"Freedom" thread or something

Resumed your book btw.

I want to punch Dorthea and Arthur.


Edited by Epignosis - October 03 2012 at 19:08

Upton Sinclair was an idiot.

The Doctor wrote: Back in the day before labor laws came to the fore, the common man's choice was to either work extremely long hours for very low wages in very dangerous conditions or go without eating.  The Supreme Court at the time called laws banning these conditions unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered not only with the employers' freedom to contract, but also the employees.  To say that employees had any freedom whatsoever in these situations was a gross misuse of the word imo.  Their choice was to work like slaves, risking life and limb, for subsistence wages or starve.  Not much of a choice, nor much freedom there.

Government regulations did not cause that to happen, I can assure you.  What changed after the industrial revolution in the US was the eventual proliferation of transportation and communication.  Hell, now that we have the Internet, the opportunity for people to be their own bosses has skyrocketed.  I can make a friggin website with a database of Prog Rock bands and albums, throw in a forum, hire nobody, and still make good money.  Right M@X?  M@X???

Even if there was a need for the FLSA and so forth, it is no longer needed now.  Would you work a job for $11 a week now?

thellama73 wrote: manofmystery wrote: Of course, the nonsense myths this article so effectively dispells have been what have kept this thread vibrant for so long.  How many of you, who eventually came around, believed at least 1 of these myths before coming here? Also, how often do we continue to see them used as throw away lines, used in a last ditch attempt to invalidate our opinions, when opponents have no leg to stand on?  They were certainly promoted as facts by republican debate moderators, earlier this year, and probably alwys will be by old media. Myth and Truth About Libertarianism Good article, MoM. The one that I run into all the time is the "all people are good" one, which utterly baffles me. It is precisely because we don't believe all people are good that we object to giving people unlimited power over others in the form of government. Isn't that self-evident?

I have never thought that libertarians think all people are good.  I think what libertarians do do however is completely ignore the dangers that accumulation of private power can pose to the freedom of all by focusing solely on governmental power.  True, when governments have unlimited power, a few people have freedom and power and the rest of us are powerless and under the control of an oppressive system.  Likewise, when governments have no or very little power, private individuals are allowed to accumulate vast amounts of power, which again leaves a few with freedom and power, and the rest of us at the mercy of those private individuals.  You may dismiss the economic power which employers, banks, landlords, et al can exert over the populace, but that power is as dangerous as any weapon or police power.  Back in the day before labor laws came to the fore, the common man's choice was to either work extremely long hours for very low wages in very dangerous conditions or go without eating.  The Supreme Court at the time called laws banning these conditions unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered not only with the employers' freedom to contract, but also the employees.  To say that employees had any freedom whatsoever in these situations was a gross misuse of the word imo.  Their choice was to work like slaves, risking life and limb, for subsistence wages or starve.  Not much of a choice, nor much freedom there.  There must be a balance between governmental and private power, so that they act as checks on one another.  The balance in this country, I'm sure we would all agree is out of whack, but instead of moving toward less government, I think the balance lies in more control over those with private power to give the rest of us some of that freedom you keep talking about.

By the way, as to the article on Sweden, let me just say, I'd much rather live in a society with a lower per capita GDP and a lower rate of growth but where the money is more equitably spread, than in a society with a higher per capita GDP and growth rate, but where the vast majority of the money goes only to those at the very top.  It's all about standard of living for everyone, not just the amount the economy produces, but how many people get to enjoy the fruits of that economy.


Edited by The Doctor - October 03 2012 at 18:12

Dean wrote: You think?

ergo sum

You think?

Why can't the US just implement a period of supply-side economics like they did in the 1980s? It'll surely be the cure for this stagflation that it has been in.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: The accents thread contained anti-economist,... comments, not anti-Libertarian ones. Isn't that the same thing? In your house maybe.   All economists =/= libertarians; all Libertarians =/= economists.

Sometimes you take the nonsense I say too seriously, Dean.

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: The accents thread contained anti-economist,... comments, not anti-Libertarian ones. Isn't that the same thing?

In your house maybe.