Yes you have; both to me and to Donutz because YOU took offense to "the plain English adjectives used to defame the characters". You took offense because I and others are calling out SOME of these people like the Koch brothers for what they are. Instead of understanding that these "plain English adjectives" are used as result of their "actual behaviors", you have made this your central point. I don`t know how many times I have said repeatedly, that I am no vilifying Capitalism, but I see the need to regulate it. I guess in your world, that is "character assassination". Again, anything said that goes against YOUR views on the subject becomes a "character assassination....
I'm not offended by it. I'm just pointing out that attacking the character of the system you are trying to provide points against doesn't provide points against it.
Just because I don`t share the same view about the motifs of the Capitalist, you take that as a non rational "character assassination?
I don't particularly care what anyone's emotional stakes are for or against different economic models. I don't disagree with your view or find it non rational because it's contrary to mine. I find it some of the elements to be non pertinent because it's not particularly germane to discuss the character quality of the parties in question.
Think outside the engineering box for a second and don't take every single tiny point to literal extremes. Again, your central point that you have brought up in every post...you don't like my choice of wording so you refuse to talk about the subject; just go on and on about the way i said something....
See above. We aren't discussing the quality of their character.
Taking "tiny points to literal extremes" is nothing more than trying to denounce the idea of logical extension. Ideas can exist within certain bounds, but we have to discuss the boundaries themselves to know what different models are capable of.
I don`t need to have friends and family there to know their track record on the way they treat the worker in those countries. Add muddy water to clean water and you end up with more muddy water. I don`t care about their "progress", I have no desire to reverse the strides that the worker has made in this country and become like them just so big business can earn more profit.
You're shifting goalposts now. I didn't say we had to regress to where they are. I'm pointing out that in terms of great economic progress, it exists in places that may not yet reflect the standard of living in the places you are pointing out (Germany).
Also, how much progress was made in workers rights is actually attributable to regulation and how much is due simply to just breakthroughs which make working environments less dangerous? Would any employer make conditions much more dangerous if it saved no money?
We still have environments which would be considered incredibly safe by late 19th century standards, yet they are 100% safe. Remember that incremental gains in safety might cost exponentially more money. Whether we like it or not, safety will cost money and we can't make things 100% safe or we wouldn't have any ability to do anything.
A perfect example is a small side project I'm working on now to install safety machine guards on some equipment to meet some 29 CFR regulations (OSHA). Installation of these guards will cost significant time, money and resources and the gain in safety is nearly insignificant because these machines are in a location where no personnel are allowed to be when they are operating. Those that are there when they are operating are doing so to perform tests and therefore, are required to know the risks working around moving machinery.
Yet, we are meeting this requirement just to satisfy the letter of the law. And who checks OSHA? What controls them? They have no oversight because they are the oversight.
"right" as in "correct", "necessary". Re read what I wrote, I said the the laws passed were right and necessary; I didn't say they were "a right"...come on man, think a little broader here, you are tedious.....
But right as in correct and necessary actually extend from the idea of human rights. Think about it. What makes something the "right" thing to do? If an action does or does not engender an environment where someone's state of well being (their RIGHTS) are or are not improved.
Laws are not right because they restrict rights (natural rights) in order to protect rights. They engender an environment where someone's state of well being is compromised to protect another's. This goes back to our idea if it is morally "correct" and "necessary".
Speaking of thinking more broadly, consider this. The etymology of the word "right" (correct and human rights) and the link between these two seemingly foreign concepts, which upon further inspection are actually quite closely linked, is NOT coincidental for the reasons I describe above.
Again, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse...when I or someone says "Capitalism becomes..." we of course are talking about the players within the system. Some of us can actually interpret meaning from words and statements while it appears that you must have every minute detail specifically spelled out.
Obviously not, because the system you propose exists with the same players having the same capacity to carry out the same amount of "good" or "bad". Yet, for some reason, you arbitrarily assert your system protect against evil more.
So which is it? Do the participants provide evil or is it the medium itself.
Okay then,......"If left unregulated, the owners of companies and people sitting on the boards of directors will result to predatory behavior that eventually places unfair and unreasonable leverages upon the society they operate within. In fact, without regulation, the free market ceases to exist in favor of monopolistic mega entities and people who use their current economic power to unfairly gain advantage over smaller entities trying to compete in that market".... sorry bro, if you can`t just interpret and extrapolate meaning from plain, common speech, you are too tedious to talk to...
Just quoting something doesn't make it true. At best, that's a bare assertion fallacy. The difference, once again, is I'm willing to delve into the dynamics behind consequences while you simply just assert the consequences..
If left unregulated, why does this necessarily happen? Are there not philanthropic organizations that exist solely within the state of market? My company matches my voluntary donations, organizes volunteer work for us to participate in, adopts several families every Christmas, provides an environmental committee you may become a member of to start Green initiatives and countless other likewise activities.
So the assertion if left alone, these entities will necessarily engage in this type of behavior is patently false. Maybe, perhaps just maybe, their capacity to engage in unsavory behavior isn't a function of them being left alone, but rather their character. Do you not doubt they would find means to commit other modes of evil under other systems?
I never said that every aspect of unionization was perfect now did I?
Who said you did? I asserted unions don't exist where I work and the working conditions seem to be adequate, as evidenced by the normal amount of turnover and prospective new employees.
Capitalism in its pure form is certainly market driven and is a failed idea much like true Communism because of human nature and without regulation and protections, both system become a form of tyranny. Problem is, there are many who still believes that unregulated free market capitalism does work and serves the society best.
No one said unregulated markets are what the goal is. What we want to do is establish an environment where total and a total lack of regulation exists (using theoretical models extrapolated from many real world economies along this spectrum) and understand what effects there are moving along this spectrum. This is probably not a 2 or even 3 dimensional spectrum, but a multi-dimensional surface map.
I've not argued for no regulation, I've argued for less regulation, for a strict and stark understanding of what the total effects of any regulation are and a very sound argument for implementing it. I also believe regulation is much better achieved on smaller scales because it can tailor made to suit each environment.
The reason we discuss the bounding extremes is because that is how you study things quantitatively, even if it's a quantitative study of human behavior.
Yes the free market is a useful and necessary aspect of any economy and it can exist in type of government from democracy to fascism. Like Communism though, pure free market Capitalism cannot work without regulation. But that I am sure you will take as another "character assassination".
No, because there weren't any such thing. There weren't any attempts to paint anything as evil or monolithic or helpless and deserving of care.
In any event, Cheese...nothing personal here and It has been a thought provoking debate; thanks! We will have to agree to disagree on our views about this. Not discounting your opinions at all, I just disagree with them....cheers....
Of course I don't take this personally. People might think so because I write and halting, discrete manner but believe me, I've been doing this well over 10 years and with people from every manner of every political and personal spectrum, from the most inflammatory to the most rigorous and impersonal.