What no government regulation means is that workers won't have the power to form unions, it means that they won't have the power to ask for higher wages (unless you're lucky enough to be highly trained or skilled)
How do you think workers unions started? Workers formed unions without the government's support. The problem for most early unions was the government itself controlling the unions (violently breaking up strikes with the military and police); with the government not interfering workers are better protected as there won't be any anti-union legislation such as the still effective Taft-Hartley Act.
it means poorer working conditions
With a competitive labor market, workers will choose better working conditions and pay over that of a lesser quality; also, if employees are hurt or put in unnecessary danger not enumerated on in their contract, the worker may sue the company.
it means that there's no oversight or accountability above the bottom line (you think that nuclear power plant is just tossing spent fuel rods in the river you drink from, so what?)
Well this argument doesn't really apply to the laissez-faire society I think of. In a truly capitalist society everyone own their land,and just as if you came into my yard and cut down a tree, poisoning another persons water is wrong and ought to be punishable by law. This can include many things like air, water, and soil quality or even slandering (must be lying) another person's business so that it attracts less customers. When a person does such they would have to pay restitution and fix up their act to make things even again or give the victim more.
Well this argument doesn't really apply to the laissez-faire society I think of.
It doesn't apply to the lassez faire society that anyone thinks of because everyone who is arguing for such a capitalist society only thinks of that economy when it's booming. The fact is that recessions happen, and when they do there isn't enough work to go around and people are forced to take poorer jobs with worse conditions just to get by.
How do you think workers unions started? Workers formed unions without the government's support. The problem for most early unions was the government itself controlling the unions (violently breaking up strikes with the military and police)
Without government support of unions there is no way to form them in any effective manner. Saying that only the government was prosecuting them is simply untrue (look at groups like Pinkertons). In the end, without government support for unions business owners can simply say they won't higher any union members and will fire employees who join unions to prevent them from forming in their company.
In a truly capitalist society everyone own their land,and just as if you came into my yard and cut down a tree, poisoning another persons water is wrong and ought to be punishable by law.
But if that plant owns just the little bit of stream that they're dumping in then there's nothing you can do about it even if it effects thousands of people downstream. Unless parts of the world is considered 'commons' in which case you don't have a real true capitalist system. People don't care about the good of the whole, just about themselves.
This can include many things like air, water, and soil quality or even slandering (must be lying) another person's business so that it attracts less customers. When a person does such they would have to pay restitution and fix up their act to make things even again or give the victim more.
That's not a free economy. When you're interfering with all sorts of things going on there's a word for it (hint: it's called regulation). A laissez faire economy has no regulation, that means no enforceable clean air acts, that means no ability to control corrupt companies through fines, it's just free market economics.
It doesn't apply to the lassez faire society that anyone thinks of because everyone who is arguing for such a capitalist society only thinks of that economy when it's booming. The fact is that recessions happen, and when they do there isn't enough work to go around and people are forced to take poorer jobs with worse conditions just to get by.
You took my statement out of context. I was saying my theory of capitalism entails that everyone owns their property and that it is wrong to violate it through any means. Recessions do happen, however this happens with all economic systems and there is no need to reject one over another because of it. Also, if we have regulations, those jobs won't even exist and unemployment will be higher.
Without government support of unions there is no way to form them in any effective manner. Saying that only the government was prosecuting them is simply untrue (look at groups like Pinkertons). In the end, without government support for unions business owners can simply say they won't higher any union members and will fire employees who join unions to prevent them from forming in their company.
They were effective enough and once again, the government can be pro- or anti-union, depending on the highest bidder, removing this power is better for both unions and the corporations because it removes barriers to effective negotiation. The Pinkertons used violence and force, such actions ought to be deemed unlawful just like murder, theft, etc. "Yellow Dog" contracts scare away skilled labor, it is disadvantageous to a business to use them. Unskilled labor is often more likely to join businesses without them either, and even so, a company cannot survive a mass firing of all of its workers if they all band together.
But if that plant owns just the little bit of stream that they're dumping in then there's nothing you can do about it even if it effects thousands of people downstream. Unless parts of the world is considered 'commons' in which case you don't have a real true capitalist system. People don't care about the good of the whole, just about themselves.
It would be wrong of you to dump a pile of pig manure into your neighbors yard, just as it is wrong of you dump that manure into a stream which is partially owned by your neighbor, directly or indirectly you are still hurting someone's property. Right people do care about themselves and therefore wouldn't want to be sued for hurting a person's property. Generally, the seas are considered common use as they are international, however areas, such as oil rigs may be purchased.
That's not a free economy. When you're interfering with all sorts of things going on there's a word for it (hint: it's called regulation). A laissez faire economy has no regulation, that means no enforceable clean air acts, that means no ability to control corrupt companies through fines, it's just free market economics.
Restitution is different than regulation, restitution is receiving due from another who violated you in some way so as to make everything equal again, or in favor of the victim. Regulation means stopping a person from having a business of their own unless they follow stringent rules. Regulation is unfortunately, often used by corrupt businesses, why do we need to have regulations for interior designers, because we shouldn't let them practice if they mix clashing furniture, or because the American Society of Interior Designers wants a monopoly? Sadly this happens (note that I do favor modest regulation of food and medicine, The Jungle scarred me for life). Furthermore, with regulation the government either stops a business and forces it to shut or not produce until it meets requirements where restitution makes the company pay to the victim.
You took my statement out of context. I was saying my theory of capitalism entails that everyone owns their property and that it is wrong to violate it through any means. Recessions do happen, however this happens with all economic systems and there is no need to reject one over another because of it. Also, if we have regulations, those jobs won't even exist and unemployment will be higher.
My intent wasn't to take your statement out of context and I apologize. However I would like to point out that even in the most idealistic capitalistic economy not everyone will own their own land (in fact most people will probably rent for their entire lives). My argument is that an economy with socialist reforms will more easily allow the working population to weather a rescission then a true capitalist society with relatively little impact on economic growth and development.
They were effective enough and once again, the government can be pro- or anti-union, depending on the highest bidder, removing this power is better for both unions and the corporations because it removes barriers to effective negotiation. The Pinkertons used violence and force, such actions ought to be deemed unlawful just like murder, theft, etc. "Yellow Dog" contracts scare away skilled labor, it is disadvantageous to a business to use them. Unskilled labor is often more likely to join businesses without them either, and even so, a company cannot survive a mass firing of all of its workers if they all band together.
Unfortunately, without government union protection in this day and age unions wouldn't exist. Most businesses don't need skilled labor for any form of production and haven't since the industrial revolution with the advent of easily usable machinery. Even if an entire plant decided to unionize a corporation could easily bring in an entire new group to work for them and fire everyone who decided to strike as has been demonstrated many times throughout history.
It would be wrong of you to dump a pile of pig manure into your neighbors yard, just as it is wrong of you dump that manure into a stream which is partially owned by your neighbor, directly or indirectly you are still hurting someone's property. Right people do care about themselves and therefore wouldn't want to be sued for hurting a person's property. Generally, the seas are considered common use as they are international, however areas, such as oil rigs may be purchased.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Once a single corrupt business starts to do something underhanded like illegal dumping then every other business will have to follow suit to stay competitive. Using the dumping into a stream as an example we can also look at how hard it is to track who's doing it. If there are 5000 companies upriver of you who use mercury in their production process then it's going to be impossible to tell who exactly has been putting it into the water.
Restitution is different than regulation, restitution is receiving due from another who violated you in some way so as to make everything equal again, or in favor of the victim. Regulation means stopping a person from having a business of their own unless they follow stringent rules. Regulation is unfortunately, often used by corrupt businesses, why do we need to have regulations for interior designers, because we shouldn't let them practice if they mix clashing furniture, or because the American Society of Interior Designers wants a monopoly? Sadly this happens (note that I do favor modest regulation of food and medicine, The Jungle scarred me for life). Furthermore, with regulation the government either stops a business and forces it to shut or not produce until it meets requirements where restitution makes the company pay to the victim.
And restitution requires there be an overarching system in place to protect the little man that has the regulations in place to allow it to cause that restitution to paid in the first place. Furthermore you have to prove that you were in fact violated for any form of restitution to be paid and in many cases it will be more fiscally sensible for a business to act in a manner negative to the rest of the population for their own benefit (a great example is air pollution before the clean air act). Regulations allow for there to be preventative measures rather then after the fact reactions (after all an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure).
As opposed to little debt a decade ago, it's pretty bad.
Well, Clinton became very good at covering up deficits while he was president. And the only reason that he was a "good" president was gecause he rode the tide of Reagan and Bush's good economic decisions. In many other areas, he killed the US economy and left the current president holding the bag.
Well, Clinton became very good at covering up deficits while he was president. And the only reason that he was a "good" president was gecause he rode the tide of Reagan and Bush's good economic decisions. In many other areas, he killed the US economy and left the current president holding the bag.
Wait, so the increasing deficit under Reason and Bush Sr. was because of their awesome economic skills and not because they were spending more then they took in and the surplus under Clinton was just clever pencil pushing...are you seriously saying that when the governments own websites show exactly the opposite?
are you seriously saying that when the governments own websites show exactly the opposite?
There is your answer, friend, the government is a bunch of liars.
All politicians are evil. All of them have other agendas to serve aside from serving the people. Really, the reason I'm voting for McCain is his opposition to pork-barrel spending, but he has other problems. Obama has his faults, too.
This is why a democracy fails so hard - not only does power corrupt, but the LUST for power drives men to go to any means to get it, and once they have it, they're left with debts to pay.
There is your answer, friend, the government is a bunch of liars.
You understand that there is a Republican in the white house. Why then would he promote lies that make his own party look bad?
This is why a democracy fails so hard - not only does power corrupt, but the LUST for power drives men to go to any means to get it, and once they have it, they're left with debts to pay.
