Government and the market

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
I really don't think welfare's bad for the economy or America. Hell, Dano's going to launch a 20 paragraph argument just from that claim. But I don't really care.

The market, really, is the risk side of things. That's where everything is produced and progress and made. But it can often lead to screwups and wasted oppurtunities. The welfare/government side of society is there for stability. Having all of one or all of the other is a terrible idea (not that you should necessarily half and half it). The optimum way for society to live, for the world to work, is not to have half of your population in constant worry of losing half their income all the time. Sure, that may "stir them to produce". But it isn't all about production. The stress and competition of the market can cause lot's of unhappiness, and if you don't believe you're philosophy makes people happiest, and is best for the nation, why the hell are you supporting it?

That's one of the reasons I'm not a dogmatic libertarian.
 
Watermark said:
I really don't think welfare's bad for the economy or America. Hell, Dano's going to launch a 20 paragraph argument just from that claim. But I don't really care.

The market, really, is the risk side of things. That's where everything is produced and progress and made. But it can often lead to screwups and wasted oppurtunities. The welfare/government side of society is there for stability. Having all of one or all of the other is a terrible idea (not that you should necessarily half and half it). The optimum way for society to live, for the world to work, is not to have half of your population in constant worry of losing half their income all the time. Sure, that may "stir them to produce". But it isn't all about production. The stress and competition of the market can cause lot's of unhappiness, and if you don't believe you're philosophy makes people happiest, and is best for the nation, why the hell are you supporting it?

That's one of the reasons I'm not a dogmatic libertarian.
Click to expand...

How long is this flavor going to last?
 
The problem with a lot of libertarians is that they seem not to understand the difference between concept and reality. The "free marketI is an idealized concept but it has never been a full realized reality.

In real world application corporations are the free market. It's simply welfare and a free hand for large multi-national corporation who have the power to force and coerce their will on the working class in a laissez-fare system. In such a system, there is no impediment to monopolies and corporations with the power will simply buy its competition and monopolize goods and services.

It's a theory, a concept, an idealized notion. THERE IS NO NATIONAL ECONOMY IN EXISTENCE THAT FULLY ADAPTS TO THIS MYOPIC CONCEPT

What libertopians profess about the "free market" is a contradiction in terms. How do you support a completely free market and at the same time decry free trade and globalism? That's what the free market is. Libertarians whine and whine incessantly about "the media" but corporate control of the media is a direct result of free market thinking .. so now 14 corporations own about 84% of all MSM.

Laissez-fare economies have never been the main economic policy of any nation, including France from which the term was derived. Why" Because it's a theory and has no real world practical application on its own. a mixed economic policy, as being practiced today in the US, is the norm for all industrialized nations. Government has to play a role.

Laissez-fare economics and .. another Paul/libertarian idea, the gold standard .. contributed to the Great Depression.
 
blackascoal said:
The problem with a lot of libertarians is that they seem not to understand the difference between concept and reality. The "free marketI is an idealized concept but it has never been a full realized reality.

In real world application corporations are the free market. It's simply welfare and a free hand for large multi-national corporation who have the power to force and coerce their will on the working class in a laissez-fare system. In such a system, there is no impediment to monopolies and corporations with the power will simply buy its competition and monopolize goods and services.

It's a theory, a concept, an idealized notion. THERE IS NO NATIONAL ECONOMY IN EXISTENCE THAT FULLY ADAPTS TO THIS MYOPIC CONCEPT

What libertopians profess about the "free market" is a contradiction in terms. How do you support a completely free market and at the same time decry free trade and globalism? That's what the free market is. Libertarians whine and whine incessantly about "the media" but corporate control of the media is a direct result of free market thinking .. so now 14 corporations own about 84% of all MSM.

Laissez-fare economies have never been the main economic policy of any nation, including France from which the term was derived. Why" Because it's a theory and has no real world practical application on its own. a mixed economic policy, as being practiced today in the US, is the norm for all industrialized nations. Government has to play a role.

Laissez-fare economics and .. another Paul/libertarian idea, the gold standard .. contributed to the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

Getting of fiat currency is definitely a good idea. Not gold, because there's not enough gold. I would prefere barter or a currency indexed against guaranteed quantities of fungible commodities.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Getting of fiat currency is definitely a good idea. Not gold, because there's not enough gold. I would prefere barter or a currency indexed against guaranteed quantities of fungible commodities.
Click to expand...

It is about time, that my Man Friday, and personal servant, AssHat has shown up, who told you to take such a long break, I had a diapering emergency on my hands with that Donny crapping all over the board, and noone to change him? Snap to it, and do not be stingy with the powder, he has developed a rash?
 
blackascoal said:
The problem with a lot of libertarians is that they seem not to understand the difference between concept and reality. The "free marketI is an idealized concept but it has never been a full realized reality.

In real world application corporations are the free market. It's simply welfare and a free hand for large multi-national corporation who have the power to force and coerce their will on the working class in a laissez-fare system. In such a system, there is no impediment to monopolies and corporations with the power will simply buy its competition and monopolize goods and services.

It's a theory, a concept, an idealized notion. THERE IS NO NATIONAL ECONOMY IN EXISTENCE THAT FULLY ADAPTS TO THIS MYOPIC CONCEPT


What libertopians profess about the "free market" is a contradiction in terms. How do you support a completely free market and at the same time decry free trade and globalism? That's what the free market is. Libertarians whine and whine incessantly about "the media" but corporate control of the media is a direct result of free market thinking .. so now 14 corporations own about 84% of all MSM.

Laissez-fare economies have never been the main economic policy of any nation, including France from which the term was derived. Why" Because it's a theory and has no real world practical application on its own. a mixed economic policy, as being practiced today in the US, is the norm for all industrialized nations. Government has to play a role.

Laissez-fare economics and .. another Paul/libertarian idea, the gold standard .. contributed to the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

well said, what I wonder though is if these libertopians realize what pawns they are to corporate power.
 
Crashk said:
well said, what I wonder though is if these libertopians realize what pawns they are to corporate power.
Click to expand...

They do not.

They are listening to bumper sticker logic, but have never taken the time to actually think through what they're professing.

The libertarian view is a world of up is down, wrong is right, and oppression is liberty.
 
Dr. Fetus said:
I really don't think welfare's bad for the economy or America. Hell, Dano's going to launch a 20 paragraph argument just from that claim. But I don't really care.

The market, really, is the risk side of things. That's where everything is produced and progress and made. But it can often lead to screwups and wasted oppurtunities. The welfare/government side of society is there for stability. Having all of one or all of the other is a terrible idea (not that you should necessarily half and half it). The optimum way for society to live, for the world to work, is not to have half of your population in constant worry of losing half their income all the time. Sure, that may "stir them to produce". But it isn't all about production. The stress and competition of the market can cause lot's of unhappiness, and if you don't believe you're philosophy makes people happiest, and is best for the nation, why the hell are you supporting it?

That's one of the reasons I'm not a dogmatic libertarian.
Click to expand...


The people in charge are mostly obsessed with population control, not happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top