A damn good point made by Maddox

[Clashman]

It all depends on what you mean. If you are referring to actual coercion then the nightwatchman state has a responsibilty to end that. If you mean "cracking down" by hiring replacements then that's a perfectably acceptable behavior in a free market.

But if the law says that unions are illegal, than killing the union leaders, arresting them, etc becomes legal.

Laws against al-Qaida are justified in a minimal state by the fact that it is an organization formed for the purpose of committing criminal acts. Laws against kiddie porn are justified by the fact that kids are not empowered to give consent to pornographers. Neither effect the freedom of consenting adults to be free from state intervention so long as they engage in peaceful behavior.

But criminalization is a social process, which changes from culture to culture and era to era.

The "drug war" is a crime against humanity, now or in the past. They do nothing except make life harder for the addict and more profitable for the pusher.

In fact, when China did outlaw opium, drug use did in fact lower dramatically, and production was significantly dropped. So much so that the British went to war with them to reinstitute it. Comlete legalization of drugs does have the ability to make things worse. Would you support repealling taxes and age limits on Tobacco use? We could then have Camel cigarrettes marketing to nine year olds again, without all that nasty government interference.

How does the market "force" children to work? It's the parents who are putting these children to work, not some sociological abstraction.

Because the market payes so little that it forces all members of a family to work to avoid starvation, (assuming it even does that).

And "liveable" wages laws do nothing except push the price of labor above the market clearing price, thus creating a glut of labor since all prices above the market one create more supply but generate less demand.

That's only because business leaders effectively control what an "acceptable" wage is, and not the workers themselves.

When the state fails to prevent force it is "intervening" in a different manner but "intervening" none the less. The neutral minimal state stops all instigatory acts of violence.

And how does a state remain neutral when those with financial power are those who finance elections? I don't think I've ever seen an example of the state as a "neutral" arbiter. In fact, I thought most people had disgarded that relic of Locke some time ago.

Why should they be "democratic?" Would a "democratic" firm be competitive with a firm with strong leadership? I think not, but I won't argue this anymore since I lack evidence. I will say this however: If "democracy" were a better way to organize a firm "democratic" firms would have driven their competitors out of business long ago it seems.

They should be democratic for the same reasons that politics should be democratic, namely that they have a huge influence on the lives of the people within their respective "borders". Moreover, a democratic firm could well be competitive with a non-democratic one. I don't see political democracies hurting out against dictators. And yet before there were democracies you heard those very same arguments from Kings, Queens, and other Aristocrats. "If democracy worked it would have driven us out of business long ago". Eventually it did happen, but took awhile. And the reason it took awhile, is that the reigning system at the time fought it tooth and nail at every turn.

Hong Kong was a destroyed backwater after WWII, so was Singapore, so your point is moot. To extend my argument - look at China versus India. China has been liberalizing their economy and society for the last 25 years (contra the neocon line on China) and has seen explosive growth.

Once again, the foreign investment going into China is VERY tightly controlled. China, (and Taiwan before them, and I'm pretty sure S. Korea, Japan, HK, and most of the SE Asian "tigers", all chose to enter the global market, and have done so at their own pace, not by having their borders forced open by the WTO or IMF).

What's true over a nation is true over a planet over a somewhat longer time scale. There's only so many places the factory could relocate to. Besides, why would these factory employees knowingly price themselves out of the market? It doesn't make sense in the least to demand a wage the market won't bear.

If the "market bearing price" is so little that you have to send your childred to work for you, then you would probably be very tempted to demand a price the "market won't bear".

Hit "Submit" on this page - http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/ and see that Taiwan is better managed than any of the "more open" societies you mention.

Exactly. It is hardly a free market when the government plays a central role in the development of the economy. I though we had already agreed upon this?

 

[Clashman]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm going to have to stop this for now. I haven't been getting anything done, and my girlfriend's going to get angry with me if I don't spend some more time with her before I head home for Christmas.