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

Communities can - on voluntary basis - hire an insurance company to be prepared for all sorts of disasters
folly.
I hate to use that word. So I am a 'very prepared' city administrator. Let get insurance on-
wildfires, drought, disease outbreak (oh let me make sure the disease list is current), flood, earthquake, tsunami, famine, terrorist attack. Premiums would be astronomical.

Anyway, I will not perpetuate steam of thought. Rather let us agree to disagree. Here in the US, Libertarian thought has a 2-5% support. So in the 'Free market' of elections, who is winning?

Charity ? The more people have the more they want. Without goverment charity I doubt there would be charity at all.

So in the 'Free market' of elections, who is winning?

Elections aren't a free market. Not at all. There are very big barriers to enter for instance. And in a free market, if you don't agree with the price, you don't buy the product. In politics, I don't have that choice. I don't have an opt-out of society.

Without goverment charity I doubt there would be charity at all.

That's just ridiculous. Look at the States. Less social protection and social security (read: less government) than in socialist Europe, more charity.

And no free education beyond a basic point, no proper healthcare for big part of the nation and much more poor people then in socialist europe.....

Charity in the States is not due to less governement but due to more christian behaviour...

In politics, if you do not agree with the ideology you do not vote. Libertarians (as are all political ideologies) ARE competing for ballots. It is just that your ideology is not winning elections, and is only gaining single digits of the vote, at least in US elections.

I'm a little tired still reading about dead idologies of the past,
communism, libertarians, socialists.. and so on.

I can't avoid seeing their enormous flaw (history showed us some of them are impossible, while other are simply wrong), but more important I can't avoid seeing we seem unable to use new cathegory and new ideologies. Why? (maybe someone pay to keep people in the past with media, to ensure its social position.. but that is not a satisfying answer!)

I think there are a lot of reasons, but one of them is the strongest. With the end of the world ideological conflict between capitalism and communism, with the winning of capitalism, people ended all in believing almost the same thing: the market.

The market is not an ideology, is more like a religion, imho.
It's like that because it seem not to need any demonstration or explanation to be believed in.
The majority of people simply believe in market's mechanisms because they can't imagine something else and they end to believe it is the natural state of human behaviour. But if you look closer you'll find that's not true.

What are the consequences? I think the smarter o f us don't miss them...

Communities can - on voluntary basis - hire an insurance company to be prepared for all sorts of disasters
That is also something that I am skeptical about. I think that this will not work beyond the scale of a village or maybe a couple of villages (or a city district for that matter). How would you organize the management of a river basin for example?

I know many bottom-up initiatives in countries all over the world to do something about their living environment (something with energy production for example), in situations where the government policies are often not supportive at all, or even contraproductive, but I wouldn't know any initiative like that has scaled up beyond the scale of a small group of villages (scaling up is something else is replication).

Charity in the States is not due to less governement but due to more christian behaviour...

The point was that such behaviour would not disappear if the government was just a night-watchman state.

In politics, if you do not agree with the ideology you do not vote. Libertarians (as are all political ideologies) ARE competing for ballots. It is just that your ideology is not winning elections, and is only gaining single digits of the vote, at least in US elections.

You said that elections are a free market. I showed you why that most certainly is not the case.

Yes, my ideology is not winning elections. My ideology will probably never win elections in Europe (but then again, Europe is for me a lost continent). Because the masses are too retarded. However, I do feel some libertarian vibe. Certainly in the States, there seem to be a platform to inject some libertarianism in the minds of the people. I hope the Republicans can move in that direction (with Rand Paul being a good candidate to oppose Clinton in 2016).

The market is not an ideology, is more like a religion, imho.

Well, that's just because you don't understand how a free market economy works.

With the end of the world ideological conflict between capitalism and communism, with the winning of capitalism, people ended all in believing almost the same thing: the market.

For the 27,419th time, we don't live in a capitalist world. The world is corporatist. People believe in a big state, that takes care of us all. However, the only alternative to capitalism is eventually totalitarianism.

you don't understand

this I reported is tha actual debate upon economists, philosophers and social science authors..
but it's probably me don't understanding..

For the 27,419th time, we don't live in a capitalist world.

LOL, you're a bit confused:
1- I didn't said it.
2- capitalism is NOT liberism (deal with it, i'm tired repeating)


BTW: that post was not written fro people living in '800 ideologies. So ignore it, please.

this I reported is tha actual debate upon economists, philosophers and social science authors..

Which economists doubt the working of the free market?

1- I didn't said it.

You implied it.

2- capitalism is NOT liberism (deal with it, i'm tired repeating)

Liberism is a non-existing word.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction nominally determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."

So ignore it, please.

If you don't want your bullshit to be corrected, don't put it here.
(editado)

Which economists doubt the working of the free market?

everyone? none believes no more the "free" market let by its own, without any regulation and control works, my little "economist"..
(btw: welcome in 2013!!!)

You implied it.
Liberism is a non-existing word.
Liberism is a non-existing word.

let me be, get back in 1800's debates.

my little "economist"..

I just obtained my master's in economics, just so you know.

everyone? none believes no more the "free" market let by its own, without any regulation and control works

The Austrian School, anyone?