GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
17 May 2015, 8:01 am
KaylamiYarne wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Magneto wrote:
What is it with this bizzare assumption that we've ever had an actual free market...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
I'd say that there's an awful lot of willful ignorance of history in this thread...
Do you think the progressive movement of the early 20th century rose up in reaction to HOW GREAT everything was during the gilded age?
But the gilded age wasn't libertarianism in the true sense, that is, government is supposed to be there to intervene when fraud or abuse takes place; and fraud and abuse is exactly what was happening in the gilded age. That's why Mark Twain called it the Gilded Age--the appearance of being prosperous and good while underneath the surface a tremendous amount of corruption was manifest.
Okay... Most of the libertarians I'm aware of bemoan government regulation as strangling the economy/individual efforts.
However, all that government regulation is there to prevent fraud and abuse. So, in a true libertarian system, how would government intervene/protect us against fraud and abuse without government regulation?
This is where the rubber meets the road. Abstract ideals are great, be we need practical, doable solutions in the real world.
17 May 2015, 9:04 am
GoonSquad wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Magneto wrote:
What is it with this bizzare assumption that we've ever had an actual free market...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
I'd say that there's an awful lot of willful ignorance of history in this thread...
Do you think the progressive movement of the early 20th century rose up in reaction to HOW GREAT everything was during the gilded age?
But the gilded age wasn't libertarianism in the true sense, that is, government is supposed to be there to intervene when fraud or abuse takes place; and fraud and abuse is exactly what was happening in the gilded age. That's why Mark Twain called it the Gilded Age--the appearance of being prosperous and good while underneath the surface a tremendous amount of corruption was manifest.
Okay... Most of the libertarians I'm aware of bemoan government regulation as strangling the economy/individual efforts.
However, all that government regulation is there to prevent fraud and abuse. So, in a true libertarian system, how would government intervene/protect us against fraud and abuse without government regulation?
This is where the rubber meets the road. Abstract ideals are great, be we need practical, doable solutions in the real world.
Well, the libertarian view isn't about doing away completely with government regulation. That's an extreme conclusion. It's about limiting government regulation to things that actually matter like said fraud and abuse, instead of controlling personal choice such as gay marriage, abortion, or possession of weed.
I'll say it again: a complete absence of government regulation isn't libertarianism, it's anarchism.
"This is where the rubber meets the road. Abstract ideals are great, be we need practical, doable solutions in the real world." I agree; a lot of people seem to hold some sort of paradise in their head, some sort of magical solution that will fix everything, and that's just not how it happens. There will always be corruption in the world...there is no "perfect big picture"; it's way more complicated than that and we need to focus on the details one piece at a time if we're ever going to change anything.
Last edited by KaylamiYarne on 17 May 2015, 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
17 May 2015, 9:08 am
This is a little off topic, but I'm really enjoying this thread...why is it WP users don't resort to ad hominem attacks like Facebook users do? People here seem to hold an immense amount of respect for each other. It's refreshing 
17 May 2015, 9:20 am
KaylamiYarne wrote:
This is a little off topic, but I'm really enjoying this thread...why is it WP users don't resort to ad hominem attacks like Facebook users do? People here seem to hold an immense amount of respect for each other. It's refreshing
I'd say it's because at the end of the day we're all "outsiders" and thus have the experience of not being respected for our core human being at some point in our lives. That shared experience allows us to respect others and accept their expression even if we don't agree with their viewpoints. Not saying we're all perfect beings on this forum but I think you find more understanding, acceptance, and tolerance from people that actually live through adversity everyday than those that don't.
17 May 2015, 9:49 am
Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
This is a little off topic, but I'm really enjoying this thread...why is it WP users don't resort to ad hominem attacks like Facebook users do? People here seem to hold an immense amount of respect for each other. It's refreshing
I'd say it's because at the end of the day we're all "outsiders" and thus have the experience of not being respected for our core human being at some point in our lives. That shared experience allows us to respect others and accept their expression even if we don't agree with their viewpoints. Not saying we're all perfect beings on this forum but I think you find more understanding, acceptance, and tolerance from people that actually live through adversity everyday than those that don't.
I agree...
17 May 2015, 9:55 am
Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
This is a little off topic, but I'm really enjoying this thread...why is it WP users don't resort to ad hominem attacks like Facebook users do? People here seem to hold an immense amount of respect for each other. It's refreshing
I'd say it's because at the end of the day we're all "outsiders" and thus have the experience of not being respected for our core human being at some point in our lives. That shared experience allows us to respect others and accept their expression even if we don't agree with their viewpoints. Not saying we're all perfect beings on this forum but I think you find more understanding, acceptance, and tolerance from people that actually live through adversity everyday than those that don't.
Well said
17 May 2015, 10:03 am
KaylamiYarne wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
This is a little off topic, but I'm really enjoying this thread...why is it WP users don't resort to ad hominem attacks like Facebook users do? People here seem to hold an immense amount of respect for each other. It's refreshing
I'd say it's because at the end of the day we're all "outsiders" and thus have the experience of not being respected for our core human being at some point in our lives. That shared experience allows us to respect others and accept their expression even if we don't agree with their viewpoints. Not saying we're all perfect beings on this forum but I think you find more understanding, acceptance, and tolerance from people that actually live through adversity everyday than those that don't.
Well said
I also suspect we have similar ways of coming to our own conclusions on any subject and we can understand how we get there. That is respected, even if we disagree...
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 May 2015, 10:21 am
KaylamiYarne wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Magneto wrote:
What is it with this bizzare assumption that we've ever had an actual free market...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
I'd say that there's an awful lot of willful ignorance of history in this thread...
Do you think the progressive movement of the early 20th century rose up in reaction to HOW GREAT everything was during the gilded age?
But the gilded age wasn't libertarianism in the true sense, that is, government is supposed to be there to intervene when fraud or abuse takes place; and fraud and abuse is exactly what was happening in the gilded age. That's why Mark Twain called it the Gilded Age--the appearance of being prosperous and good while underneath the surface a tremendous amount of corruption was manifest.
Okay... Most of the libertarians I'm aware of bemoan government regulation as strangling the economy/individual efforts.
However, all that government regulation is there to prevent fraud and abuse. So, in a true libertarian system, how would government intervene/protect us against fraud and abuse without government regulation?
This is where the rubber meets the road. Abstract ideals are great, be we need practical, doable solutions in the real world.
Well, the libertarian view isn't about doing away completely with government regulation. That's an extreme conclusion. It's about limiting government regulation to things that actually matter like said fraud and abuse, instead of controlling personal choice such as gay marriage, abortion, or possession of weed.
I'll say it again: a complete absence of government regulation isn't libertarianism, it's anarchism.
"This is where the rubber meets the road. Abstract ideals are great, be we need practical, doable solutions in the real world." I agree; a lot of people seem to hold some sort of paradise in their head, some sort of magical solution that will fix everything, and that's just not how it happens. There will always be corruption in the world...there is no "perfect big picture"; it's way more complicated than that and we need to focus on the details one piece at a time if we're ever going to change anything.
Thing is, though, it's the right, which does interfere with the personal choices of gay marriage, abortion, pot, etc, who are the ones who embrace libertarianism, not the left. That's why libertarianism in mainstream politics will always be associated with anti-choice.
17 May 2015, 10:28 am
17 May 2015, 10:41 am
GoonSquad wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Magneto wrote:
What is it with this bizzare assumption that we've ever had an actual free market...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.
As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.
There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...
I'd say that there's an awful lot of willful ignorance of history in this thread...
Do you think the progressive movement of the early 20th century rose up in reaction to HOW GREAT everything was during the gilded age?
But the gilded age wasn't libertarianism in the true sense, that is, government is supposed to be there to intervene when fraud or abuse takes place; and fraud and abuse is exactly what was happening in the gilded age. That's why Mark Twain called it the Gilded Age--the appearance of being prosperous and good while underneath the surface a tremendous amount of corruption was manifest.
Okay... Most of the libertarians I'm aware of bemoan government regulation as strangling the economy/individual efforts.
However, all that government regulation is there to prevent fraud and abuse. So, in a true libertarian system, how would government intervene/protect us against fraud and abuse without government regulation?
This is where the rubber meets the road. Abstract ideals are great, be we need practical, doable solutions in the real world.
There is regulatory capture now, who do you think actually writes and lobbies for these laws more times than not? We heard so much about the insurance companies with Obamacare but the reality was that they personally wrote it and was and is a huge boon to them with bailouts waiting in the wing for them even if it wasn't. The effect of many regulations is that they create a barriers of entry and protect the market shares of these huge corporations. How does one prevent regulatory capture? Billion dollar companies are always going to have more of a voice than a single individual, who should be protected here? Regulations more times than not seems to entrench big business and stifle competition, it very very rarely helps the little guy.
We don't have a truly free market, we didn't have one a 100+ years ago either. Presumably in a free market you would have competition from all sides to keep you honest, if you provide a substandard product you'd lose market share and if you damaged the environment or hurt someone then you'd be held accountable by the individuals effected. Competition brings about innovation and cheaper prices, the consumer wins. No bailouts, no subsidies, no sweetheart deals, no too big to fail. Not saying all regulation is the same or advocating all regulations are eliminated tomorrow but they absolutely can be very harmful. The government shouldn't be trusted to act in our own best interests, that only can come from ourselves.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
17 May 2015, 11:37 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 May 2015, 11:45 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 May 2015, 11:52 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 May 2015, 11:55 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 May 2015, 11:58 am
17 May 2015, 12:03 pm
