[romanP]

Proculation Proculation:

romanP romanP:

No you don't. You said that capitalism regulates itself. Capitalism shouldn't require outside regulation if it can regulate itself.

It was not me who said that. It was Pseudonym.

Sorry, I keep getting you and him mixed up. I have to remember, you've done your economic homework but still have bad ideas. Pseudonym has no idea wtf he's talking about and has terrible ideas.

[romanP]

Proculation Proculation:

romanP romanP:

Proculation Proculation:

Free in the sense of "freedom".

Freedom is what sense?

Like I said earlier on this thread, in the philosophical sense.

That kind of freedom requires some ethics, and the current system is severely lacking in ethics. In fact, laissez-faire capitalism seems to require a distinct lack of ethics.

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

No. By free market I told you from the definition of Wikipedia.
Maybe I should add something like: "A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights".

Free in the philosophical meaning of "freedom". Regulations are important but they should not interfere in a "trade" between two willingly individuals.

Regulations should be set to a minimum and Government shouldn't intervene unless an illegality is commited.
The question then becomes, what laws and regulations are not a necessity to keep a market "free"? Should conglomerates, corporations be able to create monopolies or should the market be regulated to create a healthy balanced and strong competition?
Microsoft has a monopoly of sorts, for example. Subsidising small business could also be enterpreted as a form of regulation. So, how would your free market look more specifically?

[Proculation]

OPP OPP:

Proculation Proculation:

No. By free market I told you from the definition of Wikipedia.
Maybe I should add something like: "A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights".

Free in the philosophical meaning of "freedom". Regulations are important but they should not interfere in a "trade" between two willingly individuals.

Regulations should be set to a minimum and Government shouldn't intervene unless an illegality is commited.
The question then becomes, what laws and regulations are not a necessity to keep a market "free"? Should conglomerates, corporations be able to create monopolies or should the market be regulated to create a healthy balanced and strong competition?
Microsoft has a monopoly of sorts, for example. Subsidising small business could also be enterpreted as a form of regulation. So, how would your free market look more specifically?

If you have some times to spend on a good documentary on free market, that a look at this one: business-f29/the-power-of-market-by-milton-friedman-pbs-documentary-t72881.html

I agree on the basis of what he states. However, Friedman is quite 'hardcore' on freedom

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

If you have some times to spend on a good documentary on free market, that a look at this one: business-f29/the-power-of-market-by-milton-friedman-pbs-documentary-t72881.html

I agree on the basis of what he states. However, Friedman is quite 'hardcore' on freedom

I might watch it, however, if you feel so strongly about a "free" market system, then you should be able to tell me what aspects of freedom you'd like the market to pursue besides a hands off aproach by the Gov.?

[Proculation]

I said it.
My view on this is quite simple: don't intervene in a trade between two individuals. Capitalism is a required condition for freedom and individual rights.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

Which, according to many posts you've written, is all of them.

In any case, the ones who swear off world conquest and Sharia Law are just fine by me.

Or do you accept their claims to the right to rule the world and to subject everyone to Sharia Law?

I'm not sure you know what you're defending here.

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

I said it.
My view on this is quite simple: don't intervene in a trade between two individuals. Capitalism is a required condition for freedom and individual rights.

As opposed to what? You're eather being overly simplistic or unable to elaborate. I'm not saying a free market isn't free. I'm just asking what restrictions or regulations you feel so strongly against.

[Proculation]

OPP OPP:

Proculation Proculation:

I said it.
My view on this is quite simple: don't intervene in a trade between two individuals. Capitalism is a required condition for freedom and individual rights.

As opposed to what? You're eather being overly simplistic or unable to elaborate. I'm not saying a free market isn't free. I'm just asking what restrictions or regulations you feel so strongly against.

Yes it is simplistic. It has been proved that capitalism is a required condition for every freedom in a country.
There are a lot of laws I could tell but there are actually too many. It also depends of the country you are talking. I can't 'analyze' every country laws here. Just take my 'simplistic' assumption as how I think.

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

OPP OPP:

Proculation Proculation:

I said it.
My view on this is quite simple: don't intervene in a trade between two individuals. Capitalism is a required condition for freedom and individual rights.

As opposed to what? You're eather being overly simplistic or unable to elaborate. I'm not saying a free market isn't free. I'm just asking what restrictions or regulations you feel so strongly against.

Yes it is simplistic. It has been proved that capitalism is a required condition for every freedom in a country.
There are a lot of laws I could tell but there are actually too many. It also depends of the country you are talking. I can't 'analyze' every country laws here. Just take my 'simplistic' assumption as how I think.

Well, I don't agree. Capitalism is freedom and wealth for some and poverty and despair for the great masses.
Look at Brazil. There's capitalism for you.

[Proculation]

You should read more what capitalism really is. You seem to get it wrong.
Capitalism brings more wealth to everyone and this is proved.

[PluggyRug]

romanP romanP:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

OPP OPP:

Let me put this simply.. Nationalism, intolerance, racism = Right-wing triats. Solidarity, equality, tolerance = Left-wing traits.

May I take exception to that conception. The obvious read.....Intelligent common sense = right wing traits, genetic flaws = left wing traits.

Pseudonym, witness dehumanisation.

How can one dehumanise that which is not human.

[Pseudonym]

Indeed.

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

You should read more what capitalism really is. You seem to get it wrong.
Capitalism brings more wealth to everyone and this is proved.

No, I understand it perfectly. Capitalsim means a minimum of regulation and private ownership, as opposed to public ownership. When there is no public ownership, those who have accumulated wealth/capital controle society and enjoy lifes little luxuries like a proper education, good standard of living and, of coarse, power.
Those in poverty stay impoveriched, uneducated and powerless. You see, capitalism is a trasnsfer of wealth and power to a small elite while socialims is striving for equality and evenly destributing capital/wealth and power among all classes of society.

So, you see, this "economic chrisis" we're seeing today is not a chrisis at all. It's just further transfer of wealth from the majority into the hands of an already powerful and wealthy minority or elite.
While you're loosing your home, these people are out buying houses at a bargain! Isn't it neet!?

[romanP]

Proculation Proculation:

You should read more what capitalism really is. You seem to get it wrong.
Capitalism brings more wealth to everyone and this is proved.

If this is true, then why are there still millions of homeless, poor, and unemployed people in the richest nations in the world? If you are unemployed yourself, how can you say that?