thenammagazine
Super Freak
The phrase "honest politician" is an oxymoron. Always has been and always will be.
White supremacist executed
- Thread starter Lejuan
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Status
The phrase "honest politician" is an oxymoron. Always has been and always will be.
devilof76
Super Freak
The things that most Americans want their government to do are exactly what is destroying this country. The best we can hope for when that is what drives their constituencies is gridlock.
What are most American's advocating that are destroying this country? What would you advocate as an alternative?
devilof76
Super Freak
Laissez-faire capitalism, instituted as immediately as possible.
Who needs child labour laws or work place safety requirements or regulations on toxic and radioactive materials. I am sure businesses can be trusted to do the right thing without pesky government oversight.
devilof76
Super Freak
Do you believe you have the right to dictate standards and initiate force against people who have initiated no force against anyone else?
Capitalism is not anarchy.
Capitalism is not anarchy.
devilof76
Super Freak
This thread got locked? 
jonny88
Super Freak
This thread got locked?
Yeah l saw that it was locked a few days ago for a period of time then saw it was open again. Must of been a consfused lost mod.
Shropt
My Little Mod
I'm also surprised this thread has lasted so long. Thank you for staying civil everyone.!
Slight correction:
Capitalism(with some rules and regulations as it exists today) is not anarchy.
Laissez-faire capitalism on the other-hand, is.
It's all about human nature bro. Rules and regulations are there for a reason. To help keep an honest playing field so that things don't get out of control. Even business and corporations have rules. Laissez-faire capitalism , as you've explained it, basically advocates no regulations or no government interference. Ultimately this will lead to the enablement of monopolies to form. Monopolies will then "initiate force" not only against people as a whole, but also on our economic well-being in ways much more damaging then what moderate regulation can ever do. Again, I'm not for over regulation to stifle any healthy competition, but I think some laws need to be in place so that we, (as people, small business and corporations), are protected from ourselves.
You make it like it's an all or nothing proposition. (Like any type of regulation is all bad,and that the only good regulation is no regulation).
I just don't think that's the case. I may not agree with your opinion on this topic, but I respect you right to voice it. You will undoubtedly hold fast to your views, as I will mine but none-the-less, it was a good discussion. I think this is turning into a new thread now. Sorry again for the diversion guys.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
Ok. Here are some severe corrections...
Laissez-faire functions solely under a legal system that protects the sanctity of contract and the inviolability of property rights. Anarchy is the complete absence of government, and self-defense is left to the individual, but more often protection rackets. The feudal system is a reflection of this fact, and is what the discovery and progressive implementation of natural rights brought to an end (the last vestige of which, in the west, was the American, slave-owning south).
Laws forbidding theft and fraud are all that are needed to maintain a prosperous and competitive economy. In essence, the outlawing of initiated force.
Which are not the same as laws, or regulations (which are distinctly different institutions, and it can be argued that one invalidates the efficacy of the other---by design). The 'rules' enforced by government have the backing of legal use of physical force. No business enjoys that privilege. Atleast, not in a capitalist system.
That's a fallacy. The only way for a company to hold market share without legal protection (e.g., the Big Four railroads in California in the 19th century had a monopoly enforced by law on all shipping in and out of Californian ports) is to be able to constantly outperform it's competitors. They can do this by many different methods, none of which involve the use of force. By contrast, anti-trust laws punish businesses on the arbitrary bases of collusion (matching prices with their competitors), predatory pricing (under pricing their competitors), or price gouging (over pricing their competitors). By that logic, anyone who goes into business is breaking the law, and this in the name of maintaining competition.
In fact, such a practice enables any company to threaten anti-trust proceedings against any business that successfully competes against them. Whereas improving one's own production to increase market share relies on the voluntary action of a company's customers, anti-trust prosecution uses the threat of government force to steal market share from any business with which the plaintiff cannot compete against.
True competition motivates greater business performance and is the heart of economic growth. There is no guarantee for any business to succeed, but smaller businesses benefit radically by the performance of larger businesses who have the effect of lowering prices in every aspect of the market in which they operate.
The concept of liberty is based on the belief that left to their own devices, human beings are fully capable of making decisions for themselves, and cannot make those decisions under the threat of physical force. What people need to be protected from are predators, and giving the government the power to manipulate their behavior for the sake of whoever holds the reins is only empowering predation.
It is either/or. You cannot be free and enslaved at the same time and in the same respect. A regulation, unlike a law, demands specific action of those it seeks to control. A law prohibits certain action; regulation grants permission to act, and the more widespread the regulation, the more actions people are not free to take by their own volition. If people have a right to their own lives, then they have the right to take the actions they discern to be necessary for living.
That is the political philosophy upon which this country was built, and it's success is indisputable. The history of the American economy prior to the interventionism of the late 19th and early 20th century was one of rising standards of living across every segment of the population. It was not until attempts were made to control it that this changed, and that is a matter of historical record (in the U.S., but much more glaringly in Europe, where the philosophy of controlled economies manifest itself first in the failed economies of the 20's and 30's, and then in the dictatorships of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin).
Slight correction:
Capitalism(with some rules and regulations as it exists today) is not anarchy.
Laissez-faire capitalism on the other-hand, is.
Laissez-faire functions solely under a legal system that protects the sanctity of contract and the inviolability of property rights. Anarchy is the complete absence of government, and self-defense is left to the individual, but more often protection rackets. The feudal system is a reflection of this fact, and is what the discovery and progressive implementation of natural rights brought to an end (the last vestige of which, in the west, was the American, slave-owning south).
work13 said:
Laws forbidding theft and fraud are all that are needed to maintain a prosperous and competitive economy. In essence, the outlawing of initiated force.
work13 said:
Which are not the same as laws, or regulations (which are distinctly different institutions, and it can be argued that one invalidates the efficacy of the other---by design). The 'rules' enforced by government have the backing of legal use of physical force. No business enjoys that privilege. Atleast, not in a capitalist system.
work13 said:
That's a fallacy. The only way for a company to hold market share without legal protection (e.g., the Big Four railroads in California in the 19th century had a monopoly enforced by law on all shipping in and out of Californian ports) is to be able to constantly outperform it's competitors. They can do this by many different methods, none of which involve the use of force. By contrast, anti-trust laws punish businesses on the arbitrary bases of collusion (matching prices with their competitors), predatory pricing (under pricing their competitors), or price gouging (over pricing their competitors). By that logic, anyone who goes into business is breaking the law, and this in the name of maintaining competition.
In fact, such a practice enables any company to threaten anti-trust proceedings against any business that successfully competes against them. Whereas improving one's own production to increase market share relies on the voluntary action of a company's customers, anti-trust prosecution uses the threat of government force to steal market share from any business with which the plaintiff cannot compete against.
True competition motivates greater business performance and is the heart of economic growth. There is no guarantee for any business to succeed, but smaller businesses benefit radically by the performance of larger businesses who have the effect of lowering prices in every aspect of the market in which they operate.
work13 said:
The concept of liberty is based on the belief that left to their own devices, human beings are fully capable of making decisions for themselves, and cannot make those decisions under the threat of physical force. What people need to be protected from are predators, and giving the government the power to manipulate their behavior for the sake of whoever holds the reins is only empowering predation.
work13 said:
It is either/or. You cannot be free and enslaved at the same time and in the same respect. A regulation, unlike a law, demands specific action of those it seeks to control. A law prohibits certain action; regulation grants permission to act, and the more widespread the regulation, the more actions people are not free to take by their own volition. If people have a right to their own lives, then they have the right to take the actions they discern to be necessary for living.
That is the political philosophy upon which this country was built, and it's success is indisputable. The history of the American economy prior to the interventionism of the late 19th and early 20th century was one of rising standards of living across every segment of the population. It was not until attempts were made to control it that this changed, and that is a matter of historical record (in the U.S., but much more glaringly in Europe, where the philosophy of controlled economies manifest itself first in the failed economies of the 20's and 30's, and then in the dictatorships of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin).
We've beaten the dead horse to a skeleton now. The arguments are getting circular, and never-ending. We are each obviously set in our own views, and are just reciting the same things in different ways. I think we've gotten
long enough to the chagrin of the readers of this original thread. To each his own. Let's just leave it at that, cool?
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
I don't think anyone gives much of a damn about the dead white supremacist. You're certainly free to insist upon the virtues of a mixed economy, but I do not back down from this. Capitalism is the only moral social system for human beings to live by. If you understand what every word of that proposition means, you understand why it's not something to let slide. The misconceptions that have been propagated regarding the meaning of the term are legion, and the consequences have the potential to reach apocalyptic proportions. I've already gone so far as to say it's the only thing that can save this country---and by extension the civilized world---from a second dark ages, and I meant it.
I can go all day and night on this, and I would enjoy it immensely, but if you'd like to stop talking about it, I won't hold it against you.
I can go all day and night on this, and I would enjoy it immensely, but if you'd like to stop talking about it, I won't hold it against you.
Have you ever thought about starting your own thread on this topic since you like it so much? By starting a new thread on this topic, you'll be able to take about this stuff forever and probably find many others who share your same view point.(or others who wish to argue on the other side). Now if you want to keep diverting this thread, I'm going to have to implement some capital punishment on you!work13 said:... it's cool and all good... I'm tired and burnt out on this thought...If the dead horse is not beat down yet or it's still alive, and you still want to pursue this, ... it's all good...-maybe someone else can continue the thought I was trying to make and articulate it better than I can...I'm tired bro. I just need a break. Let's move on!
Just start a new thread and you can talk about this all you want.
Last edited:
Shropt
My Little Mod
I think this thread has served it's purpose.
Locked.
Locked.
- Status
Similar threads
