1. I have stated many times that we need a republic, capitalism with laws, both contractual and criminal. I have never said that we need no RULES. We do however, need an economic free market, something that hasn't existed in the UK or the US for years now.
There is a difference between free markets and criminals who infringe on others freedoms and rights of possession. If you took this definition and applied it to some of the acts of governments in recent years then GOVERNMENTS are the ones who should be banged up, aswell as criminals obviously.
Some examples, the confiscation of gold in 1933/4 by the US government, the fact that EVERYONE has 5% of their wealth stolen each year by inflation.
The funny thing is, the American constitution realised this sort of tyranny can occur and implemented systems against it. Pretty much all of these have gone now.
Democracy DOES NOT WORK, a Republic is the only system that will work long term, and this is what both you and I are saying we need (but we don't actually have)
I cannot retype everything when you don't understand what I'm saying!
2) Once again I have stated that the way government spends money is inefficient before, and I cannot retype everything as a reply every time you say something.
You have compared government inefficiency with many sectors who have a TOTAL monopoly over the market they occupy. Could you say the same of companies who don't enjoy such a large market share?
The MSA is terribly inneficient I agree, what alternative is there? Kart shops are terribly inneficient I also agree, but that is because anyone competing was threatened with legal action (the case recently of sellers on ebay who were told to stop trading.) which in my opinion is a TOTAL joke and will benefit nobody long term.
Inefficiency is bred from a lack of competition within the market place. You say your company is inefficient, would you be FORCED to look for efficiencies if a rival opened next door? When I entered Super 1 I was forced to look for efficiencies in all areas because the competition was a much higher standard. It drives us ALL forwards.
If alot of government departments were run by the private sector, the same would be said and only a fraction of the money currently wasted would be wasted in future.
3. I believe that if the rich get richer through manufacturing a product or designing a service people want/need and risking capital on enterprise (which provides jobs) then yes, fair play to them, it benefits us ALL.
We preform the same tasks as MANY people in other countries and continents and we enjoy a vastly better standard of living! Why? Because of the enterprise of 'rich' people years and years ago!
Ian, you are comparatively much more wealthy than me, because you have risked your own capital and invested your own time in starting your IT shop. I hope that doesn't mean that I can come and burgle you? You are advocating socialism!!!
I have no love of money, but imagine in karting if there was someone who won ALL of the time. It would encourage EVERYONE else to try and advance themselvs, if we took lap times as wealth then that is good for all.
Of course, if it happened by breaking the rules in either situation that in my opinion is wrong.
I was merely using the comparison between socialism and making people slow down every lap to demonstrate that socialism is bad and was not comparing it (in that situation) to EVERYTHING else.
|
|
ITPRO by 'WillDendy87' (31 Jan 2009 @ 15:22)
