5 ms·

So you're saying that the government, either knowingly or unknowingly, made decisions that, in the long run, adversely affected its citizens? No kidding.

nessus42 14y ago
'Cuz all those other countries that got it better, did so with a pure, laissez-faire market, free of any government intervention.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Like France.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  Can you provide a single example of such a country? Regardless, free-market capitalism is not predicated on freedom from government intervention; in fact, a government is necessary in order to protect the freedoms of the individual. That should be the purpose of the government: protecting the freedom of its citizens. Creating an environment that allows voluntary trade of goods and services to exist. Not picking winners or losers. Not imposing regulations that create monopolies. Not encouraging bad behavior by banks. Not rewarding bad decisions by auto manufacturers. Not being in bed with unions and corporations alike. Here's how I think about it: What can one corporation do to a person? Not much. What can one government do to a person? Take away his freedom, imprison him, and / or kill him. Would I rather have flawed, power abusing individuals the power to impose their will over an entire country, or just their company? Would I rather centralize power in a way that is not accountable to anyone, or would I rather have power be decentralized and much more accountable to me? No one is arguing for no government. But we are looking at the present state of affairs and the reasons we got here, and then looking at the past and seeing what happened then and why... and we're realizing that, for the most part, more government is bad.
  - nessus42 14y ago
    Get back to me when you can point out a single successful country in the entire history of the world that actually operated on "Libertarian" or "Objectivist" principles.
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      Can you name one that's tried either of them and stuck with it?
      - nessus42 14y ago
        If we are going to experiment with completely unproven political and economic systems on our own society, I vote for a socialist anarchy. First order of business: eliminate corporations. Immortal amoral virtual people cause nothing but trouble!
        ktizo 14y ago
        I really don't think anarchy is something you vote for. Is more like the base state that exists already, as long as you can reliably avoid the people in silly hats. And how are you going to eliminate corporations if you have anarchy? You would have to enact legislation backed by force, because a lot of people are not going to agree. Is a bit like some of the arguments I have with mates where they say they want to institute anarchy and ban money. To which I usually point out that firstly, banning money sounds a lot like an imposed law and that secondly, irrespective of my views on monetary systems and that they can probably be improved upon, if anyone tried to ban money, the first thing I would do is start a currency just to annoy them. [edit] My view on money is that eventually it will be obsolete for acquiring many everyday goods, but remain for luxuries for a very long time, but the point at which I expect this to start to occur is still a reasonably long way off. The key technology that could start bringing this about is a fully automated farming and delivery chain driven off solar. I am mostly keeping a close eye on Brazil as the most likely candidate for schemes like this to be tried first, given the rapid economic development, political climate, and existing food security schemes like that in the city of Belo Horizonte. http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm Note, I am not against money per-se as I think that it was a vast improvement on what it replaced, I just think that it doesn't have the lowest economic friction for acquiring any abundant items that have negligible ongoing costs.

nessus42 14y ago

'Cuz all those other countries that got it better, did so with a pure, laissez-faire market, free of any government intervention.

astrodust 14y ago
Like France.
MordinSolus 14y ago
Can you provide a single example of such a country? Regardless, free-market capitalism is not predicated on freedom from government intervention; in fact, a government is necessary in order to protect the freedoms of the individual. That should be the purpose of the government: protecting the freedom of its citizens. Creating an environment that allows voluntary trade of goods and services to exist. Not picking winners or losers. Not imposing regulations that create monopolies. Not encouraging bad behavior by banks. Not rewarding bad decisions by auto manufacturers. Not being in bed with unions and corporations alike. Here's how I think about it: What can one corporation do to a person? Not much. What can one government do to a person? Take away his freedom, imprison him, and / or kill him. Would I rather have flawed, power abusing individuals the power to impose their will over an entire country, or just their company? Would I rather centralize power in a way that is not accountable to anyone, or would I rather have power be decentralized and much more accountable to me? No one is arguing for no government. But we are looking at the present state of affairs and the reasons we got here, and then looking at the past and seeing what happened then and why... and we're realizing that, for the most part, more government is bad.
- nessus42 14y ago
  Get back to me when you can point out a single successful country in the entire history of the world that actually operated on "Libertarian" or "Objectivist" principles.
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    Can you name one that's tried either of them and stuck with it?
    - nessus42 14y ago
      If we are going to experiment with completely unproven political and economic systems on our own society, I vote for a socialist anarchy. First order of business: eliminate corporations. Immortal amoral virtual people cause nothing but trouble!
      - ktizo 14y ago
        I really don't think anarchy is something you vote for. Is more like the base state that exists already, as long as you can reliably avoid the people in silly hats. And how are you going to eliminate corporations if you have anarchy? You would have to enact legislation backed by force, because a lot of people are not going to agree. Is a bit like some of the arguments I have with mates where they say they want to institute anarchy and ban money. To which I usually point out that firstly, banning money sounds a lot like an imposed law and that secondly, irrespective of my views on monetary systems and that they can probably be improved upon, if anyone tried to ban money, the first thing I would do is start a currency just to annoy them. [edit] My view on money is that eventually it will be obsolete for acquiring many everyday goods, but remain for luxuries for a very long time, but the point at which I expect this to start to occur is still a reasonably long way off. The key technology that could start bringing this about is a fully automated farming and delivery chain driven off solar. I am mostly keeping a close eye on Brazil as the most likely candidate for schemes like this to be tried first, given the rapid economic development, political climate, and existing food security schemes like that in the city of Belo Horizonte. http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm Note, I am not against money per-se as I think that it was a vast improvement on what it replaced, I just think that it doesn't have the lowest economic friction for acquiring any abundant items that have negligible ongoing costs.