If you had to pay?

A free market economy is conducive to social freedom.
They go hand-in-hand.
In such a socio economic environment the natural forces will push for these freedoms. Which is pretty much what happened in history so we no longer have slavery.

I'm sorry but your argument is no longer valid on 2011.
In fact I'm not even sure how valid it is for the 1800s.
After all a slave working their way out of slavery into entrepreneurship isn't unheard of.

 

really?

how? where? when?

part from all those slaves setting themselves free, please give examples - ones that took modern environmental and population stresses into some account would be helpful, i.e., a little less frontier fantasy and a little more industrial revolution

wait, let me get my waders . . .

edit: it occurs to me that you won't come up with an historical example - because there haven't been any - so it's all theoretical, and unprovable

perhaps a revision is in order - "A free market economy might be conducive to social freedom."

then again, it might not . . .

 

You need to ask yourself why the freeing of slaves is not enough proof for you.

Your statement that a revision is in order is somewhat true.
I stand by my original statement that a free market economy is conducive to social freedom.

I will also say that today what we have is very far from a free market economy.

Now let's look at the modern world.
We have a huge variety of degrees of free markets w/ America as one of the freest. This level of freedom is evidenced by new markets that America has created over the past few years - tech innovation is one that comes to mind.
There is also a modern slave trade, whether its the sex trade or human trafficking. This trade exists in America. Again if you look at the rest of the world, this slave trade is probably one of the least prevalent in America. Whereas it flourishes in lesser free markets like many European, Asian, and Latin American Countries. All are free market to a much lesser extent than is America.

Done.
A free market economy is conducive to social freedoms. They go hand in hand and one can not exist w/o the other.

 

it was hardly the free market that did that

and i stand by my original statement [some years ago] that a free market is conducive to the freedom to starve, for many

i'm sure that there was no government funding for all that "tech innovation", right?

[wrong]

 

As one of many who have prospered as the result of my beliefs, this afternon I will "suffer the consequences" of such by enjoying my swimming pool along with my family. The penalty for my prosperity will be the yearly property tax (based on the value of my fully-paid-for home) levied and collected by the government then redistributed to others, including those who, rather than focus their energies toward overcoming obstacles to their own prosperity, make excuses and blame others for their lack of personal initiative -- all the while expecting more and more for less and less. TANSTAAFL.

 

i always assume that those making statements like this are specifically referring to physically and/or developmentally disabled persons, as well as those with lesser physical and/or mental illnesses

or perhaps you merely refer to the unlucky, or those who for whatever reason were never able to believe that they could ever be anything other than poor?

or perhaps you just mean those who plain don't give a fuck about wealth, but are stymied by the cost of food and shelter? basic necessities with a minimum of government oversight [little to no price controls, for example] but "free marketed" out of sight?

 

i would say that a truly freedom would be the enemy of social and personal freedom

imagine a society where the drudgery of meaningless menial labor was inescapable

where there was absolutely no relief for those with disabled or elderly family members, forcing them to choose between poverty and abandonment

where the personal whim of one's boss can mean the difference between life and death?

when the bridges collapse, how will the poor pay the ferryman?

tanstaafm [m is for market - and?]

 

Though I see no reason for your misunderstanding my reference, maybe I could have expressed it more straightforwardly by stating: “… including those too lazy in mind and/or body to live a successful life without dependence on the government dole.”

Prosperity does not necessarily include wealth. There are many, including myself, who have overcome great obstacles to live successful, happy, meaningful lives. How? By doing the best they can with what they have until they can do better; by living within their means and being comfortable, not satisfied, with that; by responsibly recognizing true necessities and prioritizing use of income (example: never owning a car worth more than their home).

 

:nopity:

 

somehow i am not surprised by your lack of concern for genuine suffering

i suppose this is illustrative of why private charity does not work

and why we need a government - to protect us from the likes of you

 

Very little of what is considered to be the necessities of life, aside from the air we breathe is available to us without some effort to obtain. While I feel that an overwhelming majority of humans are not resistant to aiding those truly in need, incapacitated, and unable to work, the numbers of those who are able but unwilling are less likely to be given attention in a government run program.
The thing about private charity is that it does work, and does so in ways which greatly reduce the amount of fraud and corruption found within government programs which tend to become tools used by politicians around which they build their voter base, and provide them with government jobs to fill in repayment for some of their many campaign workers.
While it is true that we need government, it is not for the protection of the non-productive or even the less productive members of society from the more productive members of society.

Most likely it is the smart people who earn their money, and the more stupid or lazy who really display a want to have it. Money only provides the means of acquiring wealth, and if it became worthless over night there would be many persons who would remain wealthy.

 

In practice, Upward mobility is open to the children of industrial workers.

 

Not only that, but upward mobility is open to the industrial workers themselves. There's nothing that says you can't improve your status in life.

 

as long as the government provides free education, free libraries, free employment assistance services - yes, it's possible

 

We have all those things and although they may be of some benefit, they offer no guarantees beyond the effort the individual is willing to exert.

 

Please repost that. It makes absolutely no sense.

Welcome to my world.
Wife's 90yo grandmother w/ dementia and incontinence lives w/ us.
We get no government help for this.
We are not suffering from poverty neither are we abandoning this woman. In fact we're making plans for doing what we have to do in case another elderly relative becomes incapable of taking care of themselves.

What's your point?

 

Which the government provides.
So are you now saying that upward mobility is available to all?

And you do realize that the government is not the only entity that provides free employment services, right?

You are aware of certain commercial entities that will give you employment assistance at no charge right?

 

sorry, posting, editing, usually before enough coffee

still won't make any sense to you, perhaps?

 

Hey, by all means, go ahead and say and think that.
You clearly do not understand a free market.

I can't stress any more that social freedom, personal freedom and a free market rely on each other.

 

Your lack of response to my other posts says a lot.