Just about everything good in the (Western) world….
-
011111100010 wrote:
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that.
I think we all want that; regulations to prevent lead from entering the food-chain, to name one. Want a free market? Go to Libya, where you can buy everything.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I think we all want that; regulations
That was my point. You seemed to be defining a free market as a place where you can buy and sell anything with no regulation. I doubt anyone wants 0 regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I think we all want that; regulations
That was my point. You seemed to be defining a free market as a place where you can buy and sell anything with no regulation. I doubt anyone wants 0 regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Then it is not a free market, by definition.
I don't know. You'd have to look it up. But when people speak of a free market, I doubt they mean zero regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Then it is not a free market, by definition.
I don't know. You'd have to look it up. But when people speak of a free market, I doubt they mean zero regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
-
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course. Note for our American friends: Socialism is NOT communism. Don’t even bother continuing until you understand this basic point. And a second point, for anyone with poor logic skills: my saying most good things have come about through socialsit ideals is not the same thing as saying that everything every left-leaning perosn or governemnt has done has been good. Over very roughly about the last 200 years or so (say after the French Revolution in Europe and the American Civil War in the US) life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to mass education, emancipation (of women and slaves), enclosure laws and just general rights of ordinary people being enshrined in law. All socialist ideals, and all brought about in the face of fierce conservative opposition. In finance, these conservative forces kept taking and taking until they bankrupted virtually the entire Western economy in the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and this has to be rescued in the end by the socialist principle of pouring taxpayer money into public projects, and the introduction of a regulatory system to prevent a repeat. Then things carried on working just fine until once again the Right relaxed the market rules and allowed the rich to start stealing again, and inevitably this led to the same outcome – another big crash, which again had to be rescued by pouring taxpayer money in. Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
A_Griffin wrote:
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course.
In all things there are no absolutes and certainly no simple explanations. For example Ford didn't invent the production line nor the 8 hour work day, but he was certainly willing to take advantage of both to make more money for himself. Certainly wasn't any force used to convince him that he should use those.
A_Griffin wrote:
life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to ...
No. One cannot point to one specific thing and then claim that it is sole result of everything else in the world. Your examples are just examples of things which are both the result of and those that contributed to the overall process. So, for one from you list, "mass education" gradually impacted the overall society but it was in fact general and it could not have come about unless society itself was in a position to pay for, allow and demand it. One need only look at actual education level achievements over time to see how general the process really was. Note in the above that it does say "pay'. The reality is that increasing economics at all levels is something that is correlated, strongly, with all 'benefits' that humans might want to enjoy. So the poor achieve more benefits because they are now richer and not just because the rich gave up their own wealth.
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
As with my point above it is a generalization which is not true. "Progressives" in the 60s proclaimed that group living would soon take over the world and that was the only equitable and fair system. As such communes flourished. But that experiment failed. Conservatives might need to be dragged into new cultural idioms but they are also the framework that keeps society from imploding while those new idioms are explored. Conservatives do adapt, eventually, and the new conservatives are more than willing to defend
-
I've never read a bigger pile of crap on this site before. What is great about the "Western World" is freedom, the freedom established by the founding Fathers of this country - the United States. There are only two kinds of government in this world. theocracy and man ocracy. The first is recognized by the Declaration of Independance as Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. The second is also recognized by the same document as that from which independance was desired, rule of man - kings and dictators which become tyrants. What the Founding Fathers did was to create the great compromise - Rule of Law that allowed mere mortals to govern them selves without being kings and dictators - tyrants. However, we are losing that, our governments are again full of people, like you, that do not understand/adhere to Rule of Law, some wanting to be kings and dictators thinking that they know better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we and becoming tyrants in the process. There is a fundamental flaw in socialism, it doesn't work. There is no known example of socialism working. Why, because it violates the fundamental issue - Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. And one of those rights is that man has the right to enjoy ALL the fruits of his labor and no man has the right to deprive another man the fruits of his labor. Government is instituted of man and proper government only has powers given it by those men. If man does not have the right to take from another, he can not give that right to government. But if government takes that power unto it's self, called tyranny, that government will eventually fail after bringing great misery to all - that is history - it is observable. The Free Market Economy goes hand in hand with freedom. It allows men the choice as to weather to cooperate with others or not, to exchange with others or not, to form alliances with others or not. Socialism is an economy that denies man these freedoms. It relies on government to excise tyranny by denying one man the right to the fruits of his labors and giving them to another that contributes no labors. Socialism can only exists through tyranny, so you tell me, how is that good?
dlhale wrote:
However, we are losing that, our governments are again full of people, like you, that do not understand/adhere to Rule of Law, some wanting to be kings and dictators thinking that they know better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we and becoming tyrants in the process.
"Losing that". Because in the past it was there. Exactly when was it there? The Mormons were forced out of the east because the states banned their books. Banned as in made it illegal to print them. I believe they also banned their churches. So certainly not a lot of freedom then. Is that the past to which you refer? West Virginia had to be forced to recognize that people of different races could in fact marry. The state would not recognize it without being forced. Perhaps that is the freedoms of the past that you wish to restore? Miranda rights was something that the courts forced on the states. The state paying for attorneys for those that could not be paid was something the courts forced on the states. Are those the freedoms of the past that you are referring to? There were actual "wars" in the past in the US over workers rights. Wars in the sense that there armed mobs, on both sides, drawing up war plans, engaging in those plans and carrying them out with guns, bombs and in some cases with cannons. Is that the freedom of the past that you want to return to?
dlhale wrote:
r and no man has the right to deprive another man the fruits of his labor. Governmen
So are you claiming that a thief that breaks into others houses is not in fact 'laboring'. Rather certain that such a person can certainly engage in planning, executing and then enjoying the fruits of his labors, so certainly you then support allowing that thief to do exactly that?
dlhale wrote:
It relies on government to excise tyranny by denying one man the right to the fruits of his labors and giving them to another that contributes no labors.
Have you seen the documentary "Tickled"? Basically shows a reporter discovering the story of a man who built up a large successful company that exists to this day although he has died. A large portion of that company is owned by his son who inherited it. His son does not work for the company. What the son does is set up shell companies run by employees that attempt to trick men into engaging in tick
-
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery. The backers of the south were European royalty, it was about returning the new world to the tyrants that ruled Europe - that is the true nature of that beast. Now, what were all the civil wars about in England - war after war after war after war ...
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Complete BS.
You can find whatever you want on the internet. In this case, you are wrong.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
You can find whatever you want on the internet. In this case, you are wrong.
Not quite sure what you are referring to but in the general way of speaking the civil war in the US was all about slavery. The fact that the confederate states exited due to proposed inclusion of states and how those states were addressing slavery doesn't alter that it was about slavery. Nor that claims about state rights were the populist rendering doesn't change that either. So unless you are referring specifically about something else in that post, you are the one that is incorrect.
-
And where did they get it from. who are the Saxons, also known as the Caucasians. They are the people that settle northern europe and england after leaving their original home. They entered europe by passing through the caucus mountains after leaving the middle east, they are isrealites. They are isacc's sons, that is what saxon means. They got it from living a theocracy, they got it from their God.
dlhale wrote:
They entered europe by passing through the caucus mountains after leaving the middle east, they are isrealites. They are isacc's sons, that is what saxon means. They got it from living a theocracy, they got it from their God.
Nonsense. Both in general history and history of the basis of the US Constitution. The US Constitution was based on ideals that were already in existence at the time in both politics and philosophical writings of which one can be sure that many of the rich landowners that were involved in the forming of the US were aware. Additionally many of the specific rights originated not from musings and certainly not religion but from specific events and needs (probably business needs) of the framers.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Not "a single item"; the entire market is regulated. From what you can (and can't!) put into food, from what you can and "must" have on the label, to how it shall be stored in waiting-terminals. The last thing the US wants is a free market.
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that
I suggest that you actually read something about "free market" then. If you want to change the definition and then suggest it is right then you need to supply a definition first.
011111100010 wrote:
I don't think anyone wants that.
No sane person that has real world experience wants anything that is absolute. However that means, per your example, that one does in fact need laws and regulations. Lots of them. For example at one time there was a law in the US that stipulated the minimum radium that an over the counter medicine could have. Radium. The radioactive substance that we now know kills people when ingested. But then the state wanted to insure that if it said radium on the label then at least you were getting it.
-
Yeah, the enclosure act, designed to make farming more efficient by rationalising the fractured land ownership map just ended up being abused by rich land owners when they stole the common land off the peasants. It was one of the greatest abuses of power and theft of rights from the common man in British history.
A_Griffin wrote:
But the problems in the 70’s were brought about by the oil crisis
No, it was an aggressive take over of the UK by Russian communism which was funding the National Miners Union (and possibly others). It was very nearly an act of war. Remember the miners strike, 3 day weeks, power cuts? We used to have to use candles at night to eat. And this went on for months. It was like the third world. How was industry supposed to functon? We had ambulance men no strike, the army was called in to do the job. The bin men were on strike, the rubbish was piled 10 ft high in the street, rats running around, stinking the place out. So bad was it that marshal law was nearly called. Thatcher fixed this. And fixed it good.
A_Griffin wrote:
which allowed Thatcher and Reagan to deregulate the money markets
Indeed. As stated there is increased risk of abuse from lack of oversight. It was a disaster. Like I said, the issue is balance, not right and wrong.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yeah, the enclosure act, designed to make farming more efficient by rationalising the fractured land ownership map just ended up being abused by rich land owners when they stole the common land off the peasants. It was one of the greatest abuses of power and theft of rights from the common man in British history.
As for rights you could be correct. However doesn't alter the fact that agriculture improvements made larger land management possible and more efficient. Which in turn lead to more crops with less land, thus more food and cheaper food. Which helped and still helps the poor. And that is not possible if the land is fragmented into small tracts.
-
011111100010 wrote:
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that
I suggest that you actually read something about "free market" then. If you want to change the definition and then suggest it is right then you need to supply a definition first.
011111100010 wrote:
I don't think anyone wants that.
No sane person that has real world experience wants anything that is absolute. However that means, per your example, that one does in fact need laws and regulations. Lots of them. For example at one time there was a law in the US that stipulated the minimum radium that an over the counter medicine could have. Radium. The radioactive substance that we now know kills people when ingested. But then the state wanted to insure that if it said radium on the label then at least you were getting it.
jschell wrote:
If you want to change the definition and then suggest it is right then you need to supply a definition first.
I think you have responded to the wrong post. Or else I don't think you understood my post at all. Or perhaps, I don't have the slightest clue what you are hinting about.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course.
In all things there are no absolutes and certainly no simple explanations. For example Ford didn't invent the production line nor the 8 hour work day, but he was certainly willing to take advantage of both to make more money for himself. Certainly wasn't any force used to convince him that he should use those.
A_Griffin wrote:
life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to ...
No. One cannot point to one specific thing and then claim that it is sole result of everything else in the world. Your examples are just examples of things which are both the result of and those that contributed to the overall process. So, for one from you list, "mass education" gradually impacted the overall society but it was in fact general and it could not have come about unless society itself was in a position to pay for, allow and demand it. One need only look at actual education level achievements over time to see how general the process really was. Note in the above that it does say "pay'. The reality is that increasing economics at all levels is something that is correlated, strongly, with all 'benefits' that humans might want to enjoy. So the poor achieve more benefits because they are now richer and not just because the rich gave up their own wealth.
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
As with my point above it is a generalization which is not true. "Progressives" in the 60s proclaimed that group living would soon take over the world and that was the only equitable and fair system. As such communes flourished. But that experiment failed. Conservatives might need to be dragged into new cultural idioms but they are also the framework that keeps society from imploding while those new idioms are explored. Conservatives do adapt, eventually, and the new conservatives are more than willing to defend
Yes, of course it's not simple as I made out, but my point is that all these "good" things have in common the principle that the rich powerful must give up some of what they could take by force for the betterment of the less rich and powerful. This is counter to their natural inclination.
-
jschell wrote:
If you want to change the definition and then suggest it is right then you need to supply a definition first.
I think you have responded to the wrong post. Or else I don't think you understood my post at all. Or perhaps, I don't have the slightest clue what you are hinting about.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.