choice but punish them if something happens to the child.

Yes. Let people make their own decisions and hold them responsible for the outcome. It's an odd notion called personal responsibility.

 

[PocketZeven]

So did I - you can't opt out of paying government. No matter how much they creep their mission, powers and roles, you can't go shop elsewhere. They own you.

And it's your contention that a government is required to solve these things and no company can employ people fairly, treat their illnesses, educate them...?

Can one exploit without violating rights?

Exactly that would be the same when corporations take over. Eventually you will end up with a monopoly. Which I think will probably be worse then an elected government.

Yes, corporations care about the bottom line. Businesses use the limits of the law to exploit for their own gains. Without oversight and new laws, people will be exploited. Just look at situations around big Pharma or the Panama files. They were not violating anyones rights.

yes, you can exploit without violating rights.

I am curious which defination of "rights" are your referring to?

Surely corporations can do all that too?

In the history of the world, which corporation has done so without government influence?

edit:

The government shouldn't coerce anybody to have vaccinations. However, those who refuse should be banned from all public places, since these people are a health hazard.

Not forcing/coerce them to do one thing, to force/coerce them out of public places is kind of ironic.

Let's try @Famine's test here:

Poverty... is it violating someone's rights to be poor? No. Not a role of government
Exploitation... is it violating someone's rights to be exploited? Depends on what you mean by exploited... so possibly a role of government.
Healthcare... is it violating someone's rights to have no healthcare? No. Not a role of government.
Racism... is it violating someone's rights to be racist? No. Not a role of government.
Sexism... is it violating someone's rights to be sexist? No. Not a role of government.
Uneducated people... is it violating someone's rights to be uneducated? Yes if you're a child. Possibly a role of government...

In that last case, it'd be the role of government to either compel parents to provide education or find parents who can.

@Famine
If the US government only took on the role of protecting rights from the beginning and strictly followed the constitution. Wouldnt that mean slavery would still exist and no civil rights movement?

 

[Famine]

Exactly that would be the same when corporations take over. Eventually you will end up with a monopoly. Which I think will probably be worse then an elected government.

The same but probably worse?

Any monopoly is one innovation away from losing its monopoly. No government is one vote away from losing its monopoly.

Yes, corporations care about the bottom line. Businesses use the limits of the law to exploit for their own gains. Without oversight and new laws, people will be exploited. Just look at situations around big Pharma or the Panama files. They were not violating anyones rights.

You need to learn how to edit quotes, because I've no idea which bit of my posts you're actually responding to at any one time.

I think this first bit is a response to "And it's your contention that a government is required to solve these things and no company can employ people fairly, treat their illnesses, educate them...?".

If that's the case please explain how no company can possibly employ people fairly, no company can treat someone's illnesses, and no company can educate people, given the existence of jobs, private hospitals and private schools (and universities). Also I'll remind you of the existence of a type of company called "a charity".

The second bit is a little on the weird side. What oversight and laws prevented or helped prosecute "big Pharma of the Panama files"? What exploitation did government prevent?

yes, you can exploit without violating rights.

Explain how. How can you exploit someone without violating their right to life or their right to own property?

I am curious which defination of "rights" are your referring to?

Then read the Human Rights thread.

 

[mustafur]

Except of course when the Monopolies buy out the competition to make sure they stay that way.

 

[PocketZeven]

The same but probably worse?

Any monopoly is one innovation away from losing its monopoly. No government is one vote away from losing its monopoly.

You need to learn how to edit quotes, because I've no idea which bit of my posts you're actually responding to at any one time.

I think this first bit is a response to "And it's your contention that a government is required to solve these things and no company can employ people fairly, treat their illnesses, educate them...?".

So please explain how no company can possibly employ people fairly, no company can treat someone's illnesses, and no company can educate people, given the existence of jobs, private hospitals and private schools (and universities).

Explain how. How can you exploit someone without violating their right to life or their right to own property?

Then read the Human Rights thread.

A government is elected by the people. A corporation does not.

Corporations have no requirement to educate and/or treat illnesses. I did not say there wouldnt be hospitals and/or schools. Private hospitals and schools are affordable only to the ones who can afford them. Public schooling or healthcare would not be the role of government anymore.

You can exploit workers by paying them 1 dollar an hour and let them work for 80 hours a week. Labor rights were put in place, because of government. Human rights evolve and need a government with elected representative to explore and pass them to law. Corporations have no obligation to improve the rights of the people. And the people would have no say in how the corporations are run or define labor rights.

Modern human rights exist, because of government working beyond the role of just protecting them.

 

[Danoff]

Not forcing/coerce them to do one thing, to force/coerce them out of public places is kind of ironic.

You're not understanding the use of the term force here (or perhaps ownership). It is not force (as it is used here) to tell someone they cannot have (or access) your property. It is force to try to access that against their will.

@Famine
If the US government only took on the role of protecting rights from the beginning and strictly followed the constitution. Wouldnt that mean slavery would still exist and no civil rights movement?

Slavery violates human rights. It is the government's job to protect human rights. So no.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're not understanding the use of the term force here (or perhaps ownership). It is not force (as it is used here) to tell someone they cannot have (or access) your property. It is force to try to access that against their will.



Slavery violates human rights. It is the government's job to protect human rights. So no.

I was speaking about vaccinations. If one shouldnt force you to take them. Then one should also not force them to stay away. (take away a freedom)

In the case of the USA. When the Constitution was established, slavery was legal. It was even prohibited to ban slavery at the time. In Famines definition the role of exploring and improving human rights is not the role of government. Would corporations at the time have fought for the banning of slavery?

 

[Famine]

A government is elected by the people. A corporation does not.

A corporation is paid for by the people who can opt not to pay for it, a government takes payment by force from its subjects.

Corporations have no requirement to educate and/or treat illnesses.

No they don't - except for private schools and private hospitals, which would be pretty piss-poor if they didn't. And people can choose not to pay the companies that provide a piss-poor service. Try not paying for piss-poor government services - and cogitate on why private hospitals and schools even exist if the government versions are not piss-poor.

I did not say there wouldnt be hospitals and/or schools. Private hospitals and schools are affordable only to the ones who can afford them.

And they can afford to charge, and be selective about who they take, because there is a piss-poor public baseline that everyone has to pay for and cannot opt out of even if they choose the (better) private option instead.

Public schooling would not be the role of government anymore.

*shrug*

You can exploit workers by paying them 1 dollar an hour and let them work for 80 hours a week.

And they're forced to work there, right? While we're forcing them, why pay at all, why not make it slave labour? Seems like a good idea if you're all about maximising profits and people are forced to work for you.

Oh wait, no, they aren't forced to work there. They can work anywhere they have the skills to work. All a company has to do is pay $1.01 an hour and they're better competing for the talent. And then all another has to do is pay $1.02 an hour. And so on. Gosh, it's almost like your skills and your labour are things you can choose to sell for profit or something - with the harder, rarer and more in-demand skills worth more - and the employer/employee relationship is a contract.

This is exploitation... how?

Labor rights were put in place, because of government. Human rights evolve and need a government with elected representative to explore and pass them to law.

Rights aren't laws. Laws are laws. Some laws recognise rights, some deny them.

Corporations have no obligation to improve the rights of the people.

You can't improve rights, you can only improve laws to recognise them. This is a meaningless sentence. You may as well have said hedgehogs have no obligation to observe Planck's constant.

And the people would have no say in how the corporations are run.

Except by not giving them money. There's no surer way for a company to fail than to be terrible at its job, because it loses income. That's what profit-driven looks like - if you don't do things that make you better than others, you don't get the money and you fail.

On the other hand a government will get your cash whether you like it or not, and there's zero incentive to be better. Refuse and you get a prison cell. You're telling me that the latter is what you personally have a say in, rather than the former?

 

[Danoff]

I was speaking about vaccinations. If one shouldnt force you to take them. Then one should also not force them to stay away. (take away a freedom)

You're not using force against someone when they're not allowed to enter your property. Here's what I said:

It is not force (as it is used here) to tell someone they cannot have (or access) your property. It is force to try to access that against their will.

It's your property. Their use of your property is at your discretion, not theirs. I can explain why property ownership confers this distinction, but we're getting a little further into the human rights thread and away from the America thread... and it has been covered there already anyway.

By the way I also think other people should be able to prosecute against people who infected them with a preventable disease through blatant negligence.

In the case of the USA. When the Constitution was established, slavery was legal. It was even prohibited to ban slavery at the time. In Famines definition the role of exploring and improving human rights is not the role of government. Would corporations at the time have fought for the banning of slavery?

See @Famine's post above. Legal is not the same thing as a right. Slavery was legal, and the US government was violating human rights by allowing it (and enforcing it).

 

[PocketZeven]

A corporation is paid for by the people who can opt not to pay for it, a government takes payment by force from its subjects.

No they don't - except for private schools and private hospitals, which would be pretty piss-poor if they didn't. And people can choose not to pay the companies that provide a piss-poor service.

And they can afford to charge, and be selective about who they take, because there is a public baseline that everyone has to pay for and cannot opt out of even if they choose the private option instead.

*shrug*

And they're forced to work there, right? While we're forcing them, why pay at all, why not make it slave labour?

Oh wait, no, they aren't forced to work there. They can work anywhere they have the skills to work. All a company has to do is pay $1.01 an hour and they're better competing for the talent. And then all another has to do is pay $1.02 an hour. And so on. Gosh, it's almost like your skills and your labour are things you can choose to sell for profit or something, and the employer/employee relationship is a contract.

This is exploitation... how?

Rights aren't laws. Laws are laws. Some laws recognise rights, some deny them.

You can't improve rights, you can only improve laws to recognise them. This is a meaningless sentence. You may as well have said hedgehogs have no obligation to observe Planck's constant.

Except by not giving them money. There's no surer way for a company to fail than to be terrible at its job, because it loses income. That's what profit-driven looks like - if you don't do things that make you better than others, you don't get the money and you fail.

On the other hand a government will get your cash whether you like it or not. Refuse and you get a prison cell. You're telling me that the latter is what you personally have a say in, rather than the former?

You can opt out of paying government taxes, by not paying for taxed products and not working.

Private schools and hospitals are for profit. Anyone who cant afford them, will have no acces to them. Bam, we are back to the middle ages.

Nobody would be forced to work for 1 dollar. Do you think the workers in China are forced by the government to work for small wages for long hours? If you dont work to earn money, you cant pay for things. Without laws to improve rights, there would still be underpaid jobs, childlabor etc. Why would corporations pay 1 dollar an hour, when in China they will do the same job for 50 cents.

Rights evolve, like humans do. We definately have more rights, then we did in the middle ages and before. Or am I wrong?

When a corporation is a monopoly you have little choice to opt out. When your mortgage, energy, food, transport etc. are all bought/ received by your employer how could you? Lets say they choose to automate, what will happen to the workers? Without government to pass antitrust laws, how do you protect the people from this kind of "legal" exploitation.

edit:

You're not using force against someone when they're not allowed to enter your property. Here's what I said:



It's your property. Their use of your property is at your discretion, not theirs. I can explain why property ownership confers this distinction, but we're getting a little further into the human rights thread and away from the America thread... and it has been covered there already anyway.

By the way I also think other people should be able to prosecute against people who infected them with a preventable disease through blatant negligence.



See @Famine's post above. Legal is not the same thing as a right. Slavery was legal, and the US government was violating human rights by allowing it (and enforcing it).

I will try to steer the conversation back to the thread topic.

Rights evolve. Human rights were not defined in the same way they did a 1000 years ago. It is almost like its assumed rights were there from the beginning of mankind.

To put it back in context of the thread a purely libertarian country could only work if people and corporations were not selfish and evil. Basically a utopia, but like the story of Atlantis, people are selfish and vain.

Speaking about selfish and vain:


Isnt it Ironic how the supporters of Trump was accusing Biden's son of profiting of his fathers postition?


All in one month?!?!?! So Trump.. Which one is it?

 

[Danoff]

Nobody would be forced to work for 1 dollar. Do you think the workers in China are forced by the government to work for small wages for long hours?

Why do you think anyone is paid more than minimum wage? Because you don't seem to understand the reason. It's not some theoretical concept, everyone who makes more than minimum wage (which is a large group in the US), lives the realization of this principle (the principle of free trade).

 

[Famine]

You can opt out of paying government taxes, by not paying for taxed products and not working.

Guess again.

The only way to opt out of paying for government is to opt entirely out of society and to give up your right to property. You'll never believe who wants to take their cut when you die...

Private schools and hospitals are for profit.

Of course they are.

Anyone who cant afford them, will have no acces to them. Bam, we are back to the middle ages.

Supermarkets are for profit. Anyone who can't afford them, will have no access to them. Bam, we are... oh, right here.

Nobody would be forced to work for 1 dollar.

So how is the choice to work for a dollar exploitation? It was literally your example. Check it:

How can you exploit someone without violating their right to life or their right to own property?

You can exploit workers by paying them 1 dollar an hour and let them work for 80 hours a week.

That's your example of exploitation. If it's not forced, it's choice. If it is forced, that's exploitation. Funnily the only body with the ability to make the force allowed is... yep, government.

Do you think the workers in China are forced by the government to work for small wages for long hours? If you dont work to earn money, you cant pay for things. Without laws to improve rights, there would still be underpaid jobs, childlabor etc. Why would corporations pay 1 dollar an hour, when in China they will do the same job for 50 cents.

Rights evolve, like humans do. We definately have more rights, then we did in the middle ages and before. Or am I wrong?

You are confusing rights with laws. The Chinese government's laws are not so great at recognising rights. Nor were the laws of the varying states of the Middle Ages.

Your middle question there is easy to answer; anyone who outsources their unskilled labour to a foreign country is subject to that country's laws (and duties). But it also needs to sell the products, and if people in its home market are not earning enough to buy the products...

When a corporation is a monopoly you have little choice to opt out. When your mortgage, energy, food, transport etc. are all bought/ received by your employer how could you?

You mean like when a government nationalises everything? That sort of thing?

Lets say they choose to automate, what will happen to the workers? Without government to pass antitrust laws, how do you protect the people from this kind of "legal" exploitation.

Again, you need to explain how one can exploit someone without violating their rights - and how it's a government's problem if no rights are violated...

... but also if your theoretical monopoly decides to automate and stop paying its workers who are also its customers, how is it going to sell anything to anyone? There's no money left to buy!

 

[PocketZeven]

If it's not forced, it's choice. If it is forced, that's exploitation. Funnily the only body with the ability to make the force allowed is... yep, government.

You are confusing rights with laws. The Chinese government's laws are not so great at recognising rights. Nor were the laws of the varying states of the Middle Ages.

Again, you need to explain how one can exploit someone without violating their rights - and how it's a government's problem if no rights are violated...

... but also if your theoretical monopoly decides to automate and stop paying its workers who are also its customers, how is it going to sell anything to anyone? There's no money left to buy!

Exploiting someone does not require the use of force. Why do you assume that?

Are you suggesting human rights in for example the USA have been the same since its inception?

A corporation can earn its money globally. A monopolistic corporation can produce in the USA for cheap automated labor and sell all over the world. Because of the large demand and scarcity for work, corporations can pay what they want. People cant move to another country when they can hardly pay for it.

Why do you think anyone is paid more than minimum wage? Because you don't seem to understand the reason. It's not some theoretical concept, everyone who makes more than minimum wage (which is a large group in the US), lives the realization of this principle (the principle of free trade).

I really do understand. I am a business owner and value skilled labour and dont mind to pay more for certain roles. But simple jobs that require little skill can be replaced by automation if labour is less costefficient and less productive. To keep those jobs, pay will be low. You are leaving out the majority of unskilles, untrained people that earn at or below minimum wage. If there was no minimum wage and no public education, they would probably paid even less then their paid now. Without the government they are left out in the cold.

edit:
The absence of monopolies and free trade exists in the USA in its current form, because of antitrust laws. Does establishing antitrust laws fall under the protection of rights?

 

[Danoff]

I really do understand. I am a business owner and value skilled labour and dont mind to pay more for certain roles. But simple jobs that require little skill can be replaced by automation if labour is less costefficient and less productive. To keep those jobs, pay will be low. You are leaving out the majority of unskilles, untrained people that earn at or below minimum wage. If there was no minimum wage and no public education, they would probably paid even less then their paid now.

Actually minimum wage spurs on automation. The higher the mininum wage, the most effective automation is at reducing costs. The "solution" to job loss due to automation is to reduce minimum wage, not raise it. Raising minimum wage = more automation.

Without the government they are left out in the cold.

No more so than with government. Without government they rely on charity. With government they rely on charitable violence. Either way they rely on charity. You prefer that people receive stolen goods through charity for some reason.

edit:
The absence of monopolies and free trade exists in the USA in its current form, because of antitrust laws.

Citation needed. Because nope.

 

[Famine]

Exploiting someone does not require the use of force. Why do you assume that?

In your example it does - I've been through it twice.

Unless people are literally forced to work for a company it is not possible to exploit them with low wages. They can sell their skills and labour to anyone they want - and all that another company has to do to compete for the best talent is pay more.

Are you suggesting human rights in for example the USA have been the same since its inception?

They've been the same everywhere since everywhen. What's changed is laws recognising them (and sometimes denying them).

A corporation can earn its money globally. A monopolistic corporation can produce in the USA for cheap automated labor and sell all over the world. Because of the large demand and scarcity for work, corporations can pay what they want. People cant move to another country when they can hardly pay for it.

If no-one's employed, or employed for no wages, who is buying the product?

 

[PocketZeven]

Actually minimum wage spurs on automation. The higher the mininum wage, the most effective automation is at reducing costs. The "solution" to job loss due to automation is to reduce minimum wage, not raise it. Raising minimum wage = more automation.



No more so than with government. Without government they rely on charity. With government they rely on charitable violence. Either way they rely on charity. You prefer that people receive stolen goods through charity for some reason.



Citation needed. Because nope.

"PocketZeven: ↑
I really do understand. I am a business owner and value skilled labour and dont mind to pay more for certain roles. But simple jobs that require little skill can be replaced by automation if labour is less costefficient and less productive. To keep those jobs, pay will be low. You are leaving out the majority of unskilles, untrained people that earn at or below minimum wage. If there was no minimum wage and no public education, they would probably paid even less then their paid now."

Exactly the point I was making. No minimum wage will reduce income for the lower skilled labour. It was an argument against:

"Danoff: ↑
Why do you think anyone is paid more than minimum wage? Because you don't seem to understand the reason. It's not some theoretical concept, everyone who makes more than minimum wage (which is a large group in the US), lives the realization of this principle (the principle of free trade)."

Stolen is a bit of a stretch, Which would sugges the person does not get anything in return. But forced to pay money I understand and see as a neccesary thing in a modern community. I strongly believe if you rely on the rich being charitable, people will die. Give me an example in history, where a system of voluntary charity would work better then government assisted social security. People are selfish and vain.

Nope? Ask yourself: What if Standard oil etc, was never split up by the Sherman antitrust law?

edit:

In your example it does - I've been through it twice.

Unless people are literally forced to work for a company it is not possible to exploit them with low wages. They can sell their skills and labour to anyone they want - and all that another company has to do to compete for the best talent is pay more.

They've been the same everywhere since everywhen. What's changed is laws recognising them (and sometimes denying them).

No it doenst require force. I was speaking about non or lower-skilled labour (the Majority). People that get paid little to nothing because of neccesity, since there is social safety net. They have little choice then to work for little or nothing. They arent forced, but definately exploited. Or am I using the word wrong? Ofcourse little government is going to benefit someone with skills like you and a business owner like me. However the vulnarable, low skilled, uneducated will not.

Are you really claiming that? Because you are wrong. You only have certain rights, because of concensus. rights only exist because people strated to define them. To suggest they existed since the start of human kind is incorrect.

If no-one's employed, or employed for no wages, who is buying the product?

I didnt cite no-ones employed or not paid anything. I specifically said low wages, why are you changing my words to fit your narrative?

Revenue is generated by exporting to other countries.

 

[Danoff]

"PocketZeven: ↑
I really do understand. I am a business owner and value skilled labour and dont mind to pay more for certain roles. But simple jobs that require little skill can be replaced by automation if labour is less costefficient and less productive. To keep those jobs, pay will be low. You are leaving out the majority of unskilles, untrained people that earn at or below minimum wage. If there was no minimum wage and no public education, they would probably paid even less then their paid now."

Exactly the point I was making. No minimum wage will reduce income for the lower skilled labour.

Depends on who you're talking about. A person employed at minimum wage currently might get less income. A person currently unemployed due to minimum wage would get more.

Stolen is a bit of a stretch, Which would sugges the person does not get anything in return.

No, it just suggests that their property was taken.

I strongly believe if you rely on the rich being charitable, people will die.

And you do not believe this if we rely on the violent being charitable.

Give me an example in history, where a system of voluntary charity would work better then government assisted social security. People are selfish and vain.

Everywhere.

Nope? Ask yourself: What if Standard oil etc, was never split up by the Sherman antitrust law?

I'm pretty sure we've done this before, and that you were unable to provide me with a monopoly that was not created by government.

 

[PocketZeven]

Everywhere.



I'm pretty sure we've done this before, and that you were unable to provide me with a monopoly that was not created by government.

It also depends if that person with no income receives government assistance. There is a possibility the person would receive value in food stamps, public healthcare, social security and other assistence then he would if he was paid below current minimum wage. And also there would be an absence of any social assistence, because that would not be the role of government.

Which country in history has had succes?

Probably not with me. But we were speaking about the preference for a government with only the role of protecting rights. Not no government at all. In the example it is not relevant if the existance of government causes or not causes a Monopoly. I was stating that the current free trade and the absence of monopolies exist, because of antitrust laws. You said "nope".

To be clear, I didnt mean solely because of antittrust laws but that it played a large role. I somewhat misstated that.

 

[Danoff]

Which country in history has had succes?

I don't think that the experiment has been actually run.

I was stating that the current free trade and the absence of monopolies exist, because of antitrust laws. You said "nope".

So you're claiming that you're correct because anti-trust laws break up government mandated monopolies? Unbelievable.

To be clear, I didnt mean solely because of antittrust laws but that it played a large role. I somewhat misstated that.

It's not because of anti-trust laws, it's because of competition.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think that the experiment has been actually run.



So you're claiming that you're correct because anti-trust laws break up government mandated monopolies? Unbelievable.



It's not because of anti-trust laws, it's because of competition.

I misunderstood then. What did you mean with "everywhere"?

No. I was claiming that monopolies thrive, because government would not interfere.

There is competition, because there are antitrust laws. Standard oil was not "mandated" it outsmarted existing laws by vertical and horizontal integration.

for example if amazon did not need to adhere to antitrust laws, it would basically take over all E-commerce, which of now is around 50% marketshare in the US. Amazon could buy up e-bay, walmart etc. if it had no restrictions.

 

[Danoff]

I misunderstood then. What did you mean with "everywhere"?

I mean voluntary charity works better than government. Keep in mind that I consider the pointing of the gun at someone and stealing their property to be part of how well (or poorly) government "charity" works.

No. I was claiming that monopolies thrive, because government would not interfere.

Citation needed.

There is competition, because there are antitrust laws. for example if amazon did not need to adhere to antitrust laws, it would basically take over all E-commerce, which of now is around 50% marketshare in the US. Amazon could buy up e-bay, walmart etc. if it had no restrictions.

E-commerce is one of the lowest barriers to entry out there. Terrible example. No Amazon is held in check by competition, not anti-trust.