~ archived since 2018 ~

Libertarians & The MRM Part I

mankindglobalmedia2

July 30, 2017

7 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://youtu.be/_nOMNtF20pQ

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Libertarians & The MRM Part I
Author	mankindglobalmedia2
Upvotes	7
Comments	88
Date	July 30, 2017 5:21 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6qikbq/libertarians_the_mrm_part_i/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/libertarians-the-mrm-part-i.916848 https://theredarchive.com/post/916848

Comments

[–]EsraYmssik 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

The Men's Rights Movement has been largely driven by the efforts of activist Libertarians

Most of the academics who laid the foundations of the MRM are left of center if not outright socialist. Earnest Belford Bax, Warren Farrell, Karen DeCrow, David Benetar, Paul Nathanson, Kathy Youth etc.

However the current MRM leadership are mostly right-libertarians. It's worth stressing that there are also left-libertarians and libertarian socialists (though not in the MRM leadership) -- in fact these are the people the word "libertarian" was first used to describe: socialists who are also anti-statist and place an emphasis on the right of the individual to be free of unjust coercion. Property rights are where the big disagreements come in. Left libertarians have no problem with people owning houses, cars etc., but they take issue with corporations owning and controlling the vast majority of the wealth.

The MRM itself (meaning the broad mass of the people who support the movement) is a very mixed bag, made up of people of all political persuasions.

[–]EsraYmssik 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]desmay 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Banake 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Youtuber Razorbladekandy2 who is no longer making videos and is presumed dead by some talked about his experiences with the MRM in the early 2000s or so and he noted how back then it was largely a Bible thumping right wing conservative group of people. Libertarians aren't automatically the same thing, however in the US at least there is this odd fusion of the two. Discussions on forums he himself created often ended up coming back to Jews and the NWO and the federal reserve. He was a hardcore free speech advocate so he never censored it and it might have been why his forums were forced down.

This has been a problem for a long time. Someone like Bernard Chapin comes to mind, not to suggest that he is in charge of the MRM, and I am not sure he considers himself one, but if we are honest there is a lot of grey area between various non PC groups.

There are people who hate feminism because it increases government spending. But not because they want to help men. When you suggest tax funded domestic violence shelters for men you are met with "NOT MY TAXES NOT MY TAXES". They are also the most likely to spout "man up" rhetoric and boast about being alpha or some shit.

[–]shloopyy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Most MRA's do not fit in those categories

I have to disagree. Or if that change has happened it has happened very recently, like within a few months and I haven't noticed yet. Not enough is done, and has not been done, to differentiate the MRM from these other groups. I recall that Karen Straughan hosted Roosh V or was on his channel and she was practically flirting with him, and then HBR has the nerve to get angry when /r/theredpill type stuff is associated with the MRM.

You might say that the average person who is not a visible member doesn't fit into those categories and that might be true, but its these visible people that define the movement for everyone else.

There are a lot of "invisible" or less than visible leaders too, people you only see online or only have a youtube or internet type of presence and they are more often than not right wingers or libertarian too.

If the left doesn't lead on these issues then others will fill the void

I agree, however the left has a very bad history of dealing with men's issues too. It only did in the early 1900s or so during the more revolutionary phase and probably only because those men had wives and children to provide for if I had to guess. I don't trust the left either.

[–]shloopyy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have to disagree. Or if that change has happened it has happened very recently, like within a few months and I haven't noticed yet.

There was a poll done of the R/MensRights sub a few years ago. Most identified as liberal or left-libertarian if memory serves.

Not enough is done, and has not been done, to differentiate the MRM from these other groups.

We try, but the feminist corporate media invariably attempts to conflate the MRM with the Red Pill types despite our best efforts. It's shamefully dishonest. When such hit pieces allow comments you'll see dozens of MRA's saying "Roosh V is not an MRA; he's an anti-MRA." Not much else the average person can do.

Karen Straughan hosted Roosh V or was on his channel and she was practically flirting with him

I agree that was repulsive. Straughan's a brilliant woman but at the end of the day she's an anti-feminist first and foremost and clearly identifies with the right more than the left.

its these visible people that define the movement for everyone else.

This only shows that the left has suffered a failure of leadership, not that most MRA's are right-libertarian or alt-right. The fact that I can make posts on this board supporting socialism and receive upvotes is interesting.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There was a poll done of the R/MensRights sub a few years ago. Most identified as liberal or left-libertarian if memory serves.

for all the good its done the image of the MRM. there is still an issue of right wing and libertarian infiltration because of the more visible members. As for me I don't consider myself fully on board with the western enlightenment so I can't consider myself a libertarian, progressive, or liberal. But I am also not a traditionalist so if I am a conservative I am a wacky one.

I don't think its just a feminist media, though thats a problem certainly, I still think its an issue of leadership, not of the left, but of the MRM. The MRM exists in name only in my opinion. The left is just doing what it has always been doing, callously ignoring men and boys. I am not optimistic about progressives or the left taking men's issues seriously. Maybe I will be proven wrong and a Bernie Sanders type will openly reject feminism and take men's issues seriously, I am not sure how I would feel if that day ever comes, if I would embrace it or be too suspicious given the left's and progressive's history in relation to men and boys.

I think the MRM should be political in the sense of trying to influence the state, but non partisan. The left right ism schism will continue and no side will ever fully "beat" the other. There is now some anti progressive sentiment in society, but the left shall rise again.

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]shloopyy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Razorbladekandy2 was a MGTOW content producer until about 2015 or so and he was one of the best, even if you don't like MGTOW hes worth a listening to. He used text to speech which might be tough on the ears. I don't always agree with him but he was really a breath of fresh air. He made many videos on this very subject.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrSJF7GT6MOm6PxYmv0H3_g

I don't buy that Sargon is on the left. Or if he is, he pretends not to be to appeal to his right wing fanboys. Or he uses "left" as some kind of shield to protect him against certain accusations. But I don't really think about him when I myself point out right wingers and libertarians hijacking the MRM.

Its not driven by libertarians in a "Rand Paul endorses the MRM" sort of way and I don't think the libertarian party has ever even touched the MRM, at least I am not aware of it. I would say that there are too many libertarian and conservative minded people who place those values ahead of men, wearing the MRA label, and this has been a problem at least as far back as the early 2000s.

To be clear, if the left was ever infiltrating the MRM that would not be beneficial either, in my opinion. Its not talked about often simply because it doesn't happen (unless you want to count feminists trying to take on men's issues in the framework of "patriarchy hurts men too" as leftist infiltration, though the left and feminism are not the same thing), the left has been viciously callous when it comes to men and boys.

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Being against government welfare is in no way being against the poor. Standard libertarian arguments revolve around describing how well intentioned policies can have the opposite of the intended result. For instance minimum wage laws are to help poor workers. In reality it prices many of them out of the job market and then inflates the cost of living by businesses having to increase prices to account for increased labor cost mandated by the state.

Regarding healthcare being a good and the car example: Everyone has to eat, not everyone needs medical services everyday. Thereby food distribution by private companies is a far more important service, yet there's an incredible selection and competition in most countries. I'm sorry but this line of reasoning by the video creator is simply bunk.

And then he seemingly contradicts himself when stating that pro war republicans don't get called on spending after just accepting Ron Paul's anti war position.

It doesn't strike me as well thought out video

[–]ee4m 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

How so? You have a thing you buy everyday, let's say 5 apples. One day the state dictates that apples will go up in price by 50% (for the sake of arguement ), would you still buy the same amount? No, all things being equal, you wouldn't. The same applies to businesses. After all, they are simply buying labor. A way to potentially avoid that is to raise prices, which also bad for the people minimum wage is supposed to be helping. The poor are the worst to deal with an increase to cost of living for obvious reasons.

So no, it's not a myth, it's honestly very simple inference.

And of course when society was poorer, people needed to work more. It wasn't either you send your kid to school or work, no it was either your kid works or there's no way of supporting them. If you look at child labor rates they were already declining before any major legislation was made against it in the US. Because as societies get wealthier they can afford to not have children working and having a shorter work day. To think this was enabled by the state is to put the cart before the horse

The same with weekends. By that logic, the only thing a medieval farmer would need to have similar living standards as us is for the powers that be at the time to mandate it. It's just absurd. No it's through the accumulation of wealth, often made far better with private enterprise that builds up the wealth of society and allows for little to no child labour and letting kids focus on education.

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Really? So people just worked everyday for fun? If it wasn't for a lack of wealth, because if they weren't working they wouldn't be able support themselves, then why did they work so much? The simple answer is you're wrong, otherwise you would have to agree the only thing preventing a medieval serf from having comparable living standards to us is mandate from whomever is in charge. Surely you must see absurdity in that.

And employers aren't a monolith. With a higher output, each worker is worth more, each worker being worth more means they can then use that to better their position. That is what enabled unions to be able to demand that. That enables workers to use their value to an employer as a bargaining chip for better wages and/or benefits.

Also a cursory look at the wiki entrance for the 5 day work week demonstrates that you're wrong on this. It was originally a voluntary agreement between workers and the employer of North British factory. And the same seems to apply to the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Really? So people just worked everyday for fun? If it wasn't for a lack of wealth, because if they weren't working they wouldn't be able support themselves, then why did they work so much

Nice jabber about nothing to do with what I'm saying. Next.

The simple answer is you're wrong, otherwise you would have to agree the only thing preventing a medieval serf from having comparable living standards to us is mandate from whomever is in charge. Surely you must see absurdity in that

I do~! Unfortunately for you, that does not at all follow from what I've been saying.

Again, learn history:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/09/viral-image/does-8-hour-day-and-40-hour-come-henry-ford-or-lab

In 1914, at a time when most workers still lacked a guarantee of eight-hour days, the Ford Motor Co. attracted notice for instituting eight-hour shifts and raising wages in the manner the graphic indicates. (For many Ford workers, the work week remained six days.)

The company’s move -- made a dozen years earlier than the graphic said -- was significant, labor historians say. But they add that it’s worth noting some caveats. For instance, Ford’s " ‘sociological department’ had to inspect a worker’s home to make sure they ‘deserved’ the $5 first," said Ileen A. DeVault, a professor of labor relations, law and history at Cornell University.

In addition, Ford’s policy wasn’t law, so it wasn’t guaranteed to last indefinitely, even for those who qualified for it.

"It was a unilaterally provided benefit at the discretion of the employer and could be yanked away whenever the cost exceeded profits," said Robert Bruno, a professor with the University of Illinois School of Labor and Employment Relations. Companies that operated this way, Bruno said, often revoked these policies when the Great Depression hit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workweek-2015-10

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/where-did-40-hour-workweek-come-n192276

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/12/20/the-true-reason-behind-the-40-hour-work-week-why-we-are-economic-slaves

https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-40-hour-workweek

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, if people didn't work because they had to for survival, then why did they. I'm sorry, you don't get to dismiss this so easily.

Dismiss what? Your question has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.

The same with the serf and mandating prosperity example. If all it took was a mandate from the state to have 5 day workweek with 8 hours a day be viable, why couldn't a medieval king or a chief to dictate that working people only had to work 8 hours a day for 5 days to have comparable living standards to us

Answered this already. And really, history shows I'm correct and I've given you copious resources now, so Idk what you're prattling on about.

I honestly don't think you understand the discussion here. Further evidenced by the fact that your quote has no relevance to what I'm saying

http://i.imgur.com/aVefSvR.gifv

Citing groups mandating 8 hour workday and/or 5 day workweek. still doesn't address my points as to what enabled that to be viable, which is a wealthier society

I'm not addressing it because it's simply not relevant. Just because we have a wealthier society does not mean everyone feels a benefit from it. It still took agitation, which is what you're falling all over yourself to avoid.

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Forgot to add this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

The eight-hour day movement or 40-hour week movement, also known as the short-time movement, was started by James Deb and had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production in large factories transformed working life. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours for six days a week.[1][2]

Robert Owen had raised the demand for a ten-hour day in 1810, and instituted it in his socialist enterprise at New Lanark. By 1817 he had formulated the goal of the eight-hour day and coined the slogan: "Eight hours' labour, Eight hours' recreation, Eight hours' rest". Women and children in England were granted the ten-hour day in 1847. French workers won the 12-hour day after the February Revolution of 1848.[3] A shorter working day and improved working conditions were part of the general protests and agitation for Chartist reforms and the early organisation of trade unions.

The International Workingmen's Association took up the demand for an eight-hour day at its Congress in Geneva in 1866, declaring "The legal limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvements and emancipation of the working class must prove abortive", and "The Congress proposes eight hours as the legal limit of the working day."

Karl Marx saw it as of vital importance to the workers' health, writing in Das Kapital (1867): "By extending the working day, therefore, capitalist production...not only produces a deterioration of human labour power by robbing it of its normal moral and physical conditions of development and activity, but also produces the premature exhaustion and death of this labour power itself."[4][5] The first country to adopt eight-hour working day was Soviet Russia. The eight-hour day was introduced on November 11, 1917, four days after the October Revolution, by a Decree of the Soviet government.

The first international treaty to mention it was the Treaty of Versailles in the annex of its thirteen part establishing the International Labour Office, now the International Labour Organization.[6]

The eight-hour day was the first topic discussed by the International Labour Organization which resulted in the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 ratified by 52 countries as of 2016.

Although there were initial successes in achieving an eight-hour day in New Zealand and by the Australian labour movement for skilled workers in the 1840s and 1850s, most employed people had to wait to the early and mid twentieth century for the condition to be widely achieved through the industrialised world through legislative action.

The eight-hour day movement forms part of the early history for the celebration of Labour Day, and May Day in many nations and cultures.

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Again if all that was preventing an 8 hour work day was a mandate from whomever is in charge, why not just mandate prosperity, mandate wealth

That's a stupid juxtaposition of different polarities.

The 40ww or 8 hour day is a matter of history. It's something that was fought for by Labor groups and I've given you copious evidence now.

The reason you need it mandated is because most employers aren't willing to give it up without a fight. I even showed you that your Henry Ford example wasn't all it's been cracked up to be.

Getting a job can often be as easy as ...getting a job. 40ww can be a simple as someone dictating that it happen - whether it be a business owner or [more likely] the government. Wealth usually takes time, unless it's inherited. Two totally different goals, and you're that stupid that you don't see the difference?

This is just such a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth creation

This is a fundamental use of moving the goalposts and playing with false equivalencies. And a doozy of a one, at that.

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No it follows logically from your position as you claim that unions enabled 5 day/8hour workweek. If that's all it took it would follow that the only thing preventing people of the past to have comparable work hours and quality life would then by someone mandating that. I really can't make it any simpler than that.

I never said labor unions didn't fight for it, I said it wasn't enabled by them, it was enabled by society being wealthier.

And yes employers want to pay as little as they can, but what you ignore is that the workers can opt for a better employer and seeing as workers are not all equal in their value, it makes sense to appeal to the best workers with better wages and/or benefits. So in order to be competitive a smart employer seeks to better their workers wages in relation to other businesses to the extent that they can. And if they can't they'll lose quality workers. There's more to economics then tired leftist clichés would have you believe.

And how am I moving the goalposts exactly? I'd genuinely like to know. And just saying false equivalence doesn't remove your need to be consistent in your argumentation. Something you're woefully failing at. Meaning that if labor unions can just dictate a modern workweek and it doesn't create a huge lack of income for everyone, then it follows the same applies to a medieval serf. All he needed to not lose his hypothetical family to famine was just to....cut his work hours. Do you see how that's a problem? It's not a problem when work output has multiplied due to free markets and the industrial revolution. Then you can allow society to work less and yet have better living standards than before

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No it follows logically from your position as you claim that unions enabled 5 day/8hour workweek. If that's all it took it would follow that the only thing preventing people of the past to have comparable work hours and quality life would then by someone mandating that. I really can't make it any simpler than that

No, it actually doesn't follow logically at all, and you're still avoiding history.

I never said labor unions didn't fight for it, I said it wasn't enabled by them, it was enabled by society being wealthier

At least now you admit it. The other thing isn't relevant.

And yes employers want to pay as little as they can, but what you ignore is that the workers can opt for a better employer and seeing as workers are not all equal in their value, it makes sense to appeal to the best workers with better wages and/or benefits

As long as benefits are law & such laws are enforces, otherwise there's not many places to go. And for proof of this: Sweat shops.

So in order to be competitive a smart employer seeks to better their workers wages in relation to other businesses to the extent that they can. And if they can't they'll lose quality workers.

That's your "ideal" of how it should happen. If it were reality, there would be no need for the government to step in.

And how am I moving the goalposts exactly? I'd genuinely like to know

I believe I already explained this?

And just saying false equivalence doesn't remove your need to be consistent in your argumentation. Something you're woefully failing at

From you, that means nothing because you've yet to obliterate a single point I've made and actually have admitted I'm right a time or two now. I think I'll just keep on keepin' on.

Meaning that if labor unions can just dictate a modern workweek and it doesn't create a huge lack of income for everyone, then it follows the same applies to a medieval serf. All he needed to not lose his hypothetical family to famine was just to....cut his work hours. Do you see how that's a problem

I see that you appear to be smokin' somethin' ;-) This is just gobbledygook AFAICS.

It's not a problem when work output has multiplied due to free markets and the industrial revolution

The "free market" didn't raise work output. People demanding fairness in the workplace did.

[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Thereby food distribution by private companies is a far more important service, yet there's an incredible selection and competition in most countries. I'm sorry but this line of reasoning by the video creator is simply bunk.

That's right, food prices and the costs of medicine are totally on par with each other~! Why just the other day I went to a nice, fancy office to be served a bowl of Cap'n Crunch. I sat in the well-constructed waiting room after being checked in by the receptionist, who no doubt when to school to be a Cereal Receptionist/Bookkeeper and could command a salary for it. I'm sure the Doctor of Breakfast Sciences has to dole out enough to pay for just the reception office's electricity, phones & computers. And then there's the extra Breakfast Pro's he has to hire to deal with the influx. To say nothing of all the trouble billing is and how much that adds to the cost of each bowl. Sure thing, they're the same, yep yep yep.

In my city alone, food is an abundance and largely because of charitable work. It's not that hard to provide. Your false equivalence is what's not very well thought out.

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What my example illustrates is this idea that a service is to important to be left in hands of the free market is just nonsense when a service that has far more value to it then medical services and yet its entirely driven by private business

That's where you went wrong. Food may have more "value" in terms of it being a basic need, but the actual cost outlay of medicine is all to obviously a bigger bolder to push up a steeper hill. Therefore you're making a false equivalency. Are you really this stupid, or just trolling?

And lastly the reason food is so plentiful is because free market forces are allowed to exist in the food market

So you are willing to admit then, that the schooling required to become a Doctor precludes it being "free market?" Now you're catching on~!

But it doesn't matter because food is still by nature easier to come by, and that has nothing to do with how free the market is.

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The price was never the connecting factor, the fact that both are goods and services and both are needed for society

Why because you'd rather avoid that point that doesn't work to well in your system, there?

And yet you don't get the moralizing you get in the healthcare industry in the food distribution industry, even though basic logic shows that good distribution is far more important to many more people

Aannnnddd... how many people are going bankrupt due to trying to get food?

How on earth is education mutually exclusive from a free market? Why would the education required to be a doctor mean it can't be on a free market

The fact that the Public mandates the rule of law be preeminent in setting standards of education and experience. If it didn't, the Medical and Legal profession would look very different from what it does now.

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Ok and why is fault of the free market and not the States? There was a housing crises in the US caused by easy lending which was enabled by the US government.

And why redefine poor when poor means having a roof over your head, more likely to be overweight and you can afford most modern amenities, like a computer or a TV? At that point you are poor only in relation to other better off people, not in the sense that you can't live a normal life or are inhibited in any real way. At that point the word is meaningless aside from describing how you are slightly less well off then people living under the greatest quality of life known to human history.

Society has always revolved around work, as that's how they maintain and grow themselves. Outside of robots doing all work, this will be the case regardless of economic policy.

There's no country today that has actual free market capitalism, just degrees of it. Regulatory burden is a real thing and it does prevent a lot of new businesses from. Not to make light of regulations, it's just they can and are used as a means to setup artificial barriers to entry for new market actors.

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Chicago Boys

The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean economists prominent around the 1970s and 80s, the majority of whom trained at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, or at its affiliate in the economics department at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Upon their return to Latin America they adopted positions in numerous South American governments as economic advisors, many of them reaching high positions. The Heritage Foundation credits them with transforming Chile into Latin America's best performing economy and one of the world's most business-friendly jurisdictions. However, critics point to drastic increases in unemployment that can be attributed to policies implemented on their advice to fight inflation.

[–]mankindglobalmedia2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link