>>34
>In a pure unregulated capitalist society if there is no profit to be made doing something then it won't be done.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second part. As for the first part, there is always profit to be made in a free market. The source of all human wealth lies in creativity and innovation. The amount of new inventions that can be created and new innovations that can be made are infinite, therefore the chances to make a profit are limitless. One only has to think.
>Without the government interference you so despise we'd still be living in the bad old days of the industrial revolution.
Oh fucking wow, you actually think the GOVERNMENT is the entity that's responsible for carrying the world from the Industrial Revolution (IR) to the modern world? Did the GOVERNMENT come up with the hundreds of thousands of new business innovations and industrial improvement that made it possible for an average man in US to earn exponentially greater amount of wealth while working half the amount of hours compared to those that lived in IR? You think that by writing a few word and passing a few laws that forces businesses to pay higher wages the government MAGICALLY improves the standard of life? Pfff, just like that? Hahahaha.
The only way standard of living can rise is through the advent of new technologies. Meaning new inventions and innovations. And the source of those two, is the free thinking mind of a man who wants to make a profit. The vast improvement of today's standard of living in US compared to that of IR is the direct result and achievement of American Businessman, Industrialists, and Scientists. The government interference in the economy have done nothing but impend the process of human achievement, from causing the Great Depression to burying countless new businesses and innovations that never saw the light of day.
The day when the government can improve living standard is the day when pigs can fly and clouds rain gold.
>These [bad conditions of IR] are the very real historical and in many parts of the world still current abuses that gave rise to communism.
Abuses? They are bad conditions, not abuses. In order for those bad conditions to qualify as abuses, it will have to mean men were subjected to them BY FORCE. Well, were men, children, and women forced to work in factories with gunmen guarding them day and night? No one was forced to work in the factories during IR. Men, women, and children CHOOSE to work there. Why? Because as bad as conditions were in the factories compared to today, they were hell of an improvement compared to life and work before IR. Men worked there because they could produce more wealth in a day than they ever could have back in cottages. Women worked there because for the first time, they can gain financial independence instead of the "go back to the kitchen". As for children, witness the unprecedented population boom in England during IR, before IR, thousands of them would have died outright or discarded. IR reduced infant mortality rates drastically, and the factories gave them a chance to earn their living afterward; however bad the condition was, it was a new alternative suddenly presented to them when their only choice was death.
As for Communism, if you think bad working condition is the one factor that leads to Communism, think again. Bad working condition is not a cause of Communism, it is something that fuels the real cause. The ultimate cause of Communism is the philosophical view of sStatism and the altruistic morality. Bad working condition only servers as fuel to men with those two philosophical views because to them, Communism is the only way out. For men in a free capitalistic society, bad working conditions means an opportunity, as whoever can come up with an innovation that improves those conditions at less cost will make great profit.
Capitalism certainly do not cause bad working conditions, and bad working conditions are not the ultimate cause of Communism.
>As for your complaint about free services funded by taxes-
"And they shouldn't exist, as inferior public entities that everyone has to support financially whether they use them or not when the superior private entities of LFC that are only supported financially by their clients can exist."
How exactly can poor clients pay for them? How else can a poor inner city district get trash service or safe housing or even clean water ?
Come on, this is basic microeconomics ffs. Products for the lower income is a market in and of itself. In a free society businesses will be competing to provide better service at less cost though innovation to the poor just as they will be competing to provide for the middle, and the rich. Profits, profits, profits.
>The simple fact of the matter is that you apparently view those less fortunate than you as some kind of lower life form.
Really now, quote me.
>Why would anyone try to make a business providing free or low cost services to anyone? It isn't a viable business plan.
Christ, shows how much you know about business. Free? of course not. Low cost? definitely. If you developed any new innovation or technology that allows to produce certain product or service at lower cost than your competitor, of course you will want to lower your price. You undercut theirs and sell more, which translates to bigger profit, BUS101 ffs.
>Who cares if the poor can't afford healthcare or education beyond grammar school or safe food. It doesn't concern you, you have enough money to afford to live with dignity.
Who cares in a free society? Anyone that wants to make money. If someone comes up with innovative ways that allows them to offer health-care and education at more affordable price than before, they will make big bucks. Same shit as above. As for people stop caring because they have enough money, aren't you the naive one, there's always people that wants to make more. Human ambition and intellect knows no bound.
>You don't want to contribute to society as a whole, just your little portion of it. Because that's what modern taxation is. It's how the government takes a small portion of EVERYONE'S income and uses it to keep running the entire society that you are a citizen of. Yes the rich pay a larger percentage, and those who can pay least will get the most benefit.
Contribute to the society? What is this "society"? and your "contribution" is a value to who? Society is just a word denoting people other than yourself, majority of who are strangers. Whether one is rich or poor, why should an individual be FORCED to "contribute" to people he know nothing about? If you are talking about public entities such as road, hospitals, schools..etc. everyone pay for what they use, but why should someone be FORCED to pay for another's bill? Society will run as long as stealing and robbing is banned, or in another word, the initiation of physical force. But when someone INITIATE force, especially the government, that's the very thing which will stop a society from running.
>But the fact is that that is the price you pay to live in a society where the poor can improve themselves.
Ha! Price to pay to live in a society? The only price one has to pay in a society is for the things he buys. So by what right do you decree that an individual HAS TO provide for other individuals? Has to pay for something he never brought? never choose? By what right do you justify in forcing men to give up the fruit of their labor without their voluntary consent? By what right do you justify robbery?
>A society where you don't have to scrutinize every measure of food or medicine for contaminants, dilution, efficacy or short weights. A society where threats to your livelihood, be it through bad business choices, economic shifts or competition will not mean starving in the street.
If you permit the government the initiation of force, the sanction of stealing, forcing men to give up their fruit of labor without their consent, the kind of society you will get will be exactly the opposite of what you are describing above. History stands evident and the deterioration of US today is the living proof of that.
>Last but not least it's the price you pay to live in a society without rank upon rank of millions of malnourished uneducated peasantry with nothing to lose planning a bloody revolution against those who exploit them for their own profit. Which, of course, is how most modern societies came about.
So your last argument is that I should basically pay tribute as a slave to a mass of barbarians who will otherwise besiege the country and loot everything in their path because they believe they are entitled to everyone's property? You know what I say to that? I say FUCK YOU. And if such a mass ever assembles, I say FUCK THEM, BRING IT ON.
>Which, of course, is how most modern societies came about.
Seriously? Just stfu.