Conquer Club

chewyman wrote: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.

guilty biscuit wrote: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.

chewyman wrote: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 wrote: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.

chewyman (revised) wrote: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.

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.

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

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:

chewyman wrote: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:

chewyman (revised) wrote: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.

chewyman wrote: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.

chewyman revised wrote: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.

chewyman wrote: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.

chewyman wrote: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.

chewyman (revised) wrote: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.

chewyman wrote: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.

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.

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).

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 wrote: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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Titanic wrote:

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

guilty_biscuit wrote: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.

Titanic wrote: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.

Titanic wrote: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.

Titanic wrote: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.

Titanic wrote: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.

Titanic wrote: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?"

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".

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.

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.

Titanic wrote:

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..

alex_white101 wrote:

Titanic wrote:

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..........

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.")

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.

Titanic wrote: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 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?

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.