Yes, that phone you own, the computer that you used to type that message, the clothes on your back, the retail/hospitality/whatever job you picked up to get you a bit of cash while at school, etc are all products of something beyond the notions of a free market
This (often repeated) analogy is simply absurd. It has nothing to do with we whether ought to be pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist; it merely is a descriptive statement affirming that we live in a capitalist society. It's simply absurd to insinuate that if one were to hold a coherent anti-capitalist ethic they should like reject literally everything associated with the capitalist system. Additionally, many arguments can be made (and have been made) that the development of innovative technologies can in particular be attributed to the state-sector, rather than the free-market per se http://www.amazon.com/The-Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Economics/dp/0857282522 (not that I'm a big fan of the state but whatevs)Yes, that phone you own, the computer that you used to type that message, the clothes on your back, the retail/hospitality/whatever job you picked up to get you a bit of cash while at school, etc are all products of something beyond the notions of a free market
Capitalism is good, croney capitalism is very, very bad
The police, the army and the courts. Nothing else.
If you're from a low income family and can't afford education - tough. I don't care. Whether someone gets an education or not doesn't bother me.
But you're the one that's saying there should be no taxation at allWe've heard it before and I'll say it again, it's as rudimentary as: Quality > Quantity.
I don't agree with saltedwound, in fact, the guy's more than likely a spastic who when confronted can't even get the bat off his shoulder. I'm not going off any of the economics content I've learnt in school, this is all from leisure readings of Austrian Economics School Theory. I'll insert and extract from a website I was reading: Crony-capitalism is, by the dictionary, “a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.” Needless to say, real capitalists condemn such a vile maneuver. In capitalism, interventionism and protection are emphatically rejected. It is the very core of the laissez – faire: don’t intervene our business, don’t protect our business, don’t regulate our business: give us liberties and let us do. Unfortunately, due to some cronies, the whole system (a system of innovation and creation of wealth) has to bear with a fearsome reputation.
No-one opts for an environmentally detrimental business, to assume one would is downright ludicrous. I've stated this before, if businesses desire prosperity in the free market they must show strict adherence to consumer wants and preferences. Unless a majority of people want to see the environment being destroyed and demolished, businesses will ensure that they preserve the environment, if not, they'll fall second to businesses that do. There is profit in mind, that's the aim of a business, however, in the free-market it's competitive which means in order to make profit you have to go beyond and above your competitors.
Dunno but I'm pointing the fact that you're saying that there should be no taxation at allPoint being?
whateverYeah, never did I argue for taxation though?
Well, the Tragedy of the commons is unfortunately a result of single minded bias.Yeah nobody wants to damage the environment on purpose but what occurs is that it happens accidentally because their only incentive is for their short term profit over the long term benefit for the market economy. No environment = no profit and economy.