Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

the myth of free market

Yes, patents are a problem. However, once again, you are attacking the wrong side. It's not the fault of the free market or capitalism. It's a fault of the government.

Don't blame the free market for the current problems for we don't have a free market economy.

I think you didn't got the article sense.

It show examples of companies making money BECAUSE OF the state (calling it government hides its nature, it's state's rules, not govs decisions, that are not always the same thing!)

It show how the free market is a myth. It doesn't really exist.
If you are a fan of free market you should only agree..
If I'm an enemy of free market (well I'm not, but let me do it as example) I should blame the companies that dries public for doing private profict.

Any side you (ideologically) take you should understand what is state now. Better, you should understand who's interest states defend.

If you're saying we don't have a free market economy, I agree. Because the government has too much power. Remove the power from the government, and lobbying by big companies becomes useless. We don't have a free market economy, we have a corporatist economy.

If you're saying we don't have a free market economy, I agree
It's not me..
the guardian's article said it.

I disagree the solution you take.
Deregulation feeds always the richer and the bigger (as the lst 20 years of financial markets show!!!)

We don't have a free market economy, we have a corporatist economy.

Exactly why we could'nt ever have a free market ;-)

Corporations (biggest companies and every government) power had replaced kings power and/or tyrannies power by using democracies and capitalims as tools of their power.

The domination of a "specie" is at the center of nature...

Thus, you 'll never get a free market because each corporation would keep his power using most useful tools : army, money, loans, propaganda, police, "free" services...

Corporations (biggest companies and every government) power had replaced kings power and/or tyrannies power by using democracies and capitalims as tools of their power.

Well, I'm not in favor of the classical interpretation of democracy ('people vote and the majority decides'), because that's a soft form of communism.

Thus, you 'll never get a free market because each corporation would keep his power using most useful tools : army, money, loans, propaganda, police, "free" services...

Each corporation - in a true free market economy and a true free society - can do whatever it wants, as long as the corporation doesn't initiate violence.

Well, I'm not in favor of the classical interpretation of democracy ('people vote and the majority decides'), because that's a soft form of communism.

two things:
-that is a very poor definition of democracy
-using the words "a soft form of communism" you didn't said anything about what you don't like and what are in common with those things..

Each corporation - in a true free market economy and a true free society - can do whatever it wants, as long as the corporation doesn't initiate violence.

that's utopia. I agree with Stef.

can do whatever it wants, as long as the corporation doesn't initiate violence.

If you do whatever you want, you can initiate violence, money, propaganda, terror, everything you want until you have the power to use it...

In an utopian free market, every individual can use every tool available to let die by terror, by starvation, by militia to get or keep the power... If you avoid those possibilties, it is not free market, it is a controlled market.

-that is a very poor definition of democracy

Well, see the '...' I use. Of course it's a simplification. It's to highlight the difference with the other interpretation of democracy.

-using the words "a soft form of communism" you didn't said anything about what you don't like and what are in common with those things..

I think I've made it pretty clear what I don't like about communism.

In an utopian free market, every individual can use every tool available to let die by terror, by starvation, by militia to get or keep the power... If you avoid those possibilties, it is not free market, it is a controlled market.

No. That would not be a free market, it would be anarchy. A free market economy is not the same as anarchy.

Because if the government did once in your life something that was beneficial to you, you should support and serve the government, regardless of the things it did that harmed you or others.

Because libertarians are against the existence of essential infrastructure, like roads or railways.

Because libertarians think that everyone who works hard, will certainly become filthy rich. And ergo, because all libertarians are rich.

Or wait a second ... No, that is not the case. So your cartoon does not make any sense to people who know what libertarianism actually is. So you don't know what libertarianism is. Except if you are purposely showing a false picture of libertarianism to suit your political opinion, which is quite frankly even worse. Your call.


(editado)

My call ? Wondering how you would react to these kind of cartoons. Cartoons tend to exaggerate a prejudice(And as we all know prejudice doens't necessarily have to be true) about a topic to make things funny, and sometimes just to mock the followers(like cartoons were Mohammed is drawn with a bomb on his head not realistic either but still funny)

You could have just laughed about it instead you go "instant defend libertarian cause" . No reason to get yourself worked up like that ;). And my politcal choice ? Well Libertarian is very close(I got them as my second favorite with the dutch "stemwijzer TK 2012". Altough I don't think it's a very realistic view which could ever be really important in politics due to the unlikeness that we ever could have a society like that.

And besides that clearly the majority of the people think it's fine this way. I agree with your statement that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority but that's less worse then the minorty dictating the majority.

You could have just laughed about it instead you go "instant defend libertarian cause" .

I cannot stand that people get misinformed on the pursue of liberty and a free society. I just can't ;-)

And besides that clearly the majority of the people think it's fine this way. I agree with your statement that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority but that's less worse then the minorty dictating the majority.

If one is a democrat, one acknowledges that the left is right when claiming that government actions should depend on what is best for the majority, regardless of what damages it does to the minority. Like I said, democracy in that sense is a form of communism. The other people have no right to vote on how much money they'll take away from me against my will.