Printable View
no because they have interference in business. businesses are not allowed to do what the hell they want. like have dung heaps in city centres. employ children. put lead in bread so it weighs more.
that is what was happening in britain when laissez-faire was being followed.
America. It could be a little bit better, I suppose.
Then again, it could be a lot worse.
I won't complain.
You could, under a libertarian system, sue anyone who dumps waste anywhere they don't have permission to, I don't really see why a hundred and fifty years of protecting children would disappear (Besides which, if any company did it, boycott them.), and putting lead in bread would be called 'poisoning', and therefore carry a fairly hefty penalty in the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And it was the decades of hard work and toil which has created a West which now doesn't have any of that stuff. It wasn't the system which caused it, it was the fact that people didn't care enough to do otherwise.
Since Britain had a form of capitalism damn close to lassiez-faire, I'd like to state that all of the "aspects" you mentioned are anti-freedom. Capitalism alone can't solve the problem - as was implied in the Wikipedia article I posted. I am for a free society, based on the recognition of individual rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Any company that has "dung heaps" in city centers, employ children, putting lead in bread so it weighs more... I wouldn't complain when the government would rightly get involved. In the same scenario regarding civil liberties, I am anti-government invovlement - except for when the government is doing what it is supposed to do. I wouldn't care if the government involves itself when somoene is, say, murdered.
The purpose of any just government is the protection of rights. That was the society that the Founding Fathers of America held as ideal - indeed, any man or woman from any country that holds that as ideal. Advocating pure capitalism without the recognition of rights is what Great Britain did incorrectly. Likewise, there is no recognition of rights without recoginizing the citizen's right to his money - to trade - to his life.
Because an unregulated, pure economy without a government wouldn't last (it'd be anarchy) does not mean that we should instead advocate a socialistic state where no one has rights anywhere either. The key here is that both systems are equally flawed; the individual is not recognized. However, in a society that recognizes those rights, then capitalism is the only economic system that supports it. As I said before, you don't necessarily need to explicitly recognize rights in order for capitalism to exist; if you explicitly recognize individual rights, capitalism naturally follows. This is total reversal, and what Europe (and America, to an extenet) attempted (and failed miserably).
ALL bullQuote:
you don't need to imagine. it is documented history. it is victorian britian. it is the height of cholera, typhoid, child labour in factories and coal mines, single room houses for 8 people, no sanitation or clean water, smog, dung heaps in cities.
.
First off, child labor. Before the Industrial Revolution, children in Britain were employed as chimney sweeps and other grummy street jobs: almost nonexistant pay, horrible working conditions.
During/after the Industrial revolution: many of the children did not have to work just to survive as they did beforehand, since the revolution and subsequent turn to a more capitalist economy raised everyone's standard of living, and those that did worked(voluntarily I might add; I don't understand what's evil about voluntarily hiring anyone) in factories, under much better working conditions than the streets.
How does capitalism cause disease? That doesn't even make any sense. An economic system causing disease? It's a fact that under communism, disease is worse, because vaccinations and such come from scientific research and experimentation, and all forms of productivity are better under a more lasseiz-faire economy. That "lasseiz-faire capitalism caused further spread of disease" has absolutely no semblence of truth whatsoever, and is so obvious bull
Most of Britain's problems that you mentioned were solved by the Industrial Revolution - which was very capitalist. You need to stop reading socialist dogma.Quote:
well the idea that laissez faire caused the appauling state of britian is backed up by the fact that when it was dropped and the liberals came to power then all that stuff went away.
It was as close as it got to lasseiz-faire during the Industrial Revolution. It was not truly lasseiz-faire. And I don't give a damn about your dogmatic essays.Quote:
god damn it it was laissez faire. do not make me dig out my higher history essays and work and post them all here and the supporting evidence. my extended essay and 33% of my grade was on the death of laissez-faire.
Hahahahaha xDQuote:
no because they have interference in business. businesses are not allowed to do what the hell they want. like have dung heaps in city centres. employ children. put lead in bread so it weighs more.
First off, a business doesn't own a city center, so it can't dump there(and can only by permission from local officials, which can only be given if local officials can regulate business, which is not possible under a lasseiz-faire system). But it CAN dump on private property.
Yes, they can employ children - children who voluntarily agree to work for them. They did not drag children out of homes and force them into hard labor - they employed starving kids, who are either working to survive to working to help their parents. What is evil about that?
Put lead in bread so it ways more? What? First off, people would stop BUYING that bread. Why does the government have to step in to say "no, you can't put poison in the food." PEOPLE WOULD STOP BUYING THE DAMN FOOD. If you force the government to do it, the businesses can bribe the politicians/officials to ignore the regulations for their business, so not only would it not be enforced, but the people wouldn't know about it. EVERYBODY benefits from the government staying the hell out of it.
Holy crap. Not ONCE has a socialist system ever succeeded. When Britain tried it - guess what? The "brain drain" - the best and brightest left for the US.
The "mixed economy" bull
Actually it got to that point int he late 1800s in the US man.IT got to the point to were companies wanted to make money no matter how many workers died.Dude it took 20 years after the self interlocking locks to be used on locomotives after it was invented & being marketed.In a business society like the US change comes very slowly to this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinALL bullQuote:
you don't need to imagine. it is documented history. it is victorian britian. it is the height of cholera, typhoid, child labour in factories and coal mines, single room houses for 8 people, no sanitation or clean water, smog, dung heaps in cities.
First off, child labor. Before the Industrial Revolution, children in Britain were employed as chimney sweeps and other grummy street jobs: almost nonexistant pay, horrible working conditions.
During/after the Industrial revolution: many of the children did not have to work just to survive as they did beforehand, since the revolution and subsequent turn to a more capitalist economy raised everyone's standard of living, and those that did worked(voluntarily I might add; I don't understand what's evil about voluntarily hiring anyone) in factories, under much better working conditions than the streets.
How does capitalism cause disease? That doesn't even make any sense. An economic system causing disease? It's a fact that under communism, disease is worse, because vaccinations and such come from scientific research and experimentation, and all forms of productivity are better under a more lasseiz-faire economy. That "lasseiz-faire capitalism caused further spread of disease" has absolutely no semblence of truth whatsoever, and is so obvious bull
Most of Britain's problems that you mentioned were solved by the Industrial Revolution - which was very capitalist. You need to stop reading socialist dogma.Quote:
well the idea that laissez faire caused the appauling state of britian is backed up by the fact that when it was dropped and the liberals came to power then all that stuff went away.
It was as close as it got to lasseiz-faire during the Industrial Revolution. It was not truly lasseiz-faire. And I don't give a damn about your dogmatic essays.Quote:
god damn it it was laissez faire. do not make me dig out my higher history essays and work and post them all here and the supporting evidence. my extended essay and 33% of my grade was on the death of laissez-faire.
Hahahahaha xDQuote:
no because they have interference in business. businesses are not allowed to do what the hell they want. like have dung heaps in city centres. employ children. put lead in bread so it weighs more.
First off, a business doesn't own a city center, so it can't dump there(and can only by permission from local officials, which can only be given if local officials can regulate business, which is not possible under a lasseiz-faire system). But it CAN dump on private property.
Yes, they can employ children - children who voluntarily agree to work for them. They did not drag children out of homes and force them into hard labor - they employed starving kids, who are either working to survive to working to help their parents. What is evil about that?
Put lead in bread so it ways more? What? First off, people would stop BUYING that bread. Why does the government have to step in to say "no, you can't put poison in the food." PEOPLE WOULD STOP BUYING THE DAMN FOOD. If you force the government to do it, the businesses can bribe the politicians/officials to ignore the regulations for their business, so not only would it not be enforced, but the people wouldn't know about it. EVERYBODY benefits from the government staying the hell out of it.
Holy crap. Not ONCE has a socialist system ever succeeded. When Britain tried it - guess what? The "brain drain" - the best and brightest left for the US.
The "mixed economy" bull
Why do people always quote a whole post? Especially right after it was posted?
lol - sorry it annoyse me :)
Bipper
what a suprise raistlin supports child labor.
laissez-faire caused disease by not preventing it. there was not a proper sewage system. there was not clean drinking water. at the time the govenment took the view that it was not their place to interfere. dirty water has a nasty habit of causing cholera. now when the government stepped in with brunel and built a proper sewage and water supply system cholera stopped. but before that point the government did not care that the water was contaminated (in london it was actually brown).
the problems persisted beyond the industrial revolution. cholera and child labour. unsafe factories and poor living conditions, unsafe food and dangerous and slave like working conditions.
my dogmatic essays? yep because for some reason the scottish education is full of dogma and is all wrong.
having a dung heap in a city centre is a little bit of a health risk me thinks. would you like your next door neighbour having one? (we are talking about very large ones)
lead poisining might not be seen stright away. as well as other additives that were added to food back then too like sulphur. and unless it tastes like lead who was to know? why would you link it to bread? it could poison lots and lots of people before a connection was made. and only then people would stop buying it after a few people had died. what a good idea that is.
the great depression was actually caused by a lack of faith in the economy boom of the time caused by new technology and the hp system. a few people shat themselves and the market went tits up.
Way to twist his words. That almost seems like flaming to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
So if the person down the street from me gets the flu, did I cause the disease by not preventing it? I fail to see your logic.Quote:
laissez-faire caused disease by not preventing it. there was not a proper sewage system. there was not clean drinking water. at the time the govenment took the view that it was not their place to interfere. dirty water has a nasty habit of causing cholera. now when the government stepped in with brunel and built a proper sewage and water supply system cholera stopped. but before that point the government did not care that the water was contaminated (in london it was actually brown).
It's called progress. Change doesn't happen overnight - conditions were steadily improving at that time period. Or would you argue that people were better off as serfs in the dark ages, because they didn't have to work in dangerous factories?Quote:
the problems persisted beyond the industrial revolution. cholera and child labour. unsafe factories and poor living conditions, unsafe food and dangerous and slave like working conditions.
You sure seem to be dogmatic, in that you refuse to listen to any other point of view - you're absolutely convinced of your own righteousness. And Raist never said a thing about the Scottish education system.Quote:
my dogmatic essays? yep because for some reason the scottish education is full of dogma and is all wrong.
You just ignored what Raist said, and you're just repeating what you already said, which is blatantly false.Quote:
having a dung heap in a city centre is a little bit of a health risk me thinks. would you like your next door neighbour having one? (we are talking about very large ones)
A company is only allowed to dump in property that it privately owns, or a public landfill. You're not going to see a dumptruck hauling trash into the middle of Central Park. Laissez-faire doesn't mean anarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Here's another thing you don't seem to be picking up on. If the government holds power over businesses, then the government is subject to corruption by those businesses. If a company was putting lead in bread, then any government officials could easily be bribed to ignore complaints from the people about the bread. To think otherwise is to assume that the government is infallible.Quote:
lead poisining might not be seen stright away. as well as other additives that were added to food back then too like sulphur. and unless it tastes like lead who was to know? why would you link it to bread? it could poison lots and lots of people before a connection was made. and only then people would stop buying it after a few people had died. what a good idea that is.
The Depression was caused by a multitude of things. You can't pin it all on one reason.Quote:
the great depression was actually caused by a lack of faith in the economy boom of the time caused by new technology and the hp system. a few people shat themselves and the market went tits up.
it's not twisting his word raistlin says he supports hiring willing people "and those that did worked(voluntarily I might add; I don't understand what's evil about voluntarily hiring anyone)" and that includes children.
flu is unpreventable. cholera from water supply with human watse in it is preventable.
if i can get an a in higher history and a predicted a in advanced higher with "dogmatic essays" then it is either saying that my education system is poor or dogmatic.
the dung heap thing is not false. it's a reported fact. it happened. alot. it's in every standard grade history class that learns about that period. it is quotable in an sqa exam. it was reported in papers and articles of the time. it is not false.
and because a company privately owns a property does not give it a right to turn it into a huge dung heap. it affects those out with the private grounds and is a serious health risk.
"Here's another thing you don't seem to be picking up on. If the government holds power over businesses, then the government is subject to corruption by those businesses. If a company was putting lead in bread, then any government officials could easily be bribed to ignore complaints from the people about the bread. To think otherwise is to assume that the government is infallible."
and if the government didn't make sure it's people wasn't being poisoned then people would be poisoned anyway. companies would still do it. which is why business is corrupt no matter what system it is under. and i'm fairly confident that my bread does not contain lead. but i suppose i cannot be 100% sure. but then agin i'm not 100% sure australia exists or the moon is not made of cheese.
stock market crashes only ever have one cause. a drop in confidence.
The dung heap was not a reported fact. In fact, you're showing blazing ignorance whenever you mention it. Lassiez-faire capitalism does not mean "rule by business". The entire point is property rights, and it is illegal to dump YOUR waste on another's property.
Only in socialisitc ideals can I see that happen, when we have "progressed" past such an idealistic, "outdated" system such as recognition of property rights.
but it was on his property and if i need to find the bloody story online i will. but the fact that it was on his property does not make it right. it affected everyone around him.
Then find the bloody story online, please.
Oh, and try to find an unbiased version. The moment I hear the words "selfish luxury", or anything like it, in the article I exit out.
If workers died...why didn't they quit? if there were such intolerable conditions, how did the factory stay in businesses? Because the people expected the government to solve all of their problems.Quote:
Actually it got to that point int he late 1800s in the US man.IT got to the point to were companies wanted to make money no matter how many workers died.Dude it took 20 years after the self interlocking locks to be used on locomotives after it was invented & being marketed.In a business society like the US change comes very slowly to this country.
If the workers got together and decided to strike, the business would be forced to change their ways or shut their doors.
What a surprise Cloud No.9 completely misses the point. Do I even need to explain myself, or does that stupidity speak for itself?Quote:
what a suprise raistlin supports child labor.
In that stituation - if there was sufficient demand - a business could come in and install a sewage system and force other people to pay for it. Or a couple of businesses could come along that would install wells. If people want something, a person that wants to make money will be there to supply it. There was inadequate sewage systems because the people didn't want any at the time, because their knowledge of the spread of disease was far limited compared to ours today.Quote:
laissez-faire caused disease by not preventing it. there was not a proper sewage system. there was not clean drinking water. at the time the govenment took the view that it was not their place to interfere. dirty water has a nasty habit of causing cholera. now when the government stepped in with brunel and built a proper sewage and water supply system cholera stopped. but before that point the government did not care that the water was contaminated (in london it was actually brown).
Then the workers can strike. If they don't strike - if they don't care enough about their conditions to do anything about it, then I have no sympathy for them. I would avidly support a strike if I thought it just, but I would not lift a finger to help workers who are not willing to help themselves.Quote:
the problems persisted beyond the industrial revolution. cholera and child labour. unsafe factories and poor living conditions, unsafe food and dangerous and slave like working conditions.
If it teaches the bullQuote:
my dogmatic essays? yep because for some reason the scottish education is full of dogma and is all wrong.
First off, that "dung heap in city center" story is bogus, and could not happen in a truly capitalist society. However, my next door neighbour is free to have whatever the hell he wants in his own private property. If I don't like it, I'm free to move.Quote:
having a dung heap in a city centre is a little bit of a health risk me thinks. would you like your next door neighbour having one? (we are talking about very large ones)
The same could happen with government regulations. I fail to see your point.Quote:
lead poisining might not be seen stright away. as well as other additives that were added to food back then too like sulphur. and unless it tastes like lead who was to know? why would you link it to bread? it could poison lots and lots of people before a connection was made. and only then people would stop buying it after a few people had died. what a good idea that is.
HAHAHAHA, is that what you're taught?Quote:
the great depression was actually caused by a lack of faith in the economy boom of the time caused by new technology and the hp system. a few people shat themselves and the market went tits up.
You're right - I don't understand how hiring someone who is willing to work for you is a crime. Now, if I threatened them or otherwise coerced them into working, then that is a crime, no matter who the person is. However, if someone comes up to me and says, "will you give me a job?" and I have a job to give them, I fail to see anything wrong with hiring them.Quote:
it's not twisting his word raistlin says he supports hiring willing people "and those that did worked(voluntarily I might add; I don't understand what's evil about voluntarily hiring anyone)" and that includes children.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine