Anyone Remember Laissez Faire???

[JBeukema]

Forget it, James....You're a commie and there's no more hiding it.

troll elsewhere, if you're too retarded to discuss the matter like an adult

 

[Oddball]

Troll nothing....You're a stone communist.

It's about time you came out of the closet, like you did when you abandoned your sock because nobody was fooled anymore.

 

[JBeukema]

Forget it, James....You're a commie and there's no more hiding it.

troll elsewhere, if you're too retarded to discuss the matter like an adult

Hi, you have received -164 reputation points from Dude.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Fuck off, communist scum.

Regards,
Dude

Note: This is an automated message.

I see.

Come back when you've grown up and discuss things like an adult and not a pathetic child who's seen too much Glenn Beck and decides to call everyone who calls for scaling back the Fed a Communist.

 

[Oddball]

Like I said...Nobody, with any sense anyways, is fooled by you anymore.

Can we go back to putting the hammer and sickle thingies by your name now, just for clarity's sake?

 

[Sheldon]

Forget it, James....You're a commie and there's no more hiding it.

troll elsewhere, if you're too retarded to discuss the matter like an adult

Hi, you have received -164 reputation points from Dude.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Fuck off, communist scum.

Regards,
Dude

Note: This is an automated message.

I see.

Come back when you've grown up and discuss things like an adult and not a pathetic child who's seen too much Glenn Beck and decides to call everyone who calls for scaling back the Fed a Communist.

Just to be fair--and I'm probably being a little bit of an asshole--you did call libertarians retards in that other thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is possible that I could have said some of that when addressing a different context though I think you are erroneously attributing at least some remarks of others to me. But unless you can show where I said any of that within this context, I am not obligated to admit anything.

You've been linking people to it with your supermarket example. You went even further and spoke of them micromanaging the fishing companies, the canneries, and the trucking companies as well.

That falls within promoting the general welfare.

'General Welfare', huh?



O RLY?

So we shouldn't have any law [codified ethics]? No laws against rape, murder, or theft? Those are laws that codify our common ethics, which are in turn rooted in both self interest and personal morality.

. Securing the rights of the people is the responsibility of government

THat's not what you just said

Ethics is not the responsibility of government other than for government to enforce ethical standards for its own behavior

I have been 100% consistent on ALL threads that our government was intended to secure our rights. Ethics is a separate issue.

Rape, murder et are not issues of ethics where government is concerned but are issues of violation of our unalienable rights. If you don't see the difference between ethics, i.e. moral choices or the cultural norm for right behavior as opposed to rights implied and/or guaranteed by the Constitution, then there's no point in continuing the discussion because we will each be speaking of entirely different things.

 

[JBeukema]

troll elsewhere, if you're too retarded to discuss the matter like an adult

Hi, you have received -164 reputation points from Dude.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Fuck off, communist scum.

Regards,
Dude

Note: This is an automated message.

I see.

Come back when you've grown up and discuss things like an adult and not a pathetic child who's seen too much Glenn Beck and decides to call everyone who calls for scaling back the Fed a Communist.

Just to be fair--and I'm probably being a little bit of an asshole--you did call libertarians retards in that other thread.

it was a logical conclusion


Dude argued for Libertarianism by stating that there would be no roads

 

[JBeukema]

I have been 100% consistent on ALL threads that our government was intended to secure our rights. Ethics is a separate issue.

No, it's not. Protection of rights = ethics.

Agreeing not to kill eachother is ethics by definition.

When it is codified, usually along with the means of enforcing it/punishing offenders, it becomes Law.

Tasking the government with enforcing that Law is tasking the government with enforcing codified ethics.

Rape, murder et are not issues of ethics where government is concerned but are issues of violation of our unalienable rights.

Whether to protect any 'rights' is matter of ethics

If you don't see the difference between ethics, i.e. moral choices

Morality =/= Ethics

Common morality, along with self-interest, is usually a major factor in the arising of an ethical code, but morality itself is not ethics.

or the cultural norm

Something can be normal or abnormal independent of whether society considers it ethical or unethical (or neither) or whether a given individual considers is moral, immoral, or amoral.

there's no point in continuing the discussion because we will each be speaking of entirely different things.

So it seems.

I speak of reality and Lord only know what you're going on about.

 

[Foxfyre]

there's no point in continuing the discussion because we will each be speaking of entirely different things.

So it seems.

I speak of reality and Lord only know what you're going on about.

Ah then, perhaps we can agree to leave it up to the good Lord then? Do have a great night JB. I doubt we're going to agree on this one. One day we might agree on something though. Who knows?

 

[JBeukema]

We were in agreement until you ceased making sense

 

[Oddball]

A lot of people have been in agreement with you, more or less, until the point it became clear that you're a communist.

Can we be done with it and put those hammer & sickle thingies astride to your handle again, just for the clarity of it?

 

[JBeukema]

A lot of people have been in agreement with you, more or less, until the point it became clear that you're a communist.

O RLY?

When did I become a Communist? Was it when I said

I agree on the note regarding subsidies and have stated in the past that I disagree on principle with 'morality taxes' or other taxes, tariffs, or other fees or fines against specific products..

?

Or was it when advocated laws against rape and homicide?

Or maybe it was when I said

The information should be readily available and people should be allowed to decide for themselves

Or when I advocated

ridding the system of abuse and unjust, unnecessary, and counterproductive laws, regulation, and practices.

?

 

[antagon]

Again read the essay linked (above in this post) and you'll see laizzez-faire as Adam Smith and other proponents of the process saw it.

adam smith is not a laissez-fair economist!

 

[antagon]

so FDR wasn't dead in 49-50? why do you bother, rabbi? you've not made a cogent argument yet.

I dont know why I bother. You are so thoroughly worthless as an intellect it is like debating a hand puppet.
In fact, I think I'll toss you over to iggy with your pal Shogun so i don't have to waste my time on you.

nobody can concede a point, nowadays. argue yourself into a corner, then pull out the personal attack repertoire. how could we blame washington for this shtick when we blithely engage in it as a society?

 

[JBeukema]

Again read the essay linked (above in this post) and you'll see laizzez-faire as Adam Smith and other proponents of the process saw it.

adam smith is not a laissez-fair economist!

Don't confuse Fox by introducing reality into the discussion

 

[editec]

Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?

I would actually completely agree with you if we'd ever had anything remotely like a laissez-fair economy.

Of course we have never had that, and if we'd tried to have that, we wouldn't have had a nation to begin with.

But aside from the fact that you don't know enough about how the system worked to compare it to how it works now, you're spot on.

HAD we allowed the big banks to fail, the small banks would have followed within hours of their demise.

On that you are 100% correct.

 

[editec]

Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?

Uhh... Laissez faire? Not in this century pal.

Not last century either.

Not EVER, actually.

The whole idea that you can have a market without a government to protect it is preposterous.

Not that government cannot screw things up, of course, merely that without a government the whole idea that we'll have businesses providing for us is absurd.

 

[Truthmatters]

When in history has laissze faire ever prooven to work ?

It never has.

The results the proponents scream will be seen from unfettering the market have never been proven to exsist.

There is NO evidence they will work as the champions of this idea say.

Untested.

Unproven.

Myth.


You can scream as loud as you want about how wonderful it is.

You might as well be screaming about blue flying monkeys.

 

[editec]

Again read the essay linked (above in this post) and you'll see laizzez-faire as Adam Smith and other proponents of the process saw it.

adam smith is not a laissez-fair economist!

That's right he was not remotely a laissez-fair econmist.

People who imagine he was never read his work.

They're depending on some apologists for the system we have now to do their reading *(and thinking) for them.

 

[antagon]

Again read the essay linked (above in this post) and you'll see laizzez-faire as Adam Smith and other proponents of the process saw it.

adam smith is not a laissez-fair economist!

That's right he was not remotely a laissez-fair econmist.

People who imagine he was never read his work.

They're depending on some apologists for the system we have now to do their reading *(and thinking) for them.

profound.

i've got a hundred year old three-volume of On the Wealth. it thoroughly assesses the pitfalls of unchecked market forces, and lays out a roadmap for controlling the invisible hand to work for an economy, rather than at random.

i would say that much of the US economy is in the vein of a. smith's insight. laissez-faire folks look to change that, and hope that they could steal the limelight off of the father of capitalism to justify it..