It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we solve societal problems on our own independent of government?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
In my opinion, this is going to become one of the most important questions of the next century.

Are we able to solve problems on our interdependently of government or is government the only thing that can solve our problems???

If your answer to this is yes then you believe in the free market.





A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

It is a result of a need being, then the need being met. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing. In a free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.

Although free markets are commonly associated with capitalism within a market economy in contemporary usage and popular culture, free markets have also been advocated by free-market anarchists, market socialists, and some proponents of cooperatives and advocates of profit


The above block of text is literally what is in the video.



It is a result of a need being, then the need being met.


This block of text being the most important part of this entire diatribe.

So, there are many people living in poverty in the US and I am speaking in terms of relevance and only of the US because it is where I reside. If the free market is about finding a solution to fullfill a need then that means to me that the free market will provide a solution to poverty in a way that someone find beneficial or opportunistic without big government involvement. After all if the free market isn't providing the solutions then it's not a free market is it?




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Check out Morgan Freeman's new series: The Story of Us.

Episode 2 I just watched he shows of particular note how the people of Rwanda have managed to get along after the machete massacre genocide they had there that left about a MILLION people dead.



edit on 12-11-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
In my opinion, this is going to become one of the most important questions of the next century.

Are we able to solve problems on our interdependently of government or is government the only thing that can solve our problems???

If your answer to this is yes then you believe in the free market.





A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

It is a result of a need being, then the need being met. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing. In a free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.

Although free markets are commonly associated with capitalism within a market economy in contemporary usage and popular culture, free markets have also been advocated by free-market anarchists, market socialists, and some proponents of cooperatives and advocates of profit


The above block of text is literally what is in the video.



It is a result of a need being, then the need being met.


This block of text being the most important part of this entire diatribe.

So, there are many people living in poverty in the US and I am speaking in terms of relevance and only of the US because it is where I reside. If the free market is about finding a solution to fullfill a need then that means to me that the free market will provide a solution to poverty in a way that someone find beneficial or opportunistic without big government involvement. After all if the free market isn't providing the solutions then it's not a free market is it?



Are you wanting solve social problems , financial problems, medicare problems . understanding the free market is a great piece of knowledge.

Just asking what the goal is.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

Those things you mentioned would be a need as defined by a free market meaning DEMAND.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Opps, my point is there is more than one problem.

Solving poverty is a great place to start.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well, we already know that the government is incapable of solving problems and is actually more interested in inventing new ones in order to recruit more party loyalists to consolidate their power over them. This is why they've regressed the masses to a pre-enlightenment mentality with their fraudulent academic institutions and media mouthpieces where the people's entire world view is shaped by self-serving party think tanks. If the people were to undergo a re-enlightenment the government power structure would crumble over night.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Fair answer forr those topics.

There is a race problem.
There is a mass shooting problem
A screwed up congress. ( and more)

I can see that if you can get every day joe involved/understanding more about the free market and its impact both globally and locally it will make a difference.

THat might be a key strategy. I f we can joe average to set aside contrary opinion and listen.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Most problems are already solved with out govt.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

Yes. If the average Joe realizes that we were empowered by our founding fathers to create free market solutions to social issues outside of government then they would start seeing these DEMANDS as opportunity to create a solution rather than demand government provide the solution.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
The last election proved people rejected government solving all their problems.

Since Americans have the attention span of a gnat that will change back to 'community organizing' shortly.

Americans have lost their identity.

They have snipped away the greatest legacy that was left to us.

FREEDOM, and that always means failing.

Only adversity builds strength. It also builds character.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: sooth

Well, we already know that the government is incapable of solving problems and is actually more interested in inventing new ones in order to recruit more party loyalists to consolidate their power over them. This is why they've regressed the masses to a pre-enlightenment mentality with their fraudulent academic institutions and media mouthpieces where the people's entire world view is shaped by self-serving party think tanks. If the people were to undergo a re-enlightenment the government power structure would crumble over night.


Powerful statement.

I agree the government has to many part of itself pulling in different direction.

I dont think thought that the government has the influence over academia. Most of the classes are fact based physic chemistry (what ever) there is no. There is an openness of opinion because wide range of back grounds in most university except perhaps in the most elite. the party think tank can barely influence their own parties. Ie each individual congress man is being an ass on his own accord. (if yo can show that they have taken direction from some one to asses I will gladly do the reading.

To me it not so much that the regress masses fraction of the masses are feeling more empowered and are coming out of the wood work becoming assertive. They feel their opinion are facts because now they can reach and find hundred of people with the same opinons easily (damn Internet
)

" If the people were to undergo a re-enlightenment the government power structure would crumble over night"

I agree. I do not if we envision them having the epiphany as you but I agree.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

agreed



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

"The last election proved people rejected government solving all their problems."

Can you expand on this for me??

do you thing they voted for an empty place card because they didnt like clinton


do you thing they voted for an a business man because they see that as the need

are there other considerations I am not seeing?



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

What's to expand ?

Sanders the socialist lost.

Clinton the promiseer of free snip lost.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

We will never know if Sanders would have lost. Hillary and the Demo Nat Com conspired to stop him from defeating hillary.

I would have loved to see a Trump VS Sanders race. And to be honest I don't know who I would have voted for. Sanders has some very good ideas.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The outcome would have been the same.

The only difference would have been a landslide for Trump.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Somethings we can't be sure of.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Every unit of society requires governance.

A family unit has it's own form of government at many levels.

That governance can take many forms - it maybe authoritarian where a single person makes the rules and enforces them. It may be based on some form of republicanism where an agreed upon person mades those decisions for the group and is the ultimate arbiteur of regulation. It can be governed by some form of consensus, or a substantial majority or simple majority with enforcement invested either in the group as a whole or chosen indivuals.

So - No I don't think any form of society is possible without some governmental structure.

As to Free Market Governance, if that is what you imply.

It's merely an authoritarian form of governance where Capital (who has the most or a cartel of capital with it's own secret system of government - percentage of stock or capital) is the operating principle of the entire system.

This idea that money equals power or speech comes from the governance model of the corporation wherein a 'stockholder's' (only those who put in capital have a voice) value or voice is only in proportion to his/her holdings in relation to the entire Capital Investment pool. (it's not quite that simple because of classes of stock and so forth but is the general idea.)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Pretty much all government does when it comes to social issues especially is assign winners and losers. That doesn't really solve problems. Think about it. Does anyone ever really feel better when they are assigned the losing side of a social issue? Does it actually make the problem go away or anyone of either side feel any better about the outcome?

Or is it better to let people work it out amongst themselves? Sure. It might be messy. You may get groups who decide to do things differently and have to adopt a live and let live approach in some instances.

But is that better than government's inevitable winner take all approach? And if you say yes, is that simply because you feel you will always be the one on the winning side of the equation forever getting what you want?



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I think the question should be:

Can the Government solve societal problems?

Well... lets see...

From the beginning... God created Adam & Eve.. ha ha.

Look where we are today in the 21st Century. Has any Government been able to solve societal problems?

I think you'll find the answer to be NO.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join