The Free Market is stupid

The range of possible socialist systems is wide, specifying them all is pointless. It would be like trying to differentiate the various kinds of Marxism. The definition I gave the the base definition, the one thing that all socialists have in common: the means of production are collectively owned. The economy is not run by the private, but the public. This is a spectrum honestly: you can have no publicly run sectors, some publicly run sectors, or the whole economy publicly run. Typically, when you say a country is "socialist", it means most if not all industry is publicly owned.

 

You are confused. They are actually Anarchists not conservatives (who can also be democrats as the term is not defined by partisanship). The word liberal was high jacked because it sounds better than Atheist/ Marxist.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Karl Marx

 

I said "Libertarian" not "Liberal".

 

I think the FDA and EPA are necessary. I'm not a fan of the die first, sue later mentality. This is why I support the Patriot Act when it comes to fighting terrorism as well. I don't fully agree with the notion by Benjamin Franklin: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." I'm willing to sacrifice a small amount of freedom for a decent amount of security in return. I do believe in balance and that we need to look at each issue independently rather than make sweeping generalizations.

 

Hard to say since no such thing has ever existed. The first thing any government does is start trying to arrange things to suit itslelf mostly with no idea whatever as to what they are doing to the economy.

 

I love the folks who say "let the market regulate itself. it folks start dying from a certain food, drug, toy, car, etc....other folks won't buy it. self-regulation".

 

Who's to say how much freedom I will have to give up? How much freedom is being taken from me without me knowing?

 

Nonsense what they would say is as long as more than one person is selling food competition will keep the price as low as is commiserate with making sure someone continues to grow food.

 

A "free" market is one where neither the buyer or seller are compelled to buy or sell. That works for some things, i.e., cars, coffee mugs at a street fair, fine art, etc. but not for other things like the aforementioned.

 

There is no reason for the Civil Rights Act if the 14th and 15th Amendment are followed.

 

The government elected by all of us will say how much will be given up. No one individual gets to choose that for themselves. That would be the definition of anarchy. I think one thing we can both agree on is there does need to be transparency.

 

Asians would disagree. They would argue that the 14th was not clear enough as they continued to be denied citizenship. The 14th was written extremely vague, but it was not interpreted that way when it was written. There also came about the "separate but equal" nonsense.

 

Note I said "if" they are followed. The problem was that they were not followed.

I don't feel the language is vague at all.

 

It's vague, because who could be a citizen was not defined. The Constitution is also written for man, not women. We've never addressed if granting women the right to vote makes them fully equal. That brings up questions about abortion, gay marriage, etc. There's a lot that's not clear in the Constitution. We just sway the words to how we feel like with the times.

 

The soviet union collapsed from within, Reagan just kicked out the last leg it was standing on.

 

Unless the competitors decide to collude and keep prices high.

- - - Updated - - -

Would that be the same 14th Amendment that conservatives want to see repealed?

 

Yep, that also happens in free markets. Probably more often than either you or I would like to think.

 

"Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation"

How is the Civil rights Act not appropriate legislation?

 

no, the market cannot regulate itself.

you canot rely on competition to weed out deadly/dangerous/inferior products.

especially what we know of how corporations can conspire.

 

Never happens.

Even OPEC couldn't do it and they didn't even have to do it under the table. Oil producers, as an example, all have different capacities and efficiencies. For the competitor with the lowest overhead to forego market share and profits to benefit the industry as a whole is completely counter to their inclinations and their company mandate. Even if some competitors in a market could keep everybody in line and maintain collusion prices, as soon as the next entrepreneur notices that the item in question is selling at a higher than normal price, he'll truck in a ton of the stuff and sell it at a lower margin, which crashes the cartel because, either the cartel members compete with the newcomer or they lose market share to the guy and he runs them out of business.

 

Even if the market was capable of responding to these sort of problems, they always do so after the fact. Regulatory safety standards, hygiene inspections, etc. are all preventative. Recalling a product after it kills hundreds is a failure, but that is the best case scenario for the free market response.

 

And your evidence of this?

 

Funny that you bring it up because I am actually in the process of reading Sinclair's book. If you have read it, you will recall the packing plants had federal inspectors at that time, but Durham's and Brown got around the oversight with sneak and manipulation. You'll notice this is the same crap we deal with today if you look into it. Go on Netflix and watch a myriad of documentaries detailing the deficiencies with the FDA and how the food we eat and the drugs we take are not entirely healthy.

Luckily, we may not deal with bacteria and disease quite as often as in 1906, but we have far more subtle long lasting problems - FDA approved mind you. Seed companies have genetically modified corn and soy to survive pesticide sprays, probably endangering us upon our ingestion. Pesticides on our food crop doesn't sound appealing to me. Many, many other countries have flat out rejected GMO's, but it has become a staple of our diet in the U.S. Big business farming, to boost profits, has also pumped animals full of steroids and hormones for years. We don't bat an eye at putting such meat in our kid's bellies, but go crazy about Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire doing the same thing to play better baseball. But at least our eight year old daughers have boobs!

Actually, if you want to ensure your own safety and eat good quality food, you have to take matters into your own hands. Depending on a government bought by corporations for protection seems pretty naive to me. Either buy local fresh organic at your local health food grocer, or grow your own food. Rely on protection from this U.S. government at your own peril.

 

I wasn't citing the jungle in order to show how great the FDA is, just showing why regulation is necessary. The conditions in the jungle are an example of what happens if there is no or inadequate regulation of food production.

The FDA may or may not do a good job that is certainly debatable. What isn't debatable is that the FDA's mission is necessary.

 

seriously, these folks argue that we should let the free market regulate itself.

cars that kill people, drugs that kill people, foods that make people sick, will simply cause shoppers to go elsewhere.

that's the logic.