Ok. Thx
There is a way. It is called the unhampered market. It offers the best opportunity for human cooperation and improved living standards.
Impossible. People will always worry about these things. But because there is a felt unease, capital will be directed toward these ends, which is actually exactly what you desire. Unhampered markets will direct capital into these areas most efficiently.
It would be a sign of wisdom to instead say, “I want capital to find its way into the production of food, healthcare, and education in the most unhampered manner possible. Profit is a signal, a signal that directs capital toward the most pressing needs of market participates. We must not hamper or interfere with this market signal. We must not put up barriers to entry that prevent competition in any way.”
You guys do realize there is more than enough land and food to go around right? And that’s not even considering so-called frankenfoods.
EDIT: What do you mean by “unhampered?” Is it unhampered, or voluntary markets that are to be supported?
food is not superabundant, it requires economising, if you don’t allow the market to operate in this regard people will surely become impoverished in the best case and starve for lack of food in the worst case.
Is it unhampered, or voluntary markets that are to be supported?
They are synonyms
Of course, but there is more than enough food to sustain the entire population, not including the possiblities of GE foods.
given what institutional arrangements? there was more than enough food in the ukraine but having a soviet system made for a famine. so what is the point. the abundance is related to the extent of capitalism.
You’re just imploring that we should consider voluntarily giving food to charity if we want to try to improve the world, right?
I think we can set up a system whereby it is much easier for people to voluntarily give up their wealth. I also think, despite many right-wingers insistence otherwise, that charity helps most people become productive, rather than become lazy.
I think the “welfare queen” in my experience, is the exception to the rule.
I think we can set up a system whereby it is much easier for people to voluntarily give up their wealth.
what are you concerned about exactly? who are the people erecting barriers to charity?
The right wing lol. Whoever makes the argument that charity makes laziness. The statist system itself. Corporatism/corporatocracy. 6000 years of oppression and slavery.
There’s a lot of factors.
Wrong. Read Nir’s reply. The only reason there is ever enough land and food is that the land (as in nature) has been converted, that is, capital investment has been directed toward it. This is true of the fictional Crusoe, native Americans living 1,000 years ago, or a Con Agra farm today.
There isn’t enough land and food. It only appears that way because prior capital formation has been directed toward that end.
Epicurus, I have not read all of your threads or your replies here. I read through Esuric’s OP, and his replies to you.
My sense is, that you desire to see various societal ills eliminated. You think that intervention will eliminate or decrease these ills. I suggest that if you point out a societal ill, one can show you a hampered market, ie, an intervention of some type that is actually the cause.
Taking this understanding of unhampered markets to the ultimate conclusion, it becomes unethical, immoral, to interfere with markets.
The only reason there is ever enough land and food is that the land (as in nature) has been converted, that is, capital investment has been directed toward it. This is true of the fictional Crusoe, native Americans living 1,000 years ago, or a Con Agra farm today.
Land, absolutely not. Food, yes, but only for our current pop levels.
Perhaps you should read my responses?
Land, absolutely not.
Land does not address human ends without capital investment applied to it. You can point to 10,000 square miles of untouched wilderness, that is not land in the sense that I am referring to it.
Perhaps you should read my responses?
Why, am I missing something? Is my synopsis of what you believe incorrect?
Land does not address human ends without capital investment applied to it. You can point to 10,000 square miles of untouched wilderness, that is not land in the sense that I am referring to it.
Im referring to it in the sense of people having a place to stay.
Is my synopsis of what you believe incorrect?
It depends on how you are defining intervention. Is a boycott intervening in the market?
Is a boycott intervening in the market?
No. A boycott, per se, is not intervention. By intervention, I refer to coercive intervention by government, ie, force.
THen perhaps you should read my posts.
I’d say definitely not.
Do you think physically blocking a scab from going to work is intervening in the market?
Physically blocking is not violence, it is merely a refusal to move. If you are going down a crowded sidewalk where I am conversing with my friends, and the only way around is through a deep puddle, and I refuse to move (I wouldn’t of course), am I coercing you into stepping in that puddle?
THen perhaps you should read my posts.