does free trade work?

some argue that free trade encourages people to work harder and the best to succeed.
others argue that it encourages corruption, greed, slavery and in some cases, apartheid.

what do you guys think about deregulation of the market and free trade.
do you think it is healthy for society?
do you think it creates a larger disparity between rich and poor?
do you think it is progressive or sort of primitive?

also, does it encourage slave trading?

 

Of course. America used to not limit free trade at all, and now we are, and look where we're at.

 

you are joking right?
the opposite has happened, if you care to read up on it. america has less regulations now than before.
i can provide evidence if you request it.

 

Free trade will work much better than the current system.

I'll answer your 3 questions.

Yes, freedom is something we all value in society.

Possibly, but so what?

Progressive, human society is progressing towards freedom and liberty, and free trade encompasses these ideas.

 

It does both, competition is necessary for economic growth which, in turn, increases the standard of living. In a completely unregulated marketplace, however, the standard of living is able to remain low because of the absolute selfishness of business owners (a prime example of this can be seen during the Industrial Revolution).

A sort of managed capitalism is necessary for the optimal balance of economic growth, and a safe, prosperous society.

 

i agree, but only if economic growth were necessary.
i could see this becoming de-emphasized in a global government, if one does form.
this could only be effectively done by dropping all boarders and creating one global identity. the effective way to do this, unfortunately, is to have an enemy large enough to necessitate universal human internal cooperation ----aliens anyone?

 

the word freedom has undergone a semantic change. meaning that people do not use it the way it is defined. people use it as a form of national identity among a number of other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

like i have said in another post. should a government allow you to chop off your arms and legs because you want to be free to know what it feels like to be handicapped? i know this is extreme, but it is ultimate freedom. would you allow someone to maim themselves and possibly die because they want to be "free"? what if they suffered extreme agony afterwards due to a stupid decision. people need to be guided.

if you do not care that 99% of people, operating in a true free market, could be forced into substandard living and only 1% of people are given luxuries beyond the other 99%'s wildest dreams, then I can not argue with you, as i would not know what to say.

liberty? some thing as freedom and therefore stating it was redundant

seriously, you would not allow a child to have cocaine because they wanted to be free to. people need to be guided.

 

I didn't mean to say "at all", but not much. Government was so much smaller 1920 and earlier.

 

Even still, what was the etymology of freedoms definition?

What I do with my body is my own business.

You want to chop your arms and legs off? Go ahead, I'd imagine it's so much harder to do it than say it.

'A rising tide lifts all boats.'
Lets assume that the rich are the worst most inhumane people alive. What are they going to with their money? They'll re invest it back into the economy, and that money is used to fuel the economy, allow banks to give out loans etc. The people will not be forced into substandard living.

Yea I agree lol.

Thats what parents are for.

 

So, if two parents were to condone a child's use of cocaine, the government should not intervene because it would not be in the interest of "protecting everybody's freedom"?

 

Let us just establish that there will always be cases of severe child abuse in any form of system we humans create, we will never stop the parents that beat their child, torture their children etc.

Now we wouldn't have the system of government we have now that plays a role in EVERYTHING we do.

What would happen is that the government, or the neighbors would go up to the child and ask hey do you want to do this, do you know its bad for you, would you like to live with us (neighbors) or live somewhere else?
If the child answers no then it implies he consents to such acts.

If the child answers yes, then by all means stop the coercive actions of his parents from influencing him.


The government however should not barge in when there is a minor social disturbance between families, use force to take children away from their parents, (lots of which whom would rather be with them) and then placing those children with foster families that do not care; and even if they did it would alter the child's life. Are you suggesting we remain with this current system?

If someone does not ask for help, then it implies consent.
If you ask someone do they need help, and they say no, then it implies consent.

 

nvm. i dont need anyone knowing my personal life. sry for spam.

 

The current system itself obviously works to a degree, but has an innumerable number of flaws.

Only you know what is best for you.

I disagree with the premise that there is an almighty system that knows what is best for me. The argument that the government knows what is best for this, hers, and his children is absurd.

Kids do know what is best for them to a point.
Most parents, 99.99% of them are great to their kids, it's just that .01% that sparks debate, but probably 1% that get forcibly removed.
You can have guidelines on what fit parenting is, but that shouldn't give you the power to be able to forcibly remove children from their parents care unless the child says so. It's not like a children is completely stupid, if they see their parents beating them for no apparent reason, then of course they'll want out.

 

not best, but better.

it should not matter what the child says, as you in the last post agreed that their brains are not fully grown and they do not therefore know what is best themselves. they are more likely to be ruled by emotions in a situation like this.


also. please edit your post to exclude my last post. i do not need ppl on here knowing personal shit.

 

I agree, but thats the process of growing up. Surrounding someone with pillows and cushions just makes a child takes things for granted. Surrounding him with a balance of both allows him to feel both sides of the spectrum. Surrounding a child with hate and torture, well for the most part children will realize and know that this is wrong.
No system is flaw proof, however the proposed system is far better than needlessly removing so many children with parents that love them.

Removed as you requested.

 

they do not needlessly remove many children.
if a parent can not provide some basic needs of the child they are taken. simple as that.
love has little to do with it.

putting a child in foster care is NOT the same as Surrounding someone with pillows and cushions. they are being relocated to a house that can meet their basic needs. love is consequential and sometimes never occurs.

putting a child in fostercare is the balance you are saying
it is better than putting a child in an environment that sabotages their efforts from go. seriously, how can you expect a child to grow like other children if they do not have basic things like breakfast/lunch, any sort of parenting/guidance, or funds to do what they want.

no no no no no. seeing that it is wrong has little to do with it.
if you surround a child with hate and torture, it will be all they know. how will they know love when they see it. how will they be able to have any sort of meaningful relationship with anyone if they have no experiences with it.

kids seeing right from wrong is, sorry to say, the lamest excuse for keeping a child in a toxic environment that i have ever heard.

read up on eriksons stages of development and attachment theories please.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

This I think sums everything up.

A libertarianism free market approach to child abuse will reduce child abuse, but no system will ever eradicate it. There will always be 'evil doers' it's just the amount relative to the system.

The fact for me is, I do not believe in coercion. I also do not believe that there is an institution that has the ability to employ coercion on a premise that states it knows what is better for me than I myself do.

 

from your source
with free market systems creating a larger gap between the haves and the have nots, the powered and the powerless, there would be far more children falling under this category he mentions.

also, he claims that children will be valued if there is less of them and more resources. what about situations where there are many children and not many resources.

so in this situation, only courts following agreed upon rules would prosper?
would those courts not be a form of government, with their opinions being law?


btw, who is this Michael Fleischer?
is he even known for any of his views?
have any of his views been published in any journals?
has his views ever been criticized by any other theorists?
i looked up walter block and it seems that he is simply known for his extremism in terms of libertarian ideas and views on slave contracts.
oh and he wrote a book.
i will have to see if he has published any articles on the subject or at all

the whole thing to me sounded like an argument over what kind of special policing force would be enacted.
in other words, they were arguing about forms of government that would occur in a state with no government.

 

Free trade? I don't think it can exist. There will always be boundaries and restrictions set in a market. In saying that, I'm against it - competition aides growth and therefore a stronger economy.

 

Your quote from Fleischer -
"So I think under anarchy there would be far less child abuse and a far greater incentive to treat children very, very well but still in those cases were the helpless and powerless are abused there seems to be gap in the ability of anarchy to render justice to these people."

Your sentence. He is saying in this quote that under anarchy there would be far less child abuse because there would be an incentive to treat children very well. However when the rare cases of child abuse still occurs there is a gap in the ability to render justice for those people.

Your second sentence. Thats what we are in now, children are being devalued as families are trying to make ends meet, they don't care about their kids as much.

You can have law without government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fleischer_(businessman)
And it just was criticized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block

Sort of, they're rebounding back and forth ideas back and forth.


It's all a bit complex however.
The simple fact is Free Trade and Libertarianism ideologies will reduce child abuse. But this is just one sect of free trade. It is arguable one of the weaker points in a free trade debate, however in places where they have been employed they have been HUGELY successful.
Celtic Ireland for example.