“If a man says socialism, or planning, he always has in view his own brand of socialism, his own plan. Thus planning does not in fact mean preparedness to cooperate peacefully. It means conflict. …”
“On the unhampered market there prevails an irresistible tendency to employ every factor of production for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers. If the government interferes with this process, it can only impair satisfaction; it can never improve it.”"
Britain’s GDP divided by population ranks worse than all but one U.S. state.
This is quite interesting. We’d like to hear your thoughts.
Rebublicunts hate Big Government…unless its Big Welfare for Big Companies or Military Industrial Wars for Satanic Antichrist Israel.
Our organization is against corporate welfare and have no official opinion on Israel.
Another bottom line from Milton……
No, the essential notion of every society is force. The difference between societies is how they define the rules for who has the ability to use force against who, and for what reasons.
Also if capitalism were entirely free of violence the enclosure acts wouldn’t have happened
The enactment of legislation is not violence, though some schools of thought liken it with force. In either case, the inclosure acts occured during Europe’s mercantilist period. Mercantilism, with socialism, are societies that require violence in order to support the wealth of the nation or their leaders.
Meet this weeks Featured Columnist, Josh Kim! Click here to learn more.
Don’t be alarmed by my title. Just something to capture your attention (if there’s anything I have learned from all my years of going to school, it’s the fact that catchy titles are very important). Anyways, I guess liberals and the mainstream media are rejoicing since in the past few days, there’s more and more evidence indicating that Hillary will be making a run for president in 2016. But before I get to any of that, let me start off by making it clear that talking about Hillary Clinton usually bores me to tears. I know many of my fellow conservatives enjoy ripping the Socialist (Socialist, Democrat, kind of the same thing nowadays isn’t it?) former First Lady apart. But, picking on Hilary is like beating a kindergartener in trivia: it’s too easy. Not to mention, I have probably had more conversations about Hillary Clinton than about my dog I have had for 11-years (kind of sad isn’t?). I have to admit though, the only “Hillary” topic that never gets old to me is Monica Lewinsky. I am always eager to partake in a conversation pertaining to the infamous queen of scandal. If it weren’t for Miss Lewinsky, Bill Clinton and I would agree on pretty much nothing.
Here, the nun tells two stories.
1. She highlights a person working full-time who can’t afford to rent housing.
2. She discusses an entreprenuer who pays a living wage while competitors pay below living wage and have employees that use the social safety net. She goes on to say that the entreprenuer’s taxes are effectively subsidizing his competitors’ low wages.
1. Why think about only the demand side of the equation? Overregulation makes basic necessities like housing and food more expensive.
2. The nun is making the assumption that both the entrepreneur and his competitors have equally skilled labor. In the long-run, an employer paying $13 /hour will attract better talent than one paying $7 /hour. We need more information to truly understand this situation.