Originally posted by no1marauder"so be it" doesn't cut it when you possibly risk wars and a descent into chaos for everyone.
The firms that were bankrupt should have went through bankruptcy. Taxpayers should not have had to bail out poor investment and lending decisions made by the uber rich. If that would have collapsed the world economy so be it; it is based on sand anyway and the can will only be kicked down the road so far.
the bailout was the best thing that could have been done to preserve stability throughout the world.
what wasn't done and should have been is to throw a couple hundreds of those responsible in jail and throw away the key in order to discourage further similar adventures.
the AIG grand poobah even had the ballz to sue the government for not bailouting him more😀
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs has already been said, I never said that.
I disagree with your position that an anarchist society is the most "free."
For example, if the government treats its citizens how it wants, disregarding natural rights that are laws on the books then we have no freedom.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, you did. It was way back in ye olde times, on page 4 of this thread, where you said: "Any law restricts your personal freedom."
As has already been said, I never said that.
For example, if the government treats its citizens how it wants, disregarding natural rights that are laws on the books then we have no freedom.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYes we sure don't have any wars or chaos with the current system.🙄
"so be it" doesn't cut it when you possibly risk wars and a descent into chaos for everyone.
the bailout was the best thing that could have been done to preserve stability throughout the world.
what wasn't done and should have been is to throw a couple hundreds of those responsible in jail and throw away the key in order to discourage further similar ...[text shortened]... to sue the government for not bailouting him more😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST_yofEmPPY
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnd that statement stands unrefuted, but it doesn't equal anarchy is most free. Clearly some laws are necessary and proper. The question is how many are vital, and actually protect liberty.
Yes, you did. It was way back in ye olde times, on page 4 of this thread, where you said: "Any law restricts your personal freedom."
Read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat would have been wrong with that? It would serve as warning to other corporate crooks.
there is no greater example for this than the bailout for AIG. in a laissez-faire economy, AIG should have been left to bleed out and die in horrible agony. the world economy would have collapsed, but hey, tough cookie, right?
Originally posted by no1marauderwe are leaving in the most peaceful period in human history. so no, what little skirmishes we have now would pale in comparisson to what would happen if every western country's economy collapses.
Yes we sure don't have any wars or chaos with the current system.🙄
Originally posted by normbenignif your child plays with matches and sets fire to the house, you don't let it burn and the fire spread to the entire village just to teach your other kids a lesson.
What would have been wrong with that? It would serve as warning to other corporate crooks.
Originally posted by normbenignThe statement that a law may enhance people's freedom is incompatible with the statement that the same law reduces people's freedom.
And that statement stands unrefuted, but it doesn't equal anarchy is most free. Clearly some laws are necessary and proper. The question is how many are vital, and actually protect liberty.
Read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIs there ANY empirical evidence for that assertion?
we are leaving in the most peaceful period in human history. so no, what little skirmishes we have now would pale in comparisson to what would happen if every western country's economy collapses.
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 severe recession who's effects are still being felt. And the same mistakes of over-leveraging are still being done by pretty much the same people so Giant Bailout #2 is probably right around the corner.
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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere 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.
The statement that a law may enhance people's freedom is incompatible with the statement that the same law reduces people's freedom.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe 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.
if your child plays with matches and sets fire to the house, you don't let it burn and the fire spread to the entire village just to teach your other kids a lesson.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, but I never said that ALL of your personal freedoms should be protected IF it infringes on the freedoms of others, did I?
Yes, you did. It was way back in ye olde times, on page 4 of this thread, where you said: "Any law restricts your personal freedom."
Instead, I've consistantly said that laws should be passed with great trepidation, because they restrict personal freedom.