Liberalism and why I despise it

25

Then please produce the evidence – I’ve asked you several times now when you have ‘claimed’ you have and not once been able to produced it.

How? Are you an omnipotent god that just knows? I don’t think I’m right let alone Right with a capital, as a mere mortal i don’t know if I’m right, I could be wrong and I use debate as a means of seeing if my ideas can stand up to scrutiny, if I can’t defend them from criticism then I’ll adapt or drop them.

To me only the unquestioning and closed minded ‘know they are right’ because they never ask themselves if they are.

BUT YOU ARE UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF THAT YOU HAVE

You tell us we are wrong, you tell us you are right, you tell use your viewpoint is just ‘common sense’ – but when asked to produce any evidence of you rationally defending your views you seem unable to do it, we just get more rants full of ill-informed assertion and unsubstantiated accusation

 

Coleco

I’ll give you some history on Rat –

He admits he used to call himself a libertarian - in this context a right wing libertarian - but he couldn’t actually address the many criticisms of those ideas that show up its very deep flaws, so he started to claim he wasn’t libertarian but he followed a ‘third’ way that was both right and left wing while not being left or right wing. That didn’t hold up too well either since everyone could see that virtually all his ideas seem to lean to the right. So he stopped that and has been floundering somewhat since then – he has put forward a utopian agrarian ‘alternative’ model of society but it really was rather mad in my view, here it is –

You asked what my alternative would be, and I don't have a clear or fully developed idea of what that would be. But it would have to be something entirely different from the system we are living under now. It would require people abandoning the towns and cities and going back to nature. People would live in small communities where they would grow their own food, chop their own wood, and barter for goods and services. It would be similar to a TRIBAL system, where people would govern themselves and be self-reliant -- not rely on corrupt corporations and predatory government, believing it's their good shepherd and is there to serve and protect them.

I asked the obvious questions but he had no answer then and I’m guessing he has none now,
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5172706&postcount=55

The other thing that is important in any understanding of Rats thinking is his deep seated belief in conspiracy theory, the last time I really listened he seemed to believe the world was run by a secret cabal of Lucifer worshippers but that was a few years back, I’m not sure what current conspiracy he’s into.

But in the end it all comes down to attacking anything ‘left wing’.

 

Coleco

Private prisons are run privately but paid for by the tax payer and many think they have a vestige interest in locking people up seeing as that’s the way to make more money rather than in rehabilitation so people don’t reoffend and in tackling the problems that lead to crime (war on drugs etc).

Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group, two private prison corporations – “have both engaged in state initiatives to increase sentences for offenders and to create new crimes”[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

The ‘police’ would still need to be paid if done by direct payment poorer people will not be able to pay as much as richer people and you’d get private armies and that’s not a good idea.

Again fire-fighters have to be paid I lived in a community that had voluntary fighters but they were still paid for through taxes, there had to be the building the equipment and paying the volunteers for their time and paying employers for their loss. Also the volunteer system worked because this was a low density community and accompanying low incident rate, in high density urban (or industrial areas) were incidents are high full time fire-fighters are needed. If by ability to pay again the poorer you are the less likely are you to pay and things would be left to burn.

Private education again comes down to ability to pay and if history is anything to go by the richer would get a better education while the poor might get none

Private healthcare the same.

 

I'm not really sure why you included the last part in above quote of your post (although i can understand why you are often asking for elaboration and proof). Does he need to have all the answers to your 'obvious questions' in order to share an idea he already admitted to from the start it is not worked out in detail?
And the raw idea does not sound that mad to me. Although it indeed all depends on how it would develop in detail. Anyway, you seemed to ask him, he shared what he got. Looks admirable enough to me? Did you expect he has all the answers?

 

Asmodean

He doesn’t have to answer but without answers it does seem a bit mad to me.

OK why don’t you answer the questions?

 

I'm not saying I have them. I'm just saying you asked him if he had an idea, he shares it while directly admitting it is not worked out in detail (so what?). Then you seem to kind of hold it against him that he answered your question without having it worked out in detail. That while he might not have shared it at all if he didn't choose to answer your question about an alternative.
So although I often understand your need for proof or elaboration, I just can't see why you expect/demand them almost in this particular case... and kind of hold it against him later.

 

you are correct that i nor anyone has the exact number, they are estimates used by the census and under the table jobs. and the estimates range from 7 to 20 million. lets play the game of best case scenario. 7 million and you say well prove it. i can only say what i have seen. i lived in 2 states. i live in the virginia side of delmarva now. a tiny rural area. and it is nothing to see busloads of undocumented workers pass down highway 13. one time i saw well over 400 waiting in front of a factory. the other state i lived in was nj a tiny state. and any time you pass by industrial ave in edison or the train station in freehold or the train station in matawan you will see a group of mexicans waiting for any work that a contractor will pick them up for. i just named 5 spots i commonly see them in the smallest of areas. and i didnt even mention how many i know for a fact are working in restaurants as bus boys and cooks. add to that the other 48 states not to mention that cali texas and arizona have by far more...even florida has a high percentage. and that 7 million seems like a pretty small number of likely illegal immigrants to me. now on to the math...i and my job pay almost $100 a week in health insurance so thats about $5000 a year and by the low estimate of 7 million undocumented workers that is 35 billion that many liberals want to give away. and if they did that how many more do you think would climb the fence?
i dont hate liberals but this is one of the things i disagree with the far left on.

 

nj had the same phenomenon with their dmv...and inspection station. now that im in virginia i miss those inspection stations.

 

Very well put, Meagain. Summed up well. You got a thumbs down from "someone"of course.

 

What are you talking about? You quoted my whole post!?

You changed my wording. I never said corporations don't support violence, I said they can't initiate violence without government.

of course I know corporations "support" violence- I even mentioned the Military-industrial complex. But, they need government to enforce their laws, and, they need government to go to war. They have no power without government. No company would wage war with their brand name in the balance...

The government merely plugs the gaps, when the people rise up.

But, a majority of these laws don't make a fairer world; I remember working at Mc Donalds, with a black kid who would never show up for work. I constantly had to come in, and work in his place, because he'd only come in when he wanted to. Eventually, I broke down and ask my manager "Why would you guys fire him?" and he straight up told me "If we fire him, he'll claim it's because of his race, and sue us." Whereas, If I took 2 days off, I would've been fired- yet, just because of his skin color, he had a pass to do whatever he wanted, and couldn't be touched.

The same thing goes for disabled people. Some of them are unable to: carry boxes, use a cash register or, do other things that people who are not disabled can do. Why should these people be hired over an able-bodied individual, who is more qualified for the job??

On top of that, in the 1920's and the 1960's, we didn't have the communication tools we have today. If a business owner today, legitimately wouldn't hire someone/banned people from their business, because of their race/disability, the word would go around, and people wouldn't support the business.

We live in a different time today.

And people aren't compelled to work anywhere. The 1920's labor movement, would've happened with or without government. All it takes is consumers and employees to stop working, and the corporations would've caved. They can't run without the citizens.

 

None of this is possible under my system, and most is illegal. And again, these companies couldn't have abused people, without government help (much like they do today.) The difference between then and now, is that now they establish monopolies with the help of government, and exert control over resources of the world, (instead of just the country.)

People don't HAVE to work for low wages. Even the Federal Minimum Wage, isn't even enough to live, and people were making more in the 1960's!

Corporations need to make money, otherwise they can't stay in business. Government, on the other hand, has an endless supply of our money, to waste how they please.

They're not on the side of the people, and, cause far more damages than corporations. They are the strong-arm of the corporations, you Liberals claim to oppose.

Without government corporations couldn't initiate force, and without public support, they can't run. Today, we still have "robber barons," and their all involved with the federal government. Laws against bribery and fraud (which are already in place) would greatly deter this and, consumer awareness, would put an end to corruption. Liberals put all this faith in government to fix everything, and we're worse off now than we were.

Nothing here negates my reasoning- infact, you've just reassured it. When government yields absolute power, we end up in the predicament we're in where corporations are receiving extensive benefits from government, and government is abusing their power to take advantage of the taxpayer.

Everything you mentioned could've been done by the people, if we were the one's with power, and government wasn't. That's what Libertarianism is about. We've been putting faith in government to build a fairer world, yet, all they do is initiate force and create monopolies.

This guy, John Stossel- used to be a Liberal, and converted to libertarianism.

Watch this Public V. Private video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6iySSALVFM"]John Stossel - Good Intentions Gone Wrong: Work Regulations, Welfare, Education, FDA 12/06/12 - YouTube

Higher taxes and more regulations are making it harder to get jobs in the US- Even Obama admits less regulations, creates jobs. But, they're not doing it, and by raising minimum wage and, forcing Obamacare on Employers, we're actually making it harder to get a job.

And don't even bring up the official "unemployment" rate; that's only people who are receiving unemployment checks, not everyone who actually is unemployed.

 

The Stossel video

Disingenuous at best…

Claims work place accidents were falling ‘naturally’ before government ‘interference’

It claimed that before the founding of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) work place accidents were falling and this ‘proved’ government bodies or legislation was not needed.

Hogwash - just a tiny bit of research show this is completely wrong there was already a huge movement toward health and safety legislation going back to the beginning of industrialisation - it didn’t start with OSHA, so to claim that somehow accident rates were falling ‘naturally’ without such government involvement is complete rubbish.

This type of ‘reporting’ is about hoping no-one will go and look and will just accept it without question, its advertising.

Claims better benefits and holidays and regulation in Europe mean lower employment and are bad economically

Employment rate in most of Europe are about the same as the US 6-7%, and Germany which has greater working benefits than British workers has 5.2% and is doing very well economically. So the claim doesn’t stand.

Number of days of holiday Germany (30) Scandinavian countries (around 25-30) US (10) yet productivity rates are about the same.

But citing Germany or the Scandinavian countries wouldn’t back up the agenda they are trying to push and the problem is that people like 25 don’t do research and just accepts this stuff without question.

It claims that welfare hold back economies and stops people from working.

But there are places doing well economically that have more generous welfare system than the US and there are places doing badly economically that have less generous welfare system than the US.

*

The Host pushing an agenda

John Stossel is a right wing libertarian who worked for Fox News owned by Rupert Murdock that pushes a ‘free market’ agenda much loved by its owner He appeared weekly on the The O'Reilly Factor. A number of media organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America (MMfA) have criticized Stossel, for what they perceived as a lack of balance of in his coverage and distortion of facts

*

The guests pushing an agenda

Anne Jolis a right wing journalist for the right wing Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdock that pushes a ‘free market’ agenda much loved by its owner.

Dan Mitchell works for the right wing libertarian wealth sponsored think tank The Cato Institute which pays people to promote a ‘free market’ agenda, which would greatly advantage wealth. He has also worked for other wealth sponsored think tanks that pushes ‘free market’ ideas such as the The Heritage Foundation, and the Koch’s Citizens for a Sound Economy, as well as the Republican Party.

*

This is all about pushing an agenda that serves wealth’s interests and those falling for it are being manipulated and indoctrinated into think it ‘just common sense’ but the thing is that when asked to defend their ideas from criticism they can’t, maybe if they just stopped accepting without question and began thinking for themselves they would realize how they are being manipulated.

 

Asmodean

Actually it wasn’t me that he was replying to when he put forward his alternative but it is true I’d asked him in the past.

He first put this forward on the August 2007 – nearly seven years ago you’d think he’d have thought it through a little bit more by now wouldn’t you?

I asked him those questions at the time and about a year later and again now I think seven years is enough time to have found some answers don’t you think?

I mean this is his big alternative. He rants and raves that he despises us ‘liberals’ (anyone that disagrees with him) and the present system but all he has is some half baked, wishy washy idea that he can’t even be bothered to think through?

But as I’ve said before I think this ‘alternative’ is a ruse a con it’s a smokescreen to try and convince people he is not really a right winger pushing right wing views that would favour wealth.

 

Balbus,

I am a nihilist. I don't really care what happens at this point. The system is a farce and its very existence is based on lies. I have no solutions because, quite frankly, none exist, and I really don't care. I really don't care about anything but the truth. I don't need other people to agree with me. Other than that, I am content to watch things fall apart. But if you are looking to engage me in a politcal debate, that is not going to happen because I don't dabble in politics of any persuasion.

The "solution" I outlined years ago is an idealistic one but not a feasible one. Like anarchy, it sounds good in theory though I don't expect it would work, nor did I then. It was merely a hypothetical alternative I used to answer your nagging question.

 

Rat, you are hilarious

A lie, you are always pumping out right wing ideas or supporting them or fellow right wingers. That’s all you ever do here.

Yes we all know you call yourself a nihilist, but that’s just another of your con games you haven’t been honest about your politics since I’ve known you, all that crap about not being left or right when you only ever promote right.

Your so called ‘solution’ was another con again about trying to convince people you are not just another right wing pundit promoting the interests of wealth.

Then why the deception why all the lies and evasions and misdirection’s?

1 Why are you in posting in a political debating forum?

2 That’s because you never could defend your right wing ideas in any rational or reasonable way.

 

"Movements" are done by people. What was done by government before this point to stop workplace accidents??

The official unemployment rate is garbage! That's only the amount of people who receive unemployment checks. The amount is much higher in both situations.

So, this doesn't prove anything. It's common knowledge that more regulations and higher taxes make companies refrain from hiring. Even Obama has admitted that deregulation creates jobs.

Fraggle Rock has proven (Thread= What happens when you scrap the welfare state,) that scraping foodstamps and welfare make the economy stronger. Welfare creates dependency, and the amount of time people stay on the program has expanded.

I'm sick of you Liberals always attacking the Right. Firstly, he has a show on Fox Business, not Fox News. Secondly, I've pointed out how Ted Turner (owner of CNN and, other liberal stations) is an extreme Liberal, who wants to implement a 1 child policy.

Liberals refuse to hear any opposing views, and attack anyone with differing opinions. It's funny to me that they wont even watch Fox because they are "bias" but, they don't even care to look into the Liberal bias that pushes the agenda of CNN, ABC and, MSNbc- so, there's 1 company that disagrees- get over it! The Liberal media is just as bad as Fox.

Every media pundant has a bias. Every news station has a biased. Liberals are something else to even bring this up, when stations like CNN would have Obama Commercials running all day long, and talk to "experts" who were directly connected to the Obama Campaign, during the election!!

It's your opinion that it would 'greatly advantage wealth.' But, there is no backing behind it, especially when the richest communities in the US, voted for Obama, and Obama was the one with all the corporate backing.

Btw the Cato Institute: "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations."

The Republicans of today don't believe in the free markets or, smaller government. They have an agenda which is much like the Democrats. You all act like you hate republicans, yet they're the ones who wrote Obamacare. And Obama might as well be a republican with his constant warfare and propaganda.

He even legalized war propaganda!

I am thinking for myself, and I resent you suggesting otherwise.

I'm not the one supporting a government which has been known to consistently lie to the people.

I'm not the one supporting corporate bailouts, or businesses which are above the law, and can wage war at the drop of a dime.

I'm not the one supporting a man who doesn't give a damn about freedom, and kills US citizens without trial.

What I do endorse, is an equal and freer world. I don't get my information from 1 place- I watch CNN, BBC, Fox, RT and, nearly all news stations, to get differing opinions.

But, I think it's important to realize that Mainstream republicans and Liberals rely on fear to persuade voters in their direction.

It's the oldest trick in the book- divide and conquer.

The Republicans believe without government we would be attack by muslims. Liberals believe without government, (I dont even know,) some of you believe that corporations would take over through force and violence.

Both of these things are just tools to pin us against each other, and give the government a false sense of legitimacy.

Government actually causes harm/initiates force unto people.

Mallai mentioned private prison systems (which rely on people gettin arrested to receive taxpayer money.) Without the Drug Laws, we wouldn't have near as many people in our prison systems, and corporations would not have a desire to run it, unless it could be profittable.

This is the main thing that Liberals like you refuse to realize/believe. Corporations make money through current government laws, and they initiate force through government laws.

The Drug War is something I would immediately end, because it is not helping addicts and, it's not helping society. The only people it's helping is the pharmaceutical companies, drug cartels and, the prison-industrial complex, who lobby our government to keep these laws in place.

Regulations against Lemonade Stands is not helping society, nor, is laws against large soft drinks and horse-drawn carriages. We've put far too much faith in government, and we've ended up with dictatorial laws such as these.

My views do not favor the wealthy. The current government system does. Obama reinstated the Bush tax cuts, and even when they expired, he passed the ATRA which reinstated many of them a second time.

I encourage tax cuts for the middle/working class of this country that desperately need it. And cutting wasteful programs extensively (something Obama ran his candidacy on, but lied about.)

Its not me who can't defend my beliefs- it's Liberalism. You're supposed to believe in things like free speech, free religion and, fair trials. These are just a few things Liberals have turned their back on, since Obama has become president.


It's Liberals who are indoctrinated, to believe more taxes is miraculously going to fix everything and, we can keep printing fake money, racking up the debt, adding government programs and, taking away individual human rights with no type of repercussions.

It's actually sad to me, that so many people are still captivated by the promises of Government. The government doesn't want to fix: the drug laws, the wasteful spending, the wars or, raising taxes- cause, it benefits them and their corporate buddies far too much. Liberals are on the side of government and the corporations- they're just too ignorant to pay attention.

This is what Obama has been doing, and Liberalism does the same thing. It's Leftist who can't defend their views of wanting to expand government- other than by mentioning a few "good" things government has done throughout 100 years, while totally disregarding all the bad things, including extensive: warfare, lies, waste and, bad laws.

As I said, "Everything you mentioned could've been done by the people, if we were the one's with power, and government wasn't."

 

are you insinuating I gave him a thumbs down??

That's hysterical cause I didn't. (until just now, because you said something.)

Liberals don't let anyone disagree without subjecting them to insults, suspicion and, faulty logic.

 

A liberal can understand the farming values of cockroaches in a city from ye' old farm hole. Why? Just to play games with the climate change debate for the concept of bureaucrats instructions that the government imposes at the arbitrary time of Judgment Day.:sombrero:

 

Might want to define the term nihilism and how it applies to you exactly..

Heres dictionary.com:nihilism:[ 1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy .
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.]

Ive never heard the term nihilism being equated to terrorism.... so I find this definition kind of strange. Not exactly what I was looking for... My understanding is that nihilism means something much simpler, a nihilist is someone who does not care about ANYTHING. There is no such thing as truth, morality, or anything of the sort to a nihilist and none of these things matter to him/her. A nihilist sees reality and all that exists as just something that occurs and that there really is no point to any of it at all, it just happens. Now that is my understanding of what nihilism is as of right now.

Heres meriam-webster.com:

[: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value

: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

Full Definition of NIHILISM

1
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination]

This still isnt exactly what I interpreted as nihilism to be... It sounds too... "political" And for the longest time I thought nihilism was, for the most part, not even a political thing because the whole philosophy behind the term, I though, was "I dont care".

Anyway, its tough to think that a person does not care, when they continue to debate something, or when the actively do things that show that they DO in fact care about something. You commonly hear the term nihilism thrown around when people discuss school and mall shootings done by some adolescent or young adult man. Jerod Laughner the one who shot Gabriel Gifford in arizona, for example identified himself as a nihilist. I thought it was pretty funny on the news channels when you saw MSNBC trying to say that he followed a hardcore right wing view of the world. And then you got Fox saying that the young guy was an extreme liberal. I remember watching those channels thinking "you guys are all dumbasses if hes a nihilist he probably doesnt give a shit, hes just doing what he does".

Sometimes I feel that I am somewhat nihilistic myself... In my worldview and philosphy.. Correct me if I am wrong to use the term on myself.. But I am a person who feels that life is completely pointless. So is the world, reality, and all of existance. It is there because it is there. Now.. I haven't mentioned my religion, for all you know I could be christian, muslim, or jewish.. or whatever other religion they have invented recently. But even if I did follow one of these religions and believed all the things said I would still feel that it is all pointless. For example, if I happen to be christian, meaning I believe in heaven, and hell, god, jesus, mother mary and all that. I would still find reality and all of existence completely pointless.

Now this is absolutely not saying that I do not care! Im sure that, as "nihilistic"(and im saying MY definition of nihilism that everything is pointless) as I am, there are people who go around telling people like me "You are WRONG there IS a point to life!! Life has meaning! So does existance, reality and everything!" yet they may actually care LESS than I do about what goes on!

You see, people brand these individuals who go on shooting sprees as people who do not care about anything at all AND that life, existance, and all of reality is completely pointless. I find it funny when people try to brand me as someone who doesn't care, or someone who could pull off mass murder just because I feel that everything is pointless. Theres a big difference between caring, and feeling that something is pointless. I can definitely know that I think a particular thing is pointless, but I can still indeed care about something that is completely pointless.

Now... back to politics!

I do care about politics and all.. But I find that throughout history, we have developed different strategies for managing societies: Free enterprise, and socialism. Both look like excellent plans on paper, yes.. BOTH look excellent. But in practice they both lead to corruption.
What happens in socialism? We are not really individuals anymore, we are more like ants, or bees in a beehive. These insects do function VERY efficiently, but to be honest these creatures are themselves very low in intellegence. And because in socialism we try to take a cut of what the more successful have and distribute it out to those who are... weaker?.... we are sort of assuming that everyone is basically like an ant. That at the core, one person is just a duplicate of another. And that there only purpose is to be one piece of the whole machine.
If your hardcore into the theory of evolution, you can see how this socialism could be a bad thing. We don't want the weak to add to the gene pool! So if they are inefficient at survival and all, might be best to let the law of the jungle take them out. Now... just take this for what it is, even if you DO NOT believe in evolution, the point I am making here, is that keeping inefficient beings alive by giving an arm or a leg for them is truly counterproductive. Its something you only do out of empathy. Maybe you can replace the phrase "theory of evolution" with "law of the jungle" if you really hate the term evolution. Because I know it can be a dirty word.
Now, I feel that ive made a good point, socialism can be inefficient. Especially when we feed dead weight. Why should we give our tax dollars, and provide healthcare for a man who is laying on the couch, drinking beer all day, and living off what his welfare mom girlfriend brings home from mcdonalds? This person needs to be hit with reality, and hard. Put this person in a "law of the jungle" setting, and he would quickly be gobbled up by some other creature. Sorry if that sounds cruel, but thats law of the jungle, sit on your can too long and you get eaten.
Now here is where I feel socialism can be good. People who lose a job for example, they get unemployment benefits. Yes people abuse the system... fucking assholes, I know. But how many hard working people use the system as a vehicle toward another job? Now go ahead and flame me if your against unemployment and all, but im going through this right now. I will NOT abuse the system, but ive worked hard, ive shown that im not dead weight, if been employed since I was 14 years old! And ive worked long hours, late at night from 2 in the evening till 7 in the morning. Average 40-60 hours. Im clearly not dead weight. Allowing me to survive in the financial position that I am in will ONLY benefit society as a whole. It will ONLY BENEFIT the FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM! If a bit of wealth for a limited amount of time is given to me so that I have the means to find another employer that needs a man with an amazing work ethic. Having some wealth given to me during this time gives me the means to find this job such as: a phone to call employers and for them to call me, internet access so I can access the workforce department which has GOBS of jobs listed and ive already run through and applied at about 4 jobs within a day of losing my last job, food in my stomach so that I have a sane and sound mind, having money keeps me from feeling so desperate in this time that I feel motivated to do something reckless and criminal(such as selling my bod, dealing drugs, or stealing cars), and I can pay my bills so that I have an address. Tough to fill an application when you dont have an address these days. Plus its nice to have a place to sleep so that I can get up and work hard every day.
Now here is were I believe free enterprise can do us good: It gives us the freedom as individuals to determine the value of products and services. It allows private, unregulated exchange between individuals. Gives us the freedom to do what we want with our money. In a way, its like a vote. For example, if we know someone is a shitty doctor, we can take our money elsewhere, in a way helping the healthcare system in society because it "weeds out" the doctors known to be unsafe with their practice.
Basically, "free enterprise" is what allows us all to be "free" as a society. Nothing is more free than a free market all based on interactions between us all as individuals. Employers, as well as us as individuals to a certain extent will get to decide the value of a particular kind of work and labor. We can go seek employment and "negotiate" a salary with that employer. That is an amazing amount of freedom there.
Free enterprise is great on paper, but it can fuck us over too also if you think about it. What happens in free enterprise almost ALWAYS? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer eventually. It always starts off great, then near the end you get... well.... too much control of the citizens. Not by government, but by... well... the rich. Its almost inevitable that the rich begin to acquire more political power as well. When that happens, it turns into something much like what the right wing fears... "government control!". Though it wouldnt be called government control.. It would be corporate control. Whats the difference? Is being controlled by government any shittier than being controlled by private businesses/corporations? Eventually when the rich take everything over by being really successful in the free market, it turns into another government, and a controlling one.