Why does /pol/ suck the free markets dick so much? Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices? How do you justify this? How is a regulated market not better?
You're right but what is the free market alternative that will produce a more ethical outcome
>>79824100
>people will partake in unethical business practices
don't they do that now?
Because /pol/ consists of some of the most manipulable people you've ever laid eyes on.
Nobody easier to manipulate than those that fall for the types of "But you're not as stupid as the rest of the sheeple." reasoning you frequently see here.
>>79824178
Hitler.
People partake in unethical activities every day. People are imperfect. No system should impose perfection of a human and expect them to act like robots because it won't work (communism). The fake you've stated is a flaw in humans, not in the free market. The free market merely facilitates natural transactions with as little interference as possible. The more interference you have with a human's nature, the more likely your system is to fail.
>>79824274
>>79824100
>>79824100
Do you think people should be able to trade with one another assuming it is voluntary?
Should I be able to just sell you my pencil? Or should the government write a few thousand rules and how sell it and increase th cost of the pencil by 500% for the pleasure? Would you still want the pencil with the increased cost and hassle of filling out tons of paper work and hiring lawyers to make sure you stay in compliance?
>>79824100
But the consumers are also free to choose which businesses they want to support. If they don't like the business practices of said companies, they are free to withdraw financial support from them. If the 'unethical practice' is morally questionable or only disliked by a certain demographic, they can target their products accordingly and let the consumers make their own informed decision. I think the only interventions needed from government is very rare and should only be used for increasing competition and stopping monopolies from unfairly rigging the market in their favour while providing shitty products/services
>>79824100
>People will only be unethical in the market system I don't like
>>79824456
Very nice false dichotomy. Well thought out.
>>79824100
>implying regulation has any effect on big business
>implying it doesn't just cripple SME
>>79824100
Unethical business practices cannot survive in a truly free market.
>>79824100
Who is this cock wrangler?
Why do statists suck the government dick so much? Do you not realise that politicians and civil servants will partake in unethical practices? How do you justify this? How is a small, restricted state not better?
>>79824100
>Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices?
>How is a regulated market not better?
explain these.
oh w8, nevermind m8
'unethical business practices'
what are u the fucking union representative.
get fucked cunt
>>79824456
You can't trade pencils with Jews, and you can't employ niggers to make the pencils
>>79824612
TOP KEK. Tell me why people WOULDNT pay for a 20 cent iPhone even with the knowledge that it was produced by slave labour with highly questionable work practices.
>>79824100
/pol/ sucks the mutilated jewdick that enslaved them.
They love Hitler, but eat up the jew lies about socialism.
Hitler would gas /pol/, and it would be the first time he actually gassed anyone.
>>79824100
corrupt person in the free market = loses mad shekels if anyone finds out
corrupt person in a regulated market = just get into bed with the regulators and no one can do fucking shit about it
>>79824100
It's utopian fantasy to think any group of humans in all their inherently ignorant glory can regulate an economy efficiently. People have a hard enough time deciding what's right for themselves, even though they've been around themselves their whole lives. To see what happens when they start making decisions for each other, well, just look around you.
Also, it sets an immoral precedent to allow a person authority over another persons to the extent that death threats are acceptable and standard practice. Think about the kind of world you want to live in; the kind where no one bats an eye at being a literal slave or the kind where people agree that everyone owns themselves?
>>79824612
They can if consumers choose that the unethical practice isn't sufficient reason to dissuade them from supporting the business. But that's the advantage of the free market. The inherent freedom to choose what's important to your own set of values.
For example, I'm not really that bothered if the eggs I get are from caged hens who shit them out by the hour or taken out the back and shot compared to free range, grain fed chickens that get read bed time stories by hippies. Conversely, I don't want my clothes made by jiggaboos on pence per hour who don't know how to stitch properly and the clothes fall to pieces after a couple of washes.
>>79824795
Some guy will start another phone company that pays worker $10/hour. All the "slaves" from the other phone company leaves and work for the other company. Unethical phone company goes bankrupt.
>>79824795
Because the consumers decided they don't give a fuck.
Who are you to say otherwise?
>>79824927
>slaves
>having a choice
>>79824887
>For example, I'm not really that bothered if the eggs I get are from caged hens who shit them out by the hour or taken out the back and shot compared to free range, grain fed chickens that get read bed time stories by hippies
how is this unethical? maybe if you are a vegan
> Conversely, I don't want my clothes made by jiggaboos on pence per hour who don't know how to stitch properly and the clothes fall to pieces after a couple of washes.
>>79824927
>>79824819
The economy is already rigged, you fucking autist.
Regulation means the people actually have some say in how badly a corporate giant can fuck everything and everyone before their non existent right to make a profit infringes on my actual rights.
You fucking libtard. Kys.
>>79825029
>mistaking free market regulations for human right laws
cmon lad, you can do better
>>79825039
>how is this unethical? maybe if you are a vegan
It's very painful and stressful for the chickens. Not that you would give a shit.
>>79825029
>free market
>slavery
What part of "free" is hard for you to understand?
>>79824100
How are the regulators less prone to corruption?
I don't disagree with the premise but you have to be able to answer these questions to be able to argue for a regulated market.
>>79825096
Human rights do not exist everywhere in the world. That's why companies like Nike and gap got away with child labour in China.
>>79825069
>no no no, the regulations we have today are all fucked up
>but these other theoretical regulations that work, and corporations wont take advantage of, they'll be way better, see?
>>79825039
Because it's an animal that can feel pain and discomfort being used as a food battery and then slaughtered. It's a practice that is enough to make the consumers bothered about it to buy free range, and those who aren't bothered by it to carry on getting cheaper eggs.
>>79825247
that's not really relevant to the point though as the examples you cited aren't truly in a free market. Furthermore, just because the market is unregulated, it doesn't mean other civil laws (like slavery is illegal) aren't in place.
>>79825069
>The economy is already rigged, you fucking autist.
No shit, hence "look around you". Read before you type, kiddo.
>Regulation means the people actually have some say in how badly a corporate giant can fuck everything
Corporations have little power without government (the mafia they pay to enforce success). You couldn't be more wrong.
>libtard
That's classical libtard, thank you very much.
>>79824100
>Because people have never used government for unethical practices.
In a free market, would cigarette companies be able to tell their consumers that their product is good for them?
>>79825419
>government has ever been ethical
Good one.
>>79825331
I guess this is rather off topic, but why would you consider suffering of animals (non humans) to be unethical. We've domesticated and enslaved animals since the beginning of civilization. Why is it only recently do we even bother giving animals "right"?
>>79824100
because it's the best sort of tyrant you can wish for
>>79825513
Yes, and they'd be quickly found out and face the consequences. People would still smoke though.
>>79824100
I don't support the free market. Only people i see defending the status quo are Jews and their enablers
>>79825531
People in first world nations have so little problems to overcome (the driving force if humanity) that they just create easy "problems" to sate their instinctual need to overcome them.
If that is posting on social media about how treating animals is bad then so be it
>>79825564
This. The tyrant that can't hire what people see as a legitimate authority to enforce their success through death threats is pretty ineffective.
>>79825645
>I don't support self ownership
Fuck you, then.
>>79825531
I'm positive that any sane person does not wish to inflict pain onto another living being, you included.
>>79825531
Humans empathize with suffering. Animals suffer.
>>79825531
Personally, I wouldn't. My original first post indicated that it's not a practice that bothers me. But it is known to be considered unethical by many, which has given a place for free range in the market. Otherwise, this product wouldn't exist as people are paying more for the same product entirely on 'ethical' reasons.
On your point about why it's only now happening, I'd say it's because the left are running out of causes to fight for and new victim labels to use so instead of going to fight for rights in the 3rd world where it's actually needed, but nobody would give them hipster attention for out there, they're inventing new causes to get menstrual about here to have a more comfortable life.
>>79825513
No because that is libel and anyone who makes decisions based on cigs being "healthy" and gets Ill from then will sue the piss out of the company that thought it'd be a good idea to lie
>>79825645
this
Free market enable social liberalism, globalism, and degeneracy.
Only Neocon cuckservatives can believe in unregulated markets bullshit.
>>79825715
I'm not sure if your statement is correct although it is intuitive. Otherwise, we'd be all vegans. If you meant to say, suffering to the least degree, then I suppose you are equating other animals with humans. Is that the position you are willing to defend?
>>79825737
Empathy might be how we know something is right or wrong, but not how why we know something is right or wrong.
>>79825785
>But it is known to be considered unethical by many
do you believe this to be irrational?
>>79825402
Money is power, and corporation have the monopoly on capital, you mong.
>>79825737
>>79825990
>Empathy might be how we know something is right or wrong, but not how why something is right or wrong.
meant to say this
>>79825287
Corporation strip regulations, you kike shill.
Seriously, gas yourself, Ravi.
>>79824100
Regulations serve as a major barrier to entry that prevents new firms from entering markets which distorts the marketplace leading to higher prices and less competition.
This is because before someone can enter the market of a given industry they must first hire an army of lawyers and accountants to ensure that all of their practices conform to all of the regulations in place.
A free market is largely self-regulating anyway, so regulations just serve to empower entrenched market participants (read: large corporations) and harm the little guy in the form of higher prices, fewer job opportunities, fewer prospects for engaging in entrepreneurship, etc.
>>79825860
The German refugee is right.
>>79825990
>do you believe this to be irrational?
Not necessarily. They have their own world view based on their experiences. As much as I fundamentally disagree with the left and would probably casually use political/personal epithets at them, I'm happy for them to hold and express their own views so long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I'm a strong believer that opinions disagreeing with your own should be heard and examined on their merits and that the best thing you can do when encountered with a shitty argument is to give it a platform and amplify it so that everyone can see how shitty it is. By suppressing or disregarding other views, you make them almost like 'forbidden fruit' for the undecided and can increase their attraction to those who want to feel like they have one over on everyone else.
>>79826149
>Corporation strip regulations, you kike shill.
Almost all of the political lobbying done by major corporations is to put new regulations in place to make it harder for new companies to enter the market and compete away their profits.
What you stated is one of the most severe political misconceptions there is.
Regulated and unregulated markets are capable of producing unethical business practices. In unregulated markets, all market actors are equal (in theory). If one actor engages in "unethical" business practices (they are perceived as "unethical" by their consumer base), they will be penalised by their consumers, or lack thereof. "Unhealthy" business practices will either be too risky for the average consumer, or yield poor returns for investors, making them less desirable in general.
In a regulated market, few market actors are on an equal footing. Businesses are no longer separated by their economic "value", but are instead subject to tenable legal disparities that contend, simply, that the size of your business entitles to you different treatment. We now have a tiered system. This is a system, not only in which economic disparity plays a role, but entities you to a different legal status. In this system, powerful market actors are not just "wealthy" but legally privileged. It is easier for legislators to legally coerce small businesses, but not nearly as easy to legislate multi-national corporations. Aside from the pragmatic difficulty of international law, MNCs are simply more powerful.
There are subtle psychological disparities too, that are only further enabled by the disparate legal statuses: no one cares about a local fish & chip shop owner's response to some policy or another. Large corporates however are not only often BEHIND such regulation but policy input is more valued. When large multi-nationals in the financial sector say that policy X will result in their doing Y, legislators tend to listen. Generally, legislators are at the mercy of MNCs, not the other way around.
Also, in an unregulated market, customers can respond by taking their custom elsewhere. In a regulated one, customers MUST respond by appeals to legislators and hope for policy reform.
tl;dr: regulated leads to legal privilege and monopolisation. unregulated makes these more difficult.
>>79826312
I suppose your right. My main gripe about the whole animal suffering thing is that this implies that humans and animals have, at least to a degree, equal worth. Yet, we do not hold animals to the same standard of morality than we do to humans.
>>79825645
>free market
>status quo
toppest kek
>>79824596
It's not a false dichotomy at all.
Should people be able to freely trade with on another? That's literally it. It's not complicated even if you are a retarded kangaroo nigger
>>79826452
Let me clarify the last point: in an unregulated market, in response to "unethical" practices, customers taking their custom elsewhere is SUFFICIENT to change poor business practices. In a regulated market, it is NECESSARY for customers to appeal to legislators and hope for adequate policy reform.
>>79826515
Yeah, I'd agree with you on that. Animals are categorically not the same as humans and should not be afforded the same protections and rights as humans. That's not to say mistreatment and sadistic cruelty should be tolerated, just that they're not the same. But it can be entirely congruent for someone to form an opinion that completely opposes this and to think I'm uncaring for suggesting my opinion. That's one of the freedoms we can all enjoy.
Back to the original point of the thread, I see the free market as being an extension of this freedom. Allowing us to use our own beliefs and opinion forming to influence our purchases and the businesses we choose to support. By placing restrictions and regulations based on morality or ethics, we're either denying people the right to make those choices themselves or claiming something as subjective as opinion and ethics as being downright wrong. Okay, I might get accused of a false dichotomy for that argument, but I'd be interested in hearing a valid counterpoint to challenge it.
>>79825645
>Status quo is free Market
Why is it that retards say they don't like one thing and their ibky grievances agaisnt it are entirely detached from what they say they dislike?
>>79826894
I think a possible downside of a free market is that that the workers and consumers may not realize they are being exploited. But I still think that the free market is the best system when compared to the other ones.
>>79825573
Found out by who? And what consequences? If people wish to smoke after being well aware of the dangers of smoking, that's their choice, but cigarette companies would (and have) prioritise their profits over the health and wellbeing of the population. I don't see why anyone would be against the government regulating an aspect like this.
>>79826312
>'m a strong believer that opinions disagreeing with your own should be heard and examined on their merits and that the best thing you can do when encountered with a shitty argument is to give it a platform and amplify it so that everyone can see how shitty it is.
Shame that the left doesn't do this and suppresses any and all dissent with either social ostracism or r removing free speech entirely.
This being dueto the fact that leftist ideas don't survive merit based scrutiny.
>>79827101
scientists could probably find the health risks of smoking and publicize their findings. People will find out and stop buying smokes though as the anon mentioned, some people still would.
>prioritise their profits over the health and wellbeing of the population
after the health risks of smoking are well known to the public, I doubt that people who buy from them as the company would have a bad reputation of being liars.
>>79824100
Nobody who supports Trump supports a free market
>>79827101
>but cigarette companies would (and have) prioritise their profits over the health and wellbeing of the population.
See
>>79825838
And then read
>>79826809
>>79826452
>>79827299
Nice dubs.
Still wrong though.
>>79824612
>implying consumers have enough time and enough shits to give to learn about every last unethical business on earth and avoid them
>>79824100
regulation can happen in a free market. it's actually a business opportunity.
>be world renowned doctor in libertarian paradise
>public hold you in the highest regard
>start business where medical professionals pay to receive your tick of approval if they meet your rigorous standards
>>79827455
read the rest of the thread
>>79824795
... but iPhones are produced by foreign slave labor now and the same liberals and faggots wait in line to pay hundreds of dollars markup just to buy them.
Are liberals and faggots admitting that they do not have the self-control to make good choices, thus they need Daddy Government to hold their hand?
>>79827095
That's most likely to happen in industries that are natural monopolies. In other industries, the increase in competition would drive up working standards as companies competed for the best talent and to retain their workers. Without the ability to lobby government to legislate in their favour, big companies would be forced to compete with the standards and enthusiasm offered by the smaller, newer companies.
For those in the natural monopolies, I dare say it would be an unpopular opinion on /pol/ but I think trade unions would be their best bet to protect their rights and promote good practice.
>>79827244
Exactly why their views should be given a platform, as it where they can receive mass ridicule and drive away support when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Of course, there will be those who don't care for facts, reason and logic and they can often have a very loud voice. But many people on the left can actually be quite sane, reasonable and rational people. They're just used to the circle jerk on the left and not getting their opinions challenged. If you do so rationally, calmly and without giving cause to being called racist or bigot etc, it's quite an easy process to subtly redpill them or at least give them the tools to challenge their own beliefs.
>>79826623
OK, according to you how should food be regulated? Are you OK with large amounts of lead in food?
>>79827388
>this is what ancapfags actually believe
Bullshit. Fag companies could easily form an alliance with some sort of association of bogus doctors who'd shill cigs. When said fag consumer gets lung cancer, the doctors could lie out of their arse.
>>79827596
People in state food regulation can be hired by independent inspection agencies and I'll only eat mass produced food that is verified
>>79827388
It's not libel at all. look up health benefits of smoking, although they are far outweighed by the negatives, it would not be libel to phrase this in a way which could portray this as a healthy activity.
>>79824100
>How is a regulated market not better?
Because a regulated market is regulated unethically. Like a free market will be practiced unethically.
You can have whatever fucking market model you want, if humans are involved it will be manipulated to some extent somewhere.
>>79827701
And nobody will go to those doctors, except for idiots, and then we can bring back natural selection
>>79826515
>muh morality
>"having a gripe" with people trying to stop cruelty toward animals
Fuck off
>>79827867
>but animals are people too!
>>79824100
Abby Champion
>>79827580
true, though trade unions could be abused too
>>79827867
that depends on the moral framework you subscribe too. Morality typically only extends to humans and not animals. Much in the same way most of /pol/ sees nonwhites as subhumans and thus undeserving of equal treatment
>>79827548
That's exactly what I'm saying.
>>79827867
Good argument cuck. You've had your daily allowance of /pol/ for the day now though. I think I hear your wife calling you to get Ahmed ready for her then change her son's nappy.
>>79824178
is it me Japan alwais sound wise and intiligent
>>79828045
>caring about the suffering of an animal means your a lefty cuck
If anyone needs a break from r/pol it's you.
>>79828424
you still yet to explain why an animal has inherent worth that allows it to have some inalienable rights to not be mistreated
>>79828424
Mind the abbo doesn't kidnap your daughter and fuck her on your way out.
>>79828560
Define 'worth' because as far as I'm aware a lot of humans have little to no worth.
It's an innate quality that a human does not want to see another living being undergo suffering, human or animal.
>>79828884
I meant inherent worth. For example, a retarded baby might be worthless in its utility, but we still wouldn't kill it because of its inherent worth. I would think that's where the concept of human rights originate from.
>>79828884
>It's an innate quality that a human does not want to see another living being undergo suffering, human or animal.
I don't know if this is true. We've been using animals as farm slaves and other labor instruments for a long time.
>>79829038
I agree that the worth of a human is greater than that of an animal however I don't see how this had anything to do with suffering (note: not death, killing an animal is fine but willfuly putting it through uneccasary pain is different)
>>79824195
We live in a free market, neoliberal economy you absolute retard
>>79824100
Pol and other chans are mostly populated with virgin beta neets. They tend to like edgy ideas and they are eager to defend them.
If you read any proposal-manifesto by one of these imbeciles, you can bet your anus that you will find "free drugs" and "fucking lolis" buried somewhere.
The sad thing is, lolis wont have sex with them too. Since they can't succeed in existing system, they imagine a perfect one. Sad thing is, they still wouldn't get laid, lolis are not that stupid.
>>79829250
Basically what I am trying to say is that I don't understand why we deem torturing animals as unethical. While I agree it's distasteful, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason why it's immoral.
>uneccasary pain
That's where another issue lies for me. To what degree can something be considered unnecessary. Is forcing them to plow the fields unnecessary? Technically, with enough crop produce, would killing an animal for food then become unnecessary? Drawing the line to determine what constitutes as necessary suffering for animals seem totally arbitrary.
>>79829203
Not the same. Using a horse to pull a sled is hardly suffering. Even using an animal as a tool, the owner would give it certain comforts to minimise it's stress and suffering I.e adequate room to move around such as in a stable, plenty of food and water. Also animas don't possess the same cognitive abilities as humans, if they did I'm sure they would give the horse an Xbox or something. This is completely different to an animal being locked up in a cage for the entirety of its life where it is undergoing constant pain and stress.
>>79829695
So you are under the assumption that animal suffering is wrong. Why? Why should the suffering of animals be regarded the same as the suffering of humans?
>>79829250
So you agree that killing an animal isn't necessarily wrong, but that putting it through suffering is. Fair enough. But I imagine that when it comes to humans that while you wouldn't advocate either for them, killing a human would be worse than allowing suffering, hence stricter laws and harsher sentences?
These are two completely opposed viewpoints for two separate issues which is absolutely fine. By conflating both the issues, it seems like you're trying to apply one set of rules for one scenario to another where they're not applicable. Each issue should be debated on its own merits, not as a combined bigger issue when it's not appropriate to do so.
>>79829822
Because it's a negative experience for the animal.
>>79830000
nice quads m80,
but why should the negative experience for the animal matter to us?
also
>>79829640
idk but my spirituality makes me more inclined to believe in socialist solutions because capitalism only allows the jew in all of us to exploit each other
difficult question
>>79830078
Why would your negative experience matter to me? It doesn't, but I would still want to avoid it. It has nothing to do with your "worth''.
>>79830229
> It has nothing to do with your "worth''.
I think it does. If you believe that all humans have some inherent worth that involves some sort of dignity (i.e not being abused), it's a lot easier to posit an ethical rule in that we should not mistreat each other and that we should be mindful of other people's negative experiences.
We have a regulated market dummy. Free markets are a meme. Corporations by their very existence acknowledge that unregulated markets cannot exist, they are a solution to market imperfections , what is actually proposed under the guise of "free markets" is markets free of public interference. Corporations (themselves government creations) allow the wealthy to regulate markets internally without the public interfering in decisions where they shouldn't.
>>79824100
pic related.
>>79824100
people will always be immoral and flawed. i think the free markets are supposed to minimise the impact of one mega cunt, whereas people like that can influence alot more if theyre a politician under centrally controlled economies
>yes goyim yes the free market will solve all your problems
>what do you mean you can't afford to eat after working five 16 hour shifts this week? all you have to do is sell your daughter on the free market!
>>79830446
Why then do I (and I'm sure most people including yourself) want to prevent the suffering of both humans and animals? If you walked past an injured dog, would you ignore it or take it to a vet? Would you feel empathy?
>>79830649
Except that governments in a democratic state are often required open to public scrutiny and public control (not to say this happens perfectly in practice). So if they do something nefarious the public can vote the bastards out. In a corporation the public doesn't have that control, they can be stockholders but in most cases the majority stock holders are the owners/directors of the company. Corporations also aren't required to open their books to public scrutiny, so its easy to hide misdeeds. They operate exactly how totalitarian non democratic states operate.
>>79830946
While we may want to prevent suffering or feel a certain way, it may not necessarily mean that the action, in this case animal suffering, is immoral.
>Would you feel empathy?
Sure, I would. But empathy might be how we know something is right or wrong, but not why something is right or wrong. So this goes back to my original questions: why is animal suffering wrong?
>>79831040
>Except that governments in a democratic state are often required open to public scrutiny and public control. So if they do something nefarious the public can vote the bastards out.
Can you give me a serious example?
>In a corporation the public doesn't have that control, they can be stockholders but in most cases the majority stock holders are the owners/directors of the company. Corporations also aren't required to open their books to public scrutiny, so its easy to hide misdeeds. They operate exactly how totalitarian non democratic states operate.
You act like there is only the one ebil monopolistic corporation everyone has to obey for some reason.
There are always alternatives because there isn't a monopoly on legislation which creates can stagnate competition through government's, monopoly on the, use of violence.
>>79831592
I can give you many examples. In Brazil recently. Albeit I think the ex-Presidents misdeeds were minor compared to the misdeeds of other heads of state, they were misdeeds and she was voted out. She was totally under public scrutiny. This is how democracy should operate and does operate.
>>79831592
That's exactly how corporations function. I hate using anecdotal evidence but I work for a bank, if I said something publicly like "fee increases when we're making boatloads of money off interest spreads are criminal" I wouldn't be working for said corporation very long and yet the public and most of my colleagues would agree.
>>79827770
So you will check every piece of food you eat? And you will check every inspection facility? How? How often, since they can change strategy any time?
>>79832501
You use the one with best prices and reputation, suitable to your financial situation.
I don't think there could be harmful foods floating around without people almost immediately being aware. Any such businesses would be out of all support pretty fast.
>>79831828
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/brazil-dilma-rousseff-plot-secret-phone-transcript-impeachment
Sure there are some shady examples, with who knows what's going on, like this.
>This is how democracy should operate and does operate.
If officials would actually be voted out for frauds, lies and corruption these kinds of news would be much much more common..
>>79829285
>we live in a free market, neo liberal economy
>retard
Retard
>>79832336
If the public was aware how much profit comes from banks interest spreads they honestly would lose their minds especially while fees continually increase. The overhead costs and trailer fees are a very small and often diminishing portion of overall cost for banks (and banks are notoriously cheap with most of their employees and offshore as much as they can) so the meme saying that you pay for services, is just that, a meme. You pay so banks can increase their stock price and their portion of the market, increasing the top holders net worth.
>>79832501
No, if you couldn't read people would be hired by to do that for him. If there were lead to be found in the food that company would go out of business even if they changed there name.
With our federal inspection this sort of stuff still happens all the time where people find some shit in a product and a kid dies from it. It still happens and will happen continue to happen, with the help of things like the news, word of mouth etc., consumers can learn to avoid that that product(as they already do).
>>79824178
Stalinist planned economy.
The problem is not the existence or lack of a free market. The problem is a lack of a strong moral framework. When people don't have principles to guide them, they almost always make decisions according to greedy self-interest. Mug someone and take their wallet. Sell drugs to their community. Cut corners on safety precautions. Invest in unethical companies with high profit forecasts.
A corporation is not evil in and of itself, it's merely the sum of its stockholders' intentions. When those intentions are "make money at any cost", you end up with vile organizations that hurt everyone if it means another penny on the dollar.
American mass media and pop-culture fetishize economic success. Steve Jobs is a perfect example of this. By every account he was a slave-driver and asshole, devoid of empathy and obnoxious even on his best days. And yet, he's practically been canonized by the media, all because of his billion-dollar marketing success. How can a child that grows up exposed to this aspire to anything but making money, especially in the absence of strong parents who can teach the values of life, compassion, and community?
>>79832336
They work for maximizing profit and protect their interests, sure. So does every human being. I don't think it's a bad thing at all. What I meant instead is that if some corporation actually started extorting people, it would lose popularity compared to all the competition. If people at large want honest service and fair prices, then companies producing such will thrive.
>>79824274
dyke fags are so delusional, it's baffling.
>>79824100
that's a top-tier cutie
>>79833317
>these would be much more common
As they should in a functioning democratic state. The problem is that the combined collectivist actions of the wealthy are increasingly destroying democracy all under the guise of "liberalization" and "reform"
The answer does not lie in a Libertarian or Communist system. The best option lies in the middle.
>>79833654
You assume people at large have an accurate perception of "honest service and fair prices". They don't.
When corporations control the media, and they do because it's in their financial best interests to control it, they can destroy a customer's ability to make an informed choice. Information asymmetry = free market failure.
>>79833654
Extortion is exactly what happened in 2008, its the very nature of "too big to fail" but in some measure of the banks defense its true their would have been a total systemic collapse of the economy (the credit system as the backbone) without a bailout, but it was totally extortion what they did and are doing.
>>79824100
>Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices?
I do.
>How do you justify this?
I don't.
>How is a regulated market not better?
The problem with regulation is, that many regulations tend to burden small companies too - which makes them less competitive compared to big ones who can spare the resources. You need very specific "regulations", like transparency laws for companies of a certain size, etc.
We need a better free market than we currently have, but free market is the answer.
>>79834181
>We need a less free market than we currently have, but free market is the answer.
Do you understand why that's a contradiction?
Did you get permission from government to post today? Better check and make sure you didn't go over your government allotted time for this week.
>>79834462
>implying we have a free market
>>79834156
The very nature of marketing and to which a large % of expenditure goes toward creating uninformed consumers. I'll use my anecdotal experience again, when banks advertise they rarely state point blankly "these are my fees, these are my interest rates, have at it", they use emotional controls, slogans, relatable mascots, colours, and other things.
>>79833653
>The problem is a lack of a strong moral framework
The lack of a strong monocultures is certainly a problem.
> they almost always make decisions according to greedy self-interest.
Self-interest is natural and the underlying MO of all people. Even of those virtue-signalling otherwise.
>Mug someone and take their wallet.
This is the result of not having a stable culture and mutual respect. Also it shows what is merely a very short sighted greed. This would be avoided if people acting like this would lose their support of their communities for such behavior, and in fear of losing valuable social support would refrain from risking their own well being in such a way.. Therefore the problem is the lack of actual culture.
>Sell drugs to their community.
This is also a question of culture. If the community welcomes the drugs in question say coffee, sugar, alcohol and cigarettes it is perfectly reasonable. Some other community might welcome different kinds of drugs altogether but, of course, this is also not unethical.
>Cut corners on safety precautions.
Often happens when a company's reputation is of little consequence. In a free market a good reputation is perhaps the most valuable currency there is. But for example a company subsidized by the state can care very little what consumers think of their business practices. They need only lobby for the state to subsidize them in the future and proceed to make shoddy work or or goods.
>Invest in unethical companies with high profit forecasts.
Whether something is unethical is determined by the consumer. People will pay for what they want, if they don't want to rip someone off they will naturally support companies which will not engage in such practices.
>>79834170
I don't know if you weren't aware but I'm arguing against state regulation and subsidies.
What I'm arguing for is a free market without government interference. Regulated by the will of the consumer.
>>79825146
>>79825247
>>79825096
So what you're saying is that a Free Market doesn't exist. If that's true, why would you ever want people to act like it does? That produces results that are inefficient for the system and based on belief rather than reality.
>>79826369
But Anon, you mean the guys with millions and billions might be doing things to ensure that remains true in what is treated almost exclusively as a zero sum system?
By golly. What jumps in human rationality took you to that utter nonsense?
>>79834804
There is a reason why people are mostly uninformed in the modern situation. There is basically not much of an incentive to use the time and energy to be informed, because whether you are well informed or not has little effect on your choices in business.
There are very few companies dominating the large spheres of business, for example in media, entertainment, military, food production, medicine, banking etc. This is due to government regulations (put to place by lobbying naturally) preventing competition on a level playing field. Subsidies also affect the imbalance of competition. Now if there were no state apparatus capable of legislating and enforcing universal laws, the biggest business could not use it to gain leverage against it's smaller competitors.
>>79835459
A quick look at economic history you gain an understanding of why a market free of government interference wouldn't work. An earlier poster mentioned information being asymmetrical, hence before the "period of regulation" (the market has always, always had regulation to varying degrees) you'd have insane stock bubbles and bursts. The system was very unstable and was on the verge of total collapse a number of times which set about the period of regulation.
>>79824178
>>79835123
>Self-interest is natural and the underlying MO of all people. Even of those virtue-signalling otherwise.
It isn't. Biological altruism is a proven phenomenon.
>>79836085
>Now if there were no state apparatus capable of legislating and enforcing universal laws, the biggest business could not use it to gain leverage against it's smaller competitors.
Unless the biggest business became that apparatus. What's to stop it?
The sort of regulation we have around everything is very much the product of the free market, things like this are cyclical as in we have a free market until it becomes corrupt, we start to regulate, eventually there are calls for deregulation, we deregulate, the economy grows, people start to fuck shit up we start regulating.
If you look at the market from more of a meta level you'll see that it can be nothing other than free.
>>79836092
In your opinion what is the purpose of markets? What is the purpose of governments? If you yourself were in charge of the world what would be your aim?
With this information I can build a reply that will inform you of why you are wrong in a way that you can understand.
>>79827596
Are you OK with large amounts of poison in food with literally no alternative with all might of state enforcing this poisoning?
http://thepaleodiet.com/flour-fortification-folic-acid-good-idea-bad-idea/
>>79827918
No they're not but they suffer. I'll never stop eating meat because nature is far more cruel than man. Regardless though if we're raising meat what is the difference between a quick death and a prolonged painful death? For one a stressed animal doesn't provide meat as tasty as an animal that is killed quickly.
If given the choice I'd prefer a bullet in the back of the head when I wasn't expecting it as opposed to being eaten alive by a pig after I broke my legs tripping over
>>79824100
I'd let her practice unethical business on me
>>79829302
>lolis
>drugs
>lolis
Quite the Freudian slip there my friend.
>>79824100
it's sort of an autistic out look that libertarians take to expect people to instantly switch to buying products from the business who don't do unethical stuff
just like the ones who "are cool with selling heroin to 6 year olds" because "once you see someone die from an overdose, you're not going to want to partake in it anyway"
>>79837652
>with literally no alternative
>article is on a website made to promote an alternative
>>79836092
>A quick look at economic history you gain an understanding of why a market free of government interference wouldn't work.
For me it obviously shows the opposite.
>An earlier poster mentioned information being asymmetrical, hence before the "period of regulation" you'd have insane stock bubbles and bursts.
Information being what it is, is also precisely the reason why central planning (state's legislative interference, subsidies and such) have no chance of working. The market is an endlessly complex organic thing which changes shape and varies from region to region, depending on and being regulated by the law of supply and demand. Government action simply does not have the precision it would need to legislate and regulate in a way that would be efficient for all or even most people for that matter. Government at it's best merely tries to create blanket decisions where precision is required, creating economic havoc. At it's worst it becomes a simple tool for those with enough power and money to create laws they want and to pay subsidies to themselves and their mates.
The insane stock bubbles sounds like some keynesian fear that if the demands of markets (people's wills basically) is not controlled somehow through state action, terrible chaos will ensue. Certainly an interesting idea but has this phenomenon been actually witnessed anywhere in history.
>(the market has always, always had regulation to varying degrees)
Yes. I would only prefer it be regulated by the will of the people. (damn that sounded like communist rhetoric) Meaning that markets take shape naturally depending on the region in question and it's specific demands and supplies.
>The system was very unstable and was on the verge of total collapse a number of times which set about the period of regulation.
I'm not quite sure what system you are referring to here.
>>79837315
Governments are a vehicle of public control, markets are a vehicle of public exchange. Honestly I would like to see Adam Smith's concept of a public exchange of goods with a guiding hand of governments to sway the more irrational/irresponsible aspects of human nature towards rational responsible ends. This can only happen in a government and market that is open, where information is symmetrical, where the public can truly impact decisions in both.
>>79824100
Who is that goddess? Tineye shows no results
>>79838825
You are operating under the illusion that government must be centrally planned. Centrally planned economies are probably the worst at managing economic needs across various locations and industries I agree.
>>79836580
>It isn't. Biological altruism is a proven phenomenon.
Isn't biological altruism the phenomenon of animals being biologically wired to take care of their pack (etc) and this way making sure the pack takes care of them and their genes?
>Unless the biggest business became that apparatus. What's to stop it?
The competition, the threat of violence (it's high expenses) and the loss of reputation. Just like statism relies that most people will believe in the usefulness of the state, it works exactly the other way around.
If a company tries to start imposing it's laws to everyone from scratch, people valuing freedom will most likely turn away from it disgusted. Thus robbing it of any financial support it needs to wage it's war it needs to make it's will the sole will in the market. It's very highly unlikely to succeed, some say practically impossible.
>>79824665
Abby Champion
>>79840244
Terrible chaos did ensue after various bubbles throughout history. Hence the repeated instances of tumult and revolutions/wars during the supposed deregulated periods following market bubbles.
>>79840169
I didn't refer only to ridiculous socialist economies as centrally planned.
The whole purpose of the government institution is central planning. Classically it is the monopoly of legislation courts and enforcement of the former. These three things in themselves constitute central planning you see? Planning universal laws for a whole nation is centrally planning for that nation.
>>79840244
>It's very highly unlikely to succeed, some say practically impossible.
The Dutch East India Company seems to have done the practically impossible, then.
>>79824100
Free marked dose create it. Capitalism creates exploitation.
People don't want to get underpaid so they go to the person that offers the most. That persons chooses the best to produces the best goods.
Worse people do worse jobs and they are paid less. Nobody will overpay for shit job if there is something better for the same price so you must offer lower prices.
With no interference in this system it promotes healthy business. It's all the regulations and governments that allow people to exploit others and still turn on profit.
>>79840805
>Terrible chaos did ensue after various bubbles throughout history.
Be more specific please.
>Hence the repeated instances of tumult and revolutions/wars during the supposed deregulated periods following market bubbles.
You do see that all these events have been preceded by government action. Don't you see that governments distorting prices of markets is the cause of bubbles.
Often what you see historically is a resurgence of wealth and prosperity because after wars the government is too drained to control the markets heavily. This is the free market in action.
>>79840884
>courts and legislation
But those things can be also controlled locally/regionally/communally in federated democratic states.
>>79824100
>Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices?
the scope and size at which they can carry out unethical practices will always be dwarfed by the same situation, PLUS government subsidy and tax funding
>>79841219
>The United East Indian Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie; VOC), referred to by the British as the Dutch East India Company,[2] was originally established as a chartered company in 1602, when the Dutch government granted it a 21-year monopoly on Dutch spice trade.
Literally the first passage from wikipedia.. Can you see where the problem arises now?
>>79827701
>bogus doctors who'd shill cigs
heavily outnumbered by doctors trying to make a living as a doctor
>>79824100
GIB
ME
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUCCCCCCCCEEEEEE
>>79832336
>I hate using anecdotal evidence
>>79836092
>before the "period of regulation"you'd have insane stock bubbles and bursts.
this called the boom bust cycle, and if you actually look at history the busts (recessions) were much more severe when there was regulation, than when there was not
>>79841743
>can be
Which is decided by the state.
>>79838363
at no point did you make an argument for statism
the fact that you acknowledge we could switch to buying a different product, while disregarding the fact we cannot do the same with statism, is a very strong point against you
>>79838646
thats because the market was signaled for an alternative
the state could still outlaw it
>>79841897
The Dutch government's monopoly applied only to the Dutch. It didn't stop English, French, Portuguese or Danish interests from attempting to compete with it.
You know what did stop them from competing? The Company buying the biggest private navy and army in its time and using it to become a government-like power in itself.
>>79824100
>Why does /pol/ suck the free markets dick so much? Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices? How do you justify this? How is a regulated market not better?
Because regulations violate property rights? Most "unethical business practices" are perfectly fine, anyway.
>>79842737
Could it have formed without the assistance of the government granted monopoly?
Thing is that even these historical examples are no different from using a modern company like monsanto as an example of "government-like" power in it's own sphere.
In the end both lend their existence from government interference on the market.
>>79842299
Usually a specific type of regulation that Adam Smith talked about. One where merchants and manufacturers shift regulation in their favour at the expense of everyone else. Government often times just the shadow cast on society by these groups. In a society where democracy functions or the public do exercise a modicum of control regulation can be used generally to the benefit of the great number of people. I'm definitely not saying this would or has worked perfectly in the past but I agree with Aristotle on democracy.
>>79843423
>shift regulation in their favour at the expense of everyone else.
This is basically what everyone with enough power or money is achieving with the government. It's not that the government is just some evil being, fucking everyone with taxation and then funding shoddy projects. The problem is that government is a tool of way too much power which anyone who can, uses it to fuck those they can gain from. Democracy of no those with power and money find the way to use it regardless, as I'm sure everyone is aware. In ideal circumstances a democracy could be that people would somehow use the government to combat corruption, but facts clearly show that you and I have way much less say to what the government does than a corporate magnate lobbying at will. This is why the government does not "work" for the voter. Though it actually works just fine for those with the power to drive it.
Here's some triple H on democracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzkZaD1xDs starts at 2.10
>>79824100
Because our dicks are getting sucked from owning the market. Go back to /b/ salty faggot.
>>79829285
Liberals : the post
>>79845265
>Why Democracy Fails
No, that's why a republic fails.
An actual DEMOCRACY could solve a fair bit of the problems facing American politics, though it'd bring just as many of its own into being.
Until you can come up with a better system then there is no argument
>>79824100
tell me whats unethical about the free market
>>79829285
Not really. Have you seen the unjust medical bills. People in America literally travel across the globe to get a medical procedure done at a fraction of the cost. No one talks about it and just attempt to work around it with shit like Obama care. If markets competed while government regulates the competency if these doctors we wouldn't be drowning in debt.
>>79847172
You know, western 1st world countries are actual (not idealized democracy. Just like the soviet union had actual (not idealized) communism.
Socialists cry out that it wasn't true communism, thinking their idealized communism has any bearing on reality.
The same goes for statists preaching democracy. I know the rhetoric and propaganda we've all been told. Fact is democracy is not somehow inherently superior.
