Onion Eater

“If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality – that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country’s interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea’s truth or falsehood – that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided that it is held by a sufficient number of people – that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority – in short, gang rule and mob rule – if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in – and camouflaged by – the notion of ‘Government by Consensus’…

“The advocates of that notion would declare at this point that any idea which permits no compromise constitutes ‘extremism’ – that any form of ‘extremism,’ any uncompromising stand, is evil – that the consensus ‘sprawls’ only over those ideas which are amenable to ‘moderation’ – and that ‘moderation’ is the supreme virtue, superseding reason and morality.

“This is the clue to the core, essence, motive, and real meaning of the doctrine of ‘Government by Consensus’: the cult of compromise. Compromise is the pre-condition, the necessity, the imperative of a mixed economy. The ’consensus’ doctrine is an attempt to translate the brute facts of a mixed economy into an ideological – or anti-ideological – system and to provide them with a semblance of justification…

“The only danger, to a mixed economy, is any not-to-be-compromised value, virtue, or idea. The only threat is any uncompromising person, group, or movement. The only enemy is integrity.”

Source: Any Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1967, pp. 228-232.

__________________
Website: www.axiomaticeconomics.com

Motto: Critiques and rebuttals are how science advances.

Metropolis

I do. Let's be frank - Who, in their wildest dream, would take time out of their day to inject false lies and invalid information on the Wikipedia article for 'Black Book of Communism'. If it was on McCain, Obama, or any other modern (within the last three months) controversy, then I'd be more likely to understand that false data may be on there. But, we are talking about the black book of communism. Let's be real.

Even if you are not convinced 100% that it's legitimate, take it with a grain of salt. As long as nothing extremist is posted, or is totally out of context - It's fine.

I may be a Libertarian, however, I can (partially) understand where the other side is coming from.

Socialism has some great aspects, honestly. It allows a basis for everyone. It allows everyone to receive social benefits (whether it be health care, jobs, housing, etc) - along with the possibility for success. If you want to go ahead, start your own business and prosper, ultimately, it's there. Although, the underlying fact still remains - As time goes on, economics systems sway left. It's been evident in nearly every civilization. Looking at America, in the early 1900s, capitalism was at it's finest - No unions, no minimum wage, there was child labor. As the years progressed, social reform came. We became to have minimum wage, child labor laws, unions fighting for rights. What started from a bright red system was starting to fad, and turn purple. Which, unfortunately and pathetically, has cripped prosperity.

Socialism is a nice idea, however, it can only work for a small community. You would need something with a small population in order to have a fully functionable system. Which is where Capitalism has it's strong-hold, and dominance - It works best when there are more people.

That's.. a far reach. Like I stated before, socialism does not work on a large scale. There are simply too many people. If everyone knew each other, they'd be more likely to say 'yes' to paying taxes to help. However, when you have 300,000,000 people in a nation - A CEO in Manhattan is not going to know, let alone care, about a farmer in Kansas. It's harsh, but, it's how it is.

Another example - If your neighbor needed money, and he asked you - Are you going to be inclined to say yes? Of course. Where as, if someone in California asked you, you'd be more inclined to say no; you don't know them.

Mentork

That depends on your definition of "prosperity"

I mean if this



is "prosperity"...

If "prosperity" is dozens of people dieing in factory's every year dew to unsafe equipment...

Then yah, you could say it "crippled prosperity".


I'm not sure how to go about arguing with someone who is pro child labor...

Metropolis

It's not that I am pro-child labor. If you want to work, by all means, go for it. The government shouldn't stop you and say you can only work x amount of hours a week.

Mentork

Now, unless you are prepared to argue that a 12 year old child would work for 13 hours a day for below minimum wage because he wants to, then I don't really see how you have an augment.

Goldenboy219

Even if the US removed of all child labor laws, would that necessarily result in the picture you posted above?

Now days, we have an advanced means of communication. Any firm employing children in an unfit fashion would most likely be exposed on national television/ Youtube which would result in a public relations nightmare. Very counteractive when trying to win over "buyers"...

__________________
Firing your head coach: -15 wins
Trading Ben Wallace: +5 wins
Youngest team in NBA: -6 wins
Drafting Derrick Rose no.1 overall: Priceless

Metropolis

If they want to, why should they be stopped?

Mentork

Unless, of coarse, there goods were exported to another country, or they were selling a basic necessity of life. You can't exactly boycott the power company when they own the only plant within 150 miles...

Because employers shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of children.

Nobody, and i do mean nobody, wants to work in unsafe conditions for 14 hours a day, they would only do so if they had to. This goes double for children, the only reason an twelve year old would work in a factory is if his mother and father couldn't support the family on there own.

Furthermore kids should be at school, where is he going to get the time to do this?

Onion Eater

Goldenboy! Metropolis! You guys call yourselves libertarians and you're letting an 18-year-old socialist run circles around you!

Mentork is assuming his conclusion. His conclusion is that the only thing that stopped child labor in the past and prevents it today is legal prohibition.

By arguing that there were other possible ways to stop child labor, like shaming the factory owners (Goldenboy) or that it was not so bad as long as the 12-year-olds wanted to work (Metropolis), you have tacitly accepted Mentork's claim that what actually happened was that child labor was prohibited by law - and that it would re-emerge today if those laws were revoked.

Goldenboy, your argument that they lacked "advanced means of communication" in the past is all wet. There was nothing wrong with newspapers of the time and the "sob sisters" (female journalists who specialized in heartbreaking stories) did a fine job exposing problems like child labor.

Metropolis, your argument that 12-year-olds should be allowed to work in factories "if they want to" is also all wet because they did not want to. Their parents made them work; they beat their children if they came home without a paycheck. Anyway, 12-year-olds aren't of the age of consent - if Mentork was a better debater, he would have slammed you with the "what if a 12-year-old girl 'wants' to work as a prostitute?" argument.

The correct response is to challenge Mentork's assumption that the only thing that stopped child labor in the past and prevents it today is legal prohibition.

Does Mentork have proof that these laws did not just codify what the free market had already accomplished, the withdrawal of children from the work force?

Perhaps the free market raised the living standards of everybody enough that families no longer had to depend on their children's earnings to make ends meet.

Perhaps, due to the wonders of capitalism, the parents alone could support their families and voluntarily sent their children to schools rather than to factories.

Perhaps the government had nothing to do with the demise of child labor and just took credit for it after the fact.

Imagine that!

Goldenboy, you're a boxer; go on the offensive! Don't let Mentork define the terms of the debate. Make him prove that the demise of child labor did not happen as I describe. Make him prove that there are any Americans today who are so poor that, in the absense of legal prohibitions, they would make their 12-year-olds work in factories. (And how could they be so poor in the midst of capitalist plenty?) Put him on the defensive.

You let Mentork's scary photo put you on the defensive. (And imagine the backpedaling that Metropolis would be doing right now if Mentork had blindsided him with the 12-year-old-prostitute argument!) You'll never be a professional boxer if all you do is block the other guy's jabs and never try to line him up for a clout on the snooz. And you'll never be a professional debater if you let the other guy assume his conclusions.

Mentork

Great now it's three on one -__-.

I'll just put that one in my back pocket in case i ever need it, thanks.

As of 2007 37.3 million people are in poverty, with the definition of poverty being "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

The death rate before 60 for those in poverty in the U.S. Is almost twelve percent. People lacking functional literacy skills is exactly 20%. That is just the united states.

Sorce

Sorce


Things are not good the way they are, there are people who can't read, there are people with no home, there are people with no food.

What do you propose we do?