The free market will correct unethical business practices.

[Bosiu]

Magic fairies.

Also known as conscientious customers.

Accompanied by flocks of invisible hands slapping the miscreants.

Invisible hand is a market force, it's nonexistent but it's effects are felt in the market. It is not something that slaps invisible fairies.

[Central Slavia]

Magic fairies.

Also known as conscientious customers.

Accompanied by flocks of invisible hands slapping the miscreants.

As i have said, i prefer a visible foot of the masses at their arse to the invisible hand XD

[Sibirsky]

Not ideal. But better than no jobs.

Jobs can be provided by local entrepreneurs as well. You don't need big business for that.

Barriers to entry decrease the number of entrepreneurs going into business.

[The Parkus Empire]

Jobs can be provided by local entrepreneurs as well. You don't need big business for that.

Barriers to entry decrease the number of entrepreneurs going into business.

Dropping the tax on the wealthy would effectively be cranking it up to shit-ton levels on everyone else. High taxes--or whatever you want to paying for those services--does not make a healthy environment for starting a business.

[Sibirsky]

Assistance doesn't work, It rewards failure. While there would fewer lives lost, I don't know if homelessness for much longer is better.

Whether on not the house fell on them or they could never own the house in the first place they are still homeless. Chile didn't have this problem because of building regulations from the 1970s. Oh wait I though Chile was a capitalist utopia. Where did those regulations come from?

My point is that free market capitalism leads to higher production and in turn higher living standards. Higher living standards allow us to be able to afford certain regulations. Like cleaner energy, workplace safety, building codes etc.

[Gthanp]

Whether on not the house fell on them or they could never own the house in the first place they are still homeless. Chile didn't have this problem because of building regulations from the 1970s. Oh wait I though Chile was a capitalist utopia. Where did those regulations come from?

My point is that free market capitalism leads to higher production and in turn higher living standards. Higher living standards allow us to be able to afford certain regulations. Like cleaner energy, workplace safety, building codes etc.

Capitalism requires regulation in the public interest in order to provide the best standard of living to the greatest number.

[The Parkus Empire]

The public would demand that child pornography be illegal,

Yes, but would they pay for it to be illegal? Who would be willing to chip in a chunk of dough every month when it came down to individual choice?

[Sibirsky]

Barriers to entry decrease the number of entrepreneurs going into business.

Dropping the tax on the wealthy would effectively be cranking it up to shit-ton levels on everyone else. High taxes--or whatever you want to paying for those services--does not make a healthy environment for starting a business.

I'm talking about regulations, not taxes on high income earners.

[Sibirsky]

My point is that free market capitalism leads to higher production and in turn higher living standards. Higher living standards allow us to be able to afford certain regulations. Like cleaner energy, workplace safety, building codes etc.

Capitalism requires regulation in the public interest in order to provide the best standard of living to the greatest number.

That's great. But a lot of regulations have the opposite effect.

[Bosiu]

Barriers to entry decrease the number of entrepreneurs going into business.

Dropping the tax on the wealthy would effectively be cranking it up to shit-ton levels on everyone else. High taxes--or whatever you want to paying for those services--does not make a healthy environment for starting a business.

Not if you dropped government spending. In addition, a flat tax of 15% would be a drop across almost every sector in the tax brackets. This would put more money in the hands of the people and allow them increase their spending and saving.

[Sibirsky]

The public would demand that child pornography be illegal,

Yes, but would they pay for it to be illegal? Who would be willing to chip in a chunk of dough every month when it came down to individual choice?

Probably. Considering that the majority of them would have kids.

[The Parkus Empire]

Dropping the tax on the wealthy would effectively be cranking it up to shit-ton levels on everyone else. High taxes--or whatever you want to paying for those services--does not make a healthy environment for starting a business.

I'm talking about regulations, not taxes on high income earners.

Raising the cost of living to at least triple-fold for the middle-class, and about ten-fold for the poor, would be worst than most any regulation.

[Sibirsky]

I'm talking about regulations, not taxes on high income earners.

Raising the cost of living to at least triple-fold for the middle-class, and about ten-fold for the poor, would be worst than most any regulation.

How would a decrease in regulation increase cost? It would decrease cost.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, but would they pay for it to be illegal? Who would be willing to chip in a chunk of dough every month when it came down to individual choice?

Probably. Considering that the majority of them would have kids.

Child pornography doesn't generally involve kidnapping the neighbor's kid. You might be thinking of stuff like child rape or child molestation, but even then, the people without kids wouldn't want to pay for that, especially with the high cost of living under such a system.

Anyway, child porn is not really, to my knowledge, practiced on kidnapped children today. And under such a system it most certainly would not, not when you can just do it with an orphan or with a kid who's parents are okay with it rather than bring down the ire of all the others.

[Gthanp]

Capitalism requires regulation in the public interest in order to provide the best standard of living to the greatest number.

That's great. But a lot of regulations have the opposite effect.

Some do. Regulatory capture certainly does exist. However there is no reasons to eliminate regulation entirely. Many have been a key part of raising the standard of living throughout the developed world. I would much rather live in the modern world than the 19th century.

[Ordo Drakul]

Raising the cost of living to at least triple-fold for the middle-class, and about ten-fold for the poor, would be worst than most any regulation.

How would a decrease in regulation increase cost? It would decrease cost.

With all the Big Government lefties on unemployment since their regulatory commission jobs went belly-up?

[Sdaeriji]

Sibirsky keeps saying that child pornography would be outlawed in his free market world.. but how?

Imagine following case.

relatively rich porn producer comes to a bunch of poor peoples and suggest them "borrowing" their let's say 10-12 year old kids for a substantial payment in return.
There definitely will be some that will agree (Sibirsky's logic) because the producer can outpay them seriously - depending on location a few hundred dollars might constitute few years' worth of earnings.
Then the producer will produce it and sell it to a willing market of perverts who will not rat him out either because it would be bad from them.
IE you have incentives at every segment - production and distribution to not close it down.
And security? If police force is privatised and this person rich enough he can simply afford to pay them to look elsewhere

The public would demand that child pornography be illegal, so it would be illegal. The fact that it may still happen is irrelevant. It happens now.

How is this even remotely different from the present system?

[The Parkus Empire]

Raising the cost of living to at least triple-fold for the middle-class, and about ten-fold for the poor, would be worst than most any regulation.

How would a decrease in regulation increase cost? It would decrease cost.

Only for larger businesses. Smaller ones would be driven out by foreign basing, cheap labor and whatever else. Food would be massed produced in cheap ways even less nutritious than now. I can't think of how any kind of small business could possibly last, let alone grow, under such conditions.

[Sibirsky]

The public would demand that child pornography be illegal, so it would be illegal. The fact that it may still happen is irrelevant. It happens now.

How is this even remotely different from the present system?

The mechanism for making it illegal is. Not the fact that the majority supports it being illegal.

[Central Slavia]

Hmm, and since i am starting to be entertained, what about hunting homeless and poor people for to harvest organs?
The market would definitely support that since there is all the time an organ shortage, and such people aren't missed.
If the corpses would be destroyed then investigation would be very difficult.
And i don't think any of the organ receivers would object either, having their lives saved.
If the people along the path were paid enough, this along with a privatised police force whom nobody would pay to investigate such crime would mean that it could go on with impunity.

[Central Slavia]

How is this even remotely different from the present system?

The mechanism for making it illegal is. Not the fact that the majority supports it being illegal.

Sibirsky, go to see the mechanism i described.
How would the "illegality" matter if neither the producing nor the receiving end would object?
I don't think the poor masses would have the money to blow on funding such investigations and the rich are more likely to be decadent and perverted anyways

[Sibirsky]

How would a decrease in regulation increase cost? It would decrease cost.

Only for larger businesses. Smaller ones would be driven out by foreign basing, cheap labor and whatever else. Food would be massed produced in cheap ways even less nutritious than now. I can't think of how any kind of small business could possibly last, let alone grow, under such conditions.

Certain regulations prevent certain small businesses from forming in the first place.

One of the first things Obama did as President was raise the tobacco tax. His reasons being, he needs to raise cash for healthcare reform, smokers have more medical problems and therefore should pay more, and it would lower smoking somewhat.

So you would figure legislation that increases the cost of a product, without getting any of the increase would have big tobacco opposed to such legislation. And you'd be wrong, Big tobacco was behind him 100%. The increase in the tax was 62 cents per pack. As soon as the tax was implemented, Altria started putting 50 cent off coupons into their packs. They split the tax, 50 cents was covered by them and 12 cents by the smokers. Smaller tobacco producers could not do this, so big tobacco likely increased their market share.

Regulations keep small businesses out in a lot of cases.

[Sdaeriji]

How is this even remotely different from the present system?

The mechanism for making it illegal is. Not the fact that the majority supports it being illegal.

Ultimately, how is it different? The majority decides they don't want ANYONE doing a particular action, so they declare it forbidden, under threat of violence. What is the difference?

[Sibirsky]

Hmm, and since i am starting to be entertained, what about hunting homeless and poor people for to harvest organs?
The market would definitely support that since there is all the time an organ shortage, and such people aren't missed.
If the corpses would be destroyed then investigation would be very difficult.
And i don't think any of the organ receivers would object either, having their lives saved.
If the people along the path were paid enough, this along with a privatised police force whom nobody would pay to investigate such crime would mean that it could go on with impunity.

That exists now. And largely because there is no true market in organs.

[Sibirsky]

The mechanism for making it illegal is. Not the fact that the majority supports it being illegal.

Sibirsky, go to see the mechanism i described.
How would the "illegality" matter if neither the producing nor the receiving end would object?
I don't think the poor masses would have the money to blow on funding such investigations and the rich are more likely to be decadent and perverted anyways

They wouldn't have to blow money on investigations. They would simply support arbitrators that deemed it illegal.