The Welfare State

[Berzerker]

Oh BS

 

[warpus]

That dont change the fact govt is force and the free market aint.

You know that every single economic system in the world is heavily regulated by the government, right?

 

[kosiosko 1]

or the fact that Adam Smith proposed Govt. regulations to let his invisible hand work freely ?

 

[Berzerker]

You know that every single economic system in the world is heavily regulated by the government, right?

thats not true, and it is irrelevant.

or the fact that Adam Smith proposed Govt. regulations to let his invisible hand work freely ?

so what?

 

[Archbob]

He must have missed this link El Mach posted earlier: http://www.scimagojr.com/compare.php?c1=US&c2=Western+Europe&c3=&c4=&area=2700&category=0&in=it

Thats just the number of documents. What about the amount of funding that goes into research and development of cures?

 

[Arakhor]

You present some detailed evidence then, Fallen. It's not up to us to disprove your wild and unsupported comment.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thats just the number of documents. What about the amount of funding that goes into research and development of cures?

Well it's not 'just documents'. 'Documents' is how science is done.
And Europe isn't doing too badly on the development of cures, either. If revenues count as a metric (instead of being 'just revenues') then of the Top 20 pharma, revenue from European companies is slightly higher than American countries. R&D from American pharma is slightly higher, though.

My point isn't that Europe is better than the US, either. They're both extremely amazing juggernauts of scientific development. And there is a lot more synergy than dissent for one side to complain about the other.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree.
What exactly separates extreme Libertarianism from anarchism anyhow? Once you already have next to no government doing anything it becomes an easy step to have no government. All forms of government exist by being able to impose their will on the people. Once the people are no longer being imposed upon by the government, the role of government becomes meaningless.

"Big-L Libertarians" are typically Individualist Anarchists who lack the balls to commit to Anarchist theory, appending their "Down with the government" rants with "Except for the bits that I approve of or that benefit me, personally". That's why you get "Libertarians" supporting the War on Drugs, the military, and other such statist, anti-individualistic endeavours.

("Small-Ls", to be fair to them, tend towards a form of principled Minarchy; that is, an ideology in which the the Big-L's appendage is actually the logical outgrowth of their core principles and fully incorporated into the ideology, rather than a clumsy qualifier.)

 

[Ajidica]

And its still force... The threat of violence, or even death. What is your point!?!?!

There is still the threat of violence and death in anarchism.

I didn't offer one, I just said its based on cooperation and not force.

And my European History textbook disagrees with you. "Smith saw the pursiut if self-interest in a competative market as the source of an underlying and previously unreckognizdd harmony that he believed would result in gradual progress." (A History of Western Civilization since 1300, McCay-Hill, pg 647) Regardless of any harmonious benefits, there is still competition.

The invisible hand is not force, its the interaction between producers and consumers. People "vote" with their dollars and producers try to win those votes by satisfying consumers with better products.

The Invisible Hand is still force. It is the will of the consumers manifested in the market. There would be no need for the Invisible Hand if everyone worked together.

See above... Or wiki supply and demand.

Supply and demand is inherently competative as for supply and demand to work properly, the demand must be greater than the supply, encouraging scarcity and competition. Capitalism assumes that there is a scarcity.

Communism doesn't ask people to help... Private business owners do, they even offer money for the help.

In the ideal Marxist communist society, there would be no need to help people as everyone would have what they need. I'm not going to comment on the validity of Marx's assumption, but its nice to know what he is talking about.

The only systems that have ever said they work according to the 'lets all work together principle' is Utopian Socialism and Marxism. Capitalism only works due to competition and struggle to establish yourself on top.

 

[Berzerker]

There is still the threat of violence and death in anarchism.

Even if true, so what?

And my European History textbook disagrees with you. "Smith saw the pursiut if self-interest in a competative market as the source of an underlying and previously unreckognizdd harmony that he believed would result in gradual progress." (A History of Western Civilization since 1300, McCay-Hill, pg 647) Regardless of any harmonious benefits, there is still competition.

WTH? Where did I say the opposite of that? Where did I even mention Adam Smith? And where in that did Adam Smith say the market requires more violence than the state? Seriously, y'all keep playing with strawmen and I'm really tired of responding.

The Invisible Hand is still force. It is the will of the consumers manifested in the market. There would be no need for the Invisible Hand if everyone worked together.

Consumers dont use force, they vote with their $$$. And the invisible hand develops as people work together, ie supply and demand. If people weren't working together, there'd be no invisible hand.

Supply and demand is inherently competative as for supply and demand to work properly, the demand must be greater than the supply, encouraging scarcity and competition. Capitalism assumes that there is a scarcity.

And this competition is both voluntary and peaceful (redundant)... When it aint, its no longer a free market. So what is the state compared to the market? Force! Damnit...

In the ideal Marxist communist society, there would be no need to help people as everyone would have what they need. I'm not going to comment on the validity of Marx's assumption, but its nice to know what he is talking about.

Talk about him all you want, I wasn't.

The only systems that have ever said they work according to the 'lets all work together principle' is Utopian Socialism and Marxism. Capitalism only works due to competition and struggle to establish yourself on top.

I didn't say we need or should all work together, I said thats how a free market works - the participants in the market work together (supply and demand). Jesus, do you even remember what I said?

The free market uses cooperation, the state uses force.

And I'm done with this thread, cya

 

[Ajidica]

I give up. You are refusing to listen to anything I say and don't even understand the concepts you are attempting to discuss. However I would like to point out one thing:

Quote:
And my European History textbook disagrees with you. "Smith saw the pursiut if self-interest in a competative market as the source of an underlying and previously unreckognizdd harmony that he believed would result in gradual progress." (A History of Western Civilization since 1300, McCay-Hill, pg 647) Regardless of any harmonious benefits, there is still competition.

WTH? Where did I say the opposite of that? Where did I even mention Adam Smith? And where in that did Adam Smith say the market requires more violence than the state? Seriously, y'all keep playing with strawmen and I'm really tired of responding.

You asserted that the free market is:

I didn't offer one, I just said its based on cooperation and not force.

I proved you wrong, unless you believe cooperation is the same thing as competition despite them being diametricaly opposed. As for where I got Adam Smith, he is the father of the free market your posts suggest you don't understand..