Socialism vs Free Market Capitalism

[Terra Agora]

I dont agree with it so someone else will agree to it for me?

If you didn't agree with it, you wouldn't be there.

I have no other reasonable choice. (reasonable as in I want to be alive)

[United Dependencies]

If you didn't agree with it, you wouldn't be there.

I have no other reasonable choice. (reasonable as in I want to be alive)

Vote.

[Wienholdland]

Not really, just before the federal government started regulating food production.

The federal and state governments have been regulating aspects of food and drug production since around the time Upton Sinclair published The Jungle. It's present form only dates from the 70s, but the policies existed much longer.

1930 to be precise, for the FDA.

[Jello Biafra]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

You realize the Gilded Age was the epitome of state subsidies, rite? And monopolies.

So then we have more economic freedom now than we did then?

[Terra Agora]

snip

(weird double post glitch thing)

[Terra Agora]

You realize the Gilded Age was the epitome of state subsidies, rite? And monopolies.

So then we have more economic freedom now than we did then?

Not necessarily.

Those who lobbied the gov had more economic freedom then everyone else.

[United Dependencies]

1) I didn't break the hypothetical. Just because someone does something doesn't mean they ought to do something. "Is" doesn't equal "ought".
2) The definition of moral relativism you quoted is a reworded version of what I posted.

I don't think we're on the same page.

[Neu California]

Prove, unequivocally, that they're bad.

If they're beneficial, then the obvious thing to do is to keep them.

I already proved the negative effects of business regulations. You ignored it.

Point me to it then. Was it one of those Mises articles? I can't stand the inherent bias of them

And give me a specific reason why these regulations do more harm than good (I'm asking anyone who believes regulations are harmful to give specifics):

A car's gas tank must survive a rear-end collision. (Pinto)

All waste generated must be disposed of in a way that does not adversely affect the environment (An ongoing issue where I live)

Medicines must do what they're advertised to do, and all side effcts must be listed. (snake oil)

Food and drink must be free of harmful chemicals (Food and drink before the Pure food and drugs act)

Consumer items must be reasonably free of defects. Especially defects that could kill, maim, or cause property damage, when being used properly (countless consumer products)

Items that could contain food allergens must say what allergens may be present on their packaging (Ask anyone with a nut allergy why this is important)

Buildings must be able to survive a disaster that could affect the area that they are constructed in (earthquakes, flooding, etc)

[Terra Agora]

I have no other reasonable choice. (reasonable as in I want to be alive)

Vote.

For whom?

[Trotskylvania]

Vote.

For whom?

We're not going to do your homework for you. If you have a problem with society, then work to change it.

[Jello Biafra]

If you didn't agree with it, you wouldn't be there.

I have no other reasonable choice. (reasonable as in I want to be alive)

The social contract is the lesser of however many evils, yes, I agree.
Would you prefer to be able to secede? Keep in mind that it's possible you'd have no contract with anyone else, and thus they could invade you at any time.

[United Dependencies]

Vote.

For whom?

Vote for Sib. Or someone like him.

[Terra Agora]

For whom?

We're not going to do your homework for you. If you have a problem with society, then work to change it.

Hypothetical
There is no one to vote for who supports this.

I "support" Ron Paul but even if he gets elected the most he can do is set back the clock.

[Jello Biafra]

1) I didn't break the hypothetical. Just because someone does something doesn't mean they ought to do something. "Is" doesn't equal "ought".
2) The definition of moral relativism you quoted is a reworded version of what I posted.

I don't think we're on the same page.

Then I don't know what you mean. Either you're saying that if 90% of people agree it's right, then it's right, or you're saying they aren't right, that rightness is determined by something else. If the latter, then it doesn't matter if everybody except for you agrees something is right, it still isn't right.

[Terra Agora]

For whom?

Vote for Sib. Or someone like him.

If Sib ran for office I would be with him the whole way

[Sibirsky]

Again, false.

He may choose the lesser evil perhaps. Nothing more. There is never implied consent. If he left the US he would still be required to pay taxes. To avoid taxes he would have to pay an exit tax and renounce his citizenship. He would most likely have to move to another place, that would also tax him.

Moving to Antarctica is a not a real suggestion and you know it.

Ah. So then consent is not equal to picking an option from a set of choices? Must there be meaningful choices?

Of course. I hold a gun to your head and give you the choice of giving me your $200 watch or $200 in cash. You pick one or the other, choosing life. However you never consented to me robbing you.

[Sibirsky]

Again, false.

He may choose the lesser evil perhaps. Nothing more. There is never implied consent. If he left the US he would still be required to pay taxes. To avoid taxes he would have to pay an exit tax and renounce his citizenship. He would most likely have to move to another place, that would also tax him.

Moving to Antarctica is a not a real suggestion and you know it.

I continue to struggle to give a fuck.

The whole thing doesn't come to a halt because one person is to proud to admit that rights cannot exist without a social contract. Just because he says "No" doesn't mean we put the brakes on civilization.

We aren't the ones proposing putting on the breaks on civilization.

[Terra Agora]

I have no other reasonable choice. (reasonable as in I want to be alive)

The social contract is the lesser of however many evils, yes, I agree.
Would you prefer to be able to secede? Keep in mind that it's possible you'd have no contract with anyone else, and thus they could invade you at any time.

Well originally states had the "right" to secede but not anymore. I would love states to be able to do that again. Then the people in the states can push for land secession.

[Sibirsky]

Vote for Sib. Or someone like him.

If Sib ran for office I would be with him the whole way

Thanks buddy.

However I'm not running.

[Trotskylvania]

I continue to struggle to give a fuck.

The whole thing doesn't come to a halt because one person is to proud to admit that rights cannot exist without a social contract. Just because he says "No" doesn't mean we put the brakes on civilization.

We aren't the ones proposing putting on the breaks on civilization.

Yeah, you are. It's not my fault you can't realize it.

You're demanding consensus and voluntarism, and that's idiotic. There will never be a voluntary society, because the institutions of any society, whether it's a federation of anarcho-syndicalist collectives or an anarcho-capitalist agora, will function to reproduce the relations of that society. Never mind being born in such a society and being molded from birth to fit it's conception of the subject, simply living in any society forces you to internalize its values.

[Terra Agora]

If Sib ran for office I would be with him the whole way

Thanks buddy.

However I'm not running.

Well lol we all know your not running this is hypothetical.

[Santana Guerra]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

Just a quick thing, did you know that most of the corporations were like that because government used to favor certain businesses over others by giving them money, loosening regulations and sanctioning monopolies. True lassie faire capitalism has no government intervention whatsoever. What we had back then wasnt lassie faire capitalism, far from it, we simply had government promotion of business, which I believe is wrong. A government should not be able to bail out business nor become involved with it. Regulations to protects workers obviously but other then that the government needs to butt out. Any time that a government gets involved with business, for promotion or otherwise is not good and always leads to poor results. Socialism, no matter if the intention is good, is a poor system. It abolishes private property and doesnt allow true individual freedom that capitalism does.

[United Dependencies]

I don't think we're on the same page.

Then I don't know what you mean. Either you're saying that if 90% of people agree it's right, then it's right, or you're saying they aren't right, that rightness is determined by something else. If the latter, then it doesn't matter if everybody except for you agrees something is right, it still isn't right.

I say that individuals will have their views on what is and is not ok but that wider society will determine what is and is not wrong. Our society believes that murder is wrong therefore it is wrong. The hypothetical society believes that murder is not wrong therefore it is not wrong.

[Jello Biafra]

Ah. So then consent is not equal to picking an option from a set of choices? Must there be meaningful choices?

Of course. I hold a gun to your head and give you the choice of giving me your $200 watch or $200 in cash. You pick one or the other, choosing life. However you never consented to me robbing you.

Certainly, but that's a coercive choice. The choice of the social contract vs. moving to Antarctica is more akin to saying "work or starve". I choose to work, but does that mean I haven't given my consent?

[Wienholdland]

There will never be a voluntary society, because the institutions of any society, whether it's a federation of anarcho-syndicalist collectives or an anarcho-capitalist agora, will function to reproduce the relations of that society. Never mind being born in such a society and being molded from birth to fit it's conception of the subject, simply living in any society forces you to internalize its values.

Who says that can't be done voluntarily?