OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
amb-plug at bradfords.org
Thu Jun 26 22:33:07 MDT 2008
Thus said Levi Pearson on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:32:48 MDT:
> This one doesn't say anything about 'follows closest to
> laissez-faire', it simply says that free markets create prosperity.
> I'm certainly not arguing against that.
If you're looking for concrete examples, they will likely be hard to
come by. Probably because it isn't in the best interest of government to
let something like this be tried.
> Newt Gingrich blames the fall of Detroit on Liberals. I'm sure the
> Liberals disagree. There's not enough content in the 4 minute clip for
> me to make a judgement, but I'm sure things are more complex than the
> picture he's painting here. Mostly fluff.
To say that it is Liberals is mostly politics. To say that it is due to
arbitrary laws, some of which were liberal (as in affecting one group at
the expense of another) is more likely correct.
> Could you source someone else please? Geez. Yes, working is how you
> make money and reduce poverty. More fluff.
But its more than just work. Saving is a critical feature of building
prosperity. If one cannot save the fruits of one's labor, then one is
inclined to do less. Moral hazard can do strange things to people.
> Haven't got time to watch this. Why don't you reference some *text*
> instead of talking heads?
Maybe because he feels that most people won't take the time to read. I
find this is true of many people I meet. Many people don't read and
sometimes video is a good way to get an idea across. I haven't actually
watched any of them. Also, I don't think Newt Gingrich is a strong
advocate for these kinds of things. Milton Friedman is definitely a step
> You get child labor, abuse of employees, rampant pollution, unsafe
> working conditions, and all sorts of other problems.
Apropos this topic, I just finished reading:
If the proper role of government is to protect life and property, every
time that abuse (i.e. aggression against another employee) occurs it
will be prosecuted. And if one felt one's life was threatened, the use
of deadly force would be justified.
> Capitalism doesn't really care about these things, because it means
> that (at least in the short term) profits go way up.
To me, it would seem that capitalism is just an economic result of the
protection of life, liberty and property.
> Clearly, there's a balance to be struck between free market forces and
> government regulation.
There could be a balance. The balance could be that government is
restricted to protecting life and property. Why should any non-invasive,
non-coercive, non-aggressive, non-lifethreatening activity be regulated?
Government should be restricted to protecting parties in a contract
(which is just an extension of protecting property, which is an
extension of protecting a person). Even The Declaration of Independence
included this concept:
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed''
Those which influenced the signers of these documents in that day
actually spoke of life, liberty and property, which is a much more
concrete concept than life, liberty and happiness.
10:33pm up 1:33, 1 user, load average: 1.12, 1.31, 1.18
More information about the PLUG