Quote: (06-11-2015 11:12 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:
I'm guessing you're talking about the industrial revolution here. Of course it had its problems but what your describing is not true. Life expectancy went up, real income wealth went up, population grew, technology got better. Most people where dirt poor before that, the only wealthy people were nobles. They did have child laborers and long hours but they always had that to some extent, the only difference is it actually gave normal people a disposable income.
That's because as you said, it was all shit before that. That doesn't mean that what Zel said is false.
Quote: (06-11-2015 11:15 AM)Phoenix Wrote:
And calling this result 'capitalism' or the 'free market', and blaming the rich, is false. Where is this free market? No matter how much government control over the economy, any problems are always blamed on the 'free market'. The crash of 2008 was, as always, blamed on financiers and the 'unbridled free market', not on government regulations and agencies, in spite of the banking and finance industry being the most regulated industry in the country.
This is a false dichotomy. What needs to be discussed is what relevant regulations were lifted and whether the lifting of those said regulations contributed to the crash, not the total level of regulation.
As for "restoring liberty ending the degeneracy", I don't agree. It at least isn't that simple.
The logical end point of libertarianism is solipsism - you are the only thing that matters and you are an island unto yourself. This is essentially what ElBorrachoInfamoso is putting forward here. By stripping the individual from his community and putting him in a vacuum, you encourage vice, greed, and degeneracy. That is exactly what we are seeing now.
The individual is the backbone of society and must have freedom to pursue his life's goals, but there needs to be a recognition that he is part of a community, with responsibilities to that community's well-being, and we are not seeing that now.