What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
That's called a philosopher king and it's a theory pretty much disproven by history.

Don't make a habit of reading everything do you?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That's not the government's job. It's the consumer's.

Your example isn't a matter of greed, but bad business. Companies stay away from raising prices to the point their bottom line suffers. It defeats its purpose.

They don't need to go that far. Just keep prices to the point where the company can keep going and not be greedy about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't make a habit of reading everything do you?

Yes, your model is fairly close to the philosopher king one.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Sometimes the government can be more forceful and effective then the consumer.

They don't need to go that far. Just keep prices to the point where the company can keep going and not be greedy about it.

Jesus Christ....go read Ayn Rand, you need it bad.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes, your model is fairly close to the philosopher king one.

It was also followed by the phrase "Nah, that's retarded."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Jesus Christ....go read Ayn Rand, you need it bad.

I like some of her work, Anthem is a particularly good read.

But she grew up in a particularly bad communist society. It did make her very biased against any kind of government control.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Sometimes the government can be more forceful and effective then the consumer.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
They don't need to go that far. Just keep prices to the point where the company can keep going and not be greedy about it.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then we get into freedom and the limitation of it.

Companies won't get greedy to the point it hurts workers and/or consumers because it hurts business. The market itself is the most powerful tool for regulation.

Yes they will because to them workers are an expendable and readily replaceable commodity.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I like some of her work, Anthem is a particularly good read.

But she grew up in a particularly bad communist society. It did make her very biased against any kind of government control.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What else did you read by her?

That was pretty much it, we took her in my high school politics class.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Sometimes freedoms need to limited though. In the interest of the public at large.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes they will because to them workers are an expendable and readily replaceable commodity.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
That was pretty much it, we took her in my high school politics class.

Hmm, well, you should really read Atlas Shrugged when you have time. It is actually quite fun to read and explains her POV very well. She got a point after all.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, basic freedoms should never be limited.

And we aren't even talking about the public at large, just one companies decision to make extra profit, which is their every right as human being to value their work.

If you abuse your workers, they will not come. No one wants to work for an abusive employer, meaning it's bad to be an abusive employer because it hurts your chance to attract workers.

Allot of people are desperate for work.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, well, you should really read Atlas Shrugged when you have time. It is actually quite fun to read and explains her POV very well. She got a point after all.

I will. I'll hit Chapters tomorrow.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Now that's a really stupid ****ing question.

People don't agree? dur

You do realize, you just proved for AC why anarchy doesn't work?

It would never last any way- communities would have leaders, leaders would work together government would be formed.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You do realize, you just proved for AC why anarchy doesn't work?

It would never last any way- communities would have leaders, leaders would work together government would be formed.

Nah.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If you abuse your workers, they will not come. No one wants to work for an abusive employer, meaning it's bad to be an abusive employer because it hurts your chance to attract workers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah.

Also anarchists seem to have fairly limited ability to form arguments . . .

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No one wants to work for an abusive employer; or in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, or for a substandard wage. But that wouldn't imply that no one would need to.

Which is why we assume an ideal society. Makes things work very smoothly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also anarchists seem to have fairly limited ability to form arguments . . .