Originally posted by no1marauder 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.
"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 adventures.
the AIG grand poobah even had the ballz to sue the government for not bailouting him more😀
YouTube
Originally posted by Zahlanzi "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
Yes we sure don't have any wars or chaos with the current system.🙄
Originally posted by KazetNagorra 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."
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 Zahlanzi 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?
What would have been wrong with that? It would serve as warning to other corporate crooks.
Originally posted by no1marauder Yes we sure don't have any wars or chaos with the current system.🙄
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.
Originally posted by normbenign What would have been wrong with that? It would serve as warning to other corporate crooks.
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 normbenign 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.
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 Zahlanzi 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.
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 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 KazetNagorra The statement that a law may enhance people's freedom is incompatible with the statement that the same law reduces people's freedom.
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.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi 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.
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.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi 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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra 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."
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.
Center for a Stateless Society article
06 Nov '14 13:23
YouTube
Back to Top