The Big Three auto makers, Ford, GM, Chrysler : Should they be bailed out.
 

I am still undecided on this. I don't know all the facts. I think there should be more tax incentives for consumers to buy cars and that there should be government oversight on there accounting practices...What do you think?

No. No. No. We live within a free market economy. If we simply bail them out we are only going to set ourselves up for more mistakes. The idea behind the free market is that competition will force the best products to come about. If we bail these companies out, they are going to just continue down the same road of bad production. They need to realize that they have to offer a better product or they're going to fail.

I could use a bailout...but seriously folks!

No, they need to go bankrupt. The company has about 19,000 problems and keeping it afloat is just letting it hobble on for a few more decades until we need to do it again.

We should not be encouraging people to buy cars just to keep some businesses afloat. Those businesses were in charge of their future and they chose to partake in a market that is now failing, its their own fault. I dont support a free market economy (too much power falls into the hands of too few companies) but we should not be bailing out industries that are not crucial to society.

and we need less cars on the road.

The oil companies should bail them out. They really should've stopped making gas guzzling cars when people clearly weren't buying them.

anyone notice that honda and toyota are still turning profits?

the big 3 have had years if not decades to pull their heads out of their collective asses and restructure themselves in order to maintain a level of viable competition on a global market. they CHOSE not to. no amount of bob seger tunes is going to convince people to buy an expensive gas guzzling box of detroit steel anymore.

this is very much at catch-22 situation though. the people who are going to suffer most from the downfall of the big3 would be the unionized workers who ended up costing the big3 their profitability. i don't believe anyone who only has a high school education should make the better part of $20-$30 an hour for turning a wrench. hell the average labour cost per hour at GM is $69/hour. WTF? why do we get told to go to college when we could have just taken a factory job instead and hauled in mad cash.

take a look at these numbers...

Macleans.ca - The car industry crash, by the numbers

it's not like the big3 are the only ones taking a hit but yet toyota still manages to turn a profit on every car they sell....

this is going to be a VERY ugly situation when those companies fail and a prime example of corporate hubris that many smaller enterprises can and should learn from. whether or not that actually happens is yet to be seen.

why should the oil companies bail them out? i really don't see why the mismanagement of the big3 should fall on another industry's shoulders.

lol I wasn't being serious that was my way of saying they keep making giant trucks that no one wants to buy anymore and if they expect sympathy from it the only place that will give them sympathy is the people making the diesel.

it's all good. i happen to have a conspiracy theory friend who wouldn't have been joking about it though, i was just curious about the potential logic hehe

Where have you been? We don't live in a free market economy.

What is it then?

Somewhere in between, I guess you could call it free market by convenience. You can't be a free market economy and that always backing businesses (banks) up and talking about backing businesses (automakers) up.

Yeah, I guess you're right. We were founded on free market principals though, and I support it. So that's what I primarily base most of my economic solutions off of.

I have to admit, it saddens me Congress bailed out the financial industry so stupidly and they're just now deciding to be hardasses about our money.

We definately shouldn't bail these guys out. The government has no right to tax, period. So any more stealing to help out the fellow man is still wrong.

Communist!!!

;)

The Sixteenth Amendment disagrees.

Well, he's got a point about taxes...Everyone born here is forced into a social contract and the majority has no viable way out.

No he's wrong. The government legally does have the right to tax.

I was referring to actual "rights" not what our government deems legal. Coercion violates another's right to his own life. Rights can not be a right if they necessitate the violation of another's right to his life. Therefore taxes, which are coercive, cannot be a right.

Without taxes Without what keeps the government and everything it funds going?

So are you saying that even if something is immoral, it is still desirable?

Good job answering the question. I don't care about your philosophy lets talk about how well your government actually works. Again without taxes what keeps the government and everything it funds going?

XD

We can't talk about what is practical until we talk about what is moral. What is moral is always practical. How can something be defined as practical if the outcome is of no interest to the one who is defining it? By definition one must want a good outcome is something is practical. Am I right?

Philosophy is the center of all things. You cannot avoid it. Look at the way we humans work. Our world view is what we make decisions based off of.

So being taxed is immoral? You do realize that while sometimes the taxes are used improperly those taxes pay the salaries of people Police and Firemen. They help pay for you to have safe roads to drive on. They help pay to keep criminals off of the streets and away from your family. If you want to say that we need watch how the taxes are spent, I'll talk. But if you're going to try and say that taxing in general is immoral and wrong then you can go to North Korea or some other wonderful communist country.

I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument here because I don't care to and won't agree with you anyway because I think Objectivism is bullshit. Why don't you want to talk about how well your government would actually function? You really don't need to get into what is moral to see if something is fiscally retarded or not.

I don't think you have a brain. If I am against taxes then how can I be for communism? I am for real capitalism. 100% lassiez faire capitalism is what I want. You are more of a socialist than I am.

I can talk about it, but you will not agree because you don't believe what is moral is practical. I believe the government would get money from donations because that is what is rational and moral. The government would not force others to pay for their services. The government gives its services and those who are rational will pay for their services. Since the rational are the ones who become rich in a laissez faire economy, they will be able to give tons of money to the government. Therefore the government will be able to receive funding. Of course, all the government would have is a police force, armed forces, and courts with a strict constitution protecting contractual agreements and everyone's basic rights so it isn't like you would need much.

Yes but who will pay for the roads? The schools? And what guarantee is there that the right people who will donate will become rich? Just their "rationality?" Are you even aware how much it costs to adequately maintain an Armed Force? And then a police force for the entire country? Who will ensure that companies operate in a fair and even handed manner? That they don't cut corners, endanger peoples lives and that they dispose of their waste in an ethical manner? I have more questions on an international level but lets stick with these for now.

Roads: Whoever wants to pay for them. Roads built immorally are still built immorally so even if our road system would not be as connected as it is, eventually someone will come up with an easier/cheaper way to make them because it is capitalism.

Schools: Schools are a business. There is a demand for schools so schools will obviously be in existence. Public schooling? Nope, but if one can't afford to pay for school he can always try to appeal to private charities and etc. The right to an education does not mean that one is guaranteed to an education.

And what guarantee is there that the right people who will donate will become rich?: Well I can guarantee that rational people will donate. Otherwise, you have anarchy and the society may result and an immoral government.

Just their "rationality?" And what incentive is there to donate?:
I listed the incentive above, but the rich man has the incentive to donate because if he doesn't all hell will break lose and it will be targeted towards him. The rich man is the one who is blamed for almost everything these days. Plus, you have looters who would just steal form him anyways. So if the man can have some security by donating some money to the government, why not give a bit?

Are you even aware how much it costs to adequately maintain an Armed Force?:
Well it depends on how big the armed forces are. If the demand for an armed force is high, people will donate. If it is low, people won't. The army will also benefit from the capitalist economy. Lots of things get done under capitalism. So eventually the army will be better and easier to maintain. Also, to take into consideration, we are getting further and further from using armies. We are finding new ways to kill each other without having to see the person die. Eventually armies will probably phase out. I am not using this point to support my argument, however.

And then a police force for the entire country?
Again, supply and demand. Plus, our current police men are paid to go after people for dumb **** like drugs. Things would not work that way under this system.

I cannot answer this question without getting into philosophy. If you really want me to answer, then ask the question again. Of course you would have obvious violations such as breaks in contractual agreements, which would be solved by the government. Though I would need you to define "fair and even handed."

Ethics is one of the four main branches of philosophy.

I don't see where someone paying to have a road built turns a profit for them. Why should I pay for a road that everyone is going to use? Do you think roads are made in some kind of an expensive and frivolous way and that can just be transformed into an easily maintained and cheap road so easily? Wouldn't that require you know, researching, testing, development, various trials, etc and doesn't that all cost money? Everyone who contributes to your society in these manners would have to be incredibly rich and to think, a road still wouldn't turn a profit! Why should anyone bother then?

So your society is donations away from anarchy and chaos, nice. Who's to say how much needs to be donated? And what if the security people want more than the rich can give them because they're too busy trying to make roads for no profit?

How will the army benefit from the capitalist economy? Their pay is dependent on "rationality" and "morality." What if we get invaded? We won't have many allies because I doubt your system of government has any room for being involved in international organizations or having ambassadors or silly things like that. So our nation's defense will depend on how much money we can muster and hopefully some other nation's pity.

What aren't the citizens paying for here? It seems to me like all the with any money to spare are going to be donating to everything from roads to police to an army and if they don't they'll be fucked because than people will just straight after them. Strikes me as kind of funny you're going on about taxes being immoral and yet your form of government demands you either donate or better make sure you're not successful.

It's not hard to define fair and even handed. Like you know, not dumping nuclear waste into rivers or oceans, preparing foods in sterile environments. The things our government regulates and demands in industry now.

So you want to live in a world where our children aren't guaranteed schooling? Dude! WTF?

Are the children supposed to go out and get jobs to finance their education? Why should only the rich kids get to go to school? What did those kids do to earn that right? Nothing. Your system is a terrible system that rewards few and punishes many.

Privatizing schools is really only the thing in there that's financially viable and could work. We have private schools now, except in his idea of a society you'd just have to hope your parents cared about you having an education and could afford it. Oh and if you'd have to hope someone built one near you of course.

The way that I see it is that the government's job is to help its citizens. Citizens in turn help their government. The government helps its citizens by providing programs that are beneficial to all of us. We in turn help the government by paying taxes and voting. If there is a program we (the citizens) disagree with we can vote against it, rally, and peacefully assemble to fight against it. The end result? Taxes mutually benefit everyone. Thats just how it works.

A road can be made by a community working together. The point is, even if there is no profit, a road will be made if there is a demand for it. Researching would have profits involved, however. Privatized roads could charge tolls if they wanted to. However, people may choose not to use it.

Demand decides how much is needed. Demand decides whether roads are paid for or armed forces.


The capitalist economy will probably allow the countries companies to be involved with other countries. Certain companies will be powerful and have control over another countries companies. So if one of the countries attacks our country, another country may aid us just because they benefit economically from us.


It doesn't demand that. Nature demands that. If other countries are using aggressive force then our system of government is not immoral. Theirs is. Under this system you can donate, or you can not donate. If you don't donate and you reap the natural consequences of it, then that is your fault. However, if the consequence comes from someone else being immoral, other than the government, the government isn't immoral. The person who is being immoral.


Dumping on another's property is a violation of property rights. Preparing foods in non-sterile environments is not wrong if someone agrees to eat food knowing that it isn't. If the restaurant claims to be sterile and it isn't then that is a violation of a contractual agreement.

However, the bold I cannot comment on. I do not agree on how our government regulates now. For example, I am against anti-trust laws. Unless you want a moral argument, don't ask me why.

The system does not say only the rich will go to school. There are also other ways of getting education besides school. Remember, the rational will survive. So the irrational who go to school will not even competition for the rational student who learns based off of his own life experiences and apprenticeship.

I have no duty to help out my fellow man. I am not bound by chain to another man. I am an individual and I take no responsibility for another's life.

Even though I said I didn't want to do this I will because your entire argument for government has to deal with morality. How are morals objective?

I can agree to this. However, in this case we have agreed that laws and contracts necessarily exist. Therefor enforcement of them has to exist. The only way you can force this to exist is to force the popo to exist. How do you purpose that the police exist by force if not funding from somewhere?

How is reality objective? If reality is objective then how do we go about proving things in reality? Logic. Most philosophy stops here and says logic doesn't apply in the philosophical realm because it just doesn't. Objectivism says that philosophy is just like reality in that logic still applies. So if we can believe reality is objective, morality must be objective too. This is because morality is a part of reality. One bases his morality on reality. That is what Objectivism claims to be. It claims to be a philosophy for living in this reality.

Can morality change from person to person? I think so. Since I am capable of having different morals than you, morality is by definition not objective. It is subjective, and to some degree intersubjective within cultures, but is by no means objective. Abstract ideaologies can not be objective.

It is not the right morality if it is not rational. If I were to say God is real, you would say no because I have no proof. This idea of proof is based on the idea that logic our way of observing reality. Morality is not exempt from logic. People can make up their own morality. However, if it is not rational, it will not be the right morality.

Objectivism's morality is not strict. It's morality is based on what is rational. Look at donating to the government. If I am in danger of starving, it would be morally wrong to give my last dollars to someone else, unless I can't live without them. If I was a rich man I can morally give money to someone else if they deserve it. In one case it is wrong to give, in the other it is morally right. This is because both moralities are based on what is rational.

They also both assume that it is rational to choose your life over another's. Can you prove you are more important than anyone else? Likewise, in the latter situation can you prove it is rational for that person to live? I don't think rationality and morality are related at all.

The pursuit of happiness is the ultimate goal of my life. I can't pursue it if I am dead.

If they are deserving of charity. If the one donating believes in that person.

Well you are going to have to prove that morality has nothing to do with this reality then. Morality, in the sense of Objectivism, is the way to achieve happiness. In Objectivism one pursues rational goals with his rational morality. These rational goals are grounded in reality (because they are "rational" of course) so the way to the achieve them must also be rational and must also be grounded in reality.