Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[GeneralTacticus]

I have already said I agree with the idea of political parties. It makes for a more ordered society and if need be it can achieve policy advances and if need be u turns quickly. Within the party discussion chambers (threads) is the place for in party debate. We have to determine rules for discussion and debate. For example a discussion in the STEP amongst supporters does not need a 3000 word exam essay from FM advocates. Likewise the Archaic and GT (Gin and Tonic) party or any party does not want its thread interupted with 2000 word rebuttals from the able Drogue or me.

Also we don't want the offical poll threads carrying on the lengthy debates that should take place in the kind of places we suggested above. Long posts put off new citizens. So can the parties agree some debating rules. Non party members of course are excepted.

So, what are you suggesting? You stay out of our thread if we stay out of yours?

EDIT: quote added

[GeneralTacticus]

I see. I hadn't known that about Australia, as my research never touched on it. In any case, I don't consider it a justifiable function of a party to exercise de facto control over a bloc of votes. Parties are associations of free individuals.

Who are obliged to follow the party rules. If they don't wish to follow them, they are not obliged to remain in the party.

If I'm the one wrong, it's up to you all to convince me. So, give it your best shot.

Convince you of what, exactly?

[AdamTG02]

If I'm wrong, it's your job to convince me of the right opinion -- just as, if you're wrong, it's my job to tell you why. That's communication, and consensual decision-making depends on it.

(Sorry to post after I said I wouldn't, but I was asked a direct question to clarify what I meant in an earlier post. This will by my last post in this thread in this specific debate, and I apologize for the awkwardness.)

[Archaic]

Adam, the ethos of the party *encourages* debate. Just because you're not a member of this party doesn't mean your suggestions aren't wanted, just so long as you follow the rules of logical debate, and concede any points that might be rebutted.

[AdamTG02]

Well, thanks for the encouragement, both of you.

I decided not to continue the debate because I didn't want to in effect picket your party, making known my opposition to anyone who cared to read this thread. However, you've said you'll welcome a reasoned debate. Since both of you are willing to continue the discussion, I'll be happy to do so publicly.

So, if you'd like me to justify or explain any of the personal opinions expressed above, I'll be happy to. GeneralTacticus and I have discussed some of them over PM already, and our discussion was productive.

One of his criticisms was of my position that, in a disagreement, each person should attempt to persuade the other of the genuinely correct opinion -- as that person sees it. I took this position because I'm a big believer in consensus, and I believe it comes through dialogue. GT"s criticism, which I found well put, was that this could degenerate into unproductive and heated debate where both sides reiterate the same points and will not back down. I recognize this as a valid criticism; my ideal is not such a debate, but one where both sides are open to the possibility of being proven wrong. However, I'll be the first to admit that I don't always live up to that ideal.
In any case, I wish your party luck. Though I disagree with your voting-block system, in the end, it's entirely voluntary for all involved. Those who disagree with the party platform are free to leave it. Personally, I prefer a more open system; however, I won't discount your freedom of association to the extent that I'd deny you the right to constitute your party as you wish. As I said privately to GeneralTacticus, we won't always agree, but that would be boring. So I look forward to some productive, possibly heated debate, and to a lively democratic process.

[Drogue]

I agree with Adam's points, and I'm not denying you're party's right to exist, I even think block voting is a good idea (we have it in the UK as well, just called a 3 line whip). The only thing I have a problem with is it calling itself 'Libertarian', because, as it may be libertarian in ideals, the way in which it operates (block voting) is not libertarian. And a party that operates against it's ideals, is, IMO, hypocritical. Although on a side note, I do support most of what you say in the 1st post.

[Voltaire]

Wow, I’m gone for a short while once again and parties are making a comeback???

[GeneralTacticus]

It may be abit soon to say that, Voltaire.

[Method]

i sure hope not...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
As such, our party strongly believes in a Democratic government, together with a Free Market without government interference.

Personally I do not see how this is possible. Without government interference and anti-trust laws, how will you prevent the formation of monopolies, and the consequential replacement of a free market system by a corporate-planned economic system?

[Archaic]

Under our current Planned economy, *every* industry is dominated by a monopoly. A state owned one.

Though perhaps I should have said "with a minimum of governmental interference". Something akin to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Comission) from old earth should perhaps exist, at least over the initial states of the market. As the decades pass, such things should become unnecessary, as the market slowly diversifies enough and competition reaches levels high enough for the "Invisable Hand" of the marketplace to truly come into play, and prevent such market failures.

Afterall, one must remember that with such small profit margins as businesses would be running with here on Planet with our limited resources in both the private and public sectors, it would be next to impossible to charge over the equilibrium price. People would rather go to a "blackmarket" dealer (Who wouldn't exactly be "blackmarket" in a truly Free Market) than a corperation who refused to play by the unwritten rules governing the society.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
Under our current Planned economy, *every* industry is dominated by a monopoly. A state owned one.

So? If I had to choose between a monopoly owned by the state (as in our current PK economy), which are supposed to take care of society, or one owned by a corporation (as IMO pure free market would eventually result in), whose goal it is to make profit, I would know what to pick...

Though perhaps I should have said "with a minimum of governmental interference".

Good. I can feel it. By the end of this game you'll call this the Social-democratic party.

Something akin to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Comission) from old earth should perhaps exist, at least over the initial states of the market. As the decades pass, such things should become unnecessary, as the market slowly diversifies enough and competition reaches levels high enough for the "Invisable Hand" of the marketplace to truly come into play, and prevent such market failures.

Unfortunately I do not see how over time such organizations would become unneccesary, nor do I share your strong belief in the "Invisible Hand". Free Market is the "law of the jungle" to ensure the strong survive and the weak die, no? Those weak are absorbed by the strong. As a result the strong corporations get bigger and bigger. As the economy is globalized, so do these corporations grow and compete companies in other countries out of the market. This resulted in several multinationals by the turn of the millennium. Should this process not have been stopped by democratic globalist protests and government interventions in the 2020's on Old Earth, it would have resulted in a few corporations dominating the entire economy, even media and politics. This would have meant the end of free market, as no equal competition was possible. New innovating corporations would be immediately strangled by the big monopolizing multinationals, slowing down technological advance and the need to keep producing good quality products and providing good services, which are IMHO the biggest advantages of a free market system.

[Voltaire]

Why adopt a free market style economy which would result in the overproduction of unnecessary overpriced goods? If we take a look at the old earth as our only example of the effects of a free market society we see that corporations produce largely unnecessary goods at over-inflated prices in order to make a profit; it costs relatively little capital to construct a compute in relation to the market price at which they are sold. Now this is the problem of free market in regards to “wants” if you will, but this same scenario occurs with necessary products such as food. Are we to let corporations overcharge people for the basic necessities of life just so that they may make profit? And even if we do take the approach of a “limited” free market with a small amount of government regulation we still encounter the problem which plagued the earth in the last 20th century, our corporations will simply move to other nations (such as the Morganites) to escape the hand of justice and disregard any regulations which we put into place to ensure the welfare of the people. Free market economics also concentrate the wealth of our society into the hands of very few individuals, and the worth to society of an individual in a free market is determined by their wealth, when in fact the wealth of an individual should be determined by their worth to society.

Archaic, when you say “with minimal government interference” what does this exactly entail? Anit-trust laws? Labor laws? Regulations on the pricing of necessary goods? How far are you willing to go with this so called minimal interference?

[GeneralTacticus]

NOTICE FOR PARTY MEMBERS:

The Centralis Governor's Office is now open, featuring a full statistics display for bases in the Centralis region, along with the projected economic, environmental, and social effects of a Free Market.

[Archaic]

Thank you for that announcement GeneralTacticus. Hopefully other Governors will follow suit soon.

Maniac, Voltaire, I'll have replies for you both soon.

[GeneralTacticus]

One other issue I'd like to mention here; I'm beginning to be very disturbed at the radical sentiments recently expressed by the CCCP. Their statements seem to indicate that they are plotting a violent revolution in response to their failure to take control by democratic means.

[Nubclear]

Hmm.....All the responses in this thread by the members of the DLP satisfy me.

Therefore, although this will infuriate the members of the CCCP and other left wing radical parties, I am officially joining the Democratic Libertarian Party. However, I am still observing this party.

When a child first encounters a swimming pool, a common response is resistence as their fears of drownding overwhelm them. However after a while, they finally stick the tip of their foot in and finally take a small step inside. This is what I am doing with this party. I have finally stepped inside the swimming pool, however I will continue to monitor things to determine whether I begin swimming deeper and deeper into the pool or whether I will quickly swim back to the comfort and secuirty of solid ground.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
So? If I had to choose between a monopoly owned by the state (as in our current PK economy), which are supposed to take care of society, or one owned by a corporation (as IMO pure free market would eventually result in), whose goal it is to make profit, I would know what to pick...

Would you really now? Somehow I doubt this if you understood the economic theory behind social cost. Free Market monopolies can actually achieve better social equilibriums than State Monopolies, even though monopolies are a "Market Failure" in a Free Market, failures that the government can step in to fix (See below) if the market cannot fix it itself.

Originally posted by Maniac
Good. I can feel it. By the end of this game you'll call this the Social-democratic party.

No. Social Democracies have far too much governmental interferance. Governmental interferance in the market should be limited towards preventing market failures, nothing more. Absolute minimum.

Originally posted by Maniac
Unfortunately I do not see how over time such organizations would become unneccesary, nor do I share your strong belief in the "Invisible Hand". Free Market is the "law of the jungle" to ensure the strong survive and the weak die, no? Those weak are absorbed by the strong. As a result the strong corporations get bigger and bigger. As the economy is globalized, so do these corporations grow and compete companies in other countries out of the market. This resulted in several multinationals by the turn of the millennium. Should this process not have been stopped by democratic globalist protests and government interventions in the 2020's on Old Earth, it would have resulted in a few corporations dominating the entire economy, even media and politics. This would have meant the end of free market, as no equal competition was possible. New innovating corporations would be immediately strangled by the big monopolizing multinationals, slowing down technological advance and the need to keep producing good quality products and providing good services, which are IMHO the biggest advantages of a free market system.

The "invisible hand" of the market place is basic economic theory. It's really a metaphor. Basically, participants in a Free Market economy are motivated by self interest, and that the "invisible hand" of the market place guides this self interest into promoting general economic wellbeing.

Free Markets serve the populace by making the self interests of the populace serve others. A basic example. People provide services for others (Serving the populace) in exchange for wealth (The accumulation of which is in th persons self interest.)

Allow me to quote from Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Voltaire, I'll do your reply soon. My fingers need a rest after having typed out those quotes. (Next time, I search this first to c/p the quotes. ^^;; http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNtoc.html )

[GeneralTacticus]

Therefore, although this will infuriate the members of the CCCP and other left wing radical parties, I am officially joining the Democratic Libertarian Party. However, I am still observing this party.

* GT's jaw hits the floor.

I'd say you're welcome to join the party, though Archaic will have to agree as well.

[Archaic]

*Is currently waving smelling salts under his nose.*

Welcome aboard Tass. Sorry for not seeing either yours or GT's responses sooner. I was too caught up with my replies.

Speaking of which, GT, I second your sentiments about the CCCP that you expressed earlier.


Now.....Voltaire....

Originally posted by Voltaire
Why adopt a free market style economy which would result in the overproduction of unnecessary overpriced goods? If we take a look at the old earth as our only example of the effects of a free market society we see that corporations produce largely unnecessary goods at over-inflated prices in order to make a profit; it costs relatively little capital to construct a compute in relation to the market price at which they are sold. Now this is the problem of free market in regards to "wants" if you will, but this same scenario occurs with necessary products such as food. Are we to let corporations overcharge people for the basic necessities of life just so that they may make profit? And even if we do take the approach of a "limited" free market with a small amount of government regulation we still encounter the problem which plagued the earth in the last 20th century, our corporations will simply move to other nations (such as the Morganites) to escape the hand of justice and disregard any regulations which we put into place to ensure the welfare of the people. Free market economics also concentrate the wealth of our society into the hands of very few individuals, and the worth to society of an individual in a free market is determined by their wealth, when in fact the wealth of an individual should be determined by their worth to society.

You are presenting a strawman warping of the Free Market. Do you understand the mechanics of supply and demand? Obviously not.
Corperations cannot charge more than the market is willing to pay, and it is in their own self interests to play fair. Collusion is anti-competitive, and as such illegal, so price fixing is out the window. If high prices exist, it's usually for a good reason. (For your example of computers, you seem to be *VERY* unaware of the costs associated with Research and Development, which is where most of the costs associated with computers come from, not production.) And yes, "because people are willing to pay that much" is a good reason. It's not inflating the price. It's setting the price to the level the society as a whole values it as. The equilibrium price.

As for your statement that they'll "escape the hand of justice and disregard any regulations which we put into place to ensure the welfare of the people", how can they really? The wellfare of *OUR* people actually increases if they go offshore and export to us products they've been able to make cheaper elsewhere. The products they sell here will still need to follow the same regulations any others would, so what's the problem? This is basic globalisation theory Voltaire.

"Free market economics also concentrate the wealth of our society into the hands of very few individuals, and the worth to society of an individual in a free market is determined by their wealth, when in fact the wealth of an individual should be determined by their worth to society."

Strawman. The wealth of an individual is determined by their worth to society. People who society values more get paid more. People who are paid more

Archaic, when you say "with minimal government interference" what does this exactly entail? Anit-trust laws? Labor laws? Regulations on the pricing of necessary goods? How far are you willing to go with this so called minimal interference?

Prevention and correction of failures in the market, when they happen. Any more is unnecessary. All your other problems (By Labour Laws I'm assuming you think there should be a mimimum wage, a system which only creates unnecessary unemployment.) are addressed by basic first semester University Level Economics. Need some textbook references?

[GeneralTacticus]

Something else which I must point out:
"The products they sell here will still need to follow the same regulations any others would, so what's the problem?"

The problem arises when they don't; as in the case of US corporations on Old Earth, which employed Third World workers in conditions which would not hav ebeen legal in the US, but were able to import the goods they made in this way without penalty. Just another example of when good things aren't necessarily good.

[Archaic]

As I recall, the US federal government corrected this oversight under laws which required all companies selling items in the US to practise the same minimum standards that they were required to follow in their US factories for any factories producing goods for export to the US.

However, there *have* been some rather convincing arguements in favour of such "sweatshops". Namely, the fact that giving these people jobs actually improves their financial position, and teaches them skills they did not have before. This has a run on effect, with the increased ability for consumer spending allowing them to purchase goods they wouldn't have been able to before, increasing their standard of living. The exports also do wonders for the fledgling nation state's GDP. It's a slow process that mirrors the Industrial Revolution of the western nations, and the progress from the conditions in that time to how things are now. And because other nations have already experienced it, we already know how to cope with the potential problems.

In short, while the conditions they'd be under would be worse than those in modern countries, they'd still be better than the conditions they were in before they got the jobs, and they can only improve further, even if it is a slow process.

[GeneralTacticus]

As I recall, the US federal government corrected this oversight under laws which required all companies selling items in the US to practise the same minimum standards that they were required to follow in their US factories for any factories producing goods for export to the US.

I didn't know this. Is it actually being enforced?

In short, while the conditions they'd be under would be worse than those in modern countries, they'd still be better than the conditions they were in before they got the jobs, and they can only improve further, even if it is a slow process.

While this may be true, one does have to wonder why it was considered necessary for the Indonesian military to station troops in certain foreign-owned factories...

Regardless, this argument is hypothetical, because there is no Third World on Planet, and there won't be unless we deliberately create one.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I didn't know this. Is it actually being enforced?

Yes, but not as well as it had been before September 11, 2001. They've had other things on their mind since then.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
While this may be true, one does have to wonder why it was considered necessary for the Indonesian military to station troops in certain foreign-owned factories...

Regardless, this argument is hypothetical, because there is no Third World on Planet, and there won't be unless we deliberately create one.

....Oo? I've never heard of that one, but that's seriously disturbing. What were they supposedly in there to prevent exactly?

Agreed, though it should be more like "Unless a faction turns itself into one". I wouldn't put it past the Believers, the Spartans or the Hive to turn themselves into the Planet version of many middle eastern and/or east asian nations. The restrictions on what one would be allowed to produce and export from those countries would prevent companies from setting up shop there to try and avoid our laws.

[GeneralTacticus]

....Oo? I've never heard of that one, but that's seriously disturbing. What were they supposedly in there to prevent exactly?

No idea. Presumably they were afraid the workers were going to protest. It should be noted that this was while Suharto was in power, so it was hardly out of the ordinary.

Agreed, though it should be more like "Unless a faction turns itself into one". I wouldn't put it past the Believers, the Spartans or the Hive to turn themselves into the Planet version of many middle eastern and/or east asian nations. The restrictions on what one would be allowed to produce and export from those countries would prevent companies from setting up shop there to try and avoid our laws.

I agree with you there.

[Drogue]

I have to agree with Archaic on the economic issues, with the slight exception of 2 points.

Would you really now? Somehow I doubt this if you understood the economic theory behind social cost. Free Market monopolies can actually achieve better social equilibriums than State Monopolies

This is purely academic, because with your system of anti-trust laws there really should be no monopolies. However, there is still very much a debate about whether a FM monopoly (such as Microsoft) or a state owned monopoly provide a better social equilibrium. In fact, nationalised industry that has privatised, such as the old British Rail to Railtrack, often results in a much worse social equilibrium (both in terms of profit|loss and quality of service/price).

Though constantly quoted, and being the 'Godfather of economics', Adam Smiths ideas have been refuted by many eminant modern economists, since at the time he wrote it, we had many very small industries. In the current climate of large multinationals, his theories are much less relavent.

Overall, however, Archaic is right on most issues. I oppose him because I believe there should also be laws concerning employment regulations and environmental/anti-pollution regulations, but in a basically FM setting.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
This is purely academic, because with your system of anti-trust laws there really should be no monopolies.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Drogue
However, there is still very much a debate about whether a FM monopoly (such as Microsoft) or a state owned monopoly provide a better social equilibrium.

Also agreed, however statistics and pure theory seem to favour the private monopoly at this point in time.

Originally posted by Drogue
In fact, nationalised industry that has privatised, such as the old British Rail to Railtrack, often results in a much worse social equilibrium (both in terms of profit|loss and quality of service/price).

One must consider other factors here. This situation would've caused much disturbance within the organisation. The pressures of being a private company would have been in conflict with the organisational culture of the formerly public company to begin with. You can't have a fair comparison under these circumstances.

Originally posted by Drogue
Though constantly quoted, and being the 'Godfather of economics', Adam Smiths ideas have been refuted by many eminant modern economists, since at the time he wrote it, we had many very small industries. In the current climate of large multinationals, his theories are much less relavent.

Agreed, but they do give us a stable base from which to build on. Many of his theories are still relevant, only they needed to be expanded upon to fit in with the conditions of the modern world.

Originally posted by Drogue
Overall, however, Archaic is right on most issues. I oppose him because I believe there should also be laws concerning employment regulations and environmental/anti-pollution regulations, but in a basically FM setting.

And you know exactly what I think of those.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Archaic
*Is currently waving smelling salts under his nose.*

Welcome aboard Tass. Sorry for not seeing either yours or GT's responses sooner. I was too caught up with my replies.

Speaking of which, GT, I second your sentiments about the CCCP that you expressed earlier.


Now.....Voltaire....



You are presenting a strawman warping of the Free Market. Do you understand the mechanics of supply and demand? Obviously not.
Corperations cannot charge more than the market is willing to pay, and it is in their own self interests to play fair. Collusion is anti-competitive, and as such illegal, so price fixing is out the window. If high prices exist, it's usually for a good reason. (For your example of computers, you seem to be *VERY* unaware of the costs associated with Research and Development, which is where most of the costs associated with computers come from, not production.) And yes, "because people are willing to pay that much" is a good reason. It's not inflating the price. It's setting the price to the level the society as a whole values it as. The equilibrium price.

Within the context of a capitalist society it is correct that the laws of supply and demand in regards to prices apply, I will not argue with you there, what people are willing to pay for goods or service is a logical method of determining the prices of products; within a capitalist system that is. Simply because the consumers are willing to pay inexorably high prices to watch a basketball game in relation to what they are willing to pay to watch a university lecture does not in effect mean that the basketball game is worth more than the university lecture. To prove my point that capitalism over-inflates prices, IMO of course, we need to just take a look at the cost of living of a 1st world nation of the Earth in comparison to that of a 3rd world nation. Technically a person living in the former United States of America earning approximately $20,000 US dollars a year should in effect have a higher standard of living then a person living in India earning $1,000 US dollars a year; this is not the case given that the cost of living in India is considerably lower than the cost of living in the United States, if that same person from the United States were to be living in India with the equal annual income their standard of living and quality of live would be considerably greater. Why is there this discrepancy then when logical one should think that the purchasing power of the US dollar should be the same around the world? The income of the person residing in the US may be considerably higher, but the purchasing power of that income is not.

Collusion may indeed be anti-capitalistic in the sense that it does not promote competition, but what is stopping supplier from not having an unspoken agreement that they will not get into a price war? If someone walks into a store and wishes to buy a television and is examining two sets from different manufacturers you’ll often find that the prices are relatively the same; why doesn’t one company significantly reduce their prices in order to overtake their competitors? Surely they will make up with the losses experienced by the reduction of prices in the volume of products sold,

As for your statement that they'll "escape the hand of justice and disregard any regulations which we put into place to ensure the welfare of the people", how can they really? The wellfare of *OUR* people actually increases if they go offshore and export to us products they've been able to make cheaper elsewhere. The products they sell here will still need to follow the same regulations any others would, so what's the problem? This is basic globalisation theory Voltaire.

Well if we are willing to exploit other people then I don’t see a problem with this at all; but I should hope that our society has slightly more common decency no to allow corporations to exploit others so that we may have a few more luxuries.

Furthermore you’re not addressing the point; if our society implements legislation on working conditions, minimum wage, anti-child labor laws, etc. and a corporation simply decided to move offshore unemployment increases on our end, plus the regulation we have in place prohibiting the exploitation of workers go unheeded by the corporation.

"Free market economics also concentrate the wealth of our society into the hands of very few individuals, and the worth to society of an individual in a free market is determined by their wealth, when in fact the wealth of an individual should be determined by their worth to society."

Strawman. The wealth of an individual is determined by their worth to society. People who society values more get paid more. People who are paid more

Ok fine, if people are willing to pay more to go see a movie star then they are willing to pay for a university education does that in turn also mean that the movie star contributes more to society than the university professors? And even if we are to accept the axiom that the consumers have a right to determine the salary of an individual, therefore technically making the actor worth more than the professor this system collapses when we examine the upper echelons of a corporation. The consumers do not determine the salary of a CEO, the board of directors does, and the CEO appoints the board of directors. So are you claiming that simply because a salary of a CEO of a given corporation is high that they in turn also contribute more to society than a scientist, philosopher, artist, etc. does?

Prevention and correction of failures in the market, when they happen. Any more is unnecessary. All your other problems (By Labour Laws I'm assuming you think there should be a mimimum wage, a system which only creates unnecessary unemployment.) are addressed by basic first semester University Level Economics. Need some textbook references?

If you would please elaborate.

Also when I refereed to labor laws would you require that corporations meet a set standard in the workplace in order to ensure the safety of their employees, not to overwork their employees, not to use child labor, etc.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
And you know exactly what I think of those.

Yes, but I've yet to see why? What problem do you have with Kyoto style agreements? Please don't tell me (like the Americans in charge of their pollutants) that you don't believe CO2, amoung others, is a pollutant?

[Method]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I am officially joining the Democratic Libertarian Party.

now that's something i thought i'd never see. TASS joining a party