"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Well in this context, calling it a failure and saying it doesn't work would be the same thing. You act as though I'm reluctant to give proof, or as if I couldn't replace whatever you call your particular political philosophy with libertarianism in that statement and throw the same argument back at you.

Let's go back to my Nader example.  What I'm saying is that when I look at that model, Nader got a problem fixed by getting legislation passed.  Then along come Reagan.  He deregulates, and is basically undoing Nader's life work.  Then we have crash after crash after crash of America's economy.  So what I'm saying is that based on these events, I am making the assumption that deregulating causes problems, whereas setting up proper legislation (as Nader helped to do) can fix problems.  I'm saying that the problems we have in America today are due to deregulation and improper legislation.  The answer to this problem is not "no government" or "no regulations at all" as Rob and Jacob seem to want.  The answer is to set up proper legislation rather than improper legislation.  I'm saying I can point to models for this in other countries and throughout history and say "see, this works", whereas the Libertarian idea of a "free market" is non-existent, and you cannot do the same.  Therefore the burden of proof is on you.  Then Rob comes along and says "you can't use that argument.  Saying 'the burden of proof is on you' doesn't prove that the free market doesn't work."  And the cycle begins again.  And then I start calling people idiots.  That's how this got to the tense point we are at now.

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Well in this context, calling it a failure and saying it doesn't work would be the same thing. You act as though I'm reluctant to give proof, or as if I couldn't replace whatever you call your particular political philosophy with libertarianism in that statement and throw the same argument back at you. Let's go back to my Nader example.  What I'm saying is that when I look at that model, Nader got a problem fixed by getting legislation passed.  Then along come Reagan.  He deregulates, and is basically undoing Nader's life work.  Then we have crash after crash after crash of America's economy.  So what I'm saying is that based on these events, I am making the assumption that deregulating causes problems, whereas setting up proper legislation (as Nader helped to do) can fix problems.  I'm saying that the problems we have in America today are due to deregulation and improper legislation.  The answer to this problem is not "no government" or "no regulations at all" as Rob and Jacob seem to want.  The answer is to set up proper legislation rather than improper legislation.  I'm saying I can point to models for this in other countries and throughout history and say "see, this works", whereas the Libertarian idea of a "free market" is non-existent, and you cannot do the same.  Therefore the burden of proof is on you.  Then Rob comes along and says "you can't use that argument.  Saying 'the burden of proof is on you' doesn't prove that the free market doesn't work."  And the cycle begins again.  And then I start calling people idiots.  That's how this got to the tense point we are at now.

Ha. This discussion isn't tense. Not to be obtuse, but can you point me to what Nader fixed that Reagan deregulated to cause a problem?

Yeah, and we can all point to failures of regulation. That's not going to establish anything. The Burden of proof is silly outside of scientific/logical circles anyway.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: This is off topic but, how can you possible give motW's Part the Second 2 stars and Malmsteen's Rising Force 5? Haha.  I don't want to argue about music any more.  You may have noticed I haven't written a review in a long time, nor have I really participated in any of the other threads on this forum.  I poke my head in and read occasionally and go "yup, everyone's saying the same things they've always been saying."  I like what I like.  And I've found other people that do too.  Music is like people.  Every person is loved by someone and loathed by someone else.  No one is unlovable, and no one is perfect.  Same with music. You can love whatever you want. It just seems like you're passing on Kate Upton for Eleanor Roosevelt.

Maybe Kate Upton doesn't have a nice personality.  Maybe she can't carry on a good conversation.  Maybe if you started talking to Eleanor Roosevelt you'd find she's very deep and you could talk to her for hours.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Well in this context, calling it a failure and saying it doesn't work would be the same thing. You act as though I'm reluctant to give proof, or as if I couldn't replace whatever you call your particular political philosophy with libertarianism in that statement and throw the same argument back at you. Let's go back to my Nader example.  What I'm saying is that when I look at that model, Nader got a problem fixed by getting legislation passed.  Then along come Reagan.  He deregulates, and is basically undoing Nader's life work.  Then we have crash after crash after crash of America's economy.  So what I'm saying is that based on these events, I am making the assumption that deregulating causes problems, whereas setting up proper legislation (as Nader helped to do) can fix problems.  I'm saying that the problems we have in America today are due to deregulation and improper legislation.  The answer to this problem is not "no government" or "no regulations at all" as Rob and Jacob seem to want.  The answer is to set up proper legislation rather than improper legislation.  I'm saying I can point to models for this in other countries and throughout history and say "see, this works", whereas the Libertarian idea of a "free market" is non-existent, and you cannot do the same.  Therefore the burden of proof is on you.  Then Rob comes along and says "you can't use that argument.  Saying 'the burden of proof is on you' doesn't prove that the free market doesn't work."  And the cycle begins again.  And then I start calling people idiots.  That's how this got to the tense point we are at now. Ha. This discussion isn't tense. Not to be obtuse, but can you point me to what Nader fixed that Reagan deregulated to cause a problem? Yeah, and we can all point to failures of regulation. That's not going to establish anything. The Burden of proof is silly outside of scientific/logical circles anyway.

It's tense between me and Rob and Jacob.  Mostly because they are inside of a paradigm they can't see outside of.  Inside their paradigm, all government is bad.  No problem can be solved through governing inside of their paradigm.  Therefore any solution that is ever proposed that involves governing is invalid, according to them.  That creates some serious tension when you're not living inside of that paradigm.

You seem more reasonable, however.  We may not agree on what "proper" vs. "improper" legislation would be, but you don't seem to subscribe to this idea that government is bad, nor that the ideal is to have a minimum of legislature.  Would that be a fair assessment?  For me, saying "I think the government should be small" is like saying, from within a multi-billion dollar industry, that the infrastructure of said industry should be small.  Define small, and show me how it's going to work, and use examples where it has worked in the past and then we can talk.  See what I'm saying?

dtguitarfan wrote: It's tense between me and Rob and Jacob.  Mostly because they are inside of a paradigm they can't see outside of.  Inside their paradigm, all government is bad.  No problem can be solved through governing inside of their paradigm.  Therefore any solution that is ever proposed that involves governing is invalid, according to them.  That creates some serious tension when you're not living inside of that paradigm.

If you want to bash them, then at least do it when addressing them. I'm not interested.

You seem more reasonable, however.  We may not agree on what "proper" vs. "improper" legislation would be, but you don't seem to subscribe to this idea that government is bad, nor that the ideal is to have a minimum of legislature.  Would that be a fair assessment?  For me, saying "I think the government should be small" is like saying, from within a multi-billion dollar industry, that the infrastructure of said industry should be small.  Define small, and show me how it's going to work, and use examples where it has worked in the past and then we can talk.  See what I'm saying?

I see what you're saying, but I'm probably far and away the most radical one in this thread in terms of my anti-government hatred. It can be tempered by a similar hatred for the interests of corporations which may be what's giving you that impression?

An important point here is that in classical/neo classical economics, equilibrium was envisaged in conditions of perfect competition in a free market.   Unfortunately, like lots of other things to be found in economic textbooks, perfect competition only exists in theory.  It is virtually impossible to ensure conditions of perfect competition will sustain in perpetuity.   Hence in practice many of the advantages of free markets will probably not accrue and only push the state closer to a robber baron set up.  If businessmen really believe so fervently in free markets, they ought not to ever form cartels or associations to lobby their case and they ought to voluntarily desist from monopolistic practices.  But businessmen only believe in one thing in reality and that is profit.  And profit motive does not by itself lead to equilibrium.  Or it might in the extremely distant future. In other words, the long run.  And in the long run, we are all dead anyway.  

Gerinski wrote: How would you deal with conflicts in a Libertarian state? without laws and regulations to refer to, it would be impossible for juries and judges to tell who is right and wrong and why except by saying 'because I say so, so shut up'

Why would a Libertarian state be lawless? And isn't that what juries do anyway?

rogerthat wrote: An important point here is that in classical/neo classical economics, equilibrium was envisaged in conditions of perfect competition in a free market.   Unfortunately, like lots of other things to be found in economic textbooks, perfect competition only exists in theory.  It is virtually impossible to ensure conditions of perfect competition will sustain in perpetuity.   Hence in practice many of the advantages of free markets will probably not accrue and only push the state closer to a robber baron set up.  If businessmen really believe so fervently in free markets, they ought not to ever form cartels or associations to lobby their case and they ought to voluntarily desist from monopolistic practices.  But businessmen only believe in one thing in reality and that is profit.  And profit motive does not by itself lead to equilibrium.  Or it might in the extremely distant future. In other words, the long run.  And in the long run, we are all dead anyway.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I see what you're saying, but I'm probably far and away the most radical one in this thread in terms of my anti-government hatred. It can be tempered by a similar hatred for the interests of corporations which may be what's giving you that impression?

Well, at least you're balanced - I can work with that.

Imagine you and I are engineers.  Now imagine you and I are trying to work together to design a new engine.  Now imagine one of us believes that internal combustion is immoral.

That's the problem, and that's where the tension comes from.

Gerinski wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Gerinski wrote: How would you deal with conflicts in a Libertarian state? without laws and regulations to refer to, it would be impossible for juries and judges to tell who is right and wrong and why except by saying 'because I say so, so shut up' Why would a Libertarian state be lawless? And isn't that what juries do anyway? I thought that the idea is that in a Libertarian state, instead of the government deciding the laws and regulations applicable to all the population, things would be agreed in contractual base between the directly involved parties, without caring what the indirectly affected people may think about the subject in question. So no 'universal laws' (universal within the State I mean, besides 'don't kill' and 'don't steal') but only inter-party agreements without any consistency among them. What in your agreement with person A is not legal may be legal in mine with person B. This is not a law in my definition.

Ah yes. Well if it's not a law in your definition, then of course it would be a lawless place. But the fact is that a good bit of our current legal system operates in precisely this way and this sort of organization does not preclude the existence of a universal law. Our legal system was built from a much loser and more malleable framework which I do not think has been exactly aided in efficiency by the monopolistic occupation of the State.

I'm not sure how detailed of a response that you want. And I'm not sure how detailed of a response I can give. Which is kind of the point. If a sort of best case mode of operation could just be pointed at, then I wouldn't think that a State system would be all that much more inefficient than a private one (probably more efficient in that case to be honest). I think that this is something that really needs to work its way through the market discovery process. I mean the basis for it would be the structure of private arbitrators currently in work and the current local/state/federal/international interplay except placed on a level based upon competition rather than a hierarchical system.