I love libertarians. Well, sorta. I believe in some liberal economic policies

Libertarian is the ONLY way to go! Anyone can do anything they want as long as it doesn't impead on the rights of others. YES.

I'm a libertarian, also.

Still, I am afraid of the free market being without certain boundaries... I think that the economy has to be regulated [i]slightly[/i] to allow everyone the freedom of oppurtunity.

I think that the current system has too much economic controls though (or rather, inefficient ones)..

:?   :-?   :puzzled:

I beleive in a good fusion of capitolism and socialism, so a decent amount of regulation works for me, but I still want people to have the ability to choose their career path, as well as the existance of a commercial market. The problem with total command markets (Socialism) is that the economy, though stable, is basically unmotivated. The problem with free market (Capitolism) is that though it's very motivated, it is extremely unstable and class-dividing.

[quote=GrapeScentedGuru]I beleive in a good fusion of capitolism and socialism, so a decent amount of regulation works for me, but I still want people to have the ability to choose their career path, as well as the existance of a commercial market. The problem with total command markets (Socialism) is that the economy, though stable, is basically unmotivated. The problem with free market (Capitolism) is that though it's very motivated, it is extremely unstable and class-dividing.[/quote]

So basically your reasoning is this:
1. Socialism/Communism doesn't work
2. Capitalism doesn't work.
3. Therefore, we should have a mix of both.

No wonder our current system doesn't work!

You argue that capitalism is "extremely" unstable. Fist, can you define what you mean by "extremely unstable"? Secondly, can you provide examples of a purely capitalistic market being extremely unstable please?

As for the "class-dividing" nature of captialism, let me ask you this: Should the person that sells cigarettes at a convenience store earn the same amount of money as say, a film writer/director? Should a person that serves beer at a bar earn the same amount of money as say, somone that went through 12 years of medical school to become an ER surgeon? No? People should earn money based on their training, talent and hard work? Oops, that will create a division in classes! Some people will have nicer things that other people...and that's just not fair...

Now what?

[quote=Derevirn]There's never been a totally regulated or a totally free market... I think the market should be quite a bit regulated (but not too much) to avoid corporatism... How much is too much? that's a good question :) Try maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services, by using state intervention. It surely works in Europe.[/quote]

As soon as your give politicians the power to regulate the market "a bit", it will inevitably become regulated A LOT. You can look at the history of the United States as a great example of this. Despite the explicit limits on Congress's power as stated in the Constitution, politicians used the tiny bit of power they had to go around this and pretty much control every single aspect of our lives down to the letter.

Also...I need some evidence that a completly free market would lead to "corporatism."

I like to look at "balance" when it concerns freedom like this:

We need to have a "balanced" view of freedom. 24 hours of freedom is too much, while 12 hours is too little, therefore, we should only be free for 18 hours a day.

[quote=Derevirn]I'm no extreme leftist, but you don't have to be one to see what powerful corporations and monopolies can do...

http://www.corpwatch.org/[/quote]

There are ALOT of corporations out there that I dislike and don't support. Guess what I do? I don't spend my money with them and I tell my friends not to spend their money with them. As an example, I refuse to buy any music from any label that's part of the RIAA because they sue their fans...and I refuse to buy SONY products because Sony thinks it's ok to install rootkits on people's computers and I refuse to buy anything from Apple because Apple sues journalists and bloggers for exercising free speech. I actually have a long long list of companies I don't support. I am not a proponent of corporations. But I am a proponent of freedom.

I have no problem with corporations existing and doing whatever the hell they want...so long as they DON'T get help from the government and don't violate my freedom or my property. Many "evil" corporations get subsidies or protections from the government which enable their bad behaviors from going unnoticed and/or unpunished. Many of these government protections limit my freedom by giving corporations monopolies or unfair positions in a market. Government intervention and regulations damages freedom and it needs to stop.

I appreciate sites like CorpWatch that report on bad companies so that I can add them to my blacklist. I encourage the rest of the media to report bad business and I support boycotting businesses that suck. I also support class action lawsuits when businesses damage people's properties with pollution.

Just because I don't believe in government regulation of businesses does not mean I am a fan of big business. It means I am a fan of freedom without exception.

[quote=Derevirn]I understand what you mean... still most people aren't aware or motivated to stand against those practices. It's like saying that societies would punish murderers, rapists themselves. There must be some governmental policies for those matters. Sure Free Trade sounds great (like Free Speech) but it inevitably becomes Free to Suppress and only benefits big companies and uber-rich people. I think Fair Trade sounds better... (that's my rhetoric :P).[/quote]

Fair trade sounds good, but it's not fair. Fair trade is a nice way of saying "protectionist, interventionist government policies that impede the freedom of individuals and business." And "fair' in what context?

Is it fair to the rest of the world to tax THEM when they export products into our country? Is it fair to prevent millions of starving people around the world from working and earning a living because we don't want to "export american jobs"? Is it fair to give farmers in the US subsidies to continue producing farmed goods when there are many farmers in foreign countries that would love to be able to sell us their crops for much much less? Is it fair to the American people to tax them and give this money to a few wealthy corporations so that we can "protect our economy"?

If you ask me, "fair" is rhetoric indeed. I don't think it's fair to use government power to protect the interests of a few people at the expense of the many.

[quote]Sure Free Trade sounds great (like Free Speech) but it inevitably becomes Free to Suppress and only benefits big companies and uber-rich people. [/quote]

I would really like to see some evidence for this claim of yours, and pretty much everyone that assumes that the "evil rich people" will take over the world when/if free trade really existed. Do you have ANY actual evidence to support this claim? Have you considered the opposite?

What would happen if all the middle class people had about 40-50% more money each year because taxes were abolished. First, hundreds of billions of dollars wouldn't be litterally blown up in foreign countries. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that would now be inside the American economy, probably creating millions of new jobs and providing hundreds of millions of Americans with a better lifestyles and more economic security. Second, the other TRILLION dollars that is spent every year on various politician's boondoggles will now be back in American's pockets. This money can be used to buy private health isurance, private schooling, and charities (if charity is your thing).

People would have more money and more choice...and I can gaurantee you that money will be spent more wisely and efficiently than politicians currently spend your money. Think about it...when someone hands you a blank check...do you penny pinch? Do you make sure you get the best value for your dollar? Hell no. What makes you think politicians are careful? Their only interest is to make sure they get that check every single year...and they'll do whatever they can to make sure that check gets bigger and bigger too. Politicians don't care about you or your money...they care about themselves and their criminal buddies.

[quote=Derevirn]Actually I'm Greek, I don't know much about USA economy (I'm more familiar with European, were fair trade works... somehow).[/quote]
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think trade regulation "works" because ultimately beaucracy is bloated, cumbersome and inefficient. Whenever a government siezes power from the marketplace, you can be fairly sure that you won't just be paying increased taxes, you'll be paying higher prices because businesses have to offset the inefficiencies of adhering to government regulations. Whenever one has to pay artificially high prices because of government intervetion, or whenever one is forced to buy from uncompetitive businesses that hold state-sanctioned monopolies, I don't think this can be considered "working." Aside from the real economic negatives of regulating trade, there are also the philosophical negatives: you are abridging peoples freedom to trade with each freely. It is a violation of privacy as well. This is definately not somethings that "works."
[quote] I can't imagine how a big nation like USA could survive tax-free.[/quote]
It did a perfectly good job doing that until 1913, when the income tax was created. In fact, it was the fastest growing nation in the world. From just before the American Revolution to WW1, America had probably become the world's biggest super power...all without income taxes.

[quote]What about poor people, how could they ever afford things such as private schooling?[/quote]
Poor people have obviously always survived, especially in countries with strong economies (like the US). But even so...how are poor people MY personal responsibility? I have been flat broke before in my life, and I went out and got a damn job. The job sucked and only paid 5 bucks an hour, but it was still a job. There are plenty of jobs out there if people really needed them. Mexicans, who aren't even allowed to work in our country, miraculously survive by the MILLIONS. They come over here with less than 100 pesos to their name and are somehow able to support their entire family by working hard for even less than minimum wage sometimes. I'm sorry, but if illegal immigrants who aren't even allowed to work can survive, then regular citizens can as well.

The people that are too sick or disable to work can always find help with the hundreds of private charities that are for more efficient at managing money than greedy corrupt politicians are.

As for public education: I'm against it big time. Public education is state indoctrination. Politicians decide the curriculum is and they choose the teaching standards. Politicians with agendas and polls to watch. Public education doesn't teach you critical thinking skills, and even CONSIDERS the "intelligent design" theory to be as plausible as the theory of evolution...at least in some states. Public education isn't about educating children, it's about getting votes.

Also, why should I, who has decided not to have kids (at least not yet), have to pay for other irresponsible people that do decide to have kids? Why should I be paying for their kids educations? You want to talk about fair? Does it seem fair to you? When and if I have kids, I will be sending them to a secular private school which goes completely unfunded by tax dollars...yet I still have to pay taxes to send your kids to crappy public schools? No thanks.

[quote]And don't tell me about skill acquisition, some people just aren't smart or lucky enough to get higher education.[/quote]

People do need to learn skills. It doesn't take "smarts" to know that expanding your skillset will create new and more lucrative oppertunities for you. It takes innitiative. So it is the lazy that don't want to develop new skills. Luck? How much luck does it require to buy a book...or to even go into a library and read a book for free? In the past when there weren't public schools, families and communities taught their own children how to read and perform basic arithmatic. Those families were responsible for their own children. I just want people to be responsible for their own choices.

[quote]The whole free-trade debate is beyond the scope of this forum.[/quote]

Says who? Free trade is a subset of politics and government. And that's what we're discussing no?

[quote]There are many for and against arguments on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debate]this[/url] wikipedia article.[/quote]

I'm very well aware of the criticism of free trade and the so-called alternatives. I am the first to acknowledge that free trade is not perfect. But nothing is perfect. You will not encounter a system, at least not under existing human paradigms on planet earth, where every single human being is 100% happy. What we need to aim for however is a system that is rational and dare I say, right.

The bottom line is this: yes, freedom will make some people unhappy. Like the lazy and the uncreative. They will watch the hard working and the creative excel past them in terms of material gain and even emotional prosperity. We just can't make all people work hard. We can't make all people be creative and inventive. In fact, I would argue, that in true free world...you can't make people do anything! Not in a just world anyway.

Freedom means that some people are free to lay around and do nothing. It means that some people will not care about other people's problems. It means that some people will try to acquire as much material wealth as possible and others will scoff at material belongings.

The world will not be perfect because people are not perfect. But you can't force people to do what you want them to! You need to focus on yourself, and what you want. If you want to help the poor children, then help them! Start a charity, start a school for poor kids, raise money...and help them! But don't try to FORCE me to help them. The moment you innitiate force to achieve what you consider "good" is the moment you open the floodgates of force for other issues that might not be so good.

I can't reiterate this enough. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, government power that is used for "good" today may (and probably will) be used for evil tomorrow. The politicians that you give power to today that are "good" will eventually leave office...and guess what...that power doesn't leave with them...its their for the next party or ideology that you don't agree with to use! The government that taxed our incomes to help feed the poor yesterday is the same government that uses our incomes to bomb innocent Iraqi men, women and children today. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

It comes down to this really: you believe in tyranny or you don't. Is it ok for a select few to rule over and control the many even under the label of "good"? Is it ever ok for me to force someone to quit smoking, to quit drinking, to quit eating meat, to quit listening to Celine Dion, just because it's good for them? Should they have to go to jail because they are doing "bad" things to themselves? Who the hell am I to decide what is best for the rest of teh world? Who the hell are YOU?

"freedom exists in a cage" it means that for freedom to exist sometimes precautions are needed.

Wow..I have Never heard of the libertarian Party.
Politics ALWAYS confused me..So i never took apart of discussions or anything involving them. Also because I didn't know what I fell under with my beliefs.
The video made it so much easier to understand.
My dad always tried explaining Republicans, Democrats, and Comunists to me. And I didn't like the ideas to any of them. Communism apealed to me more than the others..but I still didn't like all the ideals of it.

I think I finally found my party lol.
I definitely want to do some more reading up on it of course. Anyone know some really good books?

edit- ha i just took the quiz to see if maybe there were some other parties i could look into..but sure enough i turned out Libertarian

This is a good and balanced introduction:

[url=http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192853880/sr=8-2/qid=1158701582/ref=sr_1_2/102-2694499-4176122?ie=UTF8&s=books] Politics: A Very Short Introduction[/url]

[quote=GrapeScentedGuru][quote]You argue that capitalism is "extremely" unstable. Fist, can you define what you mean by "extremely unstable"? Secondly, can you provide examples of a purely capitalistic market being extremely unstable please?[/quote]

The U.S.A, from 1927-1946, being the years from which the great Depression first began to fester, to the year when the GDP began to resume normal growth.[/quote]
The Federal Reserve Bank is a monopoly on the money supply (by government decision, not free market). It caused the great depression and all of it's unstability, poverty, and starvation. It's manipulation of the money supply ensured constant unstability. Fiat money is anti-capitalistic. With the Gold Standard and no fiat money, the Great Depression never would have happened.

[quote]No, and I agree with you there. My point however was that Capitalism too severely seperates the classes, such at 2% of the population holding 80% of the wealth as in the Gilded Age, and Socialism forces one class that ultimately creates dissatisfaction within itself through the logic you described above. I agree with you in what you say about the systems, however, I'd have to disagree with you in that our current system doesn't work. On the contrary, it's one of the most succesful in the world, and though there is much room for improvement, it is working.[/quote]
Mises.org. Learn economics.

You can't talk about wealth in terms of percentages. The economy is not a big pie where one group can only gain at the expense of others. It grows and shrinks. 80% of walth in the hands of 2% is not a bad thing. The 2% almost always invest that 80% in businesses which make the other 98% of the population's lives a lot better in ways that people simply couldn't without pooling of wealth.

[quote]When I say a blend of the two economies, I mean a free trade system in which one can choose a career and be paid accordingly, but one that is also regulated by a government so as to prevent monopolies and unjust working conditions.[/quote]
Regulations create monopolies. Smaller companies cannot deal with regulations, and go out of business. The larger companies that can tolerate them and maintain a profit inevitably take over the market the lost competitors would have had, and grow larger.

[quote]America's economy, though slightly more capitalistic than I'd like it to be, is an example of a blended economy, and so far it's doing extremely well. America has among the highest standards of living in the world, one of the lowest poverty rates, and a generally educated populace thanks to public programs funded by the socialist aspects of its economy.[/quote]
America's greatest growth was pre-1910, in the era of "Robber barons" (which is a spectacular misnomer). Before regulation of business was heavy was when America was becoming an economic power.

And Public education breeds dependency. The private sector can do it better, faster, cheaper, and without stealing your money to do it.

[quote]I'm not talking about simply mashing together the two systems, I'm talking about taking the working parts.[/quote]
If you were to take the working parts from Capitalism and Communism and put them together, you're left with Capitalism. The working parts of moderate communism (socialism) are all taken from Capitalism.

[quote]If we put them together in the way that we regulate entirely was people produce, but destroy all labor laws and monopoly limits, then the economy would be simply defunct. People wouldn't be able to, or even want to participate in the economy.[/quote]
Labor laws are most detrimental to the poor which are unemployed by those laws (people whose work is not worth $5 per hour cannot possibly find a job with minimum wages, child labor laws were actually enforced by religious nuts if I'm not mistaken (people doing work instead of going to church, couldn't have that)). Laws intended to limit monopolies actually create monopolies. Learn economics. Mises.org is a great start.

[quote=KCahill]My boss at my old job was an capitalist. He tought it was okay to pay us 4.50/hour, 11 hour shifts with no breaks or lunch, and make minors operate heavy machinery. Having no goverment involment is dangerous. Read "The Jungle" and then talk about free market.[/quote]
The basis for determining whether something is just or unjust, which is also something that you completely ignore, is a matter of voluntary vs involuntary. If it is involuntary, then it is bad. Murder, slavery, and theft are involuntary. If it is voluntary, then it is good. Dying for someone, helping someone else do something, or giving someone something is voluntary. Everything you spoke of is okay for the simple reason that it is entirely [b]voluntary[/b].

You are not bound to your boss by chains. If you don't like what your boss is paying you, quit. You can do that. If he wants to pay you $4.50 an hour and you don't like it, go work for someone else. When you accept a job, you and your boss agree on wages, hours, et cetera. Keyword here is "[b]agree[/b]". If you disagree, you don't take the job. If he won't meet your demands for the job, he doesn't give you the job. You can find other employers or try to work independanty.

Now, if you're "intellectually impaired" and can't do work that's worth a whole lot, let's say the most you can do is $5 per hour's worth of work, you might be happy to take a job for $4.50 an hour if the alternative is $0 per hour. If your work isn't worth $6.15 to your employer, you just don't get the job because that's the minimum wage. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment among the people who need jobs the most by preventing them from working. Unions know this damn well and that's why they support minimum wages. They know that cheap labor would displace them from their jobs and drive down their wages. That's why they want minimum wages, to keep the unskilled poor from holding a job, because that keeps them employed for high wages and keeps their employer in a chokehold.

Just look at the illegal immigrants. They would MUCH rather work for $3 per hour picking vegetables than not have a job. If you want to force them into unemployment, hey, go ahead. I hope you feel good about yourself. Fact is, the illegals [b]volunteer[/b] for those jobs. Any job you do is [b]voluntary[/b] unless you're forced to do it at gunpoint, but that's called slavery.

A common illusion is that with minimum wages, the employer will raise your wages to a minimum. That's now how it works. If your work is worth less than the minimum wage, they just don't hire you. You're a waste of money and they'd rather delegate the task to someone else that has a slightly higher wage and have them do both jobs.

A wage is just a price. If they passed a law saying everything at the grocery store had to cost $6.15 or more, you'd probably either buy in larger packages than you normally do or buy a lot less than you normally do. You wouldn't even consider buying a 6 pack of eggs for $6.15 when you could get a 36 pack for the same price. That's all a minimum wage is. A minimum price. People naturally like lower prices when they are consuming, and naturally like higher prices when they are producing.

Most people spend 8 hours of the day producing, 8 hours of the day consuming, and 8 hours alseep. Why the hell would you pass a law that helps you in the 8 hours of the day you're consuming but hurts you in the 8 hours of the day you're producing? What result do you expect? You could pay $5 for something that took 1 hour of work at $5 an hour or you could pay $6.15 for something that took 1 hour of work at $6.15 an hour. What do you think you're actually achieving?

Besides, I couldn't get a low wage job without trying. Hell, I work for KFC 3 days a week washing dishes and I got $7.50/hr starting, with no real skills and no relevant experience or knowledge. They hired me practically right on the spot. (No, I don't plan to be working there for long. I just need money till I get a better job.)

The same applies for breaks. If you'll take a job where you work 11 hours without breaks, that's fine. You [b]accepted[/b] that job. You [b]volunteered[/b] for that job. That's why it's okay. You are not their slave, you're their employee. Unlike a slave who has no choice, you can leave and look for a boss that'll bargain with you on hours, breaks, and wages until you can both agree.

And children can operate heavy machinery. One such example is the cardboard balers in the back of a grocery store. Big hydraulic press flattens out the cardboard when you push a button. Because of a law, you have to be 18 to throw boxes in a hole or push the button.

OH MY GOD WE HAVE 17 YEAR OLDS THROWING BOXES IN HOLES AND PUSHING BUTTONS WTF LABOR VIOLATION ITS DANGEROUS TO THROW BOXES AND PUSH BUTTONS

Seriously, can you see how absurd this is? And if the 17 year old thought the work was too dangerous, they'd only have to quit after seeing how dangerous the job is.

Equipment that takes skill to use probably won't be provided to any random 10 year old. A 10 year old would never get a job driving a forklift for example. Forklifts take skill to operate. You can't give a 10 year old a job expecting them to operate a forklift. A baler takes no skill to operate. A 10 year old could easily load and operate a baler (might need help clearing out a full chamber because the bales are heavy though).

These laws sound nice until you apply them and take a look at what they actually do. Then they look absurd.

No I have not read The Jungle. If you know of a free copy online, I'd like a link to it. It's clear as day to me that you haven't read anything about economics, or you had a horrible economics teacher. And you obviously didn't give Mises.org a shot either.

My perception is that it comes down to this: Your theory of justice is screwed up. Your idea of justice appears to go along the lines of "If I approve of it, then it is good. If I do not, then it is bad," or in other words "I know what's best for everybody, and those who disagree and don't do as I say ought to be locked up." People know what's best for themselves. You don't. You don't know everything about everyone in every situation to know what's best in any specific situation, especially one in which you are not even involved. Let them make their own decisions and keep the law out of it.

------
EDITED TO ADD

Something that comes out of my theory of justice is that anything involuntary is wrong. That means, if you cannot choose whether or not to engage in an exchange, then whoever is forcing you into it is wrong. If the government mafia sends it's goons in badges and patrol cars after you for trying to pay someone less than $6.15 an hour, that's involuntary. If you did not agree ahead of time with the police that if you were to pay someone $6.14 per hour, then they could come and use force against you, then it is involuntary. Because minimum wage laws are involuntary, they are wrong. It has much less to do with the practicality of it than the morality of it. I have a moral code so simple and so uniformly applied that the government is not exempt from judgement.

[quote=KCahill]I quit in August, Im a commissioner for Sears now. When a company gives out fyliers saying you get paid 10 dollars an hour and you get a paycheck three weeks later, where the price is 4.50 an hour, thats what you call [b]involuntary[/b].[/quote]
That's breaking a contract. I'm not talking about breaking contracts, I'm talking about accepting low wages. Of course promising one thing and delivering another is involuntary. Neither you nor I have ever mentioned promising one thing and delivering another. I was saying, if you voluntarily choose to accept low wages, there's nothing wrong about that which needs government to get involved.

[quote]Mexicians work for cheap since half go back to make the money they made here to turn to pesos.[/quote]
This doesn't contradict a word I said. They're still more than happy to accept $3 per hour for a job because the alternative is nothing. And there's nothing wrong with paying that little or accepting that little, and no government is needed.

[quote]Normally when you have a job you have to give in a thing called [b]resignation[/b] which means you have to continue to work for two more weeks before you can leave. People dont just go "oh I quit, bye". That leaves a bad reputation for when you go to another job and say well, I quit after three weeks with no warning. Or give excuses, which ends up making a bad first impression. Have you had a job like General Ulilty/Repair for an resturant? Probulary not, youd know that we get paid more than under minuim wage and get breaks.[/quote]
That has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about and you said nothing which contradicts a word I said. Either I'm missing your intent in typing this or you're rambling on about unrelated issues. Please point out the connection or try to avoid unrelated ramblings in the future.

[quote]Got a question, say I own a company and hire you as a manager in a small town, I pay you 5 an hour. You work 11 hours shifts, everyday, and overtime. You pay house and car notes, insurance, and gas can you affored the bills? No. What if it was a free market, you say quit, what happens if I own all resturants including eletric and water companies the town bank, etc. Where do you get a job at that pays enough for bills? Goverment bussiness? But theirs no regulations so they pay you 3 dollars an hour.[/quote]
First of all, you're not gonna be hiring any managers at $5 per hour. I know enough managers to know that it's not worth going through for $5/hr. So you're not gonna be hiring me in the first place.

I may wait until you are in desperate need of a manager. Then we can bargain on wages. If you don't meet my needs, I do something else. If someone else will do it for less than me, good for you and good for them.

If you own only all the business in the small town, I get work out of town.

If we assume you own absolutely all businesses in the world except the government, I'll start my own business. Without regulations stopping me from doing whatever I can however I want to provide services for others, I'll have no trouble making more money than you paid me. Your monopoly position made the market ripe for a competitor, and since you got on my bad side, I'm gonna compete with you. If I was able to get a loan from a friend or group of friends, or maybe sell stock in the company, I would start a business competing with yours, and pay my managers $1 per hour more than you. In fact, I'll pay all my employees more than you. Then I'll end up with all of your employees, and if you want your employees back, you'll have to bid up the wages until I can no longer one-up you and run a profitable business. Wages level out. There goes your $5 per hour management position, huh? You can't maintain that kind of wage in a free market unless we have some massive deflation, in which case $5 would buy what $30 or so buys today.

Besides, where's the regulation that says you have to hire managers for more than $6.15? Where's the law that says you can't hire them for 11 hours a day? Wouldn't it be perfectly legal in this mixed economy to do that?

Why doesn't something like that happen today? Because there is nothing preventing it from happening.

This is all mental masturbation...free markets do not create harmful monopolies. In the few cases where monopolies do form, it is because they provide a good or service better, faster, and cheaper so that nobody else in the field can compete (and tell me better/faster/cheaper is a bad thing), or because they provide something very recently invented which nobody has been able to duplicate and produce on their own (which no regulation will be able to fix). In all other cases, no monopoly can form because a business which pays higher wages or offers lower prices for it's products will quickly take market share from the so-called monopoly.

Are you going to read any REAL economic theory and attempt to make educated criticisms of my economic ideas or just sit here and regurgitate this easily refuted socialist garbage at me? Can you actually address my ideas as they apply in reality or will you have to conjure up a hypothetical reality which would not continue to exist in that state for more than a moment before the invisible hand takes it apart? At least get me thinking here.

I'm tired of this "What if there was an uber-monopoly" situation. Harmful monopolies do not form in the free market, because in the free market it is so easy to undercut a high-priced competitor that the "monopoly" makes the market ripe for new competitors to enter. Enormous, harmful monopolies only form when the government is used to destroy competition. Didn't I tell you a few times to go learn economics?

You have absolutely no idea how the free market works at all. I told you to go to that website and learn economics because if you keep asking questions I'm going to end up giving a course in economics which I don't particularly want to do.

The health of employees and customers in free market would be a lot like it is today. If you want someone to do an unhealthy job, you probably have to pay them a lot more to do it. If you sell your customers unhealthy products, they'll stop buying them. There's plenty of certification companies that could go and rate how clean a slaughterhouse is, for example. If they get a passing judgement from the rating or certification company, they can proudly display their grade in the store or commercials or wherever they want.

Minors would play by the same rules everyone else does. There's no real reason a 17 and 364-day-old cannot do something he can do a day later. There's no reason a 17 and 363-day-old cannot do something he can do a day later. Repeat logic backwards until the baby learns to walk, talk, and think (before which point, nobody would be hiring them for anything). I mean, you can only draw arbitrary lines to define what a "minor" is. I'm 18, and I've found that the only difference between being 18 and being 17 is the law. Every job I've had has been one I could have done just as well at 10.

If everyone made 50 cents per hour, how much would the price of everything on the market have to drop in order to still sell as much as is produced? Would the resulting decrease in prices be a bad thing?

Would you rather have 1 person working 18 hours a day or 2 people working 9 hours a day? Could you save on utilities by letting them operate in parallel at the same time? Are you in better thinking shape after 3 hours of work or after 12? Would a tired employee be more productive or less productive than a second employee?

Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki recently co-wrote a book called "Why we want you to be rich." Does that title say anything about how they feel? It's not like the greedy capitalist pigs want everyone poor except themselves. They want everyone to be rich.

Here's a link to a free book called "Healing our World". It's pretty short, you can probably read it in an afternoon or two. It'll explain away most of your problems with the free market.
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

Most relevant for you might be chapter 7, about monopolies. At least read chapter 7.
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap7.html

Please quote what I said to "start the monopoly".

I don't know what the second thing you said was. Did you mean Rockefeller? Rockefeller didn't give out money for people stocks? What are "People stocks"? Rockefeller did give away a lot of money. Read the top half of this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_gates.html

10 year olds are physically capable of operating cranes, cherrypickers and forklifts. The only reason I wouldn't hire one is because they don't have experience and are profoundly unlikely to have any certification. Though if a 10 year old was able to prove ability to drive a forklift, I'd consider hiring them just as much as I'd consider a 30 year old that was able to prove ability to drive a forklift. I'd have a manager watch him to make sure he wasn't goofing off or anything, like trying to race someone else in a forklift. Then they'd be fired just as fast as a 30 year old trying to race someone in a forklift would be. What comes with age is knowledge and maturity. Knowledge is easy to aquire and the jobs that require it are thus easy to get.

So yes. If you paid me enough to make it happen, and put me in a free market, I'd show you a 10 year old that could operate a forklift, cherrypicker, or crane. There's nothing that physically prevents them from doing it.

You keep mentioning The Jungle. If you'll be inconsiderate enough to not show me where I can find the book so as to address it, could you at least give me specific condemnations of the free market you found within the book, so that I may address them? If you keep referring to The Jungle as a reason for something without giving me any specifics, I'm going to have to call you on having no more evidence than a theist insisting on intelligent design. I can't refute "The Jungle" if I can't understand it, and if you don't help me understand it, you're part of the problem.

So give me some concrete examples instead of an abstract set of examples which you fail to even define.

And did you read that chapter of "Healing Our World" that I linked you to? I mean geez, when you tell me "OMFG BOOK SAY U WRONG" you just say "LOL JUNGLE". When I tell you "OMFG BOOK SAY U WRONG" I at least tell you "LOL U FIND IT HEER" so that you can read it and gain understanding. I can't honestly say you're returning the favor. If you expect me to read The Jungle to understand your arguement surely you can understand me expecting you to read Healing Our World to understand my arguement. Are you going to help me understand you are rely on my confusion?

I think I'm starting to understand your position:

WAR IS PEACE - You think use of guns on business owners will make things better.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - You think the free market results in people being exploited or mistreated.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - You refuse to read or acknowledge any material I provide for you to educate yourself.

Have any of my previous three statements been inaccurate?

[quote=KCahill]Rockefeller gave donation at the end of his life, keeping an extreme amount for himself.[/quote]
He'd been donating to charity since he was 19. If he had given away most of his money as he made it, he would not have been able to donate as much. The extremely wealthy do not simply amass money to fill swimming pools with. They put that money where it will make them even more money. By doing this he was able to make a lot more money which he would eventually give away. It should be obvious that the more money you have, the more you will give away. If you want people to give away more money, they have to earn it first. But I really can't expect you to know that because you've hardly demonstrated knowledge of economics or anything at all about money. Production isn't just about people. It's about people and money. The people will look out for themselves. The money needs to be free to go where people put it.

And are we quite finished on the 10 year olds in forklifts deal?

[quote]When did I say guns make peace? Are you talking about goverment using guns to make peace in a market? Last time I checked FDA doesnt bring shotguns to check the meat at Wal-Mart. [/quote]
You are stupid if you think the threat isn't present when dealing with regulatory authorities. It's not present here and now, but if you tell them "No, leave us alone and let us produce," someone is going to get arrested, and if you resist the act of kidnapping that is the arrest, you're going to get shot. The knowledge that even if guns are not visibly present during a government-authorized activity, that they will be used eventually to punish disobedience is the only thing that compels people to obey government. If government were not able to threaten violence against me, I would gladly simply stop dealing with it, as would most people. To completely disarm the police is to render law enforcement ineffective. People obey because the police have guns and will use them on a whim. That's the only reason they obey.

So the FDA is effectively a War on Business which is waged so that the consumer has peace.

WAR IS PEACE

[quote]Pure Market involves no rules or regulations, which you know that already just adding to the point, then why check if food you produce is not contaminated? Or the cans the company drops or dents and puts back on the belt, that might have botulism?[/quote]
Because people like security, and having a stamp on the label saying "Wilson Food Health Ratings Company gave this product an A" is reassuring to the customer and will increase sales. You didn't even try to answer that question for yourself before you asked it, did you?

[quote]Are you saying everything that comes from an Internet artilce true? So if I put in "God is real" on a Google search web any article saying so is true?[/quote]
Information from a source is better than no information at all, in case you haven't noticed. Even if the source isn't 100% reliable, you're more likely to get good information than bad information.

[quote]Not saying every book is, but they are if found in non-ficition. [/quote]
I'm sorry, did you just inadvertenly impeach The Jungle while attempting to impeach Healing Our World?

I want a list of specific greivances you have with the free market. It's easier to address them that way. Do it like

a) people may get paid 3 cents per hour
b) people may be worked 11 hours a day
c) people may be doing dangerous work
d) children may be working too hard
e) food might not be healthy enough
d) et cetera

That way I can address your economic ignorance in an organized fasion. It will also help me track when you completely ignore something I say which is incriminating to your beliefs, as I have seen you do already.

And you still haven't shown me a copy of The Jungle and you still haven't read Chapter 7 of Healing Our World and you still haven't shown any interest in learning economics so you can answer your questions for yourself. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Don't make me say it again.

In a Free Market:

A) Wheres the Social Secutriy?
B) The Retirement Age?
C) Why is there discrimmantion?
D) What is the work week?
E) Is the pay low?
F) Is thier inspections on food, drugs, etc?
G) Is the legal tender same since encomony isnt the same?
H) Are there any countries under a pure free market?

Without the goverment Union and Central Pacfic RRs wouldnt have connected to form the transcontinental RR (Since the gov wouldnt havent given them the grant.)

[quote]A) Wheres the Social Secutriy?[/quote]

Forced wealth redistribution you mean?, sorry there is no place for this in the free market, however im sure private companies will help out the people who may need it.

[quote]B) The Retirement Age?[/quote]

When you have saved up enough to support your self, there is your retirement age.

[quote]C) Why is there discrimmantion?[/quote]

If someone doesn't want you in there private proporty that's there right and there choice, however if you want you can ostrisize them and ask your friends not to visit there bussiness or proporty, and also anyone who is is racist or a bigit will not be allowed on my private proporty

[quote]D) What is the work week?[/quote]

That is decided by the employer and the employe, no need for government force on this topic, it's a private contract.

[quote]E) Is the pay low?[/quote]

maybe, if i can support my self for 2 dollars an hour i should be allowed to do so and the employer whos money is it should be allowed to pay me that, if i dont think that's a fair ammount i will find another job.

[quote]G) Is the legal tender same since encomony isnt the same?
[/quote]

No, there is no place for fiat currenctly in the free market, there will be tender backed up by gold or other metals or anything of worth people want to trade, in the system we have now, the fed can print as much money as they want and mess up the economy

[quote]H) Are there any countries under a pure free market?[/quote]

I'm not so sure about that, if there is i would like to very much know about it.

Why do you need to see a working example of the free market when you already see a nonworking example of a controlled market?