Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. -
Republican Congressman Peter Sessions There has arisen a movement to disassemble the United States government one piece at a time. It appears to be a
(
Read more... )
Comments 97
Reply
"I think that anyone who thinks an unrestrained free market is a good idea needs only to look at the Gilded Age, the existence of large-scale populist/socialist movement, and the ability of the likes of Morgan, Carnegie, Gould, and Rockefeller to have Federal troops break up strikes"
The use of Federal Troops to break a strike is proof that it was NOT an unrestrained Free Market but rather a Mercantlist state.
Further even when they did not use Federal Troops but rather private detectives/mercenaries as with Carnegie's use of the Pinkertons the fact that they were not charged with murder for doing so is proof that it was not a Free Market.
The very fact that corporations and industrialists were allowed to use force with impunity is the very antithesis of a Free Market whose central feature is a single consistent set of rules for EVERYBODY.
So you have made a good argument against Mercantilism but you have not touched on a Free Market system at all.
Reply
You've made a very good argument against Stalinist state capitalism but you have not touched on a Communist system at all."
Reply
Reply
An Athiest may not see much seperation between Eastern Orthodox Catholics and Sunni Muslims but culturally they are worlds apart.
Furthermore you've failed to adress your opponent's core assertation, namely "Power Corrupts, ergo political power should be disperesed to the greatest extent possible to prevent abuse."
Reply
Which could also be said about financial power, you socialist
Reply
The issue with socialism/communism as it is most often advocated by the left is that economic wealth/power is to be centrally controlled. Inorder to maintain this control the distributer need to be able to exercise a monopoly on legitimate force.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Germany has done well because its labor-market institutions encourage employers to cut hours not workers. Instead of laying off 20 percent of workers, say, a firm can instead lower the average hours of its employees by 20 percent. Both accomplish the same goal, but from a social point of view, cutting hours is much better because it shares the pain more equally and keeps workers tied to their jobs.
By tying unemployment into this reduced-hours program, people are able to keep their jobs and not collect as much unemployment as if they were outright fired. I can totally understand this, since everyone saves money here: the business from not paying as much but keeping the labor of the worker, the government from not having to give out as much unemployment, and of course the worker himself for keeping his job.
The German system gives employers many incentives to cut hours instead of workers. The most ( ... )
Reply
which, in and of itself, is very Un-American!
Reply
Leave a comment