Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:54:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1096 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:43:07 GMT, "Richard Franks"
<spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
> > Sounds like slavery, by any other name.
>
> Yep!
Ah, good, so I was not wrong about you ;)
> Actually, I agree - but the Frank's assumption that I was responding to was
> that corperations would invest in education because the job market would become
> so tight due to the benefits of Libertarianism.
>
> You could probably conjecture that under a Libertarian system, companies would
> start taking a longer view?
_if_ the job-market becomes tight, corporations will want to deal with
that _now_, because they'll have not planned in advance. Their way of
dealing it will include, but is not necessarily limited to: Go broke.
Invest majorly in machinery. Move factories out of the country. etc.
All options that are cheaper and work on a far smaller timescale than
training children. You're eventually left with a country that has only
the service industry, R&D, and military spending. You _may_ be able to
sustain consumerism-driven service industry for a while on the backs
of the other countries' whose profits you're raking in, but sooner or
later, they will start to protest.
Also you'll be left with an economy with no use at all for even
slightly unskilled work.
I'd like to see you make an unemployment-free economy out of that.
Tight, maybe. But only at the very high levels of intelligence and
education. The rest will be unemployed and either be sustained on
charity, or die.
> Companies sponser high-school kids just now, that is 5-10 years foresight in
> our existing system!
Shockhorror. What do you mean by "sponsor"?
> > Which individual donors decide _how_ to spend.
>
> Libertarian documentation speaks of private charities, which I'm assuming is
> something that takes donations and doles out the money to respective services?
> Or does each service have its separate private charity?
See how it's organised now - charities can be, say, the neighbourhood
church/library/etc., they cab be Greenpeace or the WWF, or anything in
between. They could be an organisatrion dedicated to, say, archeology.
> Also mentioned is tax-credit incentives for people who pay money to a charity.
> If the incentives differ for each charity then the individual is coorced into
> supporting services which they don't want to.
Usually/around here, the definition of charity is usually "non-profit
organisation".
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
