[m4nu3l]

> Individualism emphasises negative rights, but positive rights are important too: life, health, air, food, etc.

Positive rights and negative rights are in oppositions as you can't have positive rights without violating someone else's negative rights. We have a trade-off right now, but I personally only believe in negative rights for a variety of reasons.

> Why would some have no income if minimum wage was higher? The other possibility is that profits would be lower. Minimum wage has increased in the past in various countries, the effect is always pro-worker.

Economy 101. Increase the price of something and the quantity bought will be less. Companies will hire fewer people at that price.

> Or we could rationally plan economies to meet everyone’s needs.

History has proved over and over that's not possible (and there are theoretical well known reason why that is.

[lucian1900]

The number of workplaces isn’t constant. The simplest solution would be to reduce the working week. Another is to use collective funds to improve infrastructure and provide essential services.

Planned economies do work, both historically and today. They are immune to the business cycle (as the USSR didn’t experience the Great Depression) and can be more efficient even within capitalist economies (witness Amazon, Apple and Walmart). I recommend “The People’s Republic of Walmart” on this topic.

[m4nu3l]

They only work up to the point when they don't. Amazon only plans part of the economy of its workers. It doesn't have to plan for what they eat, where they live and how they spend their money in general.

In a capitalist system companies, trying to maximize profit, will try to expand until it is efficient to do so, but not more or smaller competitors will take over.

The USSR was basically constantly in a Great Depression. According to the US definition of poverty almost all its population was in extreme poverty.

The Great Depression was a Government failure, not a market failure. They didn't print enough money basically.