Free market question

mheslep

How amusing.
Yes quite right. Which has nothing to do with your assertions above. You are spouting nonsense there.

mheslep

Yes the discussion, as started in #42, applies to the developed world where there substantial economies in existence and the possibility of changing over to a 'wholly unregulated economy' has relevance.

arildno

Why?

Do elaborate..

mheslep

The isolated and likely temporary premise described here:
is not the same as the widespread and nearly pandemic conditions implied for the actions described here
People still do occasionally reach dire conditions in modern societies, but they visibly do not sell their children off. Or, in the rare tabloid story of some human monster who does so, it is not because of starvation conditions.

arildno

mhsleep:

Your "conditions" are mere, historical circumstances. They change profoundly over time, and can, of course, be reversed.

Not so with the condition of starvation.

Whenever it occurs, it leads to the same type of cravings within the individual, irrespective of the historical times he lives in.

Only insofar as the historical times happens to be amenable for him, in his condition, will he not sink into self-degradation.

And THAT is the argument for why we should have a system of minimum social aid.

Even a libertarian like Herbert Spencer understood that.

AUMathTutor

arildno:
"Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food. "

Alright, class, what logical fallacy is this?

Evo

Please use the "quote" function when replying.

arildno

There is no fallacy.

It merely bumps into your indoctrinated head.

AUMathTutor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Good guess, though! Thanks for playing, arildno!

AUMathTutor

Sure.

kasse

What are the drawbacks with having welfare like hospitals, school and a pension system in a free market society? Isn't it a pity if people regard taxing theft, and not a way to continue a safe society?

AUMathTutor

I hear a lot of people comare taxing to theft. In a sense, I suppose it's similar. However, I'm not sure if I know of a better way of providing, for instance, national security, than by taxing everybody and using it to fund a national military. Privatization comes to mind, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Social programs could more realistically be privatized. I think there's a possibility... I don't know if it would be better or worse, but I can imagine that anything other than the way things are now would be bad for a while, at least until things settled down. It wouldn't be an easy transition, in my relatively uninformed opinion.

xxChrisxx

I cannot really see any drawbacks of having hospitals, schools or pensions.

Cost... and thats it, but I would like to think that in this day and age money means less to people than the increased standard of living and health of all. Sadly people give more of a **** about their bank balances than helping others.

turbo

Do you have a point? Please make it if you do.

If you want to equate taxation with theft, you have a whole lot more history than the US to reference.

Evo

The thread is going nowhere. Closed.