Free Market Fundamentalist Ideology is based on a Logical Fallacy.

WIKI: The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and which featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century,[15] possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide and war crim

 

You invent terms and then make incoherent morality rant. Capitalist nations and democide have gone hand in hand

 

but you are afraid to give us the best example? what did you learn from your fear?

 

You perhaps need to brush up on your Marxism. Engels provides some detailed analysis linking capitalism and imperialism.

 

afraid to present your best example?? What do you learn from your libcommie fear?

 

I understand that you may not have all the answers. But maybe you can think about people being free to trade with each other.

 

Careful with names. American's think, in politics like at the supermarket, the name is a "brand". At the supermarket, "yes". In politics, most decidedly "no"!

Libertarians (according to the dictionary): Persons who believe in an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or even generally political views. (Keyword "oppressive".)

So, what is "oppressive in terms of behaviour or political views"? Any act perpetrated upon the person so defined by law as forbidden because it is personally injurious. So, if a law did not specifically forbid any act then said act was not necessarily illegal.

And what is an example of that? Blacks who were supposedly "freed" to vote in elections, but still suffered racial abuse at work, choice of schooling or living accommodations, etc., etc. Ditto for homosexuals who once were forbidden to live together (in some communities) but no law expressly gave them the freedom to do so.

I could go on, but freedoms (or liberties) are complex issues - and they are at the heart of any understanding of the individual's ability to do what they damn well please ...

 

Uh... we have 14 million people in poverty, because they feel entitled to only have one of the parents work for minimum wage while the other states give having children they can't afford.

 

I just think Libertarianism is re-inventing the wheel.
It ends with the same as we have now, just with them in power.

Mostly I think of it as.... I'm a Republican at heart but I am too embarrassed by George Bush to affiliate.

It's basically sound ideologically, but it's not any particular change to what we already have.

 

Forty-five million, not fourteen.

"The feel entitled"? You are obvious not one of them.

Go fly a kite, will ya ... ?

 

Since you want to dive into my personal life, fine.

I wanted to make sure I was financially secure before bringing new lives into the world that I couldn't sustain. So I worked on my career after college and married my wife.

By the time we were ready to have a family, able to take care of ourselves and children, we could no longer have kids in our mid-thirties. We ended up adopting two girls from a young mother that couldn't take care of them.

The point is.... people need to be able to take care of kids before having them. A sole provider making minimum wage trying to support a family is not logical.

We could talk about the fact that the majority of people earning minimum wage are new comers to the labor market. But that isn't the point. The point is... you aren't entitled to a good wage because you decided to have a family in a format you cant afford.

The system isn't responsible for these types of people in poverty, their decisions are.

 

Wanna know why some people are blind?

Because they think the way "they did it" is the way everybody should do it.

Except that's not the way the world works.

You haven't an ounce of charity in your blood, and if you think that giving money is charity then you are dead-wrong.

Charity is in the mind, not your wallet ...

 

You are free to do it "your way", but kindly stop asking me to pay for it.

You want the freedom to make these decisions, give. Im not telling you you can't. What you can't do is tell everybody else they are in some way responsible for your choices.

Lol. You mean like adopting children to make sure they have a fair shake at life? Volunteer in homeless shelters we often do.

Look. You are upset that somebody is calling out live decisions as a failure to justify your agenda to prevent poverty these people often create for themselves.

You want to paint anybody that doesn't get on board with your perspective as a selfish and greedy....

Sorry that isn't how the world works. You are like a child wanting to do it your way, then according everybody else to come to your rescue when it fails.

It's time to grow up man.

 

Already did. Marxism describes how capitalism fed off militarism. Imperialism, and the millions killed through it, was deemed to be a natural part of capitalism (going as far to remark that world war is a constant risk and could lead to its demise)

 

for 45th time, we understand that as a standard libcommie Marxism matters to you, but to us he's just a fool who got 120 human souls million killed. shall we go for 46?

 

Charity is lovely. Taking people's money by force in order to dole it out is not lovely at all. It's reprehensible.

 

It sounds like you're talking about statism, not capitalism.

 

Zero response to the comment. Is it a tad inconvenient that Marxism has an advanced understanding of how capitalism and imperialism goes hand in hand?

 

The rational free-market fan is an example of the Homunculus fallacy (or the Little Man fallacy).

 

THE REAL AFFECTS OF INCOME DISPARITY UPON A NATION

There is no such thing as a singular "free-market". There is such a thing as the division of market-entities. Namely two principal divisions. That is, free in the sense of competitive provision of goods/services. But also non-competitive provision for services by governmental entities.

For instance, a National Healthcare Service where pricing is fixed and paid by the state. Or, for public-protection, such as a Fire Department or City Policing or Primary Plus Secondary Education.

There are some essential-services that MUST BE PROVIDED BY ENTITIES THAT BELONG TO THE CITY, STATE, OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS.

In the US, we've made the mistake of not incorporating Healthcare as one such national service - just like the DoD that spends more than half the Discretionary Budget to protect the nation from being invaded.

But more so, since the 19th century when the US was expanding from coast-to-coast the "enemy" was the American Indian, and so the military became a National Expense!

BIG MISTAKE THAT because investors came to see government as a "prime customer" and therefore available for the expansion of their market for goods/services. A couple of World Wars and that notion became concretely visible as a "good business".

And we, the sheeple, let it happen right under our noses because we did not care a fig about an economic concept called Economic Income Disparity.

How's that? Here's how:

Source of the above statement: Effects of Economic Inequality and well worth a consideration for anyone concerned about the Real Impact of Income Disparity upon the nation ...

*Definition of "social goods": A social-good is something that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way, such as clean air, clean water, healthcare, and literacy. Also known as the "Common Good", because social-goodness can trace its history to Ancient Greece philosophers and implies a positive impact on individuals or society in general.

 

The Self-Regulating Market Demand Homunculus.​

The “supply creates demand” fairy, or the demand homunculus is assumed in the so called self-regulating market system. Hayek's anti-rationalist philosophy assumes the General Stochastic Equilibrium Theory of Markets. This is to say, economist of this school assumes that economic depressions are the result of the market (buyers and sellers, monetary infrastructure) is in dis-equilibrium causing the demand/production market relationship to be out of balance by too much supply and too little demand or the reverse. In fact, the natural state of the market is dis-equilibrium. It takes massive coordination and control of money capital, labor (variable capital), interest rates, technology, distribution, marketing to be in balance and not spiraling downward. This is true for the different creatures of penny capitalism, corporate capitalism, and global capitalism.

Libertarians defend self-regulating free market doctrine by appealing to this economic model of unbounded rationality to argue that government market regulation is unnecessary. Libertarians argue, for example, if a restaurant served contaminated food that sickened patrons the restaurant would go out of business as potential customers know its reputation. By customers rationally avoiding the unsanitary restaurant, they regulate the market by their autonomous rational choice making government regulation unnecessary. This Libertarian anti-regulatory argument can be refuted by the bounded rationality model of free agent choice. In a small town customers may avoid an unsanitary restaurant and cause it to close, but this isn’t realistic in a large metropolitan city, or even a small tourist town where a constant flow of new unaware patrons could keep the unsafe restaurant open indefinitely. The Caveat Emptor warning is meaningless for a post festum meal. "Post festum" literally means "after the meal." Agent knowledge is often flawed with incomplete knowledge, false information, or simply having weak decision-making judgement by selecting the restaurant solely for its location. Agents with limited knowledge have no rational regulatory effect on market activity thereby making regulatory offices necessary. The imaginary rational market homunculus cannot save us.

 

MARKET THIS HERE BELOW

I agree wholeheartedly with the expression underlined above.

The only applicable response is that "coordination" of any economic variable must be light-handed but nonetheless effective. Which is easier said than done given highly-variable "economic circumstances". Meaning this lesson-wise:
*As much as the EU would like it, it is NOT YET a single-market as is today the US. Whyzzat? Because of language barriers workers are "stuck in the places they were born" - meaning they are very largely binded to a single-language when seeking work. (The higher level graduates learn English and move about to wherever necessary.)
*The eastern-EU countries are easily picking-up the hands-oriented production that is far too expensive in the western-EU countries. Which is goodness, but they must still compete pricewise with China. (Or, we go to GATT and deal with Chinese-pricing there in terms of import-tariffs.)
*There is not a nation on earth that knows how to accomplish the "single-market" objective "deftly" - whether it is the US with that "moves physically always"* to find work or the EU with its quasi-multiple markets (due to very little shifting of population amongst the "states") who very largely do not move at all.

My parents worked in the plastics-industry of central Massachusetts. Today those buildings have been largely torn down and made into parking lots. Humans "study" history, but what they must do is learn-the-lessons therein - and no, for far too long we we've not been doing that sufficiently well as a nation.

MY POINTS

*The Chinese waltzed into American markets teaching us two fundamental lessons: (1) In markets, price-differentials mean everything and (2) if a nation "legalizes" any market too much then participants will look elsewhere to sell their goods/services irrespective of the fact that the US market is the most evolved. (The US moved its production capacity considerably south of the Mexican border due to that factor.)
*The market for employment has fundamentally changed in the US. One needs a post-secondary degree (Vocational up to Doctorate) so the government should be funding national-programs statewide to obtain that objective. The cost in a state postsecondary-school should be free, gratis and for nothing (or very close thereto depending upon family income).
*Rescue the funding to accomplish the above objective from being wasted in the DoD ... !
...

 

And, furthermore, the future (2029) is in the statistics: Workforce forecast by employment-level from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (here):

'Nuff said ... ?

PS: "Services providing" industries typically require some sort of training/education. Which is why I underscore the necessity of Individual-state&Federal Spending to assume the cost.
PPS: Learning how to fight-a-war is not the sort of "training" that one can take with them to promote their "employment credentials". (Which is why it should be a life-time profession. But at a much lower cost than today.)

 

Why should there be government regulations?