• 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!

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?

  • Total voters
    34
Harshaw said:
Your problem isn't actually with the free market. Your problem is with people. You simply don't like the choices they make, so you want to ensure they can't make those choices.

Thus, you detest freedom of choice. Which is to say, you detest freedom in general.
Click to expand...

So lets talk about the choices people make.

If I hate it when people chose to hurt others with acts like murder or assaulting them - do I then hate freedom of choice and to say I hate freedom also?

And if I legally try to take my opinions about people hurting others and enact them into law - do I then hate freedom even more on a grander scale?
 
Moderate Right said:
I never said the growing income gap was a myth so I didn't even look at your stupid links. Please pay attention. I said the growing income gap is totally irrelevant. So what if the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor? The poor have been better off since the caveman days. Income inequality is merely another form of jealousy by those that are jealous of those who have more. The left mistakenly believes that growing income inequality means the poor are getting poorer while the rich get richer. That is total and complete nonsense and fabrication. As I said, the poor have been getting better and better ever since caveman days. What does it matter that someone else gets richer at a faster pace?
Click to expand...

As a class the rich use their wealth to buy influence in politics to further enrich themselves and buy greater influence, and that cycle repeats until the lower classes are effectively locked out of policy decisions.
 
WillyPete said:
As a class the rich use their wealth to buy influence in politics to further enrich themselves and buy greater influence, and that cycle repeats until the lower classes are effectively locked out of policy decisions.
Click to expand...

We live in a Democracy. Voters can vote for whomever they want. What policy decisions do these people want to vote for which they can't vote for now?
 
Moderate Right said:
We live in a Democracy. Voters can vote for whomever they want. What policy decisions do these people want to vote for which they can't vote for now?
Click to expand...

We live in a republic, friend.

Our representatives are controlled by those that fund their campaigns.
 
WillyPete said:
We live in a republic, friend.

Our representatives are controlled by those that fund their campaigns.
Click to expand...

No matter how you want to spin it, this is a Democracy and people can vote for whomever they want, even Mickey Mouse. However, I don't totally disagree with you. If it hadn't been for Hillary and the DNC (including superdelegates) colluding to influence the Democratic primary, Bernie would have probably won - which would have made you wrong, although you wound up being right. In fact, Trump won not only the primary but the general election with millions and millions of dollars from both sides thrown in the garbage trying to stop him. The more people (including the media) who tried to stop him, the more voters realized this is their man. The fact is, untold millions on both sides were nothing but a waste because voters didn't vote where the money and influence wanted them to vote.
 
Moderate Right said:
No matter how you want to spin it, this is a Democracy and people can vote for whomever they want, even Mickey Mouse. However, I don't totally disagree with you. If it hadn't been for Hillary and the DNC (including superdelegates) colluding to influence the Democratic primary, Bernie would have probably won - which would have made you wrong, although you wound up being right. In fact, Trump won not only the primary but the general election with millions and millions of dollars thrown in the garbage trying to stop him. The more people (including the media) tried to stop him, the more voters realized this is their man. The fact is, untold millions on both sides were nothing but a waste because voters didn't vote where the money and influence wanted them to vote.
Click to expand...

A democracy would mean the population would vote on policy decisions. We vote on our representatives, and they vote for policy on our behalf.

We have a republic with democratic elections. That's not spin.

As far as the DNC, that's a private organization, so there's nothing binding them to be democratic or anything else. It's not a good look, and it may well have ultimately cost them the election, but they can scheme and conspire all they want internally.

Trump definitely played the media for all the free coverage he could get, and did attract votes from the underclasses, but if he wasn't a wealthy, famous business man with a national following, he wouldn't have been allowed to participate any more than you or I.

P.S. We're derailing this thread a bit, maybe you'd like to open a "USA IS TOO A DEMOCRACY!!!" thread?
 
Harshaw said:
You keep using a lot of words to say "people are stupid, and I want to force them to make the choices I, personally, think are better, for the common good."

Why not just say it plainly?
Click to expand...

Most people are followers. In their bones. Its how the species works.

Some leaders suck, as some members of every group suck.

They will mis-lead people for their own benefit.

As such, social constructs are always suspect.

History clearly demonstrates this.

As we will always be ruled, because so many are genetically pre-disposed to follow, who rules and how they rule must be constantly watched.

Because the assholes will **** it all up eventually. Its happened over and over.
 
A Free Market society is the worst possible economic system....



.... except for all the alternatives. :)
 
Goshin said:
A Free Market society is the worst possible economic system....



.... except for all the alternatives. :)
Click to expand...


I prefer to think that rapacious Capitalism is the natural state of humanity.

At least then we're following our instincts.
 
WillyPete said:
I prefer to think that rapacious Capitalism is the natural state of humanity.

At least then we're following our instincts.
Click to expand...

Following our instincts without keeping them in check is essentially the problem considering we're deeply flawed Primates--I have talked about this elsewhere. Now, we have good instincts as well as bad, and encouraging the former while keeping the ladder controlled (to the best of our ability--and to be cognizant of this dynamic) is our best option in order to produce healthy individuals and society
 
WillyPete said:
A democracy would mean the population would vote on policy decisions. We vote on our representatives, and they vote for policy on our behalf.

We have a republic with democratic elections. That's not spin.

As far as the DNC, that's a private organization, so there's nothing binding them to be democratic or anything else. It's not a good look, and it may well have ultimately cost them the election, but they can scheme and conspire all they want internally.

Trump definitely played the media for all the free coverage he could get, and did attract votes from the underclasses, but if he wasn't a wealthy, famous business man with a national following, he wouldn't have been allowed to participate any more than you or I.

P.S. We're derailing this thread a bit, maybe you'd like to open a "USA IS TOO A DEMOCRACY!!!" thread?
Click to expand...

What policy decisions do you want the country to vote on? So, Hillary and the DNC rigging the election process to cut out the average Joe doesn't bother you? It's OK for Hillary to get free press but because Trump got more free press, that's not OK? I just explained to you how all the money in the election actually bought nothing because all the money in the election was actually against Trump, not for him. Voters aren't following the money anymore, that's why Trump won.
 
The theory of a "free market" system is just a basic ideological concept. It is an economic system that is supposed to be free from any intervention by a government. It is the essence of capitalism. The fact that the U.S. government largely gave subsidies to select companies to build the rail road and develop the oil market during the Reconstruction era and the Gilded Age should be enough to teach people that it really doesn't exist, nor is such a thing sensible in its absolutism.
 
WillyPete said:
We live in a republic, friend.

Our representatives are controlled by those that fund their campaigns.
Click to expand...

A republic may be a form of democracy.

Not all of our representatives are fully controlled by the funders of their campaigns.
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).
Click to expand...

I chose other because you're right, in a manner, but wrong in another. It's both sensible and nonsensical.

1. Yes, people will get into, and spend their time and money on, all kinds of nonsensical things. You've pointed out some.

2. Yes, it absolutely is sensible in the way that it's the best system out there. Obviously I don't believe in 100% laissez-faire economics, but a form of free market with some controls is the best.

Having another system will break. It doesn't address that humans have individual wants and needs and would end up just being oppressive and would kill things like entrepreneurship and ingenuity.
 
imagep said:
A republic may be a form of democracy.

Not all of our representatives are fully controlled by the funders of their campaigns.
Click to expand...

Is that (bolded above) supposed to be comforting? It is apparent that enough of them are to generate all sorts or "special" deductions, credits and exemptions such that the same amount of income is taxed differently not only based on its source but on how and upon who it was later spent.

Why is it that (personal) income from wages or salary is taxed in a very progressive manner yet business or investment income is taxed a flat (and often lower) rate? Do you suppose that just might have something to do with who can (and does) hire lobbyists and/or make memorable campaign contributions?
 
Moderate Right said:
What policy decisions do you want the country to vote on? So, Hillary and the DNC rigging the election process to cut out the average Joe doesn't bother you? It's OK for Hillary to get free press but because Trump got more free press, that's not OK?
Click to expand...

Didn't say any of that, but in general I'm ok with private orgs doing whatever they want short of violence.


I just explained to you how all the money in the election actually bought nothing because all the money in the election was actually against Trump, not for him. Voters aren't following the money anymore, that's why Trump won.
Click to expand...

A single outlier, even a president, is hardly a huge shift in momentum.

And it matter less what voters do than who those that are elected take their instruction from.
 
imagep said:
A republic may be a form of democracy.
Click to expand...

Maybe, though I think once you pass your vote to a representative, it's hard to rationalize that it's a democracy.


Not all of our representatives are fully controlled by the funders of their campaigns.
Click to expand...

An optimist! Enjoy that, though look how hard you had to qualify that statement.

I guess we don't need to worry until the legislature is 110% corrupted.
 
xMathFanx said:
Following our instincts without keeping them in check is essentially the problem considering we're deeply flawed Primates--I have talked about this elsewhere. Now, we have good instincts as well as bad, and encouraging the former while keeping the ladder controlled (to the best of our ability--and to be cognizant of this dynamic) is our best option in order to produce healthy individuals and society
Click to expand...

If you haven't already you might enjoy the Freakonomics books. They deal with using incentive to control human behavior quite a bit.

Seem like you've got the problem bracketed, but you can't set policy with generalities.

What specific changes in government policy would you propose, and at what level of government?
 
A point well taken, and again you are preaching to the choir here with me 'philosophically'; many times I have... if not almost quoted you but paraphrased much of what you have said. A friend of mine, with a Master's degree and a teacher once said it was not right that he was not making as much as construction workers with only a high school education...and philosophically he is correct...but....at that point in time there was a need for the welders and various other crafts..or a 'market' for it. I told him that maybe he should consider using his education elsewhere. Needless to say, that was not received well by him. If the market does not produce the income values for various goods and services...then who or what does? That is the question. The problem.... is 'just' or 'fairness' can be abused by a carpenter as well as a research scientist or professor at a university. Someone will have to set the scales of 'how much who gets paid' and this may not be calculated by 'need' or supported by the economy.

To make a long story short, I don't trust the government or an entity to be in charge of fairness. The market can in most cases weed out the garbage....but allowing individuals who may be biased to be in charge of fixing wages and creating winners and losers in the economy I feel is an accident looking for a place to happen. If people didn't spend the money for tickets, cable, and advertising parafunalia ...these people wouldn't be making the millions they make ...but people do...I don't agree as mentioned in the previous post.. I'm in your amen corner. The Romans...while the empire was crumbling and people starving went to the colluseum; that tells you a lot about us. Old habits die hard.

best regards and Happy New Year!
seax
 
WillyPete said:
Didn't say any of that, but in general I'm ok with private orgs doing whatever they want short of violence.




A single outlier, even a president, is hardly a huge shift in momentum.

And it matter less what voters do than who those that are elected take their instruction from.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are saying that all elected officials are scumbags because they will all get bought and not actually represent their constituents. What do you propose to do about that?
 
Moderate Right said:
In other words, you are saying that all elected officials are scumbags because they will all get bought and not actually represent their constituents. What do you propose to do about that?
Click to expand...

Damned if I know. Colonize space?

Capitalism corrupts everything, even though it best suits our natures as humans.

We haven't thus far been able to overcome our natures (en masse.)

?
 
WillyPete said:
Damned if I know. Colonize space?

Capitalism corrupts everything, even though it best suits our natures as humans.

We haven't thus far been able to overcome our natures (en masse.)

?
Click to expand...

Why do you cry about something that you yourself don't have a solution for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom