Communism, boiled down.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

What I see in that quotation is anticapitalistic propaganda, with this specious yelling about "cuts in essential programs like Head Start or Medicaid." This sort of thing is simply lessening the government's presence in the service sector -- these are not things only government can provide. The writer doesn't recognize that. You can see how strongly the writer favors socialism -- while living very well in the most deeply capitalist society in normal experience. Socialism always tries to replace prosperity-making initiative with official service rationing, and therein it fails to either provide service or improve prosperity.

I regard this as fundamentally unwise, and its proponents examples of unwisdom.

Note his repeated statements that the government should supply this, that, or the other. Then bring to mind what H.L. Mencken said about what would happen to sand supplies were the government in charge of all the sand. H.L. had a considerable body of observation backing him up.

The anticapitalists insist that capitalism must oppress. That is false, and their persistence in the falsehood brands them liars, evil bastards, commie rats, and other perfectly true and applicable names delivered in a very loud voice. It gives cover to the oppressive practices indulged in by socialists -- why, those Socialistic Old Bastards.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

What I see in that quotation is anticapitalistic propaganda

Just because it has a leftist viewpoint doesn't mean that the facts aren't right. It explains very well why other countries have higher social mobility than the United States. The only flaw I see is what xoxoxBruce said, some people have different ambitions than just becoming rich.

Where "forcing" may come in, and indeed the only place it really can, is in the forcing of those who hitherto interfered grossly to cease their interference with a free market. That's anything from "You stop that now," and he does, to lethal force. Once the gross interference is stopped, the win-win, and even win-win-win and more, begins.p

The problem is that human beings in general will never try to keep the free market free, especially in a capitalistic society, where eliminating your competition will make you more money. Theoretically, the free market can be very good and provide everyone with benefits but humans lust for power will always take control of the system and use it for individual pleasure and reasons.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The American dream is to not skip any meals, not to watch your children die, to have a job so you can provide for you and yours, to be able to send your kids to school, and maybe own a home but at least have shelter. That's why all those immigrants came here.... because they couldn't get those basic things at home.

You have a point but I don't think there is an agreed upon "American dream". Some people will go with what you said, others will say economic prosperity, and there are many others.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What I described IS economic properity, and I'll add more than most of the people in the world have.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The problem is that human beings in general will never try to keep the free market free, especially in a capitalistic society, where eliminating your competition will make you more money. Theoretically, the free market can be very good and provide everyone with benefits but humans lust for power will always take control of the system and use it for individual pleasure and reasons.

So you figure the evolution of a free market is toward monopoly? I don't. How is a monopoly created?

It's never happened without the force of the government.

It is not part of the natural evolution of a free market, where the interests of the consumers undercut any sole-source provider of a good or service -- the way to carve out market share being essentially to offer better value for price, either for example a better product for the same price or the same quality product for a lesser price. It is instead interference with a free market by shutting out other entrepreneurs by force majeure.

Ringer's Paradox is seen in this arena too: in patent law. The intent in patent law is that the creator should have first crack at the benefits of his creation, and this seems quite tolerable.