NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

A whole slew of European countries?

Social democracy.

Yep, social democracy. The right way to go.

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

A representative democracy with a left-leaning mixed economy.

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

There are a few different types of countries that you could fall under... A republic could in fact be like this, (such as the US) with a bit of tweaking in our social programs such as Education, welfare, and public health. A Progressive tax is nothing uncommon, we do in fact already have the wealthiest paying the highest percentage of taxes (capital gains tax raised by 19% on the wealthy since 2000, only 9% for the unwealthy). Free elections are also a trait of a social democracy or a republic, so again not uncommon traits... I agree with the others, but bear in mind that health care is never "FREE"... Canadians currently pay 12.9% of their GDP to have universal coverage, but this money comes from taxes (income, sales, etc) By no means is it free...

I wish the USA was more socialist like this, maintaining democracy of course, instead they are too capitalist and the poor get the short end of the stick usuall while the wealthy and the middle class strive. Not saying that we should be leeches and depend on the goverment for everything, but I do belive when a individual is in need of economic help and that person is in a dire situation, the goverment should step in and help it's citizens not just leave them out to fend for themselfs in a desperate situation.

Seems to me a socialist democracy would be the the best way to go I agree in those boundaries described.

If the citizens have to pay more taxes to help your common man, with healthcare so we can all be healthy then why not though?

Hey since you guys look like you know your government types and all...

I wanna know about my gov't preference, too. Ok, I'm basically the opposite of Solaris-X. I don't think there should be taxes at all. But practically EVERYTHING needs to be paid for. It needs to seem like there's choice for everything, even a way to get out of paying for stuff (but then there'd be lots of spam in your mail and you'd have to pay for OTHER stuff)... Yeaaah... That's the life for me...

Oh yeah and I also like the idea of a democracy (like, with electing the president and electing/choosing other things) - but still keep in mind that I think every little thing (related to services/rights) should be paid for...

Hey since you guys look like you know your government types and all...

I wanna know about my gov't preference, too. Ok, I'm basically the opposite of Solaris-X. I don't think there should be taxes at all. But practically EVERYTHING else needs to be paid for. It needs to seem like there's choice for everything, even a way to get out of paying for stuff (but then there'd be lots of spam in your mail and you'd have to pay for OTHER stuff)... Yeaaah... That's the life for me...

"anarcho"-capitalist

If the citizens have to pay more taxes to help your common man, with healthcare so we can all be healthy then why not though?

Some people want to keep their money and couldn't give a crap about others. Others cite charity as an alternative.

Not saying I agree with either.

If theres no taxes how is everthing gona be paid for? Unless you are a imperialistic facist country that takes over other countries, for resources then i can see how you would not need to tax your own people.

If the citizens have to pay more taxes to help your common man, with healthcare so we can all be healthy then why not though?
Two things:
1. People don't like taxes, because it leaves them with less money.
2. People think that healthcare would run more efficiently as a business than it would under government control.

If theres no taxes how is everthing gona be paid for? Unless you are a imperialistic facist country that takes over other countries, for resources then i can see how you would not need to tax your own people.

Two alternatives here:

1. Corporations pay for things, and people pay for the services they provide.

2. We ditch money and allocate resources in another way.

Two things:
1. People don't like taxes, because it leaves them with less money.
2. People think that healthcare would run more efficiently as a business than it would under government control.

I think its a fair sacrifice to pay a bit more taxes to help everyone equally with something as important as healthcare, especially poor people, that usually have no health care plan, and are left to die cause they can't afford medicines. What you think about that? you rather have these people die cause you wanted to save a bit more cash? that's really sad. I don't know maybe that's just the way I think.

If theres no taxes how is everthing gona be paid for? ...

Well, all the optional stuff like health care and even, like, maybe police forces and stuff is paid-for kinda individually. Like I'm thinking citizens can have their own little checklist of stuff they wanna have (and therefore, pay for) for themselves. A little personal checklist that government people take care of. And probably at anytime a citizen can change their checklist for a while and all. But the price for whatever's checked is taken out monthly/yearly/whatev from the citizen's bank account... And lots of other personal plans seem really personal... even though it's all based on this high-tech code that even the gov't don't know how to work - they just get the money and are happy...

...Actually I just made that up as I went along... But still. It'd be something like that. I just don't like the idea of taxes - paying for eveything, while it's not everything you want for yourself.

I think its a fair sacrifice to pay a bit more taxes to help everyone equally with something as important as healthcare, especially poor people, that usually have no health care plan, and are left to die cause they can't afford medicines. What you think about that? you rather have these people die cause you wanted to save a bit more cash? that's really sad. I don't know maybe that's just the way I think.

I said "people", meaning "some people". Not meaning me. I think there should be government-funded health serivce.

What you are describing is "social democracy". Most countries of western Europe (especially Scandinavian countries, and France/Germany) are more or less like that, but not totally (fully free education or healthcare doesn't exist, it's mostly free, but not totally), and it's currently being disbanded... Europe nowadays is much more capitalist and much less social than 20 years ago, and it's continuing on this direction... thank you non-democratic European Union, and thank you traitors who call themselves "social democrats" and "left" but just disband the social program nearly as quickly as the right...

This topic is really interesting, I like hearing all your opinions and debating them and also, I note how you meant people and not you, sorry the misunderstanding.

This topic is really interesting, I like hearing all your opinions and debating them and also, I note how you meant people and not you, sorry the misunderstanding.

Wait, people and not who? o_o

And yes I agree that this topic is REAAALLY interesting! Hope more people jump in. :D

I said "people", meaning "some people". Not meaning me. I think there should be government-funded health serivce.

I meant it for him. hehe.

"anarcho"-capitalist

Ok I'd like to know what anarcho-capitalists generally think... It's most likely me... But I'm definitely not so much into anarchy. Thanks for that, though. ;)

Two things:
1. People don't like taxes, because it leaves them with less money.

But they like free education, free healthcare, good quality public transports, clean streets, ...


2. People think that healthcare would run more efficiently as a business than it would under government control.

Which is utterly false. French citizen spend less in healthcare than US citizen (9% of the GDP for French, 13% of the GDP for USA), we have much better quality (higher life expectancy, lower childdeath rate, ...) and no one is excluded from it (well, many things are not completly free, but at least all life-critical ones are, and if you are poor you get special help called "CMU"). Our mostly state-controlled system is much more efficient than US mostly corporate-controlled one.

And even inside France, 95% of what enters the "Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie" (the public health system) goes back to pay healthcare, while only 85% of what goes to private insurances (which handle stuff the public healthcare doesn't handle - saddly -, like dental care or glasses) goes back to clients of those insurances (the remaining get spent in advertising or giving as profits to share holders).

So, definitely, public healthcare is much more efficient.

I meant it for him. hehe.

LOL okay, sorry, thanks. ^^

You would definitely like a democratic socialist country.

Ok I'd like to know what anarcho-capitalists generally think... It's most likely me... But I'm definitely not so much into anarchy. Thanks for that, though. ;)
They believe that the state should disband and capital should control every aspect of society, directly or indirectly.

Minarchists are a little less extreme, they believe that the government should exist, but only play an active role in the enforcement of business contracts or possibly national defence.

I don't believe either will work.

They believe that the state should disband and capital should control every aspect of society, directly or indirectly.

Minarchists are a little less extreme, they believe that the government should exist, but only play an active role in the enforcement of business contracts or possibly national defence.

I don't believe either will work.

I don't belive that will work either, too extreme for my taste.

You would definitely like a democratic socialist country.

No. Socialism means social ownership of means of production: means of production being owned either by the community (state, city, ...) or by the workers who work in it. What he described is still capitalism: private ownership of means of production. But with measures to prevent the worse consequences of capitalism. That's what we call "social democracy".

Just imagine a world without money, where you have free education, free food, free healthcare, free clothes, free entertainment, free holidays, a free weekend on a yacht, free, free, free...

Seems so utopic, doesn't it?

Yet, you could remove money from the world right now and things could still work, machines could have electricity, food would still grow, cows would still produce milk, teachers would still know how to teach and doctors would how to heal.

The truth is that we could have EVERYTHING we have today and much, much more, had we not invented money. We had the resources, the manpower, the skills, everything...

Money is what allows a few to have only for themselves what we could all share.

Just imagine a world without money, where you have free education, free food, free healthcare, free clothes, free entertainment, free holidays, a free weekend on a yacht, free, free, free...

Seems so utopic, doesn't it?

Yet, you could remove money from the world right now and things could still work, machines could have electricity, food would still grow, cows would still produce milk, teachers would still know how to teach and doctors would how to heal.

The truth is that we could have EVERYTHING we have today and much, much more, had we not invented money. We had the resources, the manpower, the skills, everything...

Money is what allows a few to have only for themselves what we could all share.

This much is true; the challenge lies in creating a distribution system to replace it.

No. Socialism means social ownership of means of production: means of production being owned either by the community (state, city, ...) or by the workers who work in it. What he described is still capitalism: private ownership of means of production. But with measures to prevent the worse consequences of capitalism. That's what we call "social democracy".

Yeah, exactly. It's an important distinction to make.

This much is true; the challenge lies in creating a distribution system to replace it.

Exactly, money is not what you are trying to get rid of, the capitalistic distribution of property is.

This much is true; the challenge lies in creating a distribution system to replace it.

We've gone to the moon and came back... We've mapped the human DNA... We know what the sun is made of...

Kanabia, the challenge is not so much in creating a distribution system as it is in our obsession with individual ownership, our inability to share things with others.

We've gone to the moon and came back... We've mapped the human DNA... We know what the sun is made of...

Kanabia, the challenge is not so much in creating a distribution system as it is in our obsession with individual ownership, our inability to share things with others.

I'm pretty much an anarchist-communist myself, so no need to remind me of that. :) Changing people's attitudes is only part of the process, though. We need to figure out a system to replace monetary ownership that can effectively and fairly allocate wealth and resources while maintaining the luxuries and advances we enjoy today. As much as i'd like to agree with you, I don't think we can fairly state that because people want to do something, we can do so with little effort. (not saying we can't, either, just that it won't be a simple process of abolishing money.)

I'm pretty much an anarchist-communist myself, so no need to remind me of that. :)

OOooopss.... Sorry... hehehe

Changing people's attitudes is only part of the process, though. We need to figure out a system to replace monetary ownership that can effectively and fairly allocate wealth and resources while maintaining the luxuries and advances we enjoy today. As much as i'd like to agree with you, I don't think we can fairly state that because people want to do something, we can do so with little effort. (not saying we can't, either, just that it won't be a simple process of abolishing money.)

Certainly won't be simple and most certainly will never happen and the reason why it won't happen is because we, even you, tend to think in terms of distribution, instead of sharing.

Why do you need to own a car? Because you want to be able to get anywhere at whatever time you want? Does this mean buying a car is the only way? Right now yes, but we could have cars that could be shared, so no one owned a car. Each car, and the resources spent on making it and maintaining it, would be used much more efficiently. The only things that had to be "distributed" are essentials like food. With food, again, we would be much more efficient, since we wouldn't waste food simply because we couldn't sell it before it expired. How many tonnes of food are wasted every day? Wasting one orange doesn't mean "just wasting an orange" but also the time and resources involved in growing, picking, cleaning, transporting, etc. If food was free, rationed but free, there shouldn't be any waste. Humanity would be so much more efficient in this way.

A really good example of this is a pilot project in Paris. They are allocating bikes around town that can be used up to one hour free. You pick up a bike at a designated point and return it there. It's all possible, we just don't really want to try it, because we must relent individual ownership.

I can see where you are trying to get though... What about those people that don't want to work? Well, those would have their perks, not their basic needs, stripped. They are free to roam and eat, but luxuries are for those who work hard. Work could be "paid" in work hours, each hour would correspond to a certain number of credits that you could use for non-essential things, like a boat-ride or a weekend at a hotel, a TV, etc. Of course this is all so sketchy but, my point is, if we really wanted it, we could find a solution.

Just imagine a world without money, where you have free education, free food, free healthcare, free clothes, free entertainment, free holidays, a free weekend on a yacht, free, free, free...

Seems so utopic, doesn't it?

Yet, you could remove money from the world right now and things could still work, machines could have electricity, food would still grow, cows would still produce milk, teachers would still know how to teach and doctors would how to heal.

The truth is that we could have EVERYTHING we have today and much, much more, had we not invented money. We had the resources, the manpower, the skills, everything...

Money is what allows a few to have only for themselves what we could all share.

No no no no...............! :headbang: Ahhh! What horror: no money?! That's how we got to where we are today. Way back when, people had different skills, and specialized in making different stuff like clothes and food and things... But... it got crazy since they didn't even have a currency for, like, measuring the value of their stuff and all - and... It just makes sooo much sense to have a money system! It just does! It's rewarding! It's how we earn things! It's a motivation. It's a treat... It gives value to things. It makes the world go round!!

Are you totally cereal about the idea of "no money = a better world"????? Gaaahhhh...!

... Why do you need to own a car? Because you want to be able to get anywhere at whatever time you want? Does this mean buying a car is the only way? Right now yes, ...

You could rent a car...

... With food, again, we would be much more efficient, since we wouldn't waste food simply because we couldn't sell it before it expired. How many tonnes of food are wasted every day? Wasting one orange doesn't mean "just wasting an orange" but also the time and resources involved in growing, picking, cleaning, transporting, etc. If food was free, rationed but free, there shouldn't be any waste. ...

There are ways to get free food: gardening, taking from others' gardens, lol... Free samples rofl... Buy-one-get-one-free... Um, etc. etc.

Plus some people do recycle their food, like, it's good for the environment to kinda litter fruit and veggies... Plus you know, in some areas there are those bums on the streets who eat out of your trash cans LOL...

... Work could be "paid" in work hours, each hour would correspond to a certain number of credits that you could use for non-essential things, like a boat-ride or a weekend at a hotel, a TV, etc. Of course this is all so sketchy but, my point is, if we really wanted it, we could find a solution.

What do you mean by this? =\ Please explain: credits?

Money only is a reward in your brain because your have been trained, since you were a child, to identify it as a reward. I bet with you that if a factory worker could get a brand new TV, out of 8 hours of good work, without having to worry for food, he would work much happier. The reward system in our brain is independent of money. We find rewards not in the money, but in what it buys. Pick up some cash out of circulation and you'll understand what I mean.

Money got us here but that doesn't mean there aren't better rewards out there. Sail ships got the spanish to America, but when we found a faster way to travel we replaced it. Money has never been replaced. It hasn't evolved (in concept). We have never tried.

My concept of credits is based on work hours. Depending on the number of hours you worked towards society, you would get credits. The difference between my concept of "work hour credits" and "money" is that you're not punished by being unskilled (not everyone has got the intellect to take a PhD). Your reward is the number of hours you work, not how someone values your profession. Work hard, play hard.

We find rewards not in the money, but in what it buys.

Well yeah, that's why money is a good thing. There are LOTS of things to buy with it. Lots of things that can improve our moods. There can be so much choice with the ownership of money...

Money got us here but that doesn't mean there aren't better rewards out there. Sail ships got the spanish to America, but when we found a faster way to travel we replaced them. Money has never been replaced. It hasn't evolved (not in concept, only application). We have never tried.

I'm not trying to emphasize that money can be a reward to people. It's just a thing that we use to get us places, get us things, get us - basically - what we want. Or give others what they want. I dunno, it's so hard to explain, and I'm so young, and you sound so smart and probably know so much more, and you really probably know what you're talking about. =\

Still, I'm just saying. Money has evolved. It's not JUST used for trading goods, and putting value to them either. It can be a reward. It can be EARNED! The value of stuff has changed throughout the years, forcing the value of money to change. Handfuls of candy that were worth a nickel per are worth dollars today. Money hasn't been replaced, but it has changed some.

My concept of credits is based on work hours. Depending on the number of hours you worked towards society, you would get credits. The difference between my concept of "work hour credits" and "money" is that you're not punished by being unskilled (not everyone has got the intellect to take a PhD). Your reward is the number of hours you work, not how someone values your profession. Work hard, play hard.

That's really interesting but still doesn't tell me so much. ^_^; Is there any way I could find out more info about that? I mean, since I have heard of credits before, I think in the way that you're talking about them, that is. Or did you totally make that up? Can they be used as a currency? I mean, what are they good for - if you earn a certain amount of credits what could happen?

My concept of credits is based on work hours. Depending on the number of hours you worked towards society, you would get credits. The difference between my concept of "work hour credits" and "money" is that you're not punished by being unskilled (not everyone has got the intellect to take a PhD). Your reward is the number of hours you work, not how someone values your profession. Work hard, play hard.

You would have to take into account the intensity and discomfort of the labor, too.

You would have to take into account the intensity and discomfort of the labor, too.

Oh yeah, good point. But that really depends on the kind of labor... Still I'd love to know more about this stuff! *Google searches on credits*

Well yeah, that's why money is a good thing. There are LOTS of things to buy with it. Lots of things that can improve our moods. There can be so much choice with the ownership of money...

But it is the things that improve your mood. Money only does this because you associate it with all these things.

Say you love remote controlled miniature planes. They have a "value", which is determined first by the cost of producing them right? But then this value goes up dramatically because the maker, the distributor and the retailer (plus the state with taxes) all want to make the biggest profit possible out of this plane.

Now say profit, along money, is banned. The value of things comes down and things become more accessible. Say you value the plane by the number of hours that costs producing it, from getting all the resources to actually making it.

You could choose having your own plane, but you would need to spend your own (or your parent's) "work hour credits" to buy one. Or you could have 30 planes at your local park, which you could use for free up to one hour. After one hour, you would do something else.

Uhhh... Money does not need replacing... It is a representation of value that has worked for thousands of years perfectly.

Equality, an interesting notion, yet very unnatural. The fact remains, there is no reason at all why everyone should be treated equally. If people are more intelligent, work harder etc. they should benefit for it in physical terms.

These credits you refer to is MONEY. You earn a set amount per hour... like MONEY. You use them to purchase things... like MONEY. How do your credits differ from money in any way?

By the way, it is not long before solid currency is removed totally in favour of digital currency. Maybe another one or two hundred years at most.

I made up this "work hour credit system", which doesn't mean someone else hasn't thought of it...

I do agree some factors like labour intensity, discomfort and risk should be taken into account, but I would try not to fall into that trap too much, otherwise the system becomes vulnerable to exploitation.

You can say construction work is more intense than working on a computer, but to say one is worth more than the other is what prompted us to have money in the first place. We need money because we believe a doctor is more important than a rubbish collector but I could argue that, without 1.000 rubbish collectors in a city, you would eventually need 10.000 doctors to solve the huge health problem generated by piling up rubbish in the streets. We all have an important role.

I'm making this stuff up as I speak, so I don't have all the answers... I'm starting to feel that we hijacked the thread hehehehe... sorry Solaris

Uhhh... Money does not need replacing... It is a representation of value that has worked for thousands of years perfectly.

Perfectly?? A lawyer can be paid hundreds of dollars an hour to work on petty issues (like divorces) while a policeman or a nurse who work to save, care and protect lives are paid peanuts? Your perfect representation of value then must be: life, by itself, is worth less than deciding who keeps the TV.

Equality, an interesting notion, yet very unnatural. The fact remains, there is no reason at all why everyone should be treated equally.

Really??? You cannot find one good reason why should people be treated equally? How about "respect"? How about, if you treat everyone as equals, you can expect to be treated fairly? You say that because you weren't unlucky to be born in Ethiopia.

If people are more intelligent, work harder etc. they should benefit for it in physical terms.

If you read my words carefully, you see that I say that those who work hard get benefits from it.

These credits you refer to is MONEY. You earn a set amount per hour... like MONEY. You use them to purchase things... like MONEY. How do your credits differ from money in any way?

Please read my previous posts, I've explained the difference.

Oh yeah and money also gets us what we need, not just what we want. But usually I'm thinking that we at least want what we need, so I guess that was a little implied.

Anywho. *Reads what you two posted*

Uhhh... Money does not need replacing... It is a representation of value that has worked for thousands of years perfectly.

Equality, an interesting notion, yet very unnatural. The fact remains, there is no reason at all why everyone should be treated equally. If people are more intelligent, work harder etc. they should benefit for it in physical terms.

These credits you refer to is MONEY. You earn a set amount per hour... like MONEY. You use them to purchase things... like MONEY. How do your credits differ from money in any way?

By the way, it is not long before solid currency is removed totally in favour of digital currency. Maybe another one or two hundred years at most.

AHH! That's exactly what I'm trying to say!! *Worships* I totally agree with EVERYTHING you said there. Every single thing.

Perfectly?? A lawyer can be paid hundreds of dollars an hour to work on petty issues (like divorces) while a policeman or a nurse who work to save, care and protect lives are paid peanuts? Your perfect representation of value then must be: life, by itself, is worth less than deciding who keeps the TV.


A lawyer keeps the peace and acts as a go-between in society. Lawyers allow for prosecution and defense of people... Policemen can protect, but then what? Aside from which, it takes less training to be a policeman.


Really??? You cannot find one good reason why should people be treated equally? How about "respect"? How about, if you treat everyone as equals, you can expect to be treated fairly? You say that because you weren't unlucky to be born in Ethiopia.


People are NOT equal though. Some people are more intelligent, stronger, faster or what have you. Fairness is a laughable concept. Nature dictates survival of the strongest, not fairness and happiness for all. Yes, I am fortunate to have been born in England, but then what of people born in England that amount to nothing? What is their excuse?


If you read my words carefully, you see that I say that those who work hard get benefits from it.


What of those whose job requires more training? Those whose job is more socially important? I have read and reread your posts, and what you propose is still MONEY.

Looking back at one of your previous posts I notice you mention that humanity should share and distribute as oppossed to possessing.

Know what the problem is there? People are naturally selfish. There will always be those who seek to rule the system or twist it so they become superior. Alternatively they will abuse the system, sponging off it at the expense of others.

... I'm starting to feel that we hijacked the thread hehehehe... sorry Solaris
Lol, awww same. Sorry ^^

*Pulls the thread through the car window and bounds it with rope*

*Drives off cackling* Muhaha...

Ah my credibility as someone sensible is slowly declining. Damn.

Looking back at one of your previous posts I notice you mention that humanity should share and distribute as oppossed to possessing.

Know what the problem is there? People are naturally selfish. There will always be those who seek to rule the system or twist it so they become superior. Alternatively they will abuse the system, sponging off it at the expense of others.

CRUXIUM, YOU ROCK. :D :D :D !! So are you also an anarcho-capitalist? Or what?

Know what the problem is there? People are naturally selfish. There will always be those who seek to rule the system or twist it so they become superior. Alternatively they will abuse the system, sponging off it at the expense of others.

People are naturally selfish because the large majority of animals are naturally selfish. That's the survival of the fittest talking. Capitalism is nothing more than the West's admission that our intelect hasn't dominated completely the animal inside.

Instead of working like an ant colony, sharing resources evenly and much more efficiently, we work like a cancer, eating selfishly away all the resources around us.

You believe Capitalism is the best Humanity can do. Let me tell you something: In 1961, the Earth could have supported everyone having a UK lifestyle. Now we would need 3 planets. What is Capitalism's future? Kings of the West ruling over the rest of the world?

People are naturally selfish because the large majority of animals are naturally selfish. That's the survival of the fittest talking. Capitalism is nothing more than the West's admission that our intelect hasn't dominated completely the animal inside.

Instead of working like an ant colony, sharing resources evenly and much more efficiently, we work like a cancer, eating selfishly away all the resources around us.

You believe Capitalism is the best Humanity can do. Let me tell you something: In 1961, the Earth could have supported everyone having a UK lifestyle. Now we would need 3 planets. What is Capitalism's future? Kings of the West ruling over the rest of the world?
Well, I don't think that our intellect will ever dominate "the animal inside" we are the animal. Trying to dominate the animal inside is like trying to overcome the desire for food or the dislike of pain. It is incredibly idealistic to see that as something that can happen. When it comes down to it the average person is not better than their "animal within" simply because they are wimps, not because of capitalism. The people that succeed within capitalism are the ones that are really the less animalistic anyway because they have the ability to suppress desires and to push forward to succeed.

People are not ants, I have wished as such in the past but they are not. We cannot function as they can and we will cheat any system that tries to make us what we are not. The only way to end corruption is massive brainwashing and that is very expensive and its effectiveness is unknown.

In 1961 the population was a lot lower, today it is larger. The growth in population is not the fault of capitalism but comes from 3rd world countries because they don't have the economic freedom to buy condoms. Capitalism's future is adaptation, capitalism has always been about adapting and changing with the environment has always been capitalism's strength. Besides, it is not like statism was a more efficient system than capitalism anyway and after learning about the populist party in American history I would not trust democracy with the economy. The best way to make the world a better place is to decrease population size so grab a gun and start right away!:p

Well Kings of the West would be a good ruling body...

America of Tomorrow, I'd call myself a realist *grins*

The fact is, as Holyawesomeness said, it is impossible to dominate our base instincts entirely. Humanity is a cancer upon the worlds surface, draining all natural resources then recolonising elsewhere to do the same again. Now we come to the fact that humanity is, by and large, very indifferent to the suffering of its own kind. I think Stalin said it best with: "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Of course the question remains, why should humanity act like an ant colony, sharing resources efficiently? If someone has the intelligence and capability to seize more resources than others, then fairplay to them. Those who are unable to seize a larger portion have such troubles because they aren't fit enough in one way or another, or else cannot (or will not) contribute to society.

I do not think capitalism is the best humanity could do, but it is the current social height. Capitalism is also good for society; the freedom to purchase gives people a freedom in life. Would you rather have monopolies, oligopoloies or full public sector coverage dominating every type of business? Logic dictates that would be more efficient, but it would remove the freedom that variety offers and destroy technological advancement.

As yet I am still to see the difference between your credits and money, or why you feel money should be abolished.

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.
One certain to be invaded.

Move to Sweden... all school is free, free healthcare, 30% income tax or more, free elections... and then I'm moving to Luxenburg or Switzerland:D

Well, I don't think that our intellect will ever dominate "the animal inside" we are the animal. Trying to dominate the animal inside is like trying to overcome the desire for food or the dislike of pain. It is incredibly idealistic to see that as something that can happen.

It's not idealistic; it's been done every day for thousands of years. That's just our laziness excuse. Look at Tibetan monks and you will see what is a superior mind controlling not only basic instincts like hunger and pain but also their bodies to superhuman levels. All through discipline and education. And they are among the "poorest" of the poor.

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone was educated like them, in principle, but more willing to embrace science and modernisation (always at a sustainable pace).

In 1961 the population was a lot lower, today it is larger. The growth in population is not the fault of capitalism but comes from 3rd world countries because they don't have the economic freedom to buy condoms.

Certainly there are many reasons for our population problems, not only economic but religious as well, but Capitalism isn't helping to solve those problems either. The only reason why many poor people don't have access to condoms or morning after pills today, is because they are sold for profit instead of being globally sponsored and freely distributed, as an investment in global sustainability. You may argue that Capitalism can't be blamed for the problem, but I argue that Capitalism is ignoring and aggravating the problem, withholding many of today's solutions from being more widely implemented. Instead of giving up profit on this one, we give up the world?

Capitalism's future is adaptation, capitalism has always been about adapting and changing with the environment has always been capitalism's strength. Besides, it is not like statism was a more efficient system than capitalism anyway...

Today, we know that capitalism is causing the environment to change faster and more dramatically. So, Capitalism will always require more and more resources to readapt more often to a self-inflicted pace. The irony is that Capitalism has been spreading an unsustainable lifestyle across the globe and now everybody wants it. When countries like China and India start consuming at western rates, some of you who now have a nice lifestyle will see it being taken away. Remember, the amount of resources will not grow. So, as China's population becomes richer, they will be competing with us for those resources. This means that some of us who have access to those resources will loose them, because there are richer guys buying them somewhere else in the world.

The best way to make the world a better place is to decrease population size so grab a gun and start right away!:p

I'll start with you then... :mp5: hehehe... you said it....

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

your a la la land dictatorship

it doesnt exist. not in a way that would last for a while

your a la la land dictatorship

it doesnt exist. not in a way that would last for a while

Yes they do. Nothern European countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden have this and much more...

People need to earn their own living, and the government musn't provide ANY help; no welfare, social security, medicare, etc. If someone is incapable of providing for themselves they deserve to be worthless bums.

There should be NO regulations on business, and there must be a flat, optional tax; those who pay the tax will get to use the court system, etc; those who don't pay taxes are just out of luck.

All that the government should do is: make schools, roads, etc; provide defense; and make sure people don't kill or steal.

Nothing like extremists. A government is the embodiment of a society; however it is also the representation of the country. As such it has a duty to the people, and vice versa.

A government should provide healthcare, social & national defense and education, in return the people should place a set amount of money into the society. Those who cannot contribute or attempt to defraud the system should lose those benefits, however there should be a privatized option for each of the above. However tax should NOT be dictated by income or expenditure, rather should be set.

Businesses should be regulated to ensure a free market and to prevent monopolisation/oligopolisation.

Vage: The government you suggest isn't a government, it is a committee.

People need to earn their own living, and the government musn't provide ANY help; no welfare, social security, medicare, etc. If someone is incapable of providing for themselves they deserve to be worthless bums.

There should be NO regulations on business, and there must be a flat, optional tax; those who pay the tax will get to use the court system, etc; those who don't pay taxes are just out of luck.

All that the government should do is: make schools, roads, etc; provide defense; and make sure people don't kill or steal.

Yeah I basically agree with a lot of that. I mean, actually - personally - I don't think the government should help out the country's people (with personal/medical/financial help & stuff) but I do like the idea of the Big Brother thing, where the gov't watches/hears what goes on... and I'm thinking that could be a great way of improving communication with citizens, and also it'd be a good way of probably knowing how to improve the country in any way so that the people are happy. ^^ *Hasn't read that big brother book, so probably has it all wrong*

I'd love a country where everyone trusts the government, but doesn't rely on it too much - everyone's too independent (or so it seems?!? I mean the media would basically tell everyone what to do) - but really the gov't plans all this crazy stuff... like the gov't would play "God"... hehehe, and Idk... I just think that'd be really cool to have. Just so long as everyone loves where they live.

Governments in all forms are bad and should be done away with entirely

Governments in all forms are bad and should be done away with entirely
NO! You crazy anarchist!!!!

Weel, you are most certainly one of these:

acracy government by none; anarchy
adhocracy government in an unstructured fashion; an unstructured organization
albocracy government by white people
anarchy government by none
androcracy government by men
anemocracy government by the wind or by whim
angelocracy government by angels
antarchy opposition to government; anarchy
argentocracy government by money
aristarchy government by the best
aristocracy government by the nobility
arithmocracy government by simple majority
autarchy government by an absolute ruler
autocracy government by one individual
barbarocracy government by barbarians
beerocracy government by brewers or brewing interests
biarchy government by two people; diarchy
binarchy government by two people; diarchy
bureaucracy government by civil servants
cannonarchy government by superior firepower or by cannons
capelocracy government by shopkeepers
chiliarchy government by one thousand people
chirocracy government by physical force
chromatocracy government by rulers of a particular skin colour
chrysoaristocracy government by the wealthy; plutocracy
chrysocracy government by the wealthy; plutocracy
corpocracy government by corporate bureaucrats
cosmarchy rulership over the entire world, esp. by the devil
cottonocracy government by those involved in the cotton trade
cryptarchy secret rulership
decadarchy government by ten individuals; decarchy
decarchy government by ten individuals
demarchy government by the people; popular government
democracy government by the people
demonarchy government by a demon
demonocracy government by demons or evil forces
despotocracy government by despots or tyrants
diabolocracy government by the Devil
diarchy government by two people
dinarchy government by two people; diarchy
dodecarchy government by twelve people
doulocracy government by slaves
duarchy government by two people; diarchy
dulocracy government by slaves; doulocracy
dyarchy government by two people; diarchy
ecclesiarchy government by clerics or ecclesiastical authorities
endarchy centralised government
ergatocracy government by the workers or the working class
ethnarchy government over an ethnic group
ethnocracy government by an ethnic group or race
exarchy government by bishops
foolocracy government by fools
gerontocracy government by the aged
gunarchy government by women; gynarchy
gymnasiarchy government over a school or academy
gynaecocracy government by women; gynarchy
gynarchy government by women
gynocracy government by women; gynarchy
hagiarchy government by saints or holy persons
hagiocracy government by holy men
hamarchy government by a cooperative body of parts
hecatarchy government by one hundred people; hecatontarchy
hecatontarchy government by one hundred people
hendecarchy government by eleven people
heptarchy government by seven people
heroarchy government by heroes
hetaerocracy government by paramours
heterarchy government by a foreign ruler
hierarchy government by a ranked body; government by priests
hierocracy government by priests or religious ministers
hipparchy rule or control of horses
hoplarchy government by the military
hyperanarchy condition of extreme anarchy
hyperarchy excessive government
iatrarchy government by physicians
infantocracy government by an infant
isocracy equal political power
jesuitocracy government by Jesuits
juntocracy government by a junta
kakistocracy government by the worst
kleptocracy government by thieves
kritarchy government by judges
landocracy government by the propertied class; timocracy
logocracy government of words
matriarchy government by women or mothers
meritocracy government by the meritorious
merocracy government by a part of the citizenry
mesocracy government by the middle classes
metrocracy government by mothers or women; matriarchy
millionocracy government by millionaires
millocracy government by mill owners
mobocracy government by mobs or crowds
monarchy government by one individual
moneyocracy government by the monied classes
monocracy government by one individual
myriarchy government by ten thousand individuals
navarchy rulership over the seas
neocracy government by new or inexperienced rulers
nomocracy government based on legal system; rule of law
ochlocracy government by mobs
octarchy government by eight people
oligarchy government by the few
paedarchy government by children
paedocracy government by children; paedarchy
panarchy universal rule or dominion
pantarchy government by all the people; world government
pantisocracy government by all equally
paparchy government by the pope
papyrocracy government by newspapers or literature
parsonarchy government by parsons
partocracy government by a single unopposed political party
patriarchy government by men or fathers
pedantocracy government by pedants or strict rule-bound scholars
pentarchy government by five individuals
phallocracy government by men
philosophocracy government by philosophers
phylarchy government by a specific class or tribe
physiocracy government according to natural laws or principles
pigmentocracy government by those of one skin colour
plantocracy government by plantation owners
plousiocracy government by the wealthy; plutocracy
plutarchy government by the wealthy; plutocracy
plutocracy government by the wealthy
polarchy government by many people; polyarchy
policeocracy government by police
pollarchy government by the multitude or a mob; ochlocracy
polyarchy government by many people
polycracy government by many rulers; polyarchy
popocracy government by populists
pornocracy government by harlots
prophetocracy government by a prophet
psephocracy government resulting from election by ballot
ptochocracy government by beggars or paupers; wholesale pauperization
punditocracy government by political pundits
quangocracy rule of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations
rotocracy government by those who control rotten boroughs
septarchy government by seven rulers; heptarchy
shopocracy government by shopkeepers
slavocracy government by slave-owners
snobocracy government by snobs
sociocracy government by society as a whole
squarsonocracy government by landholding clergymen
squatterarchy government by squatters; squattocracy
squattocracy government by squatters
squirearchy government by squires
squirocracy government by squires; squirearchy
statocracy government by the state alone, without ecclesiastical influence
stratarchy rulership over an army
stratocracy military rule or despotism
strumpetocracy government by strumpets
synarchy joint sovereignty
technocracy government by technical experts
tetradarchy government by four people; tetrarchy
tetrarchy government by four people
thalassiarchy sovereignty of the seas; thalassocracy
thalassocracy sovereignty of the seas
thearchy rule by a god or gods; body of divine rulers
theatrocracy goverment by gathered assemblies of citizens
theocracy government by priests or by religious law
timarchy government by the propertied class; timocracy
timocracy government by the propertied class
triarchy government by three people
tritarchy government by three people; triarchy
tritheocracy government by three gods
whiggarchy government by Whigs
xenocracy government by a body of foreigners


and if you don't find yourself in there then their should be some sort of law against you.

Wtf, man.

Wtf, man.
Any man who finds himself without knowldege of his political beliefs should use googla as an appropiate tool to eliminate those he is not and secure his identity firm within his intellectual capcity. Lest he be a moron.

Yes, I'm quite pro-Orwellian state. The thing is, those who conform to societies rules and do not go against the law of the state, there is nothing to fear.

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

What types of government is that? It's an ineffective government. You say you want to help the people find jobs, but you're creating incentives for them to avoid work. If they get unemployment benefits and free healthcare, why do they care about finding a job? And why would people bother working hard enough to earn a bunch of money, if the government's just going to raise their taxes when they do.

Much of Canada operates just like this. But not for long, if I can help it.

What types of government is that? It's an ineffective government. You say you want to help the people find jobs, but you're creating incentives for them to avoid work. If they get unemployment benefits and free healthcare, why do they care about finding a job? And why would people bother working hard enough to earn a bunch of money, if the government's just going to raise their taxes when they do.

Much of Canada operates just like this. But not for long, if I can help it.
The same stands for the United King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When I am eligible to vote I shall be eligible to become an MP and when I do I shall rise thorught the ranks of my preferred party and rule. That's what I hope anyway.

Nothing like extremists. A government is the embodiment of a society; however it is also the representation of the country. As such it has a duty to the people, and vice versa.

A government should provide healthcare, social & national defense and education, in return the people should place a set amount of money into the society. Those who cannot contribute or attempt to defraud the system should lose those benefits, however there should be a privatized option for each of the above. However tax should NOT be dictated by income or expenditure, rather should be set.

The government can't tell people what to do with their money. If they want to put some in the society, fine, but people have to be responsible for themselves. They must rely upon themselves only.

Businesses should be regulated to ensure a free market and to prevent monopolisation/oligopolisation.

Vage: The government you suggest isn't a government, it is a committee.

The only way to ensure a free market is to have no regulations, hense the word, "free." If there is a monopoly or oligopoly, the people must come together and conduct a massive boycott to drive them out of business or get them to change their ways.

The same stands for the United King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When I am eligible to vote I shall be eligible to become an MP and when I do I shall rise thorught the ranks of my preferred party and rule. That's what I hope anyway.
LOL hahahaha roflmao ... "shall." :rolleyes: Anywho.

All that the government should do is: make schools, roads, etc; provide defense; and make sure people don't kill or steal.

I don't see why it's the government's job to provide schools or roads.

The government can't tell people what to do with their money. If they want to put some in the society, fine, but people have to be responsible for themselves. They must rely upon themselves only.


The people have a duty to their country, just as the government as a duty to the people. Relying upon yourself alone means if you cannot protect yourself, cannot cure your own illnesses you will die. People should put money into the community. If they refuse, then they are not entitled to ANY social amenity such as a national health service or state education. That allows people to either act as a member of society or not, spending their money as they see fit or exchanging their money for a service. Very fair.


The only way to ensure a free market is to have no regulations, hense the word, "free." If there is a monopoly or oligopoly, the people must come together and conduct a massive boycott to drive them out of business or get them to change their ways.


Uh... Free market as in a market that is good for the people. If there is a monopoly or oligopoly, the people MUST use that service. There is no boycotting, for there is NO alternative. As an example;

British Telecommunications were the ONLY telecommunications company in Britain. As such if you wanted to use a phone, you HAD to use them. If you needed a new phone, you got whatever BT wanted to give you. If BT wanted to give you a bright pink phone, then you had a bright pink phone or you did without.

A free market is one that is not dominated by any single organisation, thus allowing the people CHOICE.

I don't see why it's the government's job to provide schools or roads.

Well, yeah neither do I, kinda. I mean, I really think education is improtant, but that's about it. Then it's up to the schools on what to do with their students... I mean, I think education's probably the most important 'cos that way kids'll learn about what they can be when they grow up. And what they can do. And how. (And my utopia is that they wouldn't be employed by the gov't for their dream jobs. Those companies would be run by the people of the nation. The government's people.)

Then comes defense... and yeah. The gov't really doesn't NEED to provide anything for the citizens.

The gov't really doesn't NEED to provide anything for the citizens.

Then why have a Government? lol. You have just removed all requirement for Government.

The people have a duty to their country, just as the government as a duty to the people. Relying upon yourself alone means if you cannot protect yourself, cannot cure your own illnesses you will die. People should put money into the community. If they refuse, then they are not entitled to ANY social amenity such as a national health service or state education. ...
Exactly. If the people get sick or die, it's the people's faults because it's their money and not their community's/government's!

You cannot remove Government... That would begin the decline of civilization and the beginning of the second dark age.

Then why have a Government? lol. You have just removed all requirement for Government.

Well OK I wasn't being specific enough, I guess. Idk what I want, btw, I'm still learning about this government stuff (gimme a break, I'm only a teenager =P)... :p

But still... I do like the idea of a form of government, I'm not against it in any way, I'm not an anarchist! But I'm just saying! We don't neeeeeed the government.

Just like we don't NEED our HOUSES or computers or clothes! Or I don't know! I mean for certain things, maybe, but not generally, I think.

I just think eveything'd be better off with a government. But not any type. I dunno. I'm still thinking about this lol...

I am also a teenager. Though I do have the added benefit of having studied politics and business at A-level.

Granted you don't NEED government, however...

Government is, nevertheless, essential.

I don't see why it's the government's job to provide schools or roads.

If the government didn't supply roads, some private business would make them, and they would charge people if they wanted to use them. Having to pay to use roads is totally ludicrous, so people would have to boycott, which would cause a transportation mess. Also, what if a bunch of different companies make the roads? One would have to pay many different companies for use of their roads when going from point A to point B. It would be an absolute disaster.

Vage, you still didn't address my counter-arguement to your absurb idea of boycotting a monopoly/oligopoly. Or my other counter-arguements for that matter.

Uh... Free market as in a market that is good for the people. If there is a monopoly or oligopoly, the people MUST use that service. There is no boycotting, for there is NO alternative. As an example;

British Telecommunications were the ONLY telecommunications company in Britain. As such if you wanted to use a phone, you HAD to use them. If you needed a new phone, you got whatever BT wanted to give you. If BT wanted to give you a bright pink phone, then you had a bright pink phone or you did without.

A free market is one that is not dominated by any single organisation, thus allowing the people CHOICE.

But a free market also doesn't have unnatural barriers to entry. Thus, if BT was providing poor service, there's no reason why a competitor couldn't appear.

Most modern monopolies are government monopolies that prohibit competition. In a free market, persistant monopolies are good for consumers, because if they weren't good for consumers they wouldn't persist.

The people have a duty to their country, just as the government as a duty to the people. Relying upon yourself alone means if you cannot protect yourself, cannot cure your own illnesses you will die. People should put money into the community. If they refuse, then they are not entitled to ANY social amenity such as a national health service or state education. That allows people to either act as a member of society or not, spending their money as they see fit or exchanging their money for a service. Very fair.

People don't have a right to that stuff! One has NO right to cures for illnesses. One has NO right to healty service. If one wants that stuff they either must buy it from some one who makes it, or make it themselves.



Uh... Free market as in a market that is good for the people. If there is a monopoly or oligopoly, the people MUST use that service. There is no boycotting, for there is NO alternative. As an example;

British Telecommunications were the ONLY telecommunications company in Britain. As such if you wanted to use a phone, you HAD to use them. If you needed a new phone, you got whatever BT wanted to give you. If BT wanted to give you a bright pink phone, then you had a bright pink phone or you did without.

A free market is one that is not dominated by any single organisation, thus allowing the people CHOICE.

Again, people don't have the right to use phones. They can start their own company.

If the government didn't supply roads, some private business would make them, and they would charge people if they wanted to use them. Having to pay to use roads is totally ludicrous, so people would have to boycott, which would cause a transportation mess. Also, what if a bunch of different companies make the roads? One would have to pay many different companies for use of their roads when going from point A to point B. It would be an absolute disaster.

Let's look at that. Let's assume that that's happened, and that getting from point A to point B is a huge hassle. No one wants to do it.

In a free market, either the consumers will stop going from point A to point B, or a competitor will provide a different route from point A to point B.

If the government didn't supply roads, some private business would make them, and they would charge people if they wanted to use them. Having to pay to use roads is totally ludicrous, so people would have to boycott, which would cause a transportation mess. Also, what if a bunch of different companies make the roads? One would have to pay many different companies for use of their roads when going from point A to point B. It would be an absolute disaster.

Nooo. =\ Having to pay for the roads would help the economy circulate and/or it would encourage public transportation so that the people have a little less control to where they're going... Oh gosh I know that what I'm saying totally doesn't make any sense. But my dream government/country would emphasize the ILLUSION of freedom/choice and trust and luck and independence!!! Ahhh the illusion =) But no citizen would know =)

A true monopoly is the only barrier to entry necessary to block entry to a market. If another company sets up in business, it forces the newcommer out of business by lowering prices to an unreasonable level or through some other method.

Nooo. =\ Having to pay for the roads would help the economy circulate and/or it would encourage public transportation so that the people have a little less control to where they're going... Oh gosh I know that what I'm saying totally doesn't make any sense. But my dream government/country would emphasize the ILLUSION of freedom/choice and trust and luck and independence!!! Ahhh the illusion =) But no citizen would know =)

What a terrible country.

Vage, they CANNOT start their own company.

If someone wanted to own a phone, they HAD to use BT. Otherwise it was a case of no phone. People could NOT make their own company because BT was too big, too powerful. You make a phone company and sell people a phone. Then BT refuse to allow it connection to their lines. You're buggered.

I never said people had a right to use a phone. I said people WANTED to use a phone, and therefore HAD to use BT.

Against a true monopoly, you are buggered, for there is no alternative.

Another point to make is that with a monopoly, there is no requirement for advancement. Why provide customers with new and updated versions of what you sell, when they MUST buy the existing product or do without?

Vage, they CANNOT start their own company.

If someone wanted to own a phone, they HAD to use BT. Otherwise it was a case of no phone. People could NOT make their own company because BT was too big, too powerful. You make a phone company and sell people a phone. Then BT refuse to allow it connection to their lines. You're buggered.

I never said people had a right to use a phone. I said people WANTED to use a phone, and therefore HAD to use BT.

Against a true monopoly, you are buggered, for there is no alternative.

Another point to make is that with a monopoly, there is no requirement for advancement. Why provide customers with new and updated versions of what you sell, when they MUST buy the existing product or do without?

Well, if some one wanted to combat this monolopy, they would have to make their own telephone lines.

Vage, they CANNOT start their own company.

If someone wanted to own a phone, they HAD to use BT. Otherwise it was a case of no phone. People could NOT make their own company because BT was too big, too powerful. You make a phone company and sell people a phone. Then BT refuse to allow it connection to their lines. You're buggered.

I never said people had a right to use a phone. I said people WANTED to use a phone, and therefore HAD to use BT.

Against a true monopoly, you are buggered, for there is no alternative.

Another point to make is that with a monopoly, there is no requirement for advancement. Why provide customers with new and updated versions of what you sell, when they MUST buy the existing product or do without?

So in your example, BT is providing ever worse customer service, and yet the customers are unwilling to change carriers?

Llwedor, my example is real. It existed in England until something like the 1950's-1970's (I forget the time at which it ended). [Edit: It was 1981]

There was no alternative. You either subscribed to BT, or you did not have a phone. Their customer service could have been a man called Dave who spat upon you, you still went back to them or else did without a phone.

Vage, that comment is barely worthy of reply. Who has the money to begin placing telephones lines across a country, while at the same time trying to build take a customer base away from an existing company that already has phonelines across the country and 100% of the market?

Llwedor, my example is real. It existed in England until something like the 1950's-1970's (I forget the time at which it ended).

There was no alternative. You either subscribed to BT, or you did not have a phone. Their customer service could have been a man called Dave who spat upon you, you still went back to them or else did without a phone.

Vage, that comment is barely worthy of reply. Who has the money to begin placing telephones lines across a country, while at the same time trying to build take a customer base away from an existing company that already has phonelines across the country and 100% of the market?

I'm not saying that combating them would be easy! One would have to have the money to take on such a task. If one were to do what I suggested, they would stop the monopoly. It's as simple as that. You gotta think outside the box.

What a terrible country.
LOL I know, really!! XD

It is an impossibility. You cannot defeat a true monopoly except with a bigger, foreign monopoly. Even then in some cases it is impossible. [Edit: Or, as mentioned below, the intervention of a Government (That thing you suggest should have no power to interefere with businesses)]

The only reason BT lost their stranglehold was the granting of a license to Mecury Communications, deliberately organised by the British Government to break the BT monopoly. Without the British Governments decision, it is possible BT would still be the only landline service provider in Britain.

It is an impossibility. You cannot defeat a true monopoly except with a bigger, foreign monopoly. Even then in some cases it is impossible. [Edit: Or, as mentioned below, the intervention of a Government (That thing you suggest should have no power to interefere with businesses)]

The only reason BT lost their stranglehold was the granting of a license to Mecury Communications, deliberately organised by the British Government to break the BT monopoly. Without the British Governments decision, it is possible BT would still be the only landline service provider in Britain.

Nonsense! Just get a huge amount of people to boycott the phone until they go out of business. Instead of a phone, one can communicate via: mail, telegram, smoke signals, carrier pigeon, or just go a speak to the person! There is always a way to take to people without using an infernal telephone.

But who the hells wants to do that? You boycott phones, so you carry out communication in a more difficult, time consuming fashion.

History proves that the monopoly is bigger than the people.

But who the hells wants to do that? You boycott phones, so you carry out communication in a more difficult, time consuming fashion.

History proves that the monopoly is bigger than the people.

If you are not prepared to endure hardships when combating a monopoly, then don't bitch about there a monopoly.

Or, just have a Government that can intervene in business. That solves the problem without stupidity.

Your idea that Government should not involve itself in business affairs is ridiculous. Businesses MUST be monitored by the Government, otherwise you end up with businesses that are more powerful than any form of Government.

Or, just have a Government that can intervene in business. That solves the problem without stupidity.

Your idea that Government should not involve itself in business affairs is ridiculous. Businesses MUST be monitored by the Government, otherwise you end up with businesses that are more powerful than any form of Government.

Wait a sec. So phone companies had to be licensed? That's hardly a free market example then, is it?

Tell me more about BT. How did it get there? From a quick bit of research it looks like BT was a government corporation until 1984. Again, hardly a free market example.

Or, just have a Government that can intervene in business. That solves the problem without stupidity.

Your idea that Government should not involve itself in business affairs is ridiculous. Businesses MUST be monitored by the Government, otherwise you end up with businesses that are more powerful than any form of Government.

Nope. Businesses must be autonomous. It's the only way for true productivity.

That is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. Have you ever taken a course in business studies Vage?

That is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. Have you ever taken a course in business studies Vage?

Why don't you look at Hong Kong. There isn't any government intervention there and that place is very productive, and it is so easy for anyone to go there and start a business. And that place actually has a surplus, where most countries in the world are in horible debt.

Oh, and I have taken a business course.

Wow... What's the primary role of governments guys?

To protect the rights of the people. There is no right that says that you can be free from monopolies...

In fact, you show me a monopoly and I'll show you where your precious regulatory government helped empower it directly or indirectly. If the government kept it's pork off the plates of businessmen, then you wouldn't see most monopolies exisiting (DeBeers, many of the Rockefeller-era monopolies, etc).

Business should have the right to do whatever it wants as long it does not violate the rights of the people. Again, if a monpoly is created through completely legal and non-govt supported business practices, I'd like to see how it's destroying the world. The only one that even comes close is Microsoft, but you can hardly claim the sky is falling down with that.

The fact of the matter is that governments, as they expand in power, tend to become more corrupt. Certainly a government should be allowed to prepare citizens for the market by giving them good education, but having them regulate business means corrupt politicians unfairly helping out the corporations of the best-paying lobbyists or destroying their competitors.

Then you must realise that without external governance, multi-national companies are the most terrible super-powers in existence. If Hong-Kong has NO external limitations on business practices, then why do not the various enormous corporations all swarm in and devour all local business?

By the way, is Hong Kong not a place where forced labour and sweatshops exist?

Then you must realise that without external governance, multi-national companies are the most terrible super-powers in existence. If Hong-Kong has NO external limitations on business practices, then why do not the various enormous corporations all swarm in and devour all local business?

By the way, is Hong Kong not a place where forced labour and sweatshops exist?

Yes, but so are socialist nations. Sweatshops are not a product of capitalism, they are a product of poverty or exploitation.

However, you fail to understand my point. Government exists to make people and businesses from violating the rights of other people or businesses. That does not require putting in anti-market policies.

New Empire:

News Corporation.

Effectively a media-monopoly owned by Rupert Murdoch. It owns roughly 70% of Australia's media, 30% of British media, is co-owner of BskyB and owns Fox Network.

Without restriction, it could become vastly dominant amongst the media. Imagine a world where there is effectively one news channel, one newspaper, one set of coverage on any event.

Tesco.

Holding a GDP bigger than the British Government, so integral to the British Economy it CANNOT be shut down, accounts for I think 40% of all British supermarkets. 1 in every 8 pound spent in England is at Tesco. It is still growing and under investigation by the British Government. Without restriction, it could feasibly become the sole supermarket in England.

Where Governments interfere in business, it is in the interest of the people. The British Government prevents monopolies arising to allow people freedom of choice in what products/services they buy. Without that restriction, it is possible for an unshakable monopoly.

Where Governments interfere in business, it is in the interest of the people. The British Government prevents monopolies arising to allow people freedom of choice in what products/services they buy. Without that restriction, it is possible for an unshakable monopoly.

Show me a single example of an "unshakable" monopoly arising under a free and unfettered market.

Nothing the government does is in the interests of the people. The government acts in the interests of the government. Remember that the primary purpose of the bureaucracy is to grow.

Where Governments interfere in business, it is in the interest of the people. The British Government prevents monopolies arising to allow people freedom of choice in what products/services they buy. Without that restriction, it is possible for an unshakable monopoly.

We can certainly wish that every time governments have interfered with business, it was allways in the interest of the people.

I would venture to say that the majority of monopolies have been directly or indirectly caused by government interference in the economy. I can't imagine an actuall monopoly lasting very long in a truly free economy. Which has never been tried before by the way...

I believe the goverment should provide free health care, free education all the way thru college, unemployment benefits to people that are unemployed. At the same time, have a program to engage them, helping them find a job. Also I belive the goverment should provide national defense of course, law & order, lowest taxes for the working class going up for the middle class and the wealthy getting taxed the highest. Finally free elections to choose their national leaders. What type of goverment would you think that would make me? Cause I would love to live in a country like this.

Facism....Just kidding. Some brand of socialism, I would imagine, though Law and Order and National Defense are usually associated with conservatism. So, an economic socialism and a moral liberalism, I guess. Left-leaning centrist? Centre leaning leftist?

Cruxium is it OK if I take sides with you...

(Take that Vage!: :gundge:) ....:p

New Empire:

News Corporation.

Effectively a media-monopoly owned by Rupert Murdoch. It owns roughly 70% of Australia's media, 30% of British media, is co-owner of BskyB and owns Fox Network.

Without restriction, it could become vastly dominant amongst the media. Imagine a world where there is effectively one news channel, one newspaper, one set of coverage on any event.

Tesco.

Holding a GDP bigger than the British Government, so integral to the British Economy it CANNOT be shut down, accounts for I think 40% of all British supermarkets. 1 in every 8 pound spent in England is at Tesco. It is still growing and under investigation by the British Government. Without restriction, it could feasibly become the sole supermarket in England.

As for Tesco, you're not going to see one supermarket be a 'predatory' monopoly. That really doesn't work with food, and they know people will stop buying things at supermarkets if they price too highly. They may have a monopoly on the 'supermarket' but they do not have a monopoly on food itself. Thus, if they do engage in predatory pricing, they can easily be felled.

As for NewsCorp, you're incredibly naive if you think they're going to take over all media sources. The internet has already made that doubly impossible. And NewsCorp will probably never be able to buy out ALL the major networks in US or CNN and the like, which are owned by other 'uber companies' that NewsCorp likely could not afford to assimilate.

And can you honeslty say that when governments act, they do so in the interest of the 'people'? Bullshit, they act in the interest of the people who lobby them. When you see 'governments acting in the interest of freedom of choice', I see politicians working in the interests of that corporation's rivals. Or at least that's how it is in America and most other nations. Maybe British politicians are above money and corruption...

As long as humans are humans, govt regulation of business will eventually lead to a governments helping lobbyists rather than people.

If the government didn't supply roads, some private business would make them, and they would charge people if they wanted to use them. Having to pay to use roads is totally ludicrous, so people would have to boycott, which would cause a transportation mess. Also, what if a bunch of different companies make the roads? One would have to pay many different companies for use of their roads when going from point A to point B. It would be an absolute disaster.

But that's just what Capitalists want, by reducing governments to a bare minimum. One day, you'll be charged for walking on the pavement. If you don't want to pay taxes for building them, someone else will have to and charge you for cost + profit. If you went back 60 years and started telling people one day they would have to pay for a parking space, they would also say it would be a disaster.

Paying for roads isn't a ludicrous idea. It's already happening in Europe...

This is what people don't seem to understand. Capitalists want to reduce Governments to a legislatory body of individuals who live on the taxes that will always exist. You cannot have a government without taxes (who's going to pay for them?). Thing is, they will actually build nothing with your money but always find private partners to do it for them and charge YOU for it, always with a profit.

So instead of choosing to pay Governments to provide education, roads, police, etc. at cost values, you are choosing to pay for everything at cost + profit.

Also, if markets don't have rules, how exactly do you avoid monopolies from emerging? You do know that once this happens, there is no chance for new companies to emerge (i.e. you loose choice) without government intervention...

As for Tesco, you're not going to see one supermarket be a 'predatory' monopoly. That really doesn't work with food, and they know people will stop buying things at supermarkets if they price too highly.

Now it is you sounding incredibly naive... That's all good in theory (just like socialism and communism and every other ideology). The problem is that supermarkets are not interested in rising prices. They use their power to push farmer prices down, increasing profit margins and forcing farmers to produce cheaper food (so they can keep SOME profit). This "free market" pressure results in food with very low nutritional quality (though very aesthetic). So you may be paying the same or even slightly lower prices, but you're eating little more than hydrocarbons. In the long run, this will come out of your healthcare costs. That's probably why the US is fatter and has poorer health than the UK, despite spending more on (private) healthcare.

They may have a monopoly on the 'supermarket' but they do not have a monopoly on food itself. Thus, if they do engage in predatory pricing, they can easily be felled.

Are you really that naive to believe this? When all the big supermarkets act this way towards farmers, and they generally have standardised practices, they are exerting the same power that a monopoly would. So basically, we have monopoly power being used, even if there isn't a monopoly in sight.

How do you solve this without Government pressure? Telling people to buy more organic food? Some organic farmers are seeing their products declined by supermarkets, because they don't look as nice as those pesticide-sprayed and chemically-polished oranges.

Yay someone else who is aware of business! *Hugs Assis*

There is alot of suspicion in England that the major supermarket chains are infact acting as an oligopoly, each having a standard set of prices the are roughly the same across the board and each forcing the farmers into submission.

Similarly, there has long been suspicion that all petrol stations are also acting as an oligopoly.

Yay someone else who is aware of business! *Hugs Assis*

There is alot of suspicion in England that the major supermarket chains are infact acting as an oligopoly, each having a standard set of prices the are roughly the same across the board and each forcing the farmers into submission.

Similarly, there has long been suspicion that all petrol stations are also acting as an oligopoly.

You know what the problem is Cruxium? They don't need to hold secretive talks to fix prices or do all the stuff that usually monopolies/oligopolies are best known for. Today, they can exert exactly the same power through standardised (and absolutely legal) business practices, while governments can only sit and watch.

Very true. There are no shady dealings involved, it is just a sort of unspoken agreement. Clever really, because it gives people the illusion of choice, which is all people ever really want.

What? Are we coming to an agreement?! NOO, Cruxium must win! =\

Ah, what it is to be adored.

Ah, what it is to be adored.
I feel you. ^^

(Well I hope you don't take that the wrong way (literally, obviously).) So anyway!!...

lol, why is it women always attempt to feel me? I'm gay and happy about it dammit! >_<

LOL okay okay! I guess that explains all the... *mumbles and trails off* ........

Oh well, where is this thread going now? *Doesn't have anything to say about businesses right now..*