Originally posted by Shey Tapani
" I'm going to get this on track by asking: How the fall of the Soviet Union "proved" there was no alternative to the free market?"Owrite the S.U. showed that the state cannot control the economy.
Do you mean no regulation? Because if you want to see what an economy like that, check out Charles Dickens. No regulation means no middle class, no liberal democracy. Hell, the US tried to do the free market thing for 30 years and we're not much better than the Soviet Union right now.
Originally posted by Shey Tapani
Regulation is one thing.Controling the economy is an another.
Thats what i wrote controling the economy.
So you're not talking about free market, you're talking about a planned economy. Yeah, those don't work.
So you're for corporations paying taxes and not ripping people off and not forming monopolies and cartels and not insider trading or shorting their own stock to ripoff their customers and shareholders and not destroying their countries by outsourcing jobs and hiring undocumented workers and using prison labor and not putting their employees through wage slavery and unsafe conditions and for a minimum wage?
Originally posted by Shey Tapani
" I'm going to get this on track by asking: How the fall of the Soviet Union "proved" there was no alternative to the free market?"Owrite the S.U. showed that the state cannot control the economy.
Originally posted by King Kandy
To rule something is to control it. When you control something, what do you do? You make rules. And if you have no control, rules are meaningless as nobody has to follow them. They are intrinsically related concepts.
lets say that i am mayor. Just because i make a rule that people cant go to the museum at 8 pm does not mean that i control them.
Nothing spells 'success' better than waving a hand at the flock of sheep you control at the palm of your hand.
anarcho/socialism where individuals can own private property{that isnt a significant means of production} but cant trade with it and the government pays handsomely for intellectual property that proves capable of innovation and creating/better handling resources{including the more artistic resources that society needs}. all this with the maximum of individual and civil liberty, a ban on any relegious association with politics and strict minority rights and maximum democratic involvement in every national and international decision{relying more on general public votes than RESPRESENTATIVES of societies picked to vote, e.g , senate etc}.
Originally posted by leonheartmmEew, government?
anarcho/socialism where individuals can own private property{that isnt a significant means of production} but cant trade with it and the government pays handsomely for intellectual property that proves capable of innovation and creating/better handling resources{including the more artistic resources that society needs}. all this with the maximum of individual and civil liberty, a ban on any relegious association with politics and strict minority rights and maximum democratic involvement in every national and international decision{relying more on general public votes than RESPRESENTATIVES of societies picked to vote, e.g , senate etc}.