For my Libertarian friends

Here's what I think part of the problem is...paranoia.
I do understand where it is coming from, but I don't want some dictatorship, or even government run companies, just some rules/regulations whatever needs to be done to stop the from acting irresponsibly.
I assume the response would be "its a slippery road to communism" or "once their is power they will become a dictatorship" all that fun stuff.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What if murdering people makes me happy? Can I do that?
Less extreme, if someone is made happy be stealing, can they just rob anyone because it's their right?
If a CEO finds happiness in making ever cent he can, should he be allowed to?  Sure. What  if it means screwing people? I don't want to limit profits, take money, run the company...just stop abuse.

Isn't that why there are laws prohibiting murder/theft and punishments for those who break them?
Or, is this just the price we have to pay for freedom?


Edited by JJLehto - June 23 2010 at 18:44

JJLehto wrote: Yes, and if people like you Rob were running things than that'd be fine, but you know full well greed and the all mighty dollar are in power. How many people on top love liberty more than wealth? Not many I'd guess. You know it's true Rob. Hey, believe it or not I'm no socialist, I like money, I like profit, it's good to have a good living. What I don't like is greed, and I bet you'd agree. If people could be trusted then I'd say f*ck the government.  But over the course of time, and more recently in cases we can see, why do you want a totally unregulated private sector? It has caused nothing but trouble. At least greed used to be long run and that greed helped some other people....now greed is short run, and no one top helps anyone but themselves. The risk, and trouble is passed on to us. Manipulating markets, yadda yadda, Rob you know this is NOT true capitalism. Yet, you want to just let it go on? For the name of freedom? It is nice and all, but until the day can come that people can use freedom responibly I want some damn protection because ya know, I'd rather not get screwed over and just accept it as is.

 

Anton, thanks for that article.  Looks like a good read for later tonight.  People do need to realize, while it makes them feel good to put the screws to business via regulation and high taxes, all that does is make business less likely to hire, and more likely to dump  benefits and hire contract workers.

Nice to see you around again btw!

Would also like people to consider The Law of Unintended Consequences before accepting regulation as the solution to anything.  

manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: Yes, and if people like you Rob were running things than that'd be fine, but you know full well greed and the all mighty dollar are in power. How many people on top love liberty more than wealth? Not many I'd guess. You know it's true Rob. Hey, believe it or not I'm no socialist, I like money, I like profit, it's good to have a good living. What I don't like is greed, and I bet you'd agree. If people could be trusted then I'd say f*ck the government.  But over the course of time, and more recently in cases we can see, why do you want a totally unregulated private sector? It has caused nothing but trouble. At least greed used to be long run and that greed helped some other people....now greed is short run, and no one top helps anyone but themselves. The risk, and trouble is passed on to us. Manipulating markets, yadda yadda, Rob you know this is NOT true capitalism. Yet, you want to just let it go on? For the name of freedom? It is nice and all, but until the day can come that people can use freedom responibly I want some damn protection because ya know, I'd rather not get screwed over and just accept it as is.     I'm confused, isn't the government run by people?  Aw, well, I'm sure they are all pure of soul and in no way themselves greedy.   Anyway, The free market (which doesn't really exist here) didn't fire your father but it would give him a chance to find a new job if legitimate market competition was actually allowed by the government.  Your anger is misplaced.  You really should be questioning where government regulation and the current Corporatist system has failed you.   "It is obvious that in unhampered labor markets, wages (at least for some occupations) would be lowered as a result of free competition. Changing demand conditions and technical advances make some occupations obsolete. The workers in those sectors either have to re-educate themselves to be able to perform different tasks, or become unemployable at a certain wage level. Market dynamics force nearly everyone to readjust from time to time—few are spared these painful changes. But refusing to carry out this readjustment by using government coercion only creates opportunities for the foreign workers willing to work for much less then their American counterparts." (excerpt of the article I am about to link)   This article (should you chose to read it) should answer your questions about outsourcing more directly than I can: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=499

OK dude, I'm pretty sure we've been through this before. I know full f*cking well, this is not a TRUE free market, capitalist system and if you want to put a word to it, Corporatist is a good one. Please, don't explain it again to me, I know, thank you.

As for that article, well it's almost the same story. I just gave it a quick read and it sounds like what I've heard in econ classes, government intervention for market failings is bad. But again, isn't that article being unrealistic since we DON'T live in a true free market system?


Edited by JJLehto - June 23 2010 at 20:21

Private life.
You have a work life, you have a private life.
I guess it's arbitrary but really, you know the government can't say "Rob you will have sex with your wife this way, these days, and you two can't do anything from this list....Rob, you will buy this car, etc" To you it may be arbitrary and maybe I can't define where the line is off the top of my head, but I think most would grant in real life, it's there and that can't be crossed.

I guess as libertarian you don't like lines, but it applies again with your second comment. Most would probably say "keeping X as an employee for life" is overstepping it.
Couldn't one would argue, the government can't tell you what cereal to eat. But, that's you, as a CEO actions impact many. Maybe it would inhibit your freedom a bit, but I just think a few need to be prevented from taking outright steps that hurt many.

Anyway, we're getting into ideological stuff now, which is really beyond debate. I guess I'll leave this thread in peace and just go with "Suppose I'm Stalin"


Edited by JJLehto - June 23 2010 at 20:30

JJLehto wrote: Maybe it would inhibit your freedom a bit, but I just think a few need to be prevented from taking outright steps that hurt many.

What do you mean by "few" and "many"? Outsourcing helps millions by creating lower prices and a higher standard of living. It also helps the foreigners that are employed by the practice. Surely it is not only the welfare of Americans with which you are concerned? It also helps the company by allowing it to earn higher profits. It also helps the shareholders of that company by paying them bigger dividends. I think you are not looking at the big picture, my friend.

JJLehto wrote: Private life. You have a work life, you have a private life. I guess it's arbitrary but really, you know the government can't say "Rob you will have sex with your wife this way, these days, and you two can't do anything from this list....Rob, you will buy this car, etc" To you it may be arbitrary and maybe I can't define where the line is off the top of my head, but I think most would grant in real life, it's there and that can't be crossed. I guess as libertarian you don't like lines, but it applies again with your second comment. Most would probably say "keeping X as an employee for life" is overstepping it. Couldn't one would argue, the government can't tell you what cereal to eat. But, that's you, as a CEO actions impact many. Maybe it would inhibit your freedom a bit, but I just think a few need to be prevented from taking outright steps that hurt many. Anyway, we're getting into ideological stuff now, which is really beyond debate. I guess I'll leave this thread in peace and just go with "Suppose I'm Stalin"

Your entire stance is ironic.  You bewail your father's loss without looking at any benefits for hundreds or even thousands of others.  Is your father better than a father in China?  If so, why?

Maybe I'm callous, but I seriously care for the well-being of my family more than others. My emotions can not afford to be spread so thin over hypothetical suffering in places around the world. Excuse my lack of a bleeding heart, but if my family was put in a hard place because of outsourcing, you bet your ass I wouldn't write it off because someone some where else got a job. Family matters more than others--maybe not in an objective sense, but in a "me-giving-a-sh*t-about-the-issue" sense.

JJLehto wrote: Private life. You have a work life, you have a private life. I guess it's arbitrary but really, you know the government can't say "Rob you will have sex with your wife this way, these days, and you two can't do anything from this list....Rob, you will buy this car, etc" To you it may be arbitrary and maybe I can't define where the line is off the top of my head, but I think most would grant in real life, it's there and that can't be crossed. I guess as libertarian you don't like lines, but it applies again with your second comment. Most would probably say "keeping X as an employee for life" is overstepping it. Couldn't one would argue, the government can't tell you what cereal to eat. But, that's you, as a CEO actions impact many. Maybe it would inhibit your freedom a bit, but I just think a few need to be prevented from taking outright steps that hurt many.