Simple Living...

[Algol Omega]

It seems like you are arguing not for the abolition of government but for the privatisation of government.

Not quite. I don't believe it is the government's place to regulate in 90% of the ways it does; that it should never have been interfering in the private world.

The objection I have is if I can't trust elected government that much to run things, who's to say that 'Ronald McDonald' will do a better job?

For one, you cannot boycott your own government (without moving); you cannot sue your own state (at least, you can't really do so in the same independent manner as you can with any corporation). For two, it is in each corporation's best interest to govern themselves. Finally, whatever laws are made, any decent and intelligent corporation that knows its worth is going to find a way around when and where it can if it wants; not true for a small business; that is unless, of course, you really want a tyrannical state wherein everything begins and ends with a state system (which even then, the corruption will become bigger, and you won't be able to stop it).

I think that the case of China has proven that is government (or the 'powers that be') allow big business freedom to pollute or to expose workers to hazardous chemicals, then they often will. As those things concern me, then I feel its in my interest to seek to limit their freedom, however unamerican that may sadly sound.

Well for one, I still dispute the idea of Environmentalism, again. Secondly, the environment is the interest of the corporation. Thirdly, nobody is forcing their employees to do anything. Those workers are exposing themselves willingly, and far too often they do it stupidly.

BTW congratulations on graduating from high school, I take it. Was defending the constitution and glorifying the founding fathers a necessary condition of release into the "adult world" comrade, or should I say "gangsta"?

Pitiful, why don't you come out-right and say whatever it is you're holding back in your head there?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not quite. I don't believe it is the government's place to regulate in 90% of the ways it does; that it should never have been interfering in the private world.

I am not an expert in economics so don't have the answer here, if in fact its economics we're discussing. But haven't we just seen what unregulated markets can do (global recession)? Also, aren't anti-monopoly, or anti-cartel price fixing laws there for a good reason.

For one, you cannot boycott your own government (without moving);

True.

you cannot sue your own state (at least, you can't really do so in the same independent manner as you can with any corporation).

Good one. I think they ought to be accountable by law for protection of the population, if it is legally practicable

For two, it is in each corporation's best interest to govern themselves.

Ok but there are more intereststhan corporate interests.

Finally, whatever laws are made, any decent and intelligent corporation that knows its worth is going to find a way around when and where it can if it wants;

I don't believe that for long. Why was microsoft split for example, when it didn't want it?

not true for a small business; that is unless, of course, you really want a tyrannical state wherein everything begins and ends with a state system (which even then, the corruption will become bigger, and you won't be able to stop it).

I see some pretty emotive language filtering through here.

Well for one, I still dispute the idea of Environmentalism, again.

You dispute that that people for instance want to protect animals from cruel farming techniques?

Secondly, the environment is the interest of the corporation.

Maybe in the long term interests, but not always the shareholder's. Also, thinks like animal rights are often expensive.

Thirdly, nobody is forcing their employees to do anything.

Well, they might starve to death on a street corner as the alternative option.

Those workers are exposing themselves willingly, and far too often they do it stupidly.

I am sure that the choices facing some Chinese workers are pretty horrible. You know, IQ is pretty much the same in China as it is in America. I know in America that at the moment some people aren't recieving adequate health care, so IMO so much for small government. I can imagine the situation worstening is government got even smaller.

Pitiful, why don't you come out-right and say whatever it is you're holding back in your head there?

maybe was trying to be too clever. My question was genuine. Based on what I possibly know, Americans are taught in school to defend the constitution. In the UK we are not taught anything abut the political system, as far as I can recall. So its good to learn politics, but when does education become indoctrination? Thats why I asked, is it necessary to be pro-constitution to get a pass from school?


Having said all of that, maybe I'm just arguing by reflex because I belong to a Statist regime, and have been brainwashed by continual exposure to the status quo politics in the media.

 

[Algol Omega]

I am not an expert in economics so don't have the answer here, if in fact its economics we're discussing. But haven't we just seen what unregulated markets can do (global recession)? Also, aren't anti-monopoly, or anti-cartel price fixing laws there for a good reason.

No, since America isn't a Capitalist economy. At best, it's Keynesian; but corporatism is a more defining term for what we've gone through.

But let's assume we did go through a time of unregulated markets. Do you really want to bailout the people that sat by and just let it happen when those employees had the power to stop it themselves? In life, the best teacher is often harm itself.

True. Good one. I think they ought to be accountable by law for protection of the population, if it is legally practicable

Well, that's exactly the problem. Any justice system is always going to be a part of the overall governing body. Judges, et.al, share a conflict of interest with anything relating to the governing body thereof. (Also why I don't believe why our Supreme Court justices should be life-terms.)

Ok but there are more interests than corporate interests.

I don't deny that. But I'm going to share my own parable below.

I don't believe that for long. Why was microsoft split for example, when it didn't want it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or pinpoint...

I see some pretty emotive language filtering through here.

Hmmm?

You dispute that that people for instance want to protect animals from cruel farming techniques?

In terms of animals, that's IMO something for another argument. Point blank, I don't accept global warming.

Maybe in the long term interests, but not always the shareholder's.

I'd go further about it being in the shareholders' interests. When you invest your own money in something, you're risking money in hopes that either the product is better and/or the company will actually do well.

I still got a parable coming...

Also, thinks like animal rights are often expensive.

I must disagree.

In terms of cattle and other livestock, ranchers were always good at upkeep. It was not only in their customers' best interest, but their best interest to keep animals fed, and they knew it. The best beef and pork, even now, come from those ranchers. Contrast that with the majority of meat today, how the big farming industries are subsidized, are the same ones injecting all sorts of trash into those livestock, while producing horrifying meat.

If the farming industry wasn't so badly subsidized, while the pricing of foods could increase, we'd likely see much better quality meats as animals would be treated better. I'm pretty sure there is empirical evidence out there showing better treatment of animals does equate to better food.

Well, they might starve to death on a street corner as the alternative option.

Or they can go elsewhere, protest, etc. An employer doesn't have the moral obligation to risk his capital into an employee; it is the employee's job to prove himself worthy of the risk.

I am sure that the choices facing some Chinese workers are pretty horrible. You know, IQ is pretty much the same in China as it is in America. I know in America that at the moment some people aren't recieving adequate health care, so IMO so much for small government. I can imagine the situation worstening is government got even smaller.

Adequate or inadequate healthcare, we have only the inalienable rights to and of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not the right to require that someone else is coerced from their own fruits of labor.

maybe was trying to be too clever. My question was genuine. Based on what I possibly know, Americans are taught in school to defend the constitution. In the UK we are not taught anything abut the political system, as far as I can recall. So its good to learn politics, but when does education become indoctrination? Thats why I asked, is it necessary to be pro-constitution to get a pass from school?

I wish it was that simple. In the 90s, I only had one teacher that really caught on about the U.S. Constitution. Most adults now don't even know we have a constitution, or they believe it to be irrelevant. The few that believe in a constitutional republic, that believe in our forefathers such as and most especially Thomas Jefferson, are often labeled as domestic terrorists.

In reality, our government has broken the U.S. Constitution since the mid-1800s. Neither Bush nor Obama are any exception.

Having said all of that, maybe I'm just arguing by reflex because I belong to a Statist regime, and have been brainwashed by continual exposure to the status quo politics in the media.

I would firstly suggest reading what was once your own constitution, the Magna Carta. It laid out many ideas our forefathers adapted into our Declaration of Independence and our own constitution. Then go from there.

Oh, forgot about the parable... I'll put that in its own post in this thread shortly; and it's something along the lines of a parable, but not really that.

 

[Algol Omega]

Let's say you just built your own business after risking your own capital. Since you care about your money, for what reason is there not to care about your consumers, or those you employ? Your consumers are the ones paying you, so without them, you won't get any money. Those you employ, are your invested associates, are they not? You did risk capital investing in them, so should you not want them to perform at their best? After all, the employee does form the backbone of your company, unless you do the dirty work yourself.

Your shareholders, on the other hand, risked their own capital by investing in your company so you could make things better. So it logically follows that, if they want a returned investment, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't care about your customers nor employees.

Without a decent environment, there is no workplace; no workplace, and there is no business.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So why do we neem Health and Safety regualtions to be enforced by law, rather then voluntary agreement? Why in China where there is more freedom for business, do we see workers exposed to hazardous chemicals, and rivers polluted? Also, why in America where there is smaller goverment than in the UK, are some people still left without dentistry or some of the more basic medical coverage? After all itf free markets with a smaller state are meant to provide good for all, then that ought not be the case. So at the moment because I feel for the vulnerable in society, I still think government is a good idea.

And I don't imagine that people will "evolve" out of vulnerability, as there will always be weaker as well as stronger people born.


BTW under libertarianism would I be able to buy my own machine guns and rocket launcher without licence?

 

[Gracchus]

Let's say you just built your own business after risking your own capital. Since you care about your money, for what reason is there not to care about your consumers, or those you employ? Your consumers are the ones paying you, so without them, you won't get any money. Those you employ, are your invested associates, are they not? You did risk capital investing in them, so should you not want them to perform at their best? After all, the employee does form the backbone of your company, unless you do the dirty work yourself.

Your shareholders, on the other hand, risked their own capital by investing in your company so you could make things better. So it logically follows that, if they want a returned investment, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't care about your customers nor employees.

Without a decent environment, there is no workplace; no workplace, and there is no business.

But, if I have money, I can always hire more employees, even if I use up the old ones, and as for customers... "There's a sucker born every minute!"


'

 

[Gracchus]

But to get back to the OP which linked to a thread about living in tents:

Living in a tent is not simple. It is complex, time consuming, and, in certain seasons, extremely unconfortable.

Been there, done that, got the field jacket.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But to get back to the OP which linked to a thread about living in tents:

Living in a tent is not simple. It is complex, time consuming, and, in certain seasons, extremely unconfortable.

Been there, done that, got the field jacket.

Yup tents are though.

I used to live without tv or music collection, and try and eat austerely too (rice and vegetarian food). Nowadays I am too weak willed for such simple living.