Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:


Proponents of the Non-aggression principle, property rights and voluntary interaction would disagree.

Though you are either:

A. Asserting that property rights, voluntary trade and the NAP are somehow morally indefensible?

B. Asserting that free market capitalism = the current crony corporatism and that crony corporatism cannot be morally defended therefore free market capitalism can't either?

If A, you are objectively wrong in every sense.
If B, I would argue that Free market capitalism =/= != Crony Corporate Fascism.

I would also argue that Capitalism in it's truest sense is not; unnatural, self-destructive, inefficient and inhumane.

Grey wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:16pm:


....this "lady crossing" service needs to be floated, privatised, corporatized, downsized, outsourced and then merged and put into receivership

then you'll see great profits flowing into the pockets of the RIGHT people

Workers also exploit capitalism. But don't like being exploited...quit....easy...or start your own business...see how that works for ya!

namnugenot wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:


Oh yeah - workers have all the power, they're the evil lazy buggers who want everything

Not like Mrs Reinhart who works so hard for her $15,000 per MINUTE income portfolio.

Gina also thinks it would be a great idea to ship in foreign workers to Australia so that they can work for $2 per hour.

Yeah, the evil workers of Australia. Greedy lazy and dishonest. How DARE they demand a small proportion of the pie. A pie that was given to Oligarchs like Gina reinhart and Palmer

Setanta wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:


Real capitalists no, statists maybe. I'd still say let the market sort it out because the market isn't a real entity the market is every human being's actions adding together to create an equilibrium. By intervening you distort the market and upset the balance.

It's weird because there are benefit from free trade, but then people see consequences yet don't realize the consequences are still from a lack of free trade. I'll give an example see if you agree.

The peoples republic of capitalism:


In this video there is an example where a company outsourced the manufacture of it's motors to china for cheaper labor, thus providing cheaper motors for people all around the world. (benefit) Except people that were working in the US had their jobs outsourced. (consequence). But this is where the distortion comes in.

If it was a free market these employees would be free to float where there is actual demand, so if china has cheap manufacturing and the US has cheap services they could float into services and fulfill demand there. (just for arguments sake)However in the us there's regulations etc here that distort that and keep these people out of jobs they would otherwise have. Maybe they don't have the relevant licensing for other jobs, maybe they can't get unskilled worked due to some reasons.

But if you opened up the whole world with free trade everyone benefits and an equilibrium can be found. Here you have China promoting free trade, benefiting with jobs and benefiting people it exports too with cheaper goods, yet the US isn't opening up and deregulating which distorts the US.

In china people can just go from poverty in the rural areas to manual labour in the cities, yes they don't earn much compared to us here, but they come out of poverty and opportunity opens up. But look here in AUS, because of safety regulations etc you need licensing, auditing, blue cards etc (all well intentioned) that stifle peoples ability to obtain employment. It distorts the equilibrium.

"There are no solutions only trade offs" - Thomas Sowell

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:


Yes real capitalists. Capitalism is the quest for capital, for profit.. If it helps the bottom line, they will be for it, that is the nature of the beast. I'm not a big fan of so called "free trade" agreements either.

Setanta wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 11:30pm:



So does that mean you think a state should be able to dictate with the threat of violence who you can and can't voluntarily interact with?

What makes anyone think people in government have the necessary information to understand the true impact these decisions have?

It's morally reprehensible to me for a small group of people to be able to dictate to everyone else who they may or may not interact with and what they may or may not voluntarily do. Pure totalitarian BS!