- Jan 23, 2014
- Reaction score
- Central Ohio
Well you have the right to be wrong.You're quibbling over semantics.I just disagree with you.Don't go changing the narrative.But not all laws are a limit on rights.All laws are a limit on freedom.I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I doI am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?
So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.
Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?
There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.
How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.
So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.
What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?
Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.
Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.
Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.
No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.
Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.
And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?
Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.
You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.
But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.
You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.
Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.
I said all laws are a limit on freedom.
Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.
If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?
If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?
In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.
Regulations reduce freedom.
All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.
So it's a distinction without a difference.