Questions for the Capitalists

How do the laws that restrict and prohibit the sale of certain products and services in the US mesh with the ideals of capitalism?

Are all the staunch capitalists out there, for the legalization of prostitution? Are you for the legalization of other illegal products that I cannot discuss in specifics on this site? Should we have laws to dictate the drinking age? Or tobacco?

These laws are forms of regulation that limit and hinder capitalism. According to some of the statements i have read on this site from individuals that consider themselves hardcore capitalists, regulation of markets is a deterrent to the values of capitalism. Should we abolish all of these laws and let the free market balance the scales?

reply to post by iamcamouflage

---

Trading humans and trafficking drugs is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of business ventures. Almost all capitalists will agree that basic human rights need to be protected.

yeah, I mean just look how well those workers in the 3rd world get treated producing sweat shirts and cheap t shirts for us in the west to wear. Surely a capitalist venture

Big pharma seems to think its a legitimate business. I would argue that most are not concerned so much with human rights as they are with turning a profit. If human trafficking was legalized today, i can promise that there would be several large corporations that jump on board with the marketing and sale of people. I think you may be forgetting that slavery was legal and accepted in this country for hundreds of years. Those capitalists were not as concerned about human rights as they were free labor and making money.

When I say prostitution I am not referring to human trafficking but consensual prostitution. I dont want to discuss the illegal drug thing with very much detail because of the T&C but we allow for alcohol and tobacco sales in this country and there are a lot of capitalists would consider these a legit form of business.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by iamcamouflage]

Exactly! Great point. How many US clothing manufacturers are currently using child labor or allowing for terrible working conditions because it is acceptable in some other country. If the legal working age were dropped to 8 years old in this country, you could be assured that an 8 year old would be making your taco at the Bell. Most corporations are only concerned at making a buck and not getting sued. If the laws change to suit their needs, they will surely take advantage.

My actual point of this thread was to see if the staunch supporters of strict capitalistic ideals are for legalizing(removing regulation) for some of the less popular/illegal products and services. If you are in favor of true capitalism and less govt involvement than you should be in favor of repealing most of the laws regarding subjects such as, illegal drugs and prostitution.



[edit on 16-10-2009 by iamcamouflage]

I work to acquire money (minus tax, etc.). I gather this wealth so I can have something to provide my children for their future. What I do not believe in is for the money that came from the sweat (hard work doesn't denote physical work) of my brow to be distributed to others. I work for my money. I deserve that money.

I do not exactly have a physical job since my parents spent money for me to go to college in order to not do manual labor. My parents want me to have a better future so they worked hard to acquire wealth in order to give me my education.

I have an honest business and I spent blood, sweat, and tears to build my honest business.

I abhor Communism or Socialism since I have spent a good part of my life working to provide my children a better and a more comfortable life.

Communism and Socialism is good for those who have not worked hard. People who have, worked hard. People who don't, did not work hard enough.

What goods and services are legal for trading is a legal and moral question - the question of capitalism or socialism/communism is purely about how you distribute those goods and services. The first is a moral question - the second is a commercial question.

For example - if you have a socialist or communist system, the government decides who gets the slaves, drugs and hookers. In a capitalist system - the free market would set prices and people would be able to purchase whatever slaves, drugs and hookers they could afford.

The current system in western countries is not capitalist - and has not really been a free market for well over 100 years.

Corporations are the antithesis of capitalism - as they are monopolistic - and are protected by government regulation - which constrains small business and eliminates one of the fundamental benefits of capitalism, which is competition.

One aspect of it is that there are so many fees, legal issues and hurdles to overcome to enter business - this makes it difficult for small entities to compete effectively.

Again - with child labor and so forth - it is not a question regarding the style of commerce - it is a legal and moral question.

If it is morally acceptable for children as young as 8 to work - under capitalism they would work in private factories, under communism they would work in government factories.

The difference is that under capitalism they would be working in a competitive labor market - so if they were skilled, or unemployment was low - then they could expect an improvement in working conditions and salary - under the government - the conditions would be set at a fixed level at whatever the government officials thought was appropriate.

Actually, in most third-world-countries, western Businesses are the only option for them to make any money at all.

Marxist-mind-control has you believe that they are forced to apply for the job and that business owners are generally exploitative.

Human Rights and Making Money are not polar opposites. More support, philantrophy, money, schools, infrastructure, food, jobs have been provided by capitalism then by any other movement in History.



Slave trade is a side-effect of barbarianism. It has nothing to do with modern capitalism.




The problem with anti-corporatist propaganda is that it says that the Corporation is responsible for someone taking Tobacco. The truth is, that I am responsible for taking and also for quitting.

I know so from experience because I recently quit smoking - and it horrific. The withdrawal symptoms showed me Tobacco Companies mix all kinds of chemicals into the Cigarettes.

So Tobacco Companies are not friendly. But that doesnt mean "all corporations are greedy exploiters" or that Tobacco Companies are responsible for my addiction.

Mind control?

You said yourself why people are forced to work in sweatshops. It is their only way to make money.

If you don't believe sweatshop owners are exploitative, then you are lying to yourself.

And to address that further, unregulated capitalism is the reason these people work for slave wages and suffer almost unbearable hours and work conditions.



Any economist will agree, that as long as we have a monetary system, capitalism will be necessary in some form. However, unregulated capitalism is the world's #1 evil.

The free market leads to exploitation. The system is designed to funnel wealth from the masses to the few. Without proper legislation, there are no rights guaranteed to the working class. These are facts. Regulation is the only way capitalism can work on a grand scale.

We have seen first hand what deregulation can do to an economy. Look at the current state of the US.

The company does not force them to work. In general they apply for a job out of their own free will and accord.



At least they have that option. Without the company they may not have many other options.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

I once started a business. It did pretty well. Until I started to make money and the larger companies noticed me. Than I started getting visits from the building Inspectors when I did not call for Inspectors, started getting visits from the OSHA inspectors every other week, started getting visits from the Union locals to ask if I was using union members and if I was allowing them to talk to the local unions. Imagine if I actually started to encroach on their profits.

Large corps do these type things to the extreme. They just get their senators and reps to enact laws and regs to squeeze out the smaller companies. When was the last time you heard of food poisoning actually attributable to a small farm? When monopolies and huge corps squeeze out small business it does not make things better. What has gone on for the last 30 years, it does explain to me the economic situation right now. We are so close to the China economic model it is not even funny.

edit for punc and gramma

[edit on 10/16/2009 by endisnighe]

would you allow one of your family to work for a $1 a week, to provide the luxury's enjoyed by the rich. After the weeks work you wouldn't be able to afford one of the shirts you've helped produce, you will however have a $1 to maybe pay for some rice for the rest of the family to live on.

You would have to be forced into this position rather than choose it as away of life.

I would recommend against working for that money, but its their free choice if they decide to do so anyway.

Nobody is forcing one to do anything...except in socialist/marxist countries where free-choice is lessened.

Ive been to some countries where giving people 5 Dollars will feed their whole family all day. So it was a real joy walking around passing out 5 Dollar-Bills.

Of Course, the marxist wil say that I am "exploiting" them and should sign over all of my property to them.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

I'm surprised the country you visited didn't erect a statue in honor of your generosity. I imagine they still talk about the day the great American visited their country and handed them a five dollar bill.

A Marxist would call this distribution of wealth, but on a very small patronising way.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by drwizardphd

---

besides, if you are talking about child labor, those children most likely didn't have a choice, their parents made that choice so that they and the child's younger siblings can eat!

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

More often than not, a large corporation will operate in a 3rd world country until the people demand higher wages and adequate working conditions. It usually at this point when the company packs up shop and moves to the next 3rd world country, where the people are willing to work for less than the previous country.

This leaves the first country and its people, without jobs or a proper economy to support any other employment. This also creates generations of people with a skill set that no longer applies to their current means for survival. Once the large company leaves they must revert back to whatever means they used for survival before that company was there. But many of these skills become lost with the sudden influx of this new business. More often than not that company also leaves large amounts of environmental pollution and a shattered, unsustainable economy.

Associating Capitalism with Child Labor, Prostitution and Drug Trafficking is propagandistic brainwashing because it takes the segment of the popuation that are Criminals, displays them and says "Look! This is Capitalism!"

There are capitalist criminals, communist criminals, catholic criminals, democrat criminals, republican criminals, protestant criminals, British Criminals, American Criminals, Arab Criminals, Israeli Criminals...concluding that this means that any one of them are "generally criminal" is propagandistic rhetoric.