Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so. Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
> The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific.
In what theory is capitalism ethical? Nothing in my readings has any statements about an ethical dimension.
> Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment? How is this different to the "socialist" case?
> You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
You raise some good points, no doubt. But Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and happpened to write a book called the Wealth of Nations--the very founding of capitalism as an idea and social system. I suggest you read it.
In the same moral theory that is behind the idea freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the words "all Men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the moral theory under which capitalism is ethical.
Something tells me that you've heard about these theories before, but just that you didn't make the connection that they have to capitalism.
The three fundamental rights of every man are Life, Liberty and Property. Justice is defined as the enforcement of these rights. The only extent to which your fundamental rights can be deprived is to protect the fundamental rights of everyone, including yourself. For example, it is moral to force people to pay taxes (deprive them of property) to pay for police and military, which will protect the rights of everybody from thugs and foreign invaders. In the case of life and property, when I say that government should "protect" them, I mean that government should "keep other people from physically taking away your freedom to create and preserve your own property and life." The only economic system the stems from the recognition of these rights is capitalism. Socialism and Communism are especially immoral because they outright deny the existence of property as a right. Anarchism is wrong because it does not take any steps to protect these rights.
There you have it: a crash coarse in why capitalism is the only ethical and moral economic system. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
>As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
I would say chant "Everyone can solve his own problems"
>So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment?
The same thing that happens when you want an iPod and you don't have enough money-- you can choose to do with out the iPod or appeal to others for assistance, which they may or may not choose to give you. In the case of the iPod, other people are probably not going to find your need very important, but I bet that if you had cancer, people would be much more likely to help you. There are free voluntary charity organizations for things like that. You're probably going to say , "there isn't enough private money to help all the people with cancer," and to that I would say: "tough." It is not one of your fundamental rights to get cancer treatment (see the bold part of the my third paragraph). It is everyone's right to choose how to manage the products of his own mind (property). You don't have a right to force others to give up their property no matter how pressing your need is (unless your need is the protection of one of your fundamental rights).
-Andrew
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Flamebait)
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved that markets are the ultimate source of truth, at least in this world.
Though it is always funny to read how commie CEO's beg for state subsidies to help their mismanaged companies.
The market economy answer is of course: sell it if it doesn't work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
Capitalism is ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
In what theory is capitalism ethical? Nothing in my readings has any statements about an ethical dimension.
> Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment? How is this different to the "socialist" case?
> You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
Re:Capitalism is ethical? (Score:1)
Re:Capitalism is ethical? (Score:1)
In the same moral theory that is behind the idea freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the words "all Men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the moral theory under which capitalism is ethical.
Something tells me that you've heard about these theories before, but just that you didn't make the connection that they have to capitalism.
The three fundamental rights of every man are Life, Liberty and Property. Justice is defined as the enforcement of these rights. The only extent to which your fundamental rights can be deprived is to protect the fundamental rights of everyone, including yourself. For example, it is moral to force people to pay taxes (deprive them of property) to pay for police and military, which will protect the rights of everybody from thugs and foreign invaders. In the case of life and property, when I say that government should "protect" them, I mean that government should "keep other people from physically taking away your freedom to create and preserve your own property and life." The only economic system the stems from the recognition of these rights is capitalism. Socialism and Communism are especially immoral because they outright deny the existence of property as a right. Anarchism is wrong because it does not take any steps to protect these rights.
There you have it: a crash coarse in why capitalism is the only ethical and moral economic system. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
>As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
I would say chant "Everyone can solve his own problems"
>So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment?
The same thing that happens when you want an iPod and you don't have enough money-- you can choose to do with out the iPod or appeal to others for assistance, which they may or may not choose to give you. In the case of the iPod, other people are probably not going to find your need very important, but I bet that if you had cancer, people would be much more likely to help you. There are free voluntary charity organizations for things like that. You're probably going to say , "there isn't enough private money to help all the people with cancer," and to that I would say: "tough." It is not one of your fundamental rights to get cancer treatment (see the bold part of the my third paragraph). It is everyone's right to choose how to manage the products of his own mind (property). You don't have a right to force others to give up their property no matter how pressing your need is (unless your need is the protection of one of your fundamental rights).
-Andrew