The World: How It Should Be

[chewyman]

I'm bored and looking to avoid work so I figured I'd write down some general thoughts on the world today. Feel free to chastise me for them all you like, but I won't read it until you post your own views to each of these headings.

The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation, if this union in inefficient then the company will fail to match smaller companies' price/quality ratio and it will fail as well. This is a great example of the market working all by itself. Note that this is not encouraging monopolies (as some have so far understood). Monopolies are to be avoided by the public sector and should only be allowed in the public sector. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency. Drugs and prostitution should be treated as a legitimate part of the private sector. The black market can better be dealt with by legalising it, thereby putting it completely under the influence of the government.

Private Sector:
The government should have much less control over the private sector. Private enterprise is far more efficient and if there is an example of where this is not the case the reason is always government interference. The sole responsibility of the government to the private sector should be that of watchmen. Corporations should not be allowed to mislead the public, for example lying about the nutrition level of a sandwich spread, they must therefore be accountable to the people as well as their shareholders. Schools and hospitals should be privatised, different companies would target different economic classes and so a safety net would be maintained. Unions are just another business and should be treated like any other. They operate on the same principles of supply and demand as any other business and it is every worker's right to join a union if they so choose. As the government would have less say in the operation of the private sector there would also be less influence on strikes and other union action. Workers would therefore not be disenfranchised as their powers would grow in the same way as the rest of the corporate sector.

Public Sector:
Should be greatly reduced in size to accommodate an expanding private sector. The government should only involve itself in industries where there would otherwise be a private monopoly, for example public transport. Monopolies are a threat to the free market as they have the potential for price fixing and overall inefficiency. Competition is the heart and sole of the private sector and in industries where there is none the public sector must step up and take responsibility. Civil liberties are to remain the protection of the government, as protection is also a monopoly of sorts.

Social Welfare:
People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions. Those that will not work should not be supported. There should be safety brackets in health and education, however society simply cannot afford to have these brackets at the same level as would be offered by the private sector.

Liberalism:
People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore civil unions would be allowed however same sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children, as this would infringe the child's right to a natural family. It's true that there are plenty of terrible heterosexual parents, but that isn't a reason to allow homosexual people to be parents as well. Stem cell research would also be allowed but not government funded. Capital punishment would be illegal. If a person gives signed and written consent for euthanasia then it would be allowed, however if this consent is simply verbal and not witnessed, given under duress etc it will not be accepted. If I think of anymore contentious issues I'll add them here later.

Poorer Nations:
In response to alex_white101's post. Everything written above applies to both wealthy and poorer nation states. The difference lies in the extremities. Wealthy states can afford a larger safety net than poorer ones. The way for poor nations to secure and develop their economies is through an expansion of the private sector, not social welfare.

The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. The government should focus their efforts to promote competition and reduce market control using antitrust laws. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency.

Social Welfare:
People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions. Those that will not work should be given the bare minimum to get by and no more. This is to prevent homelessness, drug abuse, drug dealing, prostitution, thievery, suicide, or any number of other socially despicable problems that would thrive if they were cut off all together.
There should be safety brackets in health and education, however society simply cannot afford to have these brackets at the same level as would be offered by the private sector.

Liberalism:
People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Same sex couples should be allowed to adopt. Without getting into the gay debate at all - there are 1000s of childen waiting to be adopted, far better that they are brought up by gay parents than the welfare system (which we are trying to keep small).
Stem cell research would also be allowed but not government funded. Capital punishment would be illegal. If a person gives signed and written consent for euthanasia then it would be allowed, however if this consent is simply verbal and not witnessed, given under duress etc it will not be accepted. If I think of anymore contentious issues I'll add them here later.

I can't think of anymore headings right now, but I'm sure somebody will come up with some other good ideas. If I get enough other people posting then I'll put them all up in the first thread with that person's user name so that people can in future just read this first post to know where people stand.

[Dancing Mustard]

[alex_white101]

I'm bored and looking to avoid work so I figured I'd write down some general thoughts on the world today. Feel free to chastise me for them all you like, but I won't read it until you post your own views to each of these headings.



The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation, if this union in inefficient then the company will fail to match smaller companies' price/quality ratio and it will fail as well. This is a great example of the market working all by itself. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency.

Private Sector:
The government should have much less control over the private sector. Private enterprise is far more efficient and if there is an example of where this is not the case the reason is always government interference. The sole responsibility of the government to the private sector should be that of watchmen. Corporations should not be allowed to mislead the public, for example lying about the nutrition level of a sandwich spread, they must therefore be accountable to the people as well as their shareholders. Schools and hospitals should be privatised, different companies would target different economic classes and so a safety net would be maintained. Unions are just another business and should be treated like any other. They operate on the same principles of supply and demand as any other business and it is every worker's right to join a union if they so choose. As the government would have less say in the operation of the private sector there would also be less influence on strikes and other union action. Workers would therefore not be disenfranchised as their powers would grow in the same way as the rest of the corporate sector.

Public Sector:
Should be greatly reduced in size to accommodate an expanding private sector. The government should only involve itself in industries where there would otherwise be a private monopoly, for example public transport. Monopolies are a threat to the free market as they have the potential for price fixing and overall inefficiency. Competition is the heart and sole of the private sector and in industries where there is none the public sector must step up and take responsibility. Civil liberties are to remain the protection of the government, as protection is also a monopoly of sorts.

Social Welfare:
People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions. Those that will not work should not be supported. There should be safety brackets in health and education, however society simply cannot afford to have these brackets at the same level as would be offered by the private sector.

Liberalism:
People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore civil unions would be allowed however same sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children, as this would infringe the child's right to a natural family. Stem cell research would also be allowed but not government funded. Capital punishment would be illegal. If a person gives signed and written consent for euthanasia then it would be allowed, however if this consent is simply verbal and not witnessed, given under duress etc it will not be accepted. If I think of anymore contentious issues I'll add them here later.



I can't think of anymore headings right now, but I'm sure somebody will come up with some other good ideas. If I get enough other people posting then I'll put them all up in the first thread with that person's user name so that people can in future just read this first post to know where people stand.

ok i agree pretty much completely. i was just wondering in the context of which country? what you have said apples to rich developed countries yes, but poor developing ones? i think not.......

[chewyman]

ok i agree pretty much completely. i was just wondering in the context of which country? what you have said apples to rich developed countries yes, but poor developing ones? i think not.......

Fair point, I'll edit my post to incorporate poorer countries right now, only take me a couple of sentences

[nagerous]

I agree with some of these things however there are a couple I disagree with

:

firstly, I believe that there should be social welfare given to some people that are unemployed. just my view on this one not got much of an argument if anyone calls me on this

secondly, same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. a lot of children are currently being raised by abusive parents or are in orphanages where they may suffer from bullying, maltreatment and possibly malnutrition
surely a childs right is to be raised by a family that love them and same sex couples will be able to provide them with this kind of relationship. you say that this would infringe on the childs right to a natural family. However, surely if they are not adopted by same sex couples then they will be left stuck in the orphanage and therefore won't have a natural family anyways

[Guilty_Biscuit]

The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation, if this union in inefficient then the company will fail to match smaller companies' price/quality ratio and it will fail as well. This is a great example of the market working all by itself. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency.

There should be limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation in order to prevent Monopolies forming.

The price that a Monopoly charges for it's goods will be no where near the minimum supply price that they need to pay production cost. Because the buyers' price is greater than the opportunity cost of production, we don't have efficiency. Monopoly is an example of inefficiency at its best -- or rather worst. I agree with you on the rest of the market so I would rewrite your statement on the Market thusly:

The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. The government should focus their efforts to promote competition and reduce market control using antitrust laws. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency.

[Danmagnet]

There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation

Monopolies are a threat to the free market as they have the potential for price fixing and overall inefficiency.

Delicious contradiction here. Companies will create monopolies and become inefficient. It's a fact, the government must act to stop monopolies at all cost and that's why they prevent mergers. Plus there's no reason why the government must run transport. From an economic point of view, the UK's privatised railway system is a complete success, companies are making stacks of profit, rasing ticket fairs and increasing congestion yet still passenger numbers increase.

People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background.

Ah yes, because everybody chooses to be unemployed. Ever thought there may simply be no jobs left in the economy? Or that a 50 year old man trained to become a coal miner and worked in the industry for 30 years only for the government to close all the pits. Where is he going to get a job now?


I disagree with a lot of your posts. The free market cannot solve the world's problems. Look at the USA, the world's biggest free market and look at its poverty. Now look at the Scandanavian countries: a heavy amount of public industry and they have next to no poverty. I'm not a communist but the free market unregulated and unchecked is a failure simply because it's driven by an evil: greed. There is a limit to the goodness that can be produced when the sole motivation is greed.

I would hate to live in your world.

[chewyman]

The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation, if this union in inefficient then the company will fail to match smaller companies' price/quality ratio and it will fail as well. This is a great example of the market working all by itself. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency.

There should be limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation in order to prevent Monopolies forming.

The price that a Monopoly charges for it's goods will be no where near the minimum supply price that they need to pay production cost. Because the buyers' price is greater than the opportunity cost of production, we don't have efficiency. Monopoly is an example of inefficiency at its best -- or rather worst. I agree with you on the rest of the market so I would rewrite your statement on the Market thusly:

The Market:
The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. Government should not interfere through protectionist policies in any way, shape or form. Equilibrium is the point of maximum efficiency in an economists definition, to alter it in anyway is, therefore, clearly a mistake. The government should focus their efforts to promote competition and reduce market control using antitrust laws. Governments should not artificially inflate or deflate prices, this only wastes efficiency.

I mentioned monopolies in the Public Sector heading.



Please people, I'm not as interested in what's wrong with my own opinions as in what your own opinions are. That said, I'm perfectly willing to address your criticisms as soon as you give your own opinions.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Social Welfare:
People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions. Those that will not work should not be supported. There should be safety brackets in health and education, however society simply cannot afford to have these brackets at the same level as would be offered by the private sector.

Those that will not work should be given the bare minimum to get by and no more. This is to prevent homelessness, drug abuse, drug dealing, prostitution, thievery, suicide, or any number of other socially despicable problems that would thrive if they were cut off all together.

Social Welfare:
People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions. Those that will not work should be given the bare minimum to get by and no more. This is to prevent homelessness, drug abuse, drug dealing, prostitution, thievery, suicide, or any number of other socially despicable problems that would thrive if they were cut off all together.
There should be safety brackets in health and education, however society simply cannot afford to have these brackets at the same level as would be offered by the private sector.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Please people, I'm not as interested in what's wrong with my own opinions as in what your own opinions are. That said, I'm perfectly willing to address your criticisms as soon as you give your own opinions.

Hey chewey - I'm giving you my opinions. They are very close to yours only (revised).

[chewyman]

I appreciate that you don't have the time for a whole essay like mine but just saying 'I agree but...' isn't really what I had in mind.

[alex_white101]

and im too tired so goin to bed now, will argue with you tomorrow

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Liberalism:
People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore civil unions would be allowed however same sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children, as this would infringe the child's right to a natural family. Stem cell research would also be allowed but not government funded. Capital punishment would be illegal. If a person gives signed and written consent for euthanasia then it would be allowed, however if this consent is simply verbal and not witnessed, given under duress etc it will not be accepted. If I think of anymore contentious issues I'll add them here later.

Same sex couples should be allowed to adopt. Without getting into the gay debate at all - there are 1000s of childen waiting to be adopted, far better that they are brought up by gay parents than the welfare system (which we are trying to keep small).

Liberalism:
People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Same sex couples should be allowed to adopt. Without getting into the gay debate at all - there are 1000s of childen waiting to be adopted, far better that they are brought up by gay parents than the welfare system (which we are trying to keep small).
Stem cell research would also be allowed but not government funded. Capital punishment would be illegal. If a person gives signed and written consent for euthanasia then it would be allowed, however if this consent is simply verbal and not witnessed, given under duress etc it will not be accepted. If I think of anymore contentious issues I'll add them here later.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I appreciate that you don't have the time for a whole essay like mine but just saying 'I agree but...' isn't really what I had in mind.

I agree but... those are my views - perhaps when I have the time I'll have a stab at putting a draft of my own ideas together. In the meantime I'd appreciate your thoughts on my comments.

[chewyman]

Those that will not work should be given the bare minimum to get by and no more. This is to prevent homelessness, drug abuse, drug dealing, prostitution, thievery, suicide, or any number of other socially despicable problems that would thrive if they were cut off all together.

I do not believe that society should give to people who offer nothing in return. I've edited my original post to include things like drugs and prostitution, which I believe should be legalised, making legislating them more effective.

Same sex couples should be allowed to adopt. Without getting into the gay debate at all - there are 1000s of childen waiting to be adopted, far better that they are brought up by gay parents than the welfare system (which we are trying to keep small).

Again edited my post to refer to this. The fact that many straight couples do not make good parents is not an argument for gay couples to adopt, just an argument for child services to be more stringent. You cannot justify a bad thing by demonstrating another bad thing, it's the same as all the complaints towards removing our freedom in the war on terrorism to protect our freedom.

I agree but... those are my views - perhaps when I have the time I'll have a stab at putting a draft of my own ideas together. In the meantime I'd appreciate your thoughts on my comments.

Sorry, wasn't posting, I was just editing my original post. I'll make sure to post in future so that you realise what I'm doing. That said, it's getting late, I'll check back here tomorrow.

[Serbia]

NHL Conference Finals begin Thursday with the Ottawa Senators at the Buffalo Sabres, and on Friday with the Anahiem Ducks at the Detroit Red Wings.

[chewyman]

Wrong thread??

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I do not believe that society should give to people who offer nothing in return. I've edited my original post to include things like drugs and prostitution, which I believe should be legalised, making legislating them more effective.

Fair enough chewey but you have to accept that many people would be faced with starvation if they lost their jobs and had no welfare 'safety net' If I was in this position I would have no choice but to mug you for pennies so I could buy bread. Scummy people might even kill for pennies.

[Titanic]

Drugs and prostitution should be treated as a legitimate part of the private sector.

Drugs legalised? Are you mad? That would be a disaster. I cant even be boethered to explain why, its jsut a ridiculous suggestion. Prostetution should not be legalised. If it is, it will give young women the wrong impression, and also its not really a great career move. Also, withit legalised, gangs will be able to force underage people into protetution more easily as the prostetution business will not be so closesly monitored or scrutinies by the cops.

Schools and hospitals should be privatised, different companies would target different economic classes and so a safety net would be maintained.

Hell fcking no!!! Schools privatised? Are you insane?!?!? Also with this one, tehre is no need to explain, its just another ridiculous suggestion.

Hospital, no as well. The health standards in Europe, where we get state provided health care, are far above USA's where it is private. Also, per capita, health care in Europe is cheaper the USA.

As the government would have less say in the operation of the private sector there would also be less influence on strikes and other union action.

Eh?!? What? Strikes just dont happen against the governemnt you know. People do strike against businesses and organisations if they think they're wages arnt that good.

The government should only involve itself in industries where there would otherwise be a private monopoly, for example public transport.

The UK public transport sector is far from a monopoly. Its a very competitive business. I believe that public transport should be owened by the government, but for different reasons.

People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions.

As stated earlier - "50 year old man trained to become a coal miner and worked in the industry for 30 years only for the government to close all the pits. Where is he going to get a job now?"

Therefore civil unions would be allowed however same sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children, as this would infringe the child's right to a natural family.

Natural family? Is a drunken dad who beat his kids natural? Is a druggy mum natural? Is 17 year old parents natural? Are foster homes natural? Is adoption natural?

Gays should be allowed to adopt, as just because they are both of the same sex does not mean they will be bad parents, or the kid will grow up "confused".

The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand.

Very, very, very, very, very hard. Almost impossible to do in the long term. How can you precisely predict the demand for the coming weeks if your a supplier? You cant. Its impossible.

There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation, if this union in inefficient then the company will fail to match smaller companies' price/quality ratio and it will fail as well.

And if it is successful you have a monopoly. By the way, you do realise that you only need 20%-25% (depending on the economist you listen to) to have a monopoly? All monopolies are not bad, but they should all be under watch from watch dogs.

[chewyman]

Drugs and prostitution should be treated as a legitimate part of the private sector.

Drugs legalised? Are you mad? That would be a disaster. I cant even be boethered to explain why, its jsut a ridiculous suggestion. Prostetution should not be legalised. If it is, it will give young women the wrong impression, and also its not really a great career move. Also, withit legalised, gangs will be able to force underage people into protetution more easily as the prostetution business will not be so closesly monitored or scrutinies by the cops.

Schools and hospitals should be privatised, different companies would target different economic classes and so a safety net would be maintained.

Hell fcking no!!! Schools privatised? Are you insane?!?!? Also with this one, tehre is no need to explain, its just another ridiculous suggestion.

Hospital, no as well. The health standards in Europe, where we get state provided health care, are far above USA's where it is private. Also, per capita, health care in Europe is cheaper the USA.

As the government would have less say in the operation of the private sector there would also be less influence on strikes and other union action.

Eh?!? What? Strikes just dont happen against the governemnt you know. People do strike against businesses and organisations if they think they're wages arnt that good.

The government should only involve itself in industries where there would otherwise be a private monopoly, for example public transport.

The UK public transport sector is far from a monopoly. Its a very competitive business. I believe that public transport should be owened by the government, but for different reasons.

People should not have access to social welfare simply because they are unemployed or of a certain ethnic background. Social welfare should be limited to those with disabilities, injuries, or other health conditions.

As stated earlier - "50 year old man trained to become a coal miner and worked in the industry for 30 years only for the government to close all the pits. Where is he going to get a job now?"

Therefore civil unions would be allowed however same sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children, as this would infringe the child's right to a natural family.

Natural family? Is a drunken dad who beat his kids natural? Is a druggy mum natural? Is 17 year old parents natural? Are foster homes natural? Is adoption natural?

Gays should be allowed to adopt, as just because they are both of the same sex does not mean they will be bad parents, or the kid will grow up "confused".

The market should be free to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand.

Very, very, very, very, very hard. Almost impossible to do in the long term. How can you precisely predict the demand for the coming weeks if your a supplier? You cant. Its impossible.

There should be no limitations on a corporation merging or taking over another corporation, if this union in inefficient then the company will fail to match smaller companies' price/quality ratio and it will fail as well.

And if it is successful you have a monopoly. By the way, you do realise that you only need 20%-25% (depending on the economist you listen to) to have a monopoly? All monopolies are not bad, but they should all be under watch from watch dogs.

I won't read it until you post your own views to each of these headings.

[chewyman]

I know what I just said and this post are a complete contradiction, so sue me, see if I care. Boredness overrules any moral principles that I may have.

Fair enough chewey [it's chewy damn it] but you have to accept that many people would be faced with starvation if they lost their jobs and had no welfare 'safety net' If I was in this position I would have no choice but to mug you for pennies so I could buy bread. Scummy people might even kill for pennies.

People will mug other people for absolutely no reason other than selfish greed with or without a safety net. Poverty and crime are definitely connected, but social welfare clearly doesn't prevent crime. If you are capable of organising a mugging then you are capable of working, even if the job isn't necessarily CEO of a major company.

Drugs legalised? Are you mad? That would be a disaster. I cant even be boethered to explain why, its jsut a ridiculous suggestion. Prostetution should not be legalised. If it is, it will give young women the wrong impression, and also its not really a great career move. Also, withit legalised, gangs will be able to force underage people into protetution more easily as the prostetution business will not be so closesly monitored or scrutinies by the cops.

That's a nice argument against drugs but for those that aren't mind readers could you please enlighten us? Drugs are already prevalent in our society, legal and illegal. The legalisation of illicit drugs will make them easier to monitor and provide systems of rehabilitation for those affected. As for prostitution, I don't know exactly where you live but prostitution is already legal in most of the free world and people still don't have a good impression of this oldest of professions. It is society's nature and role to stigmatise things, not government's. As for gangs forcing women into prostitution this is a ridiculous and groundless claim. The state is still in control of the police force and such acts would be illegal (see statement in Liberalism heading: "People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others.")

Hell fcking no!!! Schools privatised? Are you insane?!?!? Also with this one, tehre is no need to explain, its just another ridiculous suggestion.

Hospital, no as well. The health standards in Europe, where we get state provided health care, are far above USA's where it is private. Also, per capita, health care in Europe is cheaper the USA.

Again, for those that have not reached enlightenment and lack mind-reading capabilities could you please go into more details. As for health, could you please provide the necessary statistics for that claim? I'm interested in the quality of health care here, not the quality-to-quantity ratio.

Eh?!? What? Strikes just dont happen against the governemnt you know. People do strike against businesses and organisations if they think they're wages arnt that good.

Umm... yeah, they do. Civil servants are just as free to strike as any other employee. As for people striking against businesses, precisely my point, what are you getting at?

The UK public transport sector is far from a monopoly. Its a very competitive business. I believe that public transport should be owened by the government, but for different reasons.

Well here you're agreeing with me but apparently for different reasons. Either way, I'll take it

As stated earlier - "50 year old man trained to become a coal miner and worked in the industry for 30 years only for the government to close all the pits. Where is he going to get a job now?"

The private sector perhaps? But even if this theoretical person were to lose their job as a miner there would be other jobs available. I don't see why the fact that he has been a miner for 30 years should stop him from being able to work in a different sector?

Natural family? Is a drunken dad who beat his kids natural? Is a druggy mum natural? Is 17 year old parents natural? Are foster homes natural? Is adoption natural?

Gays should be allowed to adopt, as just because they are both of the same sex does not mean they will be bad parents, or the kid will grow up "confused".

This argument is completely lacking in a connection between the conclusion and the premise. Most people criticise George Bush for limiting freedom to protect freedom from terrorists, the idea being that two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that a theoretical alcoholic father assaults his child would be a terrible thing, no arguments from me there. However, in this case, as in the war on terrorism, two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot make homosexual adoption into a good thing by pointing out that bad things already happen and therefore a little more can't be that terrible.

Very, very, very, very, very hard. Almost impossible to do in the long term. How can you precisely predict the demand for the coming weeks if your a supplier? You cant. Its impossible.

Especially considering that the point of equilibrium is always changing. The truth is that equilibrium is an entirely theoretical point, as soon as you reach it it's moved somewhere else. The goal however, is to get as close to this point as possible.

And if it is successful you have a monopoly. By the way, you do realise that you only need 20%-25% (depending on the economist you listen to) to have a monopoly? All monopolies are not bad, but they should all be under watch from watch dogs.

A successful merger does not equal a monopoly. Monopolies mean a lack of competition and therefore lead to inefficiency. I don't see the argument behind your second sentence, what's your point?

[alex_white101]

Drugs and prostitution should be treated as a legitimate part of the private sector.

Drugs legalised? Are you mad? That would be a disaster. I cant even be boethered to explain why, its jsut a ridiculous suggestion. Prostetution should not be legalised. If it is, it will give young women the wrong impression, and also its not really a great career move. Also, withit legalised, gangs will be able to force underage people into protetution more easily as the prostetution business will not be so closesly monitored or scrutinies by the cops..

why should these prostitues all be female? is a man who hires himself out for sex called a prostitute? or something else? i dont know, we dont get alot/any of them here..........

[chewyman]

Drugs and prostitution should be treated as a legitimate part of the private sector.

Drugs legalised? Are you mad? That would be a disaster. I cant even be boethered to explain why, its jsut a ridiculous suggestion. Prostetution should not be legalised. If it is, it will give young women the wrong impression, and also its not really a great career move. Also, withit legalised, gangs will be able to force underage people into protetution more easily as the prostetution business will not be so closesly monitored or scrutinies by the cops..

why should these prostitues all be female? is a man who hires himself out for sex called a prostitute? or something else? i dont know, we dont get alot/any of them here..........

I noticed that as well, but I don't think it's really central to the argument so I ignored it. My response holds up equally well for female/male/both prostitution.

As for not getting a lot of male prostitutes where you are, I'd love to know how you know that

[alex_white101]

i meant any prostitutes, its a stict(ish) muslim country. none of that funky business! well obviiously there is some but well hidden and much smaller than other countries.......

[Titanic]

That's a nice argument against drugs but for those that aren't mind readers could you please enlighten us? Drugs are already prevalent in our society, legal and illegal. The legalisation of illicit drugs will make them easier to monitor and provide systems of rehabilitation for those affected. As for prostitution, I don't know exactly where you live but prostitution is already legal in most of the free world and people still don't have a good impression of this oldest of professions. It is society's nature and role to stigmatise things, not government's. As for gangs forcing women into prostitution this is a ridiculous and groundless claim. The state is still in control of the police force and such acts would be illegal (see statement in Liberalism heading: "People should be free to do what they want provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others.")

Just because its easy to get hold of drugs is not a reason to make them legal. Drugs are bad for society as they are addictive, expensive, mainly controlled by gangs and people will bad intentions, have serious health effects, can give you mental damage, its fcks up your body etc etc....

As for prostitution, heres one reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostituti ... rostitutes

And for the legality laws -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Legal_issues

Also, prostitutes are more likely to get STD's.

Again, for those that have not reached enlightenment and lack mind-reading capabilities could you please go into more details. As for health, could you please provide the necessary statistics for that claim? I'm interested in the quality of health care here, not the quality-to-quantity ratio.

If you cannot see any bad points with privatising education, then you really should not be talking about politics. Forget mind reading, its common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car ... e_Industry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/778385.stm

Eh?!? What? Strikes just dont happen against the governemnt you know. People do strike against businesses and organisations if they think they're wages arnt that good.

Umm... yeah, they do. Civil servants are just as free to strike as any other employee. As for people striking against businesses, precisely my point, what are you getting at?

Yes, i was saying that people strike against governemtns and businesses. In your original post, you said that making the public sector smaller and private sector larger will reduce or get rid of strikes.

The private sector perhaps? But even if this theoretical person were to lose their job as a miner there would be other jobs available. I don't see why the fact that he has been a miner for 30 years should stop him from being able to work in a different sector?

The fact that he is an old, unskilled worker? There is no need for him in any business, and no one will hire him.

You cannot make homosexual adoption into a good thing by pointing out that bad things already happen and therefore a little more can't be that terrible.

No, the point I was making was what exactly is a natural family? Every family is different and ahs parts which are not "natural" and may be looked down upon, but in the end its up to the parents, not the state, as to how the child is brought up.