Right-wing

[Dude_Doc]

Funny... all YOU talk about is how "bad" and "evil" WE (communists) are, and how all the poor and starving people (including innocent children, of course) somehow deserve their fate, and that it's really all THEIR fault.

No, I never said that. If I did it without remembering it, then I'm sorry. What I wanted to say is that you can keep your communism to yourself, and to your country etc. The rest of us will just have to live our ways then, because as I see it, humanity will never be "as one".

And another thing with this whole socialist-democratic question. If it is supposed to be a democracy (of some kind), then what if the people want a right-wing government? It is a democracy, after all, isn't it?

Uhhhhhh... WHAT? First of all, I don't read Swedish newspapers. Second of all, what the hell are you talking about? Russian troops never set ONE FOOT on your soil. Maybe some crackpot made some stupid plan, but they never actually took it seriously, did they?

And besides, I don't even support the USSR...

No, I know that no russian troops ever set any foot in this miserable country, and there wasn't just some "crackpot" drunk plan, but a major one. Our prime minister, Goeran Person had to speak with Putin about this even. I will post the "proof", even though no one can read it.

[Caid Ivik]

It seems like EdricO has some more important work to do, so he won't be able to reply this month. So, more arguments against him are useless.

[Egeides]

Are we allowed to bring a question to right-wing people now? Saw Edric heavily contested, so do what you wish with it, I'll just bring a problematic:

If letting the economy free-trade in certain sectors costs more than what it brings to let it free-trade, wouldn't it show that free-trade is not the good way?

An exemple of this would be in education where those not able to get an education where it's not provided by the state will be of a diminished productivity in the future.

Sometimes getting sick and not being able to pay for it will bring someone to not produce thereafter. Remember, free-trade = no state helping. NONE (since Smith says it's more profitable, which I try to show false here).

Free-trade also means you should be able to sell drugs and humans. It was used as an arguments for the opium war and slave traffic. But they cost more than they bring profit, no?

[Caid Ivik]

Egeides, maybe it sounds weirdly, but sometimes I don't think drug restrictions have any sense. Free trade isn't made, just guaranteed by government, which restricts or controls a market only when it's about something dangerous. Slavery is another thing, it is against human rights, so here it is about something else.

No trade is fully free, it is usually led by private companies, which seek for the most beneficial way. If the state participates, it may be effective too, but state has something else, political power, which can be very easily abused in business.

Also the state has some money everytime, for primary education, medical system, infrastructure and security. Altough it shouldn't have monopole in these things (excluding army, of course). It is natural, any extreme does make no good. Less money government use, more good. But no money, no good...

[Egeides]

Well all Human rights are non-profitable to the economy from Smith rules... Where do you stop this non-profitable thing? Should it be slaves or letting people starve or anything, it's basically the same thing for Smith: not optimal economically to not let free-trade (since it wont be bought/sold to its true economic price). We should be able to sell and buy what we want, the market will auto-regulate.

Would it mean that you do not entirely follow Adam Smith? If so, where do you stop following him and why?

[Caid Ivik]

I respect everybody's own responsibility over himself. People starve because they have been born unfortunately in poor areas, but who wants to get out of there, always finds a way. We have hundreds of refugees in Slovakia every week from eastern countries. Who wants, has. Just he must do something for it.

But also, we have a morale, which is for christian democrats primary value. Even liberals agree that not everything has its financial value. Altough self-responsibility is its main part, it means also, that using dishonorable ways like killing or stealing is restricted. For further description we have a state law, which sets the rules on it. Rational human sees where the limits are. Most of them are specifical for each market object.

[Egeides]

Ok. Then, on your rules, why would there be public school and hospitals?

Second, I do not agree that one who wants to get out of trouble always can. Statistically, we have to recognize that richer people always tend to give better situations to their children. And this is related to education, food, need to work too much during studies, debts and other problems. Don't you think that someone has to furnish bigger efforts to get to a same point, making it almost impossible to reach certain points since a human has a certain maximum of energy/time he can furnish? Would it be that poor people are trying less? How come then that those who work alot and do everything they can don't get a situation as good as some "bourgeois" (sorry, saw Matrix yesterday ;D) that simply did its share of work at school and will get a very very good job?