Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
If you acknowledge that some people end up poor just due to bad luck

[/ QUOTE ]

And the whole point to making the economy more efficient is that there will be more 'lucky' people. The less incentive there is for people to invest in your economy the less jobs there will be available. I think you drastically underestimate the drag on the economy that government spending has.

Will there be poverty in AC? Probably. Is there poverty in America now? For sure. Does the american government have the resources right now to eliminate poverty in America? Most definately. So if an organization is choosing not to solve the problems that you claim it should solve, why should I believe you that we need it to solve poverty?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is true. They shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all people are in "bad situations" because they put themselves there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. There's millions of people out there who just woke up one morning to find themselves forcibly subjected to a huge mortgage.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is true. They shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all people are in "bad situations" because they put themselves there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. There's millions of people out there who just woke up one morning to find themselves forcibly subjected to a huge mortgage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you're smarter than this. Observing that some people put themselves into bad situations isn't evidence that all people who are in bad situations put themselves there.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is true. They shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all people are in "bad situations" because they put themselves there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. There's millions of people out there who just woke up one morning to find themselves forcibly subjected to a huge mortgage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you're smarter than this. Observing that some people put themselves into bad situations isn't evidence that all people who are in bad situations put themselves there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those were the bad situations the other poster seemed most worried about, and those are the ones that seem to be linked to "wage slavery"; other such situations (e.g. some guy has two months to live) are mostly irrelevant to the discussion (of course, if you can think of others that *are* relevant, let's hear em).

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is true. They shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all people are in "bad situations" because they put themselves there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. There's millions of people out there who just woke up one morning to find themselves forcibly subjected to a huge mortgage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you're smarter than this. Observing that some people put themselves into bad situations isn't evidence that all people who are in bad situations put themselves there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and for those few who are truly unfortunate there are private charitable organizations to help them.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Those were the bad situations the other poster seemed most worried about, and those are the ones that seem to be linked to "wage slavery"; other such situations (e.g. some guy has two months to live) are mostly irrelevant to the discussion (of course, if you can think of others that *are* relevant, let's hear em).

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression from reading the earlier threads is that the "disadvantaged" people we are talking about would include all people who, due to circumstances and luck only, need to commit all of their available resources to basic survival. For such people, they will never get a chance provide more valuable services to the market/society, and everyone else will never get a chance to enjoy those more valuable services.

Now, the obvious solution is to "provide those people with resources", but there is no concensus at all on how to do that. I don't mean to suggest that it's an easy problem to solve.

[Mempho]

I don't want to interrupt the excellent debate here, but my main fear now with an absence of state is that a foreign threat would want to take over. If the military is privatized , who pays for it...the companies (like corporate security)?

[BCPVP]

The how is pretty difficult to answer because it involves a lot of speculation and most of us aren't military experts. As with many such things, it comes down to whether there is a demand for security or not. If there is (and I believe there would be, though probably not even close to what we have now), then there is opportunity for the enterprising to figure out how to provide such security.

[Jamougha]

BCPVP,

I think you missed the point of Mempho's post. Military security has no value to an individual; you're no going to stand vs (insert bogeyman here). Like a number of things defense spending has value when done collectively but not individually.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP,

I think you missed the point of Mempho's post. Military security has no value to an individual; you're no going to stand vs (insert bogeyman here). Like a number of things defense spending has value when done collectively but not individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same is true for printing presses, locomotives, factory machinery, roads, 757's, and every other capital good provided by the free market.