• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Regulations vs free market

Regulations vs free market

  • I want a command economy!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Srrong regulations

    Votes: 10 31.3%

  • Mild regulations

    Votes: 13 40.6%

  • Free market

    Votes: 8 25.0%

  • Can't decide

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Total voters
    32
jamesrage said:
Heck after this bail out nonsense with the too big to fail lie that many of these socialists were trying to push and the threat of another great depression then we should also restrict how big a company can get.This is so that when the company goes under it doesn't take a significant portion of the country with it. No company should receive government IE tax payer aid period.
Click to expand...
Yet many of the corporations that are deemed "too big to fail" got to that size due to government-approved mergers and acquisitions.


jasonxe said:
free market has it own regulations.
Click to expand...
How so? Is this where we hear the boilerplate mantra about how the consumer wields all the power?


Canell said:
If you are an employer and nobody wants to sweep your floor for $3 per hour, won't you raise the wage? :confused:
Yes, I believe it.
Click to expand...
Do you also support employers requiring that employees purchase exclusively from a company store?


RadicalModerate said:
But someone always will take the $3 in the real world and you know this. Especially if they're starving, I mean c'mon...there has to be some cognitive dissonance working here. If you were starving, you'd postpone eating for as long as it takes in order to get the guy to give you $4? That is ludacris and I don't buy it for a second.

And then to invoke the "nanny state"? How ideological can you get in one statement? Nanny state implies overbearing or excessive government assistance; assistance to a legitimately starving person is excessive?

Is this a libertarian syndrome? The absolute steadfast refusal to see the real world and preference for overly-simplified examples. And then to have the audacity to be all, "well, I'D do it!" when we all know damn well you wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom