Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pharmaceutical companies get away with legally creating addictions all the time. It has actually became a norm.A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
Capitalism is a self regulating system. Charge too much, someone will undercut you. Deliver bad goods/services? People will stop buying. Cheat someone? Expect a big lawsuit.
EEEEERRRRRRRTTTTT!!
A lawsuit is a legal matter that takes place in a court of law. It is an element of government regulation. Nothing about capitalism entails or requires the right to sue.
Better luck next year.
I just pointed that out also. The OP made a big foul up. He started out trying to oppose regulation and ended up endorsing it.
Pharmaceutical companies get away with legally creating addictions all the time. It has actually became a norm.A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
Pharmaceutical companies get away with legally creating addictions all the time. It has actually became a norm.A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
Capitalism is a self regulating system. Charge too much, someone will undercut you. Deliver bad goods/services? People will stop buying. Cheat someone? Expect a big lawsuit.
EEEEERRRRRRRTTTTT!!
A lawsuit is a legal matter that takes place in a court of law. It is an element of government regulation. Nothing about capitalism entails or requires the right to sue.
Better luck next year.
I just pointed that out also. The OP made a big foul up. He started out trying to oppose regulation and ended up endorsing it.
Laws against fraud and stealing are not regulations, fool. Those are crimes. Selling someone a car without seat belts is not a crime.
For those who advocate a 'free market', let's start here:
Methamphetamine.
What is the status of trade in meth in a 'free market'?
It's perfectly legal. Taking drugs is a victimless crime - meaning it's not a crime.
It was merely a point for yours, thank you.Pharmaceutical companies get away with legally creating addictions all the time. It has actually became a norm.A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
The irrelevance of your post is stunning.
A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
Generally that is the case unless the Meth or Coke addict runs out of ways to get their Meth or Coke. At that point they really have no conscience and in order to feed that addiction crimes generally ensue and then you get victims.For those who advocate a 'free market', let's start here:
Methamphetamine.
What is the status of trade in meth in a 'free market'?
It's perfectly legal. Taking drugs is a victimless crime - meaning it's not a crime.
China and India are communist/socialist countries, doofus.We see how self regulating it is by looking at China, India or 19th century America. Anyone that thinks it is self regulating knows nothing of what they're talking about.
Government and unions are needed for capitalism to be fair to the worker. One of the big reasons we did so good as a nation in the 40's into the 60's was because of this fact. Today? The rich have taken it all and moved operations to china.
An old article but it is still going on. I spoke with an old druggy here about a month ago who struck a conversation concerning the dog I was walking. He gave me a brief run down on his personal history while I waited for the dog to pee. He no longer takes drugs but was started on them as a child by prescription. Went into the drug scene, got out of that but still an admitted addict but now uses pharmaceuticals verses street drugs. It is a vicious cycle an all profits regardless of the future out come can create. I am not apposed to people make their own choices and truthfully the government needs to get out of their so called wars on this and that. Potheads a different story, they will be potheads, it is a historic thing. It is a parents job to teach a child not to go there but if they do then I suppose they get to live that life.Pharmaceutical companies get away with legally creating addictions all the time. It has actually became a norm.A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.
So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.
How do pharmaceutical companies force people to consume their products?
I posted it to prove you don't even understand your own words. Fail again!Capitalism doesn't mean lawlessness. Failed again.
Since I never said that, why did you post that?
The OP claims that business can self-regulate and doesn't need 'fettering'. To fetter is to restrain.
It's the OP who supports lawlessness.
The claim that free enterprise includes murder for hire and child prostitution is so stupid that only some brain damaged turd like you could dream it up.
So you concede that the term 'free' is not being used in a literal, absolute sense.
Okay, then tell that to the people who are attacking the term 'unfettered' from the view that it is being used in a literal, absolute sense.
If capitalism is controlled by the state it's fascism. But it isn't a misunderstanding at all. The left deliberately lies about what it is in order to forward socialism. That's why they insist on using the made up term unfettered capitalism, they put a qualifier on it and pretend that's what it is without state control.The problem with these threads is always the same. The term "capitalism" does not include the grand enchilada that many people tend to attribute to it. The same is true for socialism, fascism, communism, etc. The result is that when 20 people engage in a discussion they're going to be talking about 12 different enchiladas, and invariably fail to find sufficient common ground to support a debate.
In this thread, most people have once again made the wrong assumptions because they are confusing capitalism with free markets.
The defining feature of capitalism has to do with ownership of the fruits of labor, i.e. profits. In capitalism, ownership of profits stems from supplying the capital. Hence, the name capitalism. If I own the capital that it took to produce a watermelon, then I own the product. That is where capitalism ends. What comes next is no longer about capitalism and is about the free market.
In a free market, I get to decide what I'm going to do with any watermelon that I happen to own. If I want to sell it, I can. If I want to eat it, I can. If I choose to sell it, I can charge whatever price I want. If someone agrees to buy at the price I choose to charge, then the price is adequately fair to all people who matter (the buyer and seller).
Capitalism does not require a free market to exist, nor does a free market require capitalism to exist.
Capitalism in the US is controlled by the state.
If capitalism is controlled by the state it's fascism. But it isn't a misunderstanding at all. The left deliberately lies about what it is in order to forward socialism. That's why they insist on using the made up term unfettered capitalism, they put a qualifier on it and pretend that's what it is without state control.The problem with these threads is always the same. The term "capitalism" does not include the grand enchilada that many people tend to attribute to it. The same is true for socialism, fascism, communism, etc. The result is that when 20 people engage in a discussion they're going to be talking about 12 different enchiladas, and invariably fail to find sufficient common ground to support a debate.
In this thread, most people have once again made the wrong assumptions because they are confusing capitalism with free markets.
The defining feature of capitalism has to do with ownership of the fruits of labor, i.e. profits. In capitalism, ownership of profits stems from supplying the capital. Hence, the name capitalism. If I own the capital that it took to produce a watermelon, then I own the product. That is where capitalism ends. What comes next is no longer about capitalism and is about the free market.
In a free market, I get to decide what I'm going to do with any watermelon that I happen to own. If I want to sell it, I can. If I want to eat it, I can. If I choose to sell it, I can charge whatever price I want. If someone agrees to buy at the price I choose to charge, then the price is adequately fair to all people who matter (the buyer and seller).
Capitalism does not require a free market to exist, nor does a free market require capitalism to exist.
Capitalism in the US is controlled by the state.
Agreed. We don't have unfettered capitalism here.
The term is not meant to be used in an either or manner. These people are just nitpicking in lieu of a substantive argument.
A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.
Q. What is unfettered Capitalism
A. A Plutocracy
No, a recession is not just the absence of growth but two consecutive quarters of reduction in economic activity as measured by the GDP.Based on what? You've drawn a conclusion with nothing but a wild ass opinion for support.
Based on history. Ask any economist what is the most fundamental thing that keeps a country from going into recession. One word: growth.
A recession is just the absence of growth, so what you said is to the cure for the absence of growth is growth.
You're an idiot.
If capitalism is controlled by the state it's fascism. But it isn't a misunderstanding at all. The left deliberately lies about what it is in order to forward socialism. That's why they insist on using the made up term unfettered capitalism, they put a qualifier on it and pretend that's what it is without state control.The problem with these threads is always the same. The term "capitalism" does not include the grand enchilada that many people tend to attribute to it. The same is true for socialism, fascism, communism, etc. The result is that when 20 people engage in a discussion they're going to be talking about 12 different enchiladas, and invariably fail to find sufficient common ground to support a debate.
In this thread, most people have once again made the wrong assumptions because they are confusing capitalism with free markets.
The defining feature of capitalism has to do with ownership of the fruits of labor, i.e. profits. In capitalism, ownership of profits stems from supplying the capital. Hence, the name capitalism. If I own the capital that it took to produce a watermelon, then I own the product. That is where capitalism ends. What comes next is no longer about capitalism and is about the free market.
In a free market, I get to decide what I'm going to do with any watermelon that I happen to own. If I want to sell it, I can. If I want to eat it, I can. If I choose to sell it, I can charge whatever price I want. If someone agrees to buy at the price I choose to charge, then the price is adequately fair to all people who matter (the buyer and seller).
Capitalism does not require a free market to exist, nor does a free market require capitalism to exist.
Capitalism in the US is controlled by the state.
WHEN "CAPITALISM" IS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE IS CALLED FASCISM.
.
