Smidgey

What is wrong with profit? If you provide a service that people want, you deserve to get something out of it.

If I support freedom, I by de facto support capitalism. Capitalism is the greatest economic system that has ever been devised. I don't necessarily support globalism, but if that is an off-shoot of capitalism (as you seem to be claiming), then so be it. Although, I don't believe that would be the case.

Because they are having their savings destroyed by a massive tax burden? You're argument doesn't take into account all of the factors. You are thinking in the mindset of "no NHS, but we keep everything else". The economic growth we could achieve by doing things such as disbanding customs or removing tariffs on trade would be phenomenal - especially if we were out of the EU and the UK was surrounded by EU countries with large tariffs on trade.

You are not comparing like for like. Again, you are thinking of the current system with no NHS. The current system is a terrible system (with or without an NHS). I am not a one trick pony.

I care about healthcare, so I want to put the doctors and the patients in charge - not government, bureaucrats and large corporations.

Why is it classic? Studies have shown that as the state cuts back, money given to charity and charity provision increases vastly. This is a fact.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

PCMadness

But only those that can afford it.

That is pretty much what we have now. Cheap labour in the form of Doctors and nurses from abroad. Except under your model the money they save doing this would line the pockets of the shareholders rather than being spent on the service.

What savings???? You have to have employment to save money.

Under your system there are no government bodies, there is no bureacracy, no tax. Everyone is free to do what they wish, self determination being key, it would be a free for all. The rich get richer the poor poorer and more desperate. Think Russia and the Ukraine after the fall of the USSR, not a nice place to be. Capitalist yes, and their were some winners, but it was brutal on the majority. Sounds more like survival of the fittest to me.

As far as economic growth, Britain would become a consumer whilst producing nothing. Our industry is dead and don't think that removing tariffs on trade would change anything. China would still be able to undercut us by huge margins, we just wouldn't be able to compete.

Large corporations would be in the driving seat with their own bureacracy, that's even before the pharmaceutical companies get involved. The amount of back scratching for contracts would be par for the course. The rich get richer and the poor poorer

Because it is no different to the welfare state we have now, the main charity provider being the DWP and the taxpayers being the charitable contributers. Anyway, would yuo want to be a charity case?

Fact you say. Linky please??

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

Smidgey

Only those who can afford a service which charges. There is charity and there is more money in individuals pockets to spend, making far more people available to health care provision.

Furthermore, theft doesn't make something right - the means do not justify the ends.

We do not have a capitalist system now. If you believe we do you are severely deluded.

Hardly, shareholders make no money unless there is good service and quality. Do you think that people give their money to companies when they provide bad services and bad quality products? Many companies have fallen on this arrogance.

You do? You must never have heard of investments...

However, on a less facetious note, I don't see the point you are making with this sentence.

Then it is obvious that you either: a) Do not understand my position or are: b) creating a deliberate straw man.

Care to tell me why this would be the case and care to present any evidence of this?

Oh right, and I suppose it was a perfect place where nobodies rights were violated and they had not just had 70 years of communism that had destroyed services and industries? That's like saying that if Mongolia suddenly switched to a libertarian system that the second day of this new system would prove that libertarianism was flawed. Things don't change overnight, I'm sure even you know this. Sadly in the Ukraine and Russia they replaced communism with oligarchy and tyranny.

If you start from a position that is a result of seventy years of economic injustice, what do you expect? Surely you must have some better examples this this...

Our manufacturing industry is already pretty much dead (as you have noted). This is not the reason. Other countries trading with us provides us with a greater benefit. Also, who said trade was only material product. The service industry is one we can harness very well. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the only reason the UK is richer and better of than China is because we have government control in our economy? Government is not going to stop Britain becoming an economic backwater, since it relies on the economy to provide it with tax in the first place. The economy does well in spite of the government, not because of it.

It is hardly the same when you are free to choose their services.

Because when Intel did this when they had created their market monopoly they weren't soundly beaten by their competitors? You seem to think that a market monopoly and a corporate monopoly are the same thing.

Charities are more efficient than the welfare state.

If your argument against charity is that people do not want to be charity cases, then you must have a very pessimistic view of the human condition. People don't prefer theft over charity. I would sooner take a meal from charity money than one from theft money. The sooner people wake up and realise that taxation is theft the better off we will all be.

I don't have a link, but I have the book it is from. In Pursuit by Charles Murray. The statistics he use come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

PCMadness

That assumes the haves will support the have-nots with charitable donations. Totally unsustainable, not to mention unlikely.

You consume and use the envirnment around, do you not? If people aren't levied how does the road outside your house get repaired when the watermain bursts? Who pays for the road sweeper to clean your street? In fact who pays for all your public services if no one is taxed?

no we don't but I argue that is it being run as if it was. Prune costs (cheap labour) and someone on the gravytrain beneifts (read shareholders dividend) If you think that the money saved bringing cheap labour in is spent on improving the service where do we see the benefit. Spending increases, service diminishes.

Oh but they do, people pay for bad service all the time

But invest what? Where does this miraculous investment money come from. People surviving on less than the minimum wage barely have enough to feed themselves. How could they possible invest enough money to provide an income?

Charity won't help them?

You are a libertarian. Although this concept is new to me, I have read a little to try and grasp the concepts. So I say again you believe that there should be no government bodies, no bureacracy, no tax. Everyone is free to do what they wish, self determination being key, it would be a free for all. No straw man, just what you apparently believe.

Because people will not lower their standard of living to improve other peoples standard of living. My evidence! Open your eyes and look around you. Go to Gleadless Town end or Manor Top in Sheffield. Tell me that the rich b*stard from Dore in Sheffield is going to go anywhere near those areas in the first place in his flash BMW. Money breeds money. No one got rich by giving it all away.

No but the transitional turmoil that would emrbroil a society is acceptable as far as you're concerned?

Speaking of examples, can you give any examples where libertarianism has been adopted by a country successfully in the present day or even in history?

We have nothing to offer that someone else couldn't do cheaper.

Choosing from one fat cat corporation or another, what's the difference? Intel are hardly on their uppers are they?

And rely purely on donations to fill thier coffers. Billions are currently spent on the welfare state. I doubt very much that the equivalent could be generated by donations.

I'm afraid you underestimate how proud many people are. It is seen as failure by many. I would not want to accept charity or be seen as a charity case.


I may have to read this book.

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

Smidgey

The have-nots will be far fewer in a libertarian society. Simple capitalist economics shows that a country with a growing economy always has more jobs than the population (otherwise it would not be growing). The argument in favour of forced wealth redistribution would be the same as making musically poor students go to a great music college. It is not fair that one child has the ability to play the cello beautifully and another does not. Life is not fair. We need the 'least bad' system to accommodate for this.

I also consume the apples I buy from my local supermarket. This apple went by literally thousands of people to reach my mouth. No taxes were involved (or need be involved). I understand that minor taxes must be levied for the provision of minor things (such as a legal system). This can all be achieved under a sales tax, which does not 'steal' in the same way a property tax or an income tax does. As a matter of fact, at current levels, the UK's VAT can pay for transport, defence and all law and order (policing, legal system, prisons, etc) with a little to spare. Bearing in mind that in a libertarian society, transport would not include any form of public transport and that the vast majority of road and rail building will be done by private enterprise (for example, the construction company builds the roads in the estate - not the council).

We see little benefit because the government is completely incompetent. Throwing vast quantities of money at things will eventually improve them, reducing things to local government (such as school boards, etc) will also improve them to a great degree. However, decentralisation is only a small part of the step to freedom.

The vast majority of people actually don't. I am satisfied with every company I am currently in contact with that provide me a service - bar two, the Royal Mail and the BBC. Surprisingly, both of these have government support and the Royal Mail has a corporate monopoly.

I was being facetious. I was merely pointing out an example of income without employment.

And why not?

Again, this is not what we believe. People can do what they wish is license, not liberty. I believe in the maximum possible liberty - optimal liberty. License is not liberty, since to have license, you must violate the rights of others. So the statement can be changed to:

Everyone is free to do what they wish, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

They won't? I find it interesting that it always seems to be the capitalists that are amongst the most charitable. Take a look at Sir Tom Hunter, throughout his career he has donated more than one billion pounds to charity or what about Adam Smith - one of the greatest men that has ever lived in my opinion, he told nobody about his charitable deeds and they were only discovered once he had died. Take a look at Bill Gates, he has contributed more to charity than any other individual that has ever lived. Arthur C. Brookes in his recent book even quoted a study:

"...the belief that the role of government is to provide for needs—that belief in and of itself suppresses charitable giving. Ask somebody, "do you think the government should do more to redistribute income?" People who strongly disagree with that give twelve times more money a year to charity than the people who strongly agree with that. You virtually never see differences that are that big. Even when you correct for income and age and education, there are big differences that persist between [those two] groups."

Furthermore, the best possible charity is to make it so people do not require charity in the first place. A welfare state that keeps people in the welfare rut is not a good form of charity. There are good cases of homeless people who have made a Salvation Army lodge their address and have gradually worked their way back up into society. These things do happen, entirely without government 'help'.

Absolutely not. I think the violations of rights are always horrible. I would much rather have government slowly make itself impotent by decentralising as much as possible.

There have been no libertarian nations, sadly. However, there have been libertarian examples within nations. The free trade enactments in Britain, Japan and Hong Kong during the 19th and 20th centuries are good examples. Another good example is of American health care. forty years ago, the US government spent 5% of its total budget on health care. Today they spend about 16% (which is almost as much as we spend - unbelievably). Forty years ago, America had one of the best health care systems on the planet - now, it languishes behind most first world nations. Go figure.

I don't believe this is the case, but either way, this is not a criticism of my position or of yours. This is a problem for both of our positions. The economy of the UK will slump for the above stated reason in both systems, whether the government likes it or not.

You seem to be running in the vein of 'people are naturally selfish and greedy'. If this is the case, why on earth would you want to put such people in positions of political power? Furthermore, a corporation cannot exist in a libertarian society, only in one where companies are supported by government.

It wouldn't need to be.

Sadly, yes many people are proud. If someone was offering me help in a time of need, I would take that in the hope that I can be of some help to them in the future once I am back on my feet. The words of that most great of philosophers, Immanuel Kant:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"

This is second part of the moral law that I follow and hopefully many others do too. Even if they do not know of Kant, many people still follow the more primitive Christian maxims, such as; treat others as you would like to be treated. I am probably being rather idealistic right now, but if I believe so strongly in the Categorical Imperative, why can't others?

Oh, there are many books on this particular issue, as well as many articles and papers. Although, as is the way in politics, I'm sure some crafty socialist academic has written a counter!

Phew, that is a lot of text. However, this has been a interesting discussion, PCMadness.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

PCMadness

It has indeed.
And we kept it civilised to boot

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

PCMadness

Maybe so but importing cheap labour as we currently have now surely skews this theory

Again this comes down to personal wealth and affordability. The people living on the estate will have to pay for the upkeep of their roads I assume.

something we definitley agree on.

When I was at school I'm sure LEA's controlled education. It is this government that centralised everything.

Ahh..hence your avatar. Point taken. I don't know how wealthy Adam Smith was but I assume that as an educated man he was up there. If I had a fortune I would also give generously but my point is none of these men would give up their fortune and lower their standard of living to level the playing field. With a net worth of over $56 billion Bill Gates can very easily give away several billion dollars without making an impact on his life.

Would be ideal but a pipe dream I fear. When you have welfare dependent generation that would rather steal than work for a living, how can you change that mindset? Values and common decency have been eroded by this government.

I think many of the current generation are selfish, materialistic and have questionable morals, but that is ten years of social marxism. It will take several generations to put right.

Not at all idealistic. That is the code I live by.

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

tito

So someone who three years ago wore their hair long cannot be a capitalist? Interesting. Was Jesus a communist?

I am a charitable capitalist, you are not. There is no too much in capitalism, because the only way to counter "too much" (Or prosperity, as it is called by the honest) is through violence and theft.

__________________
For life, Liberty and Prosperity
http://lpuk.org/