The free market will correct unethical business practices.

[The Parkus Empire]

Er, mind if I see some reference for this?

Define rich. By income.

I define it by the top 20% of people on the income scale.

[Sdaeriji]

Who says the child can't consent, and who gives the parents responsibility over the child?

Common sense?

Non-responsive. Please answer my questions.

[Sibirsky]

No. I'm not an an-cap. I'm a minarchist.

Liberals make more money, so if it really got to that, I think we'd be ok. At least on this particular issue.

Liberals make more money on an individual average. But what about overall?

There are more liberals. So more overall as well.

[Sibirsky]

Common sense?

Non-responsive. Please answer my questions.

The fact that the parents bring the child into the world.

[The Parkus Empire]

Liberals make more money on an individual average. But what about overall?

There are more liberals. So more overall as well.

There are? If I recall, the Prop lost on a popular vote....

[Sdaeriji]

Non-responsive. Please answer my questions.

The fact that the parents bring the child into the world.

Non-responsive.

[Sibirsky]

Define rich. By income.

I define it by the top 20% of people on the income scale.

Top 25% of income earners make 67.38% of income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[Sibirsky]

There are more liberals. So more overall as well.

There are? If I recall, the Prop lost on a popular vote....

It did. Because older people vote in larger numbers and tend to be more conservative.

[The Parkus Empire]

I define it by the top 20% of people on the income scale.

Top 25% of income earners make 67.38% of income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

There you have it. Are businesses going to cater to the 75 that controls considerably less than half the wealth or the top 25%?

[Sibirsky]

Top 25% of income earners make 67.38% of income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

There you have it. Are businesses going to cater to the 75 that controls considerably less than half the wealth or the top 25%?

The bottom 75% still have considerable buying power.

Also, this is assuming income disparity would be the same as in the US.

[Gthanp]

Governments are people = D

So are corporations.

Corporations are a legal fiction ostensibly governed by shareholders one share = one vote. I reality powerful executives and shareholders muscle out all the smallholders and corporate decision making is about as democratic as Communist China.

[Herskerstad]

The free market is unethical to the nth degree. Look at what it has done to the planet. The free market is only about a tiny filthy rich minority exploiting the planet and people. I'm still waiting for the free market to do something. It never will. The free market is an anathema to decent people and the well being of this planet.

The free market will not stop it's wheels from turning by waiting on people. If you work hard, stand out as unique, have a talent or genius in a field within the free market chances are you can get rich or at the very least gradually improve your standard of living. No guarantees for anyone. If you like the more soviet style of approaches, well, chances are you will get very poor without any real chance of improving, let alone reaching into the upper class in terms of wealth. Free market has allowed me, a humble student, one of the youngest bachelors on my field of study to get a good paying part time job early, shake hands with people I never thought I'd even see in real life and develop rapidly in a field of study I could never pay for by my own, personal means. Has it been easy? Heck no, hard work day and night for a long time, but it has been rewarding and I intend to pay my debts early. I also intend to be generous with my wealth if things go well.

To the question of anarcho-free market vs regulations. I am mostly for low-regulated elements which allow for a strong industry in a nation. I am for more surveillance to stop the exploitative law system, particular the 'fall and hurt yourself' lawsuits that can cripple decent corporations not really at any major fault. There needs to be a strong and just system of law to allow for all this, but, the loser should pay the court fees unless he has a very strong case to begin with. On the other hand, slavery is out of the question. Low minimum wages should be cannon even for part time jobs. Keep the taxes simple and the role of government effective and you will have a good working decentralized economy that rewards productivity instead of penalizing it. If people get rich, great, just use whatever leverage you have to ensure a good safety net for the less fortunate and the system is justifiable in my eyes. So, low but effective regulations. Small, yet powerful bureaucracy. Low subsidies and taxation as well as responsible military spending. 'Keep the arms development up, keep the less strategical military bases paid for by other sources or remove them completely'

More of a technocracy than a bureaucratic aristocracy as far as administration is concerned. More meritocracy all around in the government really. If they want a position, they need to prove by merit that they have succeeded in a lesser post both for the short and long run and also get the popular vote. Respect the hierarchy, but do not discourage merit in regards to age and accomplishments alone. These things would make things all around improve as for the time being, it is more about using the means of your successor to cover your own ass than focusing on the long term developments. Thus creating worse terms for all that will govern after you.

[Sibirsky]

So are corporations.

Corporations are a legal fiction ostensibly governed by shareholders one share = one vote. I reality powerful executives and shareholders muscle out all the smallholders and corporate decision making is about as democratic as Communist China.

A corporation is still a group of people acting as one.

[The Parkus Empire]

There you have it. Are businesses going to cater to the 75 that controls considerably less than half the wealth or the top 25%?

The bottom 75% still have considerable buying power.[/quote]

Not really. When their wealth is divided amongst themselves, they need it to live on. Whereas the top 25% can easily afford to buy things they don't need to live.

Also, this is assuming income disparity would be the same as in the US.

Aye, it would probably be more.

[Gthanp]

Corporations are a legal fiction ostensibly governed by shareholders one share = one vote. I reality powerful executives and shareholders muscle out all the smallholders and corporate decision making is about as democratic as Communist China.

A corporation is still a group of people acting as one.

Nice system you have here a world ruled by undemocratic institutions.

[Xomic]

Thank you for proving to me that you support poverty and don;t understand anything about economics.

Oh, I understand the situation perfectly. The argument I believe is thus:
"Ya got to let us get away with unethical behaviour guys! It's only right! I mean, in the future, they'll totally be better off."

And it's complete crap. People don't become better off, with better wages and reasonable hours because of anything done for them by the businesses in question; rather, people's situations improve because they realize they've been taken advantage of and they're fucking pissed off about it. We see this happen again and again throughout history and if corporations could prevent their oppressed workers from wiseing up to the jig, they would. Take Wal-mart for example- it's very, very difficult if not impossible for workers to unionise- and Wal-mart has opposed laws that would have made it easier, and has engaged in PR campaigns against unions. In a ancap situation, the PR campaign would be replaced with a PDA campaign, and Wal-mart would bribe private courts to favour them.

There is no excuse for enslaving people in third world countries, none.

[Sibirsky]

There you have it. Are businesses going to cater to the 75 that controls considerably less than half the wealth or the top 25%?

The bottom 75% still have considerable buying power.

Not really. When their wealth is divided amongst themselves, they need it to live on. Whereas the top 25% can easily afford to buy things they don't need to live.

Also, this is assuming income disparity would be the same as in the US.

Aye, it would probably be more.[/quote]
I doubt it. I think ti would be less.

[Xomic]

A corporation is still a group of people acting as one.

Nice system you have here a world ruled by undemocratic institutions.

I find it amusing that Ancaps insist we'd be more free if we gave up our democracy for unaccountable tyrants.

[The Parkus Empire]

I doubt it. I think ti would be less.

You didn't exactly address the first part of my post. But anyway, "trickle-down" has been shown not to work.

[Kiskaanak]

Sometimes I wonder if people who believe these things live on the same planet as us.

They don't. They are willfully blind to reality and ignore all evidence that contradicts their theories.

[Sibirsky]

Thank you for proving to me that you support poverty and don;t understand anything about economics.

Oh, I understand the situation perfectly. The argument I believe is thus:
"Ya got to let us get away with unethical behaviour guys! It's only right! I mean, in the future, they'll totally be better off."

And it's complete crap. People don't become better off, with better wages and reasonable hours because of anything done for them by the businesses in question; rather, people's situations improve because they realize they've been taken advantage of and they're fucking pissed off about it. We see this happen again and again throughout history and if corporations could prevent their oppressed workers from wiseing up to the jig, they would. Take Wal-mart for example- it's very, very difficult if not impossible for workers to unionise- and Wal-mart has opposed laws that would have made it easier, and has engaged in PR campaigns against unions. In a ancap situation, the PR campaign would be replaced with a PDA campaign, and Wal-mart would bribe private courts to favour them.

There is no excuse for enslaving people in third world countries, none.

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

Also, you did not read the entire post.

[Sibirsky]

I doubt it. I think ti would be less.

You didn't exactly address the first part of my post. But anyway, "trickle-down" has been shown not to work.

I'm just thinking that the market would be more competitive, there would be fewer barriers to entry, things like that.

[Sibirsky]

Nice system you have here a world ruled by undemocratic institutions.

I find it amusing that Ancaps insist we'd be more free if we gave up our democracy for unaccountable tyrants.

I find it amusing that you want to you want to legislate poverty.

[The Parkus Empire]

You didn't exactly address the first part of my post. But anyway, "trickle-down" has been shown not to work.

I'm just thinking that the market would be more competitive, there would be fewer barriers to entry, things like that.

But the richest would be unrestrained by their otherwise far higher taxes.

[Bosiu]

I doubt it. I think ti would be less.

You didn't exactly address the first part of my post. But anyway, "trickle-down" has been shown not to work.

In the short run and it's not a keynesian thing.