US drops from the top 10 free economies list

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe those people are shoveling ****, but they are working - and they are doing much more valuable work, in many cases, than poor people.

Disagree. Where would the doctor be without his receptionist, or his assistant? It is the collaboration that increases the value of the doctor's work, rather than any intrinsic value behind what the doctor does.

[Berzerker]

How does one person obligate another who is free?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Disagree. Where would the doctor be without his receptionist, or his assistant? It is the collaboration that increases the value of the doctor's work, rather than any intrinsic value behind what the doctor does.

And the nurse, and the cleaning lady, etc.

If the doctor has to do everything himself, he wouldn't be able to see very many patients a day.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
How does one person obligate another who is free?

Free of money?

[Berzerker]

Did I say that?

You think the rich would make all that money without the poor doing all the work?

Yes, you did.

[Berzerker]

Free of money?

Free. Need it one more time?

Free

[Saras]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
*horse gets magnifying glass to find Lithuania on the map*

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128056

[David Floyd]

societys needs

A society can't have needs, unless you erase individuality and assume there is a system of "net rights", "net needs", and "net happiness". Really wanna go down that road?

That's the measure of a good govt, how much it meets out needs.

Bull****. The measure of a good government is how much it allows us to meet our own needs - how much it respects our individual rights.

The rights we have are picked so that they maximize they social benefit and help us live better.

Really? And who "picked" our rights? The government? "Society"? Bull****. Our rights at a fundamental level come down to life and liberty (property is a logical extension of both), and those rights exist regardless of government. They are inherent to us. I bet you can't find a single person, anywhere, who thinks that it is OK for someone else to rob and murder them, and if you can find such a person (who is sane) I will gladly abandon my belief system.

But until you find a single person who thinks "It is acceptable for me to be robbed and killed, if the government says it is OK", then your argument suffers from a serious flaw.

You see, there's a contradiction in your belief in a social safety net, and there's a contradiction in the majority of people's beliefs as well. That contradiction is that you don't believe it is OK for anyone to rob YOU, no matter what the law says, but at the same time it's perfectly acceptable for you to rob OTHER people.

Now, you may say that it isn't robbery if the government says it's OK, but let me ask you this: If the government passed a law mandating that every single possession you owned be taken away and distributed among the poor, would the government be stealing from you, or would it be OK as long as Congress passed a law?

Now, if it isn't OK for Congress to pass a law stripping you of all your property - and be honest with both of us, you KNOW that is neither fair, moral, or acceptable - then where can you draw the line? I don't think you can. Taking all of your property and giving it away is wrong because stealing is wrong ("legal" stealing is still, morally speaking, stealing). Looked at in that light, the amount of money or property that is taken from you doesn't matter. It's still stealing.

So, if you are willing to accept a government that steals some of your property, then you must also be willing to accept a government that steals all of your property. You may not like it, but you have no real objection. Your belief system is based on utilitarianism, not rights and morality, and that's why it fails. It ends in slavery and totalitarianism, any way you cut it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
How does one person obligate another who is free?

Total freedom is anarcy. That's not what people want. People want reasonable govt that solves problems. They want to be obligated, in so far as its fair, and it creates happiness.

[David Floyd]

AH,

Did I say that?

You certainly implied that their work was less valuable.

Tell me, what good is a manufacturing plant without all the workers making things? Who here are producing items for sell?

And what good are workers who produce things without management? What good is production without a production strategy, a business plan, a marketing department, etc.? You can't have one without the other.

The key point, though, is that only a few people can work effectively in management, yet almost everything can work a blue collar job. Hence, management jobs are worth more in a free market, and pay higher. Much higher. Same with the doctor/nurse/receptionist example. Most people can't be doctors, but everything can be a receptionist.

But the high paid managers and doctors still work hard. Make no mistake about that. They are compensated according to the value of their labor.

BK,

Disagree. Where would the doctor be without his receptionist, or his assistant? It is the collaboration that increases the value of the doctor's work, rather than any intrinsic value behind what the doctor does.

True, but again, the doctor's work is more valuable in that you can always replace a receptionist. Doctors, though, take years to train, and most people simply aren't smart enough.

[Alexander's Horse]

But your right Saras - before social welfare, European countries had to set up prison colonies like Australia and gulags to house all the people who ended up in jail because of poverty.

[David Floyd]

That's not what people want. People want reasonable govt that solves problems.

So what? Many people want that, but that's not necessarily what government should do, just because people want it.

Lot's of people may want the government to pass a law allowing slavery. Should the people get their way then, too?

Rights are what matter, not what the majority wants.

[David Floyd]

European countries had to set up prison colonies like Australia and gulags to house all the people who ended up in jail because of poverty.

Actually, they ended up in jail because they stole stuff

[Alexander's Horse]

Not necessarily so - but yes, crime is a result of poverty and as we see in the US today, where there is no safety net, prison populations are very high.

The US has ten times the number of people in prison than any other Western democratic country. Maintaining a law and order regime like that is horrendously expensive, far more expensive than social welfare.

Police and Prison Guards - Your taxes at work suckers

[David Floyd]

Hey, if people are willing to steal, they probably belong in jail anyway. I'd rather get the riffraff behind bars than have to deal with them on a daily basis, especially not once they get a legal entitlement to the **** they'd otherwise just steal. Works out great for the crooks, doesn't it?

As for our prison population, you have to account for our War on Drugs, which is emphatically NOT something I support. Attributing our prison population to a lack of social spending isn't accurate.