OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions

Andy Bradford 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.

[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
 10:33pm  up  1:33,  1 user,  load average: 1.12, 1.31, 1.18

More information about the PLUG mailing list