08 Nov 14
Originally posted by whodeyI wonder if any amount of explanation will get through to a control freak like KN?
Yes, but I never said that ALL of your personal freedoms should be protected IF it infringes on the freedoms of others, did I?
Instead, I've consistantly said that laws should be passed with great trepidation, because they restrict personal freedom.
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by normbenignGet through to KN?
I wonder if any amount of explanation will get through to a control freak like KN?
What is there to get through when you are enlightened and have all the answers. At that point all you need is an army to force everyone to do the "right thing".
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by normbenign"[some] laws [...] increase overall liberty [...]"
There are freedoms which may actually harm other people's ability to make choices. Laws limiting force and fraud to the minimum increase overall liberty while at the same time limiting the freedom of some individual. The DOI tells us that governments are formed to protect individual rights. When government goes too far, human individual rights are harmed.
Exactly my point. So you disagree with whodey's claim that all laws decrease liberty.
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTake the 10 commandments, for example.
[b]"[some] laws [...] increase overall liberty [...]"
Exactly my point. So you disagree with whodey's claim that all laws decrease liberty.[/b]
They are a list of rules to help maintain a civil society. Through that civil society you can be free to live devoid of fear of harm. But to maintain this civil society, you must abide by the rules, thus restricting your own freedom.
However, in a lawless society your freedom rests upon the ability to coerce and/or kill others to have your will be done, never knowing who might knife you in the back.
So on the one hand, your freedoms are restricted, but arguably it enhances your overall freedom if you are able to trust others to work together with you for your own benefit. This is what collectivism is all about.
So it all boils down to having a moral society whom you can trust. Does this moral society come about by a government that passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws per year?
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"Is there ANY empirical evidence for that assertion?"
Is there ANY empirical evidence for that assertion?
The idea that the entire Western economy would have collapsed if some companies weren't protected from the consequences of their own folly is absurd. There were much better uses for the trillions of dollars tossed to these idiots. And even with that foolish policy, the world economy sunk into a sever ...[text shortened]... o start killing each other if the uber rich aren't protected from their own stupidity is absurd.
empirical evidence for something that didn't happen? no, other than all the economists crapping their pants at the ripple effects caused by AIG's hypothetical fall, no evidence.
"The idea that everyone in the world is going to start killing each other if the uber rich aren't protected from their own stupidity is absurd"
it is absurd.also not quite what i said.
"And even with that foolish policy, the world economy sunk into a severe recession who's effects are still being felt"
without it it would have been worse
"The idea that the entire Western economy would have collapsed if some companies"
AIG and other such mammoths aren't "some companies"
the problem lies with the american philosophy that any control is tyranny, that any interference from the government is evil. that free market economy must be as free as possible.
the problem wasn't with that bailout, it was the best solution at that moment.
the problem lies with how little it has been done to prevent future abuse.
i quite agree we are possibly headed towards bailout number 2. then 3. would you like to tell americans free market doesn't mean rich asholes getting whatever they want?
bear in mind we are talking about a nation that won't change to the metric system because it is too hard.
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by normbenigndo you say that with a straight face after your kids played with a system they didn't understand, broke countless economics rules, just to make a buck. and when it blew up in their faces they came crying to uncle sam to replace their toys?
The entire population of the civilized world aren't children, especially high level executives. Treating them as children assures they will continue to behave that way.
those people you consider being treated unfairly?
i thoroughly enjoy you making an idiot out of yourself, again and again.
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by whodeyyes. because you are not moses and you are not living in the desert in ancient times.
Take the 10 commandments, for example.
They are a list of rules to help maintain a civil society. Through that civil society you can be free to live devoid of fear of harm. But to maintain this civil society, you must abide by the rules, thus restricting your own freedom.
However, in a lawless society your freedom rests upon the ability to coerce and/ ...[text shortened]... l society come about by a government that passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws per year?
now it is necessary to pass a regulation so that your neighbour doesn't play his new boombox at 3 am.
when you can't rely on common sense to guide someone, and you can't, you need rules for every minor thing.
09 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI meant this assertion:
"Is there ANY empirical evidence for that assertion?"
empirical evidence for something that didn't happen? no, other than all the economists crapping their pants at the ripple effects caused by AIG's hypothetical fall, no evidence.
"The idea that everyone in the world is going to start killing each other if the uber rich aren't protected from their own ...[text shortened]... ind we are talking about a nation that won't change to the metric system because it is too hard.
we are leaving in the most peaceful period in human history.
The rest of your claims are unpersuasive to say the least; many economists, like Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, opposed the bailouts and said the affected firms should have went through bankruptcy. That these giant firms convinced people like you of their indispensability doesn't make it true.
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"we are leaving in the most peaceful period in human history."
I meant this assertion:
we are leaving in the most peaceful period in human history.
The rest of your claims are unpersuasive to say the least; many economists, like Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, opposed the bailouts and said the affected firms should have went through bankruptcy. That these giant firms convinced people like you of their indispensability doesn't make it true.
number of large scale conflicts
number of wars between nations
number of war casualties compared to population
number of democracies
factors that do not contribute directly:
state of medicine
state of science
literacy
information flow
don't believe me? google "we are living in the most peaceful time ever" and read opinions.
"That these giant firms convinced people like you of their indispensability doesn't make it true."
lehman brothers and others were left to fail. AIG's bankruptcy would have been significantly more unpleasant.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAIG is currently suing the US government for $40 billion claiming that the terms of the bailout were too harsh. Even after the bailout, corporate executives at AIG handed out tens of millions of dollars in bonuses to themselves based on their "performance".
"we are leaving in the most peaceful period in human history."
number of large scale conflicts
number of wars between nations
number of war casualties compared to population
number of democracies
factors that do not contribute directly:
state of medicine
state of science
literacy
information flow
don't believe me? google "we are living i ...[text shortened]... s and others were left to fail. AIG's bankruptcy would have been significantly more unpleasant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-federal-government-gets-sued-for-saving-aig/2014/10/13/3e0db462-50c1-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html
This is the type of behavior the bailouts legitimized. When you reward such recklessness, incompetence and gall you tend to get more of it.
09 Nov 14
$90 billion was funneled to banks from AIG after it received the taxpayer bailout. Supposedly this was necessary so that these entities would continue to lend and thus lessen the damage done to the national economy. Instead:
Lending by the banking industry fell by $587 billion, or 7.5 percent, in 2009, the largest annual decline since the 1940s,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022302120.html
Real GDP growth for 2009 was -3.1%.
The people of the US would have been better served by a creation of a government entity that directly loaned to consumers and (esp.) businesses rather than tossing $700+ billion to incompetent fat cats and their bloated corporations and banks.
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"AIG is currently suing the US government for $40 billion claiming that the terms of the bailout were too harsh."
AIG is currently suing the US government for $40 billion claiming that the terms of the bailout were too harsh. Even after the bailout, corporate executives at AIG handed out tens of millions of dollars in bonuses to themselves based on their "performance".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-federal-government-gets-sued-for-saving-aig/2014/10/ ...[text shortened]... egitimized. When you reward such recklessness, incompetence and gall you tend to get more of it.
yeh, found that hilarious.
"When you reward such recklessness, incompetence and gall you tend to get more of it."
yep, it sucks.
09 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"The people of the US would have been better served by a creation of a government entity that directly loaned to consumers."
$90 billion was funneled to banks from AIG after it received the taxpayer bailout. Supposedly this was necessary so that these entities would continue to lend and thus lessen the damage done to the national economy. Instead:
Lending by the banking industry fell by $587 billion, or 7.5 percent, in 2009, the largest annual decline since the 1940s,
ht ...[text shortened]... her than tossing $700+ billion to incompetent fat cats and their bloated corporations and banks.
i agree.
some americans would have seen that as government tampering, ignoring the fact that the money came from the government (which means the citizens themselves) in the first place
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEvery prohibition limits liberty, but I'd just as soon limit liberty to commit murder, theft, and fraud. Read that DOI preamble. It pretty well explains the purpose of government.
[b]"[some] laws [...] increase overall liberty [...]"
Exactly my point. So you disagree with whodey's claim that all laws decrease liberty.[/b]