Originally posted by KazetNagorraHave you ever considered that you are the fundie with closed eyes?
I showed it alright, it's just that you responded similarly to how a fundie responds to evolution theory; eyes closed and LA LA LA while the foundations of the fairy castle of libertarianism come crumbling down.
I've been where you are.
Originally posted by normbenignIn the laboratory, perhaps - and even that is highly questionable. But unfortunately for you, recorded human history does not support your assertions. Citing Zimbabwe certainly doesn't. Your insistence that it's either what you believe (which has, of course, never been tried out by mankind), or it's Stalinism/Slavery/Death Camps/"Out Of My Cold Dead Hands" - with nothing in between - raises a serious question over what history it is that you have read in depth. Can you provide a list of, say, 8 or 10 "societies", and the eras in question, that support your thesis?
The chaos of free people and free markets acting in their own best interests is natural, right and just, and in the long term leads to better outcomes for all involved, including society in general.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou know, eight months ago I was a dyed-in-the-wool free market Libertarian. And with this coming collapse and impending Depression I believe that it's now been adequately demonstrated that human beings are at their root evil, immoral, and corrupt. We will do whatever suits us in the short term, and rationalize our way out of trouble by any means. There has been no period of human history, however brief, not marked by wonton recklessness if not outright lawlessness in the name of self-interest.
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
The Chinese have these mobile execution chambers. They look like a bus charter, except you get on, they stick a needle in your arm, and you're gone, forever. I think they have the right idea.
Originally posted by whodeyI think the term "Bailout" should come to define "You, CEO, have screwed up because of your lack of morals, values, or ethics, or any combination thereof; therefore, everyone who works for you gets a 25% cut in pay whilst you, Dear Friend, along with your firstborn, shall greet the sunrise by receiving a longsword through the bottom of your chin, to be Thrusted Forth until it punctures the top of Thy Skull."
It's simple really. Allow corporations to go awry via corruption and then implode within, after which they turn to government, whom are dependent upon corporate money, to ask that the tax payers bail them out. Of course what is government going to do? After all, they need their sugar daddys.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You forgot the politicians who look the other way the entire time as they use the tax payers as their tool to "fix" things.
I think the term "Bailout" should come to define "You, CEO, have screwed up because of your lack of morals, values, or ethics, or any combination thereof; therefore, everyone who works for you gets a 25% cut in pay whilst you, Dear Friend, along with your firstborn, shall greet the sunrise by receiving a longsword through the bottom of your chin, to be Thrusted Forth until it punctures the top of Thy Skull."
Originally posted by ScriabinFirst of all, you ought to be able to make an argument without the tauroscatological ad hominems.
I think you have your head so far up your rear end you should get a plate glass window installed in your navel to be able to see where you are going.
My wife is a mortgage banking expert of more than 35 years in the private sector and the last two in the Office of Thrift Supervision as an advisor to the Director of that agency.
Banks like countrywid ...[text shortened]... elated to just about anything become increasingly complex. Deal with it -- it is what it is.
You don't know where the practice of lending to subprime borrowers originated? Please don't try to sell me that scat!
Sure, Wall Street, and commercial bankers acted in accordance with those laws, and increased their profits. What the hell are they supposed to do? They are in business to make money, as much of it as they can, just as every other free man does.
To blame greed is preposterous. Greed is a given, and it exists in every economic class, and every government and economic system. It was dogooderism, of James Earl Carter trying to make homeowners of people who couldn't pay their rent. Once in place, such practices become common, and given the help of government sanction, and semi governmental organisms like Fannie and Freddie, that produced completely predictable results.
Yes Carter wanted it to create home ownership in poor urban neighborhoods, but I can tell you all it produced is burned down buildings, and turned blight into rat fields. Carter thought he could force businessmen into bad loans only for poor people, but bankers reacted and found ways to use the rules to overfund almost everyone.
It was, in fact government regulations, and followup implementation which led us down the road we're on, not laizez faire run amuck. There was nothing remotely resembling a free market that led up to this so called financial collapse. It was all the result of government manipulation, and benefited primarily bankers and lawyers. So I can understand why you want to blame someone else.
While you're passing out the blame, remember it was John McCain who two years ago, proposed additional regulatory limitation of Fannie and Freddie, and it was Chis Dodd, Barnie Frank and Barak Obama, all beneficiaries of massive campaign contributions by Franklin Raines who stood in the way.
Not that I agree with McCain's proposals either. The only solution to the irrational and irresponsible acts of the banks, stock market, and others whether induced to act by government or done on their own, is to make them pay the price. Bailing them out, and then bailing out the borrowers is like pouring gasoline on a fire. The solution to bad loan underwriting is to do more of it??? Give the very people who created the problem a blank check for almost a trillion dollars??
This is bad big government action.
And your only comment on Ayn Rand, "What rot". That is not an argument, not even a pretense at one. The kind of law that Rand described is what your profession loves, because you can win a case no matter what, no matter of right or wrong, legal or illegal. Nobody knows what is right or wrong, until some bureaucrat or lawyer tells them, or takes them to court.
"It is a question of respect for law or respect only for self interested greed."
The greed is going to be there. Respect for the law, or anything else must be earned. Greed in less perjorative terms is rational self interest. Every human on earth, whether a farmer in Africa, or a Wall Street banker, or a union auto worker is out to maximize their earnings. The law is supposed to provide a fair playing field, and rules which apply to everyone, not to manipulate and force societal outcomes. The law was respected, but it was poorly crafted and really didn't deserve respect. It created bad incentives and moral risk.
"Yes, the law and legal issues related to just about anything become increasingly complex. Deal with it -- it is what it is"
The debate, in case you are so dense you didn't notice is about libertarianism, vs. liberalism. That has to do with whether more or less law is better. Today's contemporary liberal thinks as you do that the answer to every problem is passing another law, diminishing personal liberty, hiring more cops and regulatory enforcers, paying more bureaucrats and observers, all in an effort to manipulate people and markets to produce egalitarian results. The trouble is that philosophy has demonstrably been a consistent failure, while limited government lets free people be as productive as they are able to be.
Minimum law, minimum cops and enforcers, minimum bureaucrats, leaves more individuals doing productive work, and fewer things to litigate.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Imagine a country run the way you propose, and image someone born in a poor family."
This is an interesting statement, and the core of libertarianism (or classical liberalism, if you wish), I feel. However, I more and more wonder how people can seriously argue this. Imagine a country run the way you propose, and image someone born in a poor family.No access to education, because that's been privatized. No access to health car e, because ...[text shortened]... W 7 series. Where is the amazing cost in liberty that warrants the exploitation of the poor?
You mean like an Irish immigrant like Andrew Carnegie. Or like thousands of small business owners. Someone like me.
"No access to education, because that's been privatized. No access to health car e, because that's been privatized. How "free" are these people?"
Gosh, public education is really great. In my city, only about 25% reach the 12th grade, and most of them can't read or do math at grade level. Socialized medicine is also doing great in the US, as exemplified by the great condition of Medicare and Medicaid, both sinking fast due to lack of recognition of market realities. People who get stuff for free, usually end up getting their money's worth.
Your European socialist paradise is mythology. It is fast going broke. Germany is outsourcing production to the US. We complain when unemployment reaches 7%, while most of Europe is in middle double digits. People under social liberalism are herded into comfortable, life long jobs, and the promise of cradle to grave, and become like house pets of the government, with little choice of chance of ever being exceptional. And worse, eventually the promises are broken because the social contract always promises more than it can deliver in the long run.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere is no free health care, or free anything else, unless it is provided by workers who are slaves.
Free health care clubs already exist, they're called insurance companies and they still leave the poor with no health care.
If there is value to anything, health care, food, shelter, someone is paying for it. The question is who ought to pay?
There is no evidence that force, making others pay, or fraud, making the recipient think it is free, makes a society better or more productive, or that services and products are cheaper or more plentiful under such systems.
The system you advocate embraces force and fraud, whereas the libertarian ideal is eliminating those twin evils.
Originally posted by WulebgrHow does regulation of the haves improve the condition of the havenots?
Precisely why libertarianism will not work: too little recognition of the need to regulate the greed of the haves.
Where is there a system of government that has eliminated greed? Greed is the natural condition of humans, that is simply maximizing their productivity.
I would prefer that great wealth be owned by people who earned it, and know how to grow, preserve and use it productively. Taking it from those greedy wealthy persons, and placing it in the hands of equally greedy government bureaucrats doesn't make any sense to me.
The greed of the ultra wealthy doesn't harm, but rather helps have nots. In the course of time Bill Gates and Sam Walton created greater wealth for others than for themselves.
Originally posted by FMFThe most productive (GDP) societies on the planet today are those with the most free markets.
In the laboratory, perhaps - and even that is highly questionable. But unfortunately for you, recorded human history does not support your assertions. Citing Zimbabwe certainly doesn't. Your insistence that it's [b]either what you believe (which has, of course, never been tried out by mankind), or it's Stalinism/Slavery/Death Camps/"Out Of My Cold Dea ...[text shortened]... a list of, say, 8 or 10 "societies", and the eras in question, that support your thesis?[/b]
On the left, we have Zimbabwe, Cuba, USSR, N. Korea.
On the free market side we have Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, Australia, S. Korea, Taiwan.
Even the socialist democracies of Europe that you so love and admire, owe whatever prosperity they enjoy to what is left of capitalism and free markets, not to social liberalism. Eliminate the free market capitalism, and there is no Peter to rob to pay Paul.
Greed, or rational self interest is the natural condition of humankind. It is what motivates men to be exceptional. Eventually, other than voluntarily philanthropy, confiscation of wealth for redistribution has to be accomplished by force of fraud, and leads to a loss of industriousness, promotes sloth and laziness, and diminishes productivity and inventiveness.
You can mix the bad with the good, but that doesn't change what is good and what is bad.
Originally posted by sasquatch672"And with this coming collapse and impending Depression I believe that it's now been adequately demonstrated that human beings are at their root evil, immoral, and corrupt"
You know, eight months ago I was a dyed-in-the-wool free market Libertarian. And with this coming collapse and impending Depression I believe that it's now been adequately demonstrated that human beings are at their root evil, immoral, and corrupt. We will do whatever suits us in the short term, and rationalize our way out of trouble by any means. Th ...[text shortened]... they stick a needle in your arm, and you're gone, forever. I think they have the right idea.
It is true that greed, seeking our personal best interests is the natural state of man. Whether that is changed by the application of force is questionable. Or whether fraudulent promises of the good life and a world without greed are of any value.
Free markets and limited government recognize man is born to act in his own interests. Call it greed, if you want, but it doesn't go away with the application of Marxism, or heavy handed regulations.
Liberty leaves all men free to pursue their greedy, self interests, and government ought to be there to see that the bargaining is done freely, that contracts are enforced and that people pay for their errors.