National Labour

[PatM]

If you review other threads I have posted in I have already refuted social contract theory. It doesn't work. Review Lysander Spooner's writings for an in-depth refutation.

Really? Well then, why is it illegal for me to simply kill someone to take their wealth? As long as I can keep other people from killing me - it is mine by right of might. Is this the way you want society to go? Actually, forgive me - without a social contract there is no such thing as society - or capitalism for that matter.

No, actually von Mises acknowledges that information assymetry is inevitable and may actually be beneficial. One of the things Austrians attack Chicagoites on is Chicagoite insistence on perfect imformation, which Austrians state is impossible and therefore to focus on it is to claim the market is imperfect by comparison with an impossible model.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And this is where we completely diverge. We'll have to agree to disagree since I know you won't acknowledge anything other than the austrian theory and you know I won't accept it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PatM,

Really? Well then, why is it illegal for me to simply kill someone to take their wealth? As long as I can keep other people from killing me - it is mine by right of might. Is this the way you want society to go?

Actually, Hugo and I have had a lenghty discussion of what 'rights' are. Please refer to the thread "Tyrrany Vs Freedom", and you will see where Hugo stands.

[Hugo]

And this is where we completely diverge. We'll have to agree to disagree since I know you won't acknowledge anything other than the austrian theory and you know I won't accept it.

Consider this: if imperfect information were indeed inevitably welfare-reducing, this would not be an argument against a free market unless it could be proven that governments are less prone to imperfect information. However, theories of government and actual empirical results show that governments are even more vulnerable to imperfect information than markets. For instance, in a market people have to put their money behind their theories. It's not enough to claim your idea is better, you have to put your own capital behind it to make it work, so you'd better be sure you're right. However, governments are not investing their own money and so have less incentive to make sure that their ideas are right before putting them into practice. In the market, a bad idea will not be backed by consumers or investors and will be liquidated of its own accord (think of Betamax, or OS/2). In government, since consumers and investors are divorced from the product, bad ideas are not automatically liquidated at all (e.g. the gun registry or the NEP). Food for thought.

There are flaws in Austrian theory. For instance, von Mises monopoly theory is not as good as that developed by Rothbard. It's also possible to point out that when it comes to law and justice, even von Mises is not Misesian because he fails to follow his own logic. Von Mises also does not make the case for private money, which his theories should lead him to do. This is why I generally describe myself as Rothbardian rather than Misesian. There are other flaws in capitalist theory too, such as the Chicagoite ideas on perfect competition (used to favour trust-busting and oppose advertising), or the flawed Smithian value-addition theory of value.

[Winterhaze13]

What other social programs do you want? More HRDC? More Gun registries? More Sponsorship? We already have enough in Canada as is, lets not have more interference in our lives.

Social programs were better funded during the welfare state peeriod and we were better taken care of back then. And I think that the Canadian state has proven to be quite reliable with social justice as compared to the United States.

Governments can't run businesses, they are too cumbersome and racked with inefficencies. You want jobs created without a debt, lower taxes and interference, not increase both.

Again under Keynesianism the state was more involved in the economy and as a result our economy did much better than it's doing now. So, it's very debatable whether the state harms efficiency in the marketplace.

Healthcare and education are available to everyone. There are some of us that actually have the capacity to work and pay for our university while going, and those that are too lazy to do so, obviously aren't worthy of such an education. I know scores of people that work their *** off to pay for school, and others that sit down and whine that it costs too much. Guess who the more sucessful people are?

Healthcare is available to everyone but I mean returning it to the state it was before the Liberals took office when it was the envy of the world. In terms of education if you think that it is avalable to everyone then that is naive and ignorant. If that was the case we would not need student loans. And characterizing the poor as lazy is bigotry and disgusting.

Major corporations are a huge employer and source of foreign investment in Canada. Without foreign capital our economy cannot function. Basic economic theory.

Small businesses are actually the largest employers in any economy. How many people do you know work for a major corporation. We should redistribute in order to make the economy more competitive and equal.

Why? If the workers don't like the conditions, go elsewhere. They are all protected by minimum standards under law. Seriously, its supply and demand, you don't like your job you move on somewhere else. Or improve your skills or education, you don't form more unions that actually DECREASE employed through higher wages and decreased profitability. Companies can only afford to pay so many people at inflated wages.

Worker's don't always have the flexability to leave a job because there are only so many jobs out there and as a result they are stuck in a situation where they have no choice but to stay out of consideration for their families. And it's debatable whether Unions and labour laws stunt employment but if they didn't exist the harm that would be created would far exceed any benefit.

More people to run the gun registry. No I don't buy that argument. I don't see why my hard earned money should go to someone that can't find or create work on their own. I have, so can they. Enough of my money does already. Lets not make it more.

This isn't about the gun registry, which is a good idea by the way. And people rely on the state to help them with employment. I think you are beginning to rant.

What about scientists? And all those workers that you were fighting for earlier. For someone that wants to destroy an eliteist society, you sure are creating one.

No GST on them already, been there done that.

I don't think it's helped as much as it should, so let's take it a step further.

Why should I pay more for the same services? Unfair in my opinion. I already support more than my share.

Because some people are disadvantaged and if you don't understand that then that makes you a hypocrite and cynical.

Why should the government take the hard earned money from families. Destroying the upper class? Campaigns against those that lead are rarely sucessful and are always spawned out of jealousy.

In our society we acknowledge that some people are more fortunate then others and as a result they should provide for those that aren't. Most people in the upper classes inherit their wealth and also they have a greater propensity to save therefore that wealth could be better concentrated else where.

And when we fall short? Start advertising open borders? It's ok as long as we are only bringing in educated people with fluency in English or French. No free loaders or future welfare receipiants please.

That's bigotry, I'm an immigrant and I bet that I work far more than you do. In fact in Canada because of demographics immigrants are what is driving our strong economy.

Why why why? Those that are sucessful and employ our workers and drive our economy! LETS PUNISH THEM!.... won't fly with me.

Okay, you are a moron!!! Most wealthy people inherit their wealth, small or medium sized businesses drive our economy and because of ideological differences I believe that the wealthy should pay the bulk of taxes because they are more privileged. And how do people become wealthy? Through the labour of the poor. And that doesn't sit well with me.

I think I'm done. I've posted this platform on about ten sites and I think you are the dumbest person that I've come across. I'm ashamed too, because this is a Canadian site.

[RightWinger]

Can you say C O M M U N I S M?

Make my NO and emphatic one!

Is this Jack Layton's big brother heading this up?

[Winterhaze13]

Can you say C O M M U N I S M?

Make my NO and emphatic one!

Is this Jack Layton's big brother heading this up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, this is an intelligent conversation hence you are out of P L A C E.

[RightWinger]

Can you say C O M M U N I S M?

Make my NO and emphatic one!

Is this Jack Layton's big brother heading this up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, this is an intelligent conversation hence you are out of P L A C E.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah OK Winter....you are the man!

My apologies, please tell me what topics I can post on.

Thank you for your patience with me, I am at your mercy sir!

[Winterhaze13]

Can you say C O M M U N I S M?

Make my NO and emphatic one!

Is this Jack Layton's big brother heading this up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, this is an intelligent conversation hence you are out of P L A C E.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah OK Winter....you are the man!

My apologies, please tell me what topics I can post on.

Thank you for your patience with me, I am at your mercy sir!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, this is an intelligent discussion. If you disagree with me tell me why you think I'm wrong. Don't insult me because that shows a lack of argumentative skills on your part.

[Adelle]

It didn't work to well for Russia (and other SSR's) so I can't see it working too well here either. Besides, do you really think the US would stand by and let the Canadian Soviet Socialist Republic develope? Regardless of how 'left wing' it might really be (ie. not quite communist), they already have serious ideological problems with our policies (or lack thereof). It would be a lot of their business we would be nationalizing. Speaking of business, we wouldn't have any. Who'd start one? If they were willing to mess with Central America on behave of Dole, I have no doubt they would have something to say about this. Unless you intend to SERIOUSLY boost military spending, Dakota could take us over. Ok, Dakota and the New England states, just to make things go quicker.

[Achiles]

Unless you intend to SERIOUSLY boost military spending, Dakota could take us over.  Ok, Dakota and the New England states, just to make things go quicker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was a computer study done at the cadet institution that one of my friend's attends that stated the NYPD could succcessfully take over all of Canada. <- just a side note.

[Guest eureka]

That just shows that computers are not infallible.

[Winterhaze13]

Ideology of the Democratic Labour Party

The following is a number of proposed reforms that the Democratic Labour party hopes to enact. Please note that these proposals are not meant to be revolutionary but reformist. It is largely taken from Social Democracy and Keynesianism. They include:

-The existing economic status quo needs to be reformed. Neo-liberalism creates a greater disparity in wealth and stagnation then any of its predecessors. It undermines it’s notions of liberty by creating large firms that stunt competition rather then promote it. The concentration of wealth in private institutions creates a disparity in wealth which stunts economic growth and creates an employment floor. As a result rigidity exists in our society. If capitalism is socialism for the rich, then what we are proposing is socialism for the poor and middle classes.

-The two main principles of democracy are freedom and equality. Capitalism upholds the freedom aspect of democracy, albeit only economic freedom but completely rejects the equality aspect. Capitalism thrives under inequality. What we need is a more democratic economy that advocates both liberty and equality. We need to eliminate multi-national firms and replace then with smaller but more competitive firms. Also, the public should be more involved in the decision-making process of the state. Open the democratic process to everyone.

-The economy must consist of a balance of private enterprise and some public ownership. The state should control the most important industries, including raw materials such as oil, gas, mining, steel, and the automotive industries to generate revenue and employment. While the private sector should have a monopoly on the goods and services sector. Health and education should remain completely publicly funded and regulated. Banks should remain completely private with laws banning monopolies and foreign banks into the economy. Lastly, dismember media empires and prohibit state-owned media.

-Eliminate the higher and lower classes through taxation. The social structure of society should consist of lower middle class, middle middle class and upper middle class with strict restrictions on inheritance. Social mobility will be very common as all persons will have access to the best education and public services. This will spell the end of elitism and the rise of the intelligentsia.

-Social necessities such as healthcare, life insurance, pension and education will be absolutely provided by the democratic economy and with revenue from the state-run industries. Childcare will be guaranteed to assure that women have the opportunity to work and make money.

-The labour board should have the authority to review any form that has been accused of violating labour laws such as racial, age and gender discrimination. As well as protection for immigrants and the disabled.

-The democratic process should be broken up into two varies: the law-making body and the economic body. The law-making body will introduce laws and enforce them while the economic body will decide what to do with state revenue. Both bodies are elected, however the law-making body is open to exclusively those with a law degree or/and a law background.

-Create schools of government, which will create professional politicians with knowledge in law, economics, history, sociology and of course politics.

[JerrySeinfeld]

"Schools of government"? "Professional Politicians"? ugh.

That's just what we need. A school dedicated to the cancer on this world we refer to as "government".

I say it again: ugh!

[mcqueen625]

What small businesses?

Exactly!

In New Brunswick, our Provincial PC Government classes many Irving owned companies as small businesses, and nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that one Irving company complements the others and purchases almost exclusively from each other, making competition almost impossible to exist. The City of Saint John Common Council just gave away the keys to the city to Mr. Irving with a tax break for 25 years on their proposed LNG Terminal. Even the Provincial Tax Assessment bureaucrats conservatively estimate the Property Taxes for this Project at $5 - $6 million per year, yet a guarantee was given to the Irving's that they will only have to pay $500,000.00/yr. for the 25 year term of the concession, and this amount is not going to even be subject to inflation. No guarantee of course for us ordinary folks that the City and Province is not going to coming with their hand's out looking for additional tax revenue to pay for the infrastructure associated with this terminal, and to pay for future shortfalls in revenue.

Just goes to prove the point that the most affluant in our country do not need to run for political office because they own whoever get's elected.