true rightist economic ideas

[swayside]

capitalism

the whole purpose of capitalism is to pit human desire against itself in self perpetuation.

the rights of the business

the right to provision of working environment

a buisiness has the right to provide whatever type of working environment it wishes to. in capitalism, people choose if and where they desire to work, thus the business has the right to deny applicants on any grounds they see fit. as for the working environment itself, it is fully regulated by the business. the reason that business environment standards stay up is that it desires to keep steady workers, who are free to leave at their own whims on any grounds they see fit. to keep these workers and encourage an influx of new labor, the business would keep its environment as pleasant as it deems nescessary. the nicer the environment, the more people would prefer to work there over somewhere else. this also attracts people of higher skill.

the right to sovereignty of wages

a business has the right to offer however much money it sees fit to someone to do a job for them. businesses keep their wages reasonable to ensure consistant work. a business that offers higher wages will probably get a larger potential work force of possible greater skill.

the right to monopoly

a business has the right to become a monopoly. the business does not make itself a monopoly, consumers do. becoming a monopoly is not a direct act of the business. if a business becomes one, it has every right to remain one until change occurs. a business that is a monopoly implies a good product that people prefer over the product of other businesses of the same variety.

if a business gouges prices, someone else can sell the same product for less and still make a prophit, thus breaking a monopoly. (this is also how prices are kept in check. businesses selling for less than another but still trying to make a prophit.)

the right to supply at its own terms

a business has the right to charge whatever amount of capital it sees fit for its product. the business made it, and has rights to it until it exchanges it. it can choose whatever it wants for the product. the reason prices would remain reasonable is that it needs to sell the product. if it charges too much, chances are that no one will buy it, but if it does not charge enough, it could go out of business.

the right to choice of work force

a business has the right to choose who it wants to employ based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

the rights of the worker

the right to choose if and where to work

a worker has the choice of working or not, thus any application is of his own free will. he has the right to search for better jobs while currently employed. a worker can leave his current employment at his whims. the reason he would not is to not fill his resume with occurances that would cause a potential employer to distrust him.

a worker also has the right to choose who he wants to work for based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

the right to provision of work

a worker has the right to do a job that his employer gives him as he sees fit. the reason the he would follow his employer's expectations is to keep his job secure.

worker-business cooperative rights

right to contract

the two parties involved (worker an employer) have the right to draw up contracts to ensure job securety and quaility of work. in a contract, some of the rights of both parties are compromised and supplimented with benefits from both side to the other.

[Alakazam]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh ha ha ha ha. Is this a repsonse to Terry's crap thread "Rightest Economic Ideas"? You know, I should put that crap up on my website and dismantle it piece by piece.

Long live Capitalism...oiled by the blood of a freemarket society.

[Alakazam]

Ah yes, it should also be noted that the United States is not a pure capitalist society. I do not think that there is any country that operates purely on one economic theory.

[swayside]

At 2/21/03 10:48 PM, Alakazam wrote: Ah yes, it should also be noted that the United States is not a pure capitalist society.

i never said it was

[swayside]

At 2/21/03 10:43 PM, Alakazam wrote: Ahhhhhhhhhhh ha ha ha ha. Is this a repsonse to Terry's crap thread "Rightest Economic Ideas"?

the topic started by terry (as you call him) has turned into a chat room for him and irishboy.

[JMHX]

At 2/21/03 10:50 PM, swayside wrote:

At 2/21/03 10:43 PM, Alakazam wrote: Ahhhhhhhhhhh ha ha ha ha. Is this a repsonse to Terry's crap thread "Rightest Economic Ideas"?

the topic started by terry (as you call him) has turned into a chat room for him and irishboy.

Well, at least now we have someone with a decent idea of what rightist economic ideas are. Can't say that I agree with much of them, though. I'll find some time to make some comments on behalf of the democrats in a bit.

[RoboTripper]

At 2/21/03 10:39 PM, swayside wrote: capitalism

Long live capitalism indeed. It is truly the most successful and fair system in history, but like any system there are refinements and corrections that have been made in order to keep it ship-shape.

the right to provision of working environment

People do not always choose if and where they desire to work - technically they have a choice of working or being a welfare bum, but that is hardly a choice. The days of businesses providing whatever environment they wanted were dark ones in US history - with the brutal child labor and miserable conditions described in Sinclair's Jungle bearing witness. Rampant capitalism that put profit first at the expense of workers was what led to this - companies that used labor at unfair prices and had unsafe environments had cheaper operating costs and forced other corporations to follow suit in order to compete. This negated the employees ability to just leave, not only because switching jobs is not always a smooth process, but because industries as a whole had poor conditions. Checks were needed and fortunately provided.

the right to sovereignty of wages

The problem is that companies can always find people to fill jobs for crap pay because some people are not privileged, have a hard time finding work, and are truly "forced" into positions. Nobody grows up wanting to be a janitor but there are people who have no choice, they have to feed their families. A business offering higher pay will always get the more skilled workers, but minimum wage laws are in place to protect the lower-end workers from being exploited.

the right to monopoly

Monopolies are bad because they do gouge prices and there isn't anything consumers can do about it. Just coming in and selling the product at a cheaper price is not that easy and does not happen - this was recognized and is what caused monopolies to become illegal. Taking Microsoft and the specific case of their browsers as an example, there were plenty of browsers just as good as Explorer that were being offered at better prices, but Microsoft had so much power and the power was so broad (the entire PC market), that they were squeezing out their competition and were planning on making sure that consumers were not able to make a choice (by making the Explorer the only choice on the PC). A monopoly by definition is in complete control of the market and uses their power to not allow anyone else in, so they were stopped because of the severe detriment this caused to consumers.

the right to choice of work force

a business has the right to choose who it wants to employ based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

You wrote in "right to provision of working environment" that employers could deny applicants on any grounds they see fit. I don't know if you meant any grounds or just the ones directly above in "right to choice of work force", but there were (and still are) huge problems in the system when, for example, race is a factor considered in hiring an employee. Discrimination is a cycle that needed to be addressed because it was apparent that if one group was on top of the ladder and another was at the bottom rung, the situation would never change, regardless of the merits of people at the bottom. Without anti-discrimination laws, the group at the top would have no reason to ever make a change - this is unfair to those at the bottom and required anti-discrimination laws.

I agree that you made a good description of pure capitalism, but I'm not sure that it is such a good thing - it seems that the system started out much as you describe it, but problems necessitated change. Much as new laws governing citizens are put into place over time to ensure a well-run country, laws and regulations governing many of the actions of business are also updated in order to protect people as both workers and consumers.

[Slizor]

a buisiness has the right to provide whatever type of working environment it wishes to.

So it can provide a working environment which degrades Humans? One which violates the indivual rights of a human?

in capitalism, people choose if and where they desire to work

It's not that simple, people have to work, especially in America with meagre social security.

the reason that business environment standards stay up is that it desires to keep steady workers

But business standards don't stay up. The worst places get "illegal aliens" and uneducated people to work there.

who are free to leave at their own whims on any grounds they see fit.

And go and do another shit job? Joy!

to keep these workers and encourage an influx of new labor, the business would keep its environment as pleasant as it deems nescessary. the nicer the environment, the more people would prefer to work there over somewhere else.

I'm sure they would "prefer" to work there, most people don't have a choice.

the right to sovereignty of wages

a business has the right to offer however much money it sees fit to someone to do a job for them.

It does? I don't consider it a right. There you go, two opposing opinions.

businesses keep their wages reasonable to ensure consistant work.

I'll believe that when I see it.

the right to monopoly

a business has the right to become a monopoly. the business does not make itself a monopoly, consumers do.

Actually a business with the support of stockholders could just take over every other business in a market, look at the media giants.

becoming a monopoly is not a direct act of the business. if a business becomes one, it has every right to remain one until change occurs. a business that is a monopoly implies a good product that people prefer over the product of other businesses of the same variety.

It doesn't imply a good product, just one that is preffered over the others. This can have a whole range of reasons, like marketing.

if a business gouges prices, someone else can sell the same product for less and still make a prophit, thus breaking a monopoly.

The monopoly business can just take over the smaller business, or spread a campaign of disinformation, or drop its prices, etc, etc.

the right to choice of work force

a business has the right to choose who it wants to employ based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

People have a right not to be discriminated against.

a worker has the choice of working or not

People don't really have this choice. How many people would prefer not to work if they had the choice? pretty much everyone, but they don't because they are forced to work due to their economic situations.

"rights" blah

The thing is, you can only state a right, not back it up.

[swayside]

At 2/22/03 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote:

a buisiness has the right to provide whatever type of working environment it wishes to.

So it can provide a working environment which degrades Humans? One which violates the indivual rights of a human?

simply, yes, it can. as long as workers are told what the working environment they're applying to is like, businesses can beat employees with sticks (in which case hardly anyone would work there so the business wouldn't do that).

in capitalism, people choose if and where they desire to work

It's not that simple, people have to work, especially in America with meagre social security.

it is that simple. working is a choice. businesses don't pay people to keep them from starving, they pay people for labor.

the reason that business environment standards stay up is that it desires to keep steady workers

But business standards don't stay up. The worst places get "illegal aliens" and uneducated people to work there.

illegal aliens shouldn't be a factor. i'm up for tightening bourder guards. also, is it the businesses fault that a person is uneducated? no, of course not. why, then, should it have to be accountable for that?

who are free to leave at their own whims on any grounds they see fit.

And go and do another shit job? Joy!

if they want to, yes. to get ahead in capitalism, people must be as desireable to the prospective business as possible. if they aren't, then they won't get the best jobs. capitalism also raises the standards of the worker.

the right to sovereignty of wages

a business has the right to offer however much money it sees fit to someone to do a job for them.

It does? I don't consider it a right. There you go, two opposing opinions.

wow, i'm amazed. you actually disagreed with me.

businesses keep their wages reasonable to ensure consistant work.

I'll believe that when I see it.

your not going to see it as long you keep giving people socialist alternatives.

the right to choice of work force

a business has the right to choose who it wants to employ based upon political/religious views and opinionations.

People have a right not to be discriminated against.

only against things that can't be changed (like race, sex, ect.). if people have the right to think however they want, shouldn't they have a right to make distinnctions between people that do and don't agree with them?

a worker has the choice of working or not

People don't really have this choice.

yes they do. it doesn't matter what the alternatives are, it's a choice.

i noticed that you only attacked my statements on business rights. the only qualm you seem to have with my worker's rights is that they aren't "good enough". am i to assume that you want to give worker's rights a boost at the expense of the rights of the business?

[Slizor]

People have a right not to be discriminated against.

only against things that can't be changed (like race, sex, ect.). if people have the right to think however they want, shouldn't they have a right to make distinnctions between people that do and don't agree with them?

If people have a right to think however they want, shouldn't they be given the right to think however they want?

yes they do. it doesn't matter what the alternatives are, it's a choice.

A choice between a rock and a hard place. Great!

i noticed that you only attacked my statements on business rights. the only qualm you seem to have with my worker's rights is that they aren't "good enough". am i to assume that you want to give worker's rights a boost at the expense of the rights of the business?

Yes, yes you are. The rights of humans, all humans, outweights the rights of business, which is just rich humans. This is basically the main point of all your text. If you think I have unjustly ignored any of your "points" then bring them up again.

[swayside]

At 2/22/03 08:37 AM, Slizor wrote:

People have a right not to be discriminated against.

only against things that can't be changed (like race, sex, ect.). if people have the right to think however they want, shouldn't they have a right to make distinnctions between people that do and don't agree with them?

If people have a right to think however they want, shouldn't they be given the right to think however they want?

...yeah, your point?

yes they do. it doesn't matter what the alternatives are, it's a choice.

A choice between a rock and a hard place. Great!

that's not the companies fault. it's the person's fault if he throws himself into poverty by quitting a job.

am i to assume that you want to give worker's rights a boost at the expense of the rights of the business?

Yes, yes you are. The rights of humans, all humans, outweights the rights of business, which is just rich humans.

why should basic human rights be conditional? we're all basically human, right? regardless of what side of employment you're on.

This is basically the main point of all your text. If you think I have unjustly ignored any of your "points" then bring them up again.

i would like to point out that you are very bad "condesending". and, by the way, you can't "unjustly ignore" anything on this forum.

[swayside]

At 2/22/03 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote:

a business has the right to offer however much money it sees fit to someone to do a job for them.

It does? I don't consider it a right. There you go, two opposing opinions.

mabey so, but you're wrong.

[Slizor]

only against things that can't be changed (like race, sex, ect.). if people have the right to think however they want, shouldn't they have a right to make distinnctions between people that do and don't agree with them?

If people have a right to think however they want, shouldn't they be given the right to think however they want?

...yeah, your point?

That discriminating against people who think a certain way is not really giving people the right to think the way they want.

yes they do. it doesn't matter what the alternatives are, it's a choice.

A choice between a rock and a hard place. Great!

that's not the companies fault. it's the person's fault if he throws himself into poverty by quitting a job.

Your point that there is a choice is an inane one. He could kill himself, that's a choice! Look three choices! Two end in death and one in depression, great!

am i to assume that you want to give worker's rights a boost at the expense of the rights of the business?

Yes, yes you are. The rights of humans, all humans, outweights the rights of business, which is just rich humans.

why should basic human rights be conditional? we're all basically human, right? regardless of what side of employment you're on.

This does not relate to what I was saying. You agree that people should have basic human rights?

This is basically the main point of all your text. If you think I have unjustly ignored any of your "points" then bring them up again.

i would like to point out that you are very bad "condesending".

Bad at being condescending. :P Anyhow I wasn't trying to be.

and, by the way, you can't "unjustly ignore" anything on this forum.

Because everything is worth ignoring? Yeah I feel that way sometimes.

[swayside]

At 2/23/03 05:53 PM, Slizor wrote:

That discriminating against people who think a certain way is not really giving people the right to think the way they want.

you're mixing to different subjects up, the right of free thought and the right of distinction. discrimination againt a way of thought is an effect of thinking any way at all. regardless, people can think however they want to.

Your point that there is a choice is an inane one.

you're point that they have no choice is ludicris.

He could kill himself, that's a choice! Look three choices! Two end in death and one in depression, great!

yeah, your point?

why should basic human rights be conditional? we're all basically human, right? regardless of what side of employment you're on.

This does not relate to what I was saying.

yes, it does.

You agree that people should have basic human rights?

i've always said that people should have basic human rights. i've just never agreed with your frivilous over-abundant hand-outs of some and your disregard of others.

and, by the way, you can't "unjustly ignore" anything on this forum.

Because everything is worth ignoring? Yeah I feel that way sometimes.

no, but yes.

[implodinggoat]

At 2/23/03 06:26 PM, swayside wrote: i've always said that people should have basic human rights. i've just never agreed with your frivilous over-abundant hand-outs of some and your disregard of others.

Excellent point...Touche' Slizor

[implodinggoat]

At 2/23/03 05:53 PM, Slizor wrote: That discriminating against people who think a certain way is not really giving people the right to think the way they want.

The employer is also entitled to think and act as they wish.

Your point that there is a choice is an inane one. He could kill himself, that's a choice! Look three choices! Two end in death and one in depression, great!

Life is a bitch, you work or you die thats the way it is in nature as in society.

If you wish to prosper you work, if you wish to survive you work.

[Slizor]

That discriminating against people who think a certain way is not really giving people the right to think the way they want.

you're mixing to different subjects up, the right of free thought and the right of distinction. discrimination againt a way of thought is an effect of thinking any way at all. regardless, people can think however they want to.

The whole point of free thought is that it is without recriminations. "You can think in any way you like, but if you don't think the same way as me you'll get a shock"

He could kill himself, that's a choice! Look three choices! Two end in death and one in depression, great!

yeah, your point?

It's not much of a choice. And no it's not the companies fault, but it doesn't give the company the right to treat people like shit.

why should basic human rights be conditional? we're all basically human, right? regardless of what side of employment you're on.

This does not relate to what I was saying.

yes, it does.

....how?

You agree that people should have basic human rights?

i've always said that people should have basic human rights. i've just never agreed with your frivilous over-abundant hand-outs of some and your disregard of others.

Hahaha, what would you call basic human rights then?

[Slizor]

That discriminating against people who think a certain way is not really giving people the right to think the way they want.

The employer is also entitled to think and act as they wish.

So an employer could kill one of his employees?

Your point that there is a choice is an inane one. He could kill himself, that's a choice! Look three choices! Two end in death and one in depression, great!

Life is a bitch, you work or you die thats the way it is in nature as in society.

Oh is it now? Could you please tell me about this "nature"?

[implodinggoat]

At 2/25/03 09:57 AM, Slizor wrote:

That discriminating against people who think a certain way is not really giving people the right to think the way they want.

The employer is also entitled to think and act as they wish.

So an employer could kill one of his employees?

No, a private citizen is not entitled to kill someone else. However a private citizen is entitled to deny some one admittance to their property. Like wise an employer should have the right to deny whoever they wish from being their employee.

Your point that there is a choice is an inane one. He could kill himself, that's a choice! Look three choices! Two end in death and one in depression, great!

Life is a bitch, you work or you die thats the way it is in nature as in society.

Oh is it now? Could you please tell me about this "nature"?

Why yes I can. If an animal does not gather food it starves. If man does not work he does not earn money and he starves. One must make an effort to survive.

[Slizor]

So an employer could kill one of his employees?

No, a private citizen is not entitled to kill someone else.

So they can't do what they like? They can't act how they want?

However a private citizen is entitled to deny some one admittance to their property. Like wise an employer should have the right to deny whoever they wish from being their employee.

They should? See in the end, this point will only come down to a conflict of opinion. You clearly think that the right of "free hiring" outweights the right to free thought.

Oh is it now? Could you please tell me about this "nature"?

Why yes I can. If an animal does not gather food it starves.

So we are not experiencing nature? We do not have to gather food to survive, you could say we are above nature. So why the hell should what happens in nature effect us? I won't other to go into examples of communal animals.

If man does not work he does not earn money and he starves. One must make an effort to survive.

So, disabled people, what do we do with them?

[PreacherJ]

Damn.

There really isn't much here I can say that hasn't been said, so I'll say this.

America has long been about "Gab all you can and fuck the other guy". Sure, Capitalism, like all other economic ideals, has it's faults and benefits, but as of yet, is there something that exists that can factor in the human element? Communism doesn't work, because people don't want to work extra hard if there's no benefit.

[swayside]

At 2/26/03 06:02 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Damn.

...k...

There really isn't much here I can say that hasn't been said, so I'll say this:

there's plenty to say.

is there something that exists that can factor in the human element?

capitalism is the system that deals with the human factor. it pits it against itself, perpetuating the system.

Communism doesn't work, because people don't want to work extra hard if there's no benefit.

[Slizor]

If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.

I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

[JMHX]

At 2/28/03 04:13 PM, Slizor wrote: If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.

I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

To some extent, this is why I liked the original idea of Communism. Not Stalin's communism. Just communism on paper.

[swayside]

At 2/28/03 04:13 PM, Slizor wrote: If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.

I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

bill gates isn't evil because he's rich. i don't know why you think that. it's not unfair, either. he came up with a product that was very inginuitive for it's time and worked it's way into a majority of homes in america. the public bought HIS product. thus he became wealthy. he owned a company that became amazingly successful. he OWNED that buisiness. he still does. he came up with the idea, and built a company around it. he could do whatever he want to it (within reason and legality). since he owns the company, he owns all the capital that is not put back into the buisiness. he can quit working because he owns the company. he can retire and still be paid because he has the right to continue reaping the benefits of his company.

what do you suggest he do? give up most or all of his money becuase some people weren't as successful as he? give up his fortune because others are misforunate? why sould he? you have no right to tell him how to run his buisiness. neither do i.

[swayside]

At 2/28/03 04:13 PM, Slizor wrote: If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.

I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

bill gates isn't evil because he's rich. i don't know why you think that. it's not unfair, either. he came up with a product that was very inginuitive for it's time and worked it's way into a majority of homes in america. the public bought HIS product. thus he became wealthy. he owned a company that became amazingly successful. he OWNED that buisiness. he still does. he came up with the idea, and built a company around it. he could do whatever he want to it (within reason and legality). since he owns the company, he owns all the capital that is not put back into the buisiness. he can quit working because he owns the company. he can retire and still be paid because he has the right to continue reaping the benefits of his company.

what do you suggest he do? give up most or all of his money becuase some people weren't as successful as he? give up his fortune because others are misforunate? why sould he? you have no right to tell him how to run his buisiness. neither do i.

[swayside]

sorry about the double post. i don't know what really happened.

[JMHX]

At 2/28/03 07:23 PM, swayside wrote: sorry about the double post. i don't know what really happened.

Bill Gates isn't worth as much as he gets paid; as much as he stockpiles. Good, he's made huge leaps in the computer industry, including the ones we're using. Still, 40 Billion is a lot of money for sitting there and thinking "Hey, why not control the weath.."

Um.

[swayside]

At 2/28/03 09:30 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 2/28/03 07:23 PM, swayside wrote: sorry about the double post. i don't know what really happened.

Bill Gates isn't worth as much as he gets paid; as much as he stockpiles. Good, he's made huge leaps in the computer industry, including the ones we're using. Still, 40 Billion is a lot of money for sitting there and thinking "Hey, why not control the weath.."

Um.

you make it sound like he's intentionally being mean by being rich. what has he done wrong? made made a product. he sold the product. lots of people bought the product. he has the profits. what's so wrong about that??

[swayside]

At 2/28/03 04:13 PM, Slizor wrote:

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

the only reason that communism does anything remotely looking like paying a person for what they do it because it "owns" everything. capitalism doesn't pay anyone, that's the business' job to do if it see's fit to do so.

and also, remmember that just because a business has the right to be mean to its employees, doesn't mean they will. every anti-gun person in america has the right own one.