[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah let me rage against capitalism on my computer.
[/quote]
You rage against “facism” and “tyranny” on the computer. What’s the difference?
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Moore should have cracked a book on Austrian economics before he made another emotional, from the heart, documentary. It was a good documentary, but not even he knew what the premise was. Which is : Regulation and Laws and Big Brother create monopolies, create ponzi schemes, create the travesties that are becoming our financial system. Should have been titled “Corporatism: A love Story” .
No system can harness man’s greed and selfishness better than Capitalism can.
[/quote]
You do know it was the wrong assumptions and mysticism of Austrian economics that got us here, right?
Michael Moore is great. A man who makes tons of money commenting on the ills of capitalism. I guess as soon as he surrenders he agrees to share his earnings with me and others I’ll get on board with his socialist paradise.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah let me rage against capitalism on my computer.
[/quote]
You rage against “facism” and “tyranny” on the computer. What’s the difference?[/quote]
Tyranny and facism did not provide the computer
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Moore should have cracked a book on Austrian economics before he made another emotional, from the heart, documentary. It was a good documentary, but not even he knew what the premise was. Which is : Regulation and Laws and Big Brother create monopolies, create ponzi schemes, create the travesties that are becoming our financial system. Should have been titled “Corporatism: A love Story” .
No system can harness man’s greed and selfishness better than Capitalism can.
[/quote]
You do know it was the wrong assumptions and mysticism of Austrian economics that got us here, right?
[/quote]
In what way? You can’t just say things like this without evidence. A single powerful regulation, say a cap on the liability of corporations, would throw this statement out of contention wouldn’t it?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah let me rage against capitalism on my computer.
[/quote]
You rage against “facism” and “tyranny” on the computer. What’s the difference?[/quote]
::Whoosh::
He was pointing out the irony that people rage against capitalism in a machine that was made available purely due to capitalism.
Bill Gates didn’t get rich selling room-sized computers to the military.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah let me rage against capitalism on my computer.
[/quote]
You rage against “facism” and “tyranny” on the computer. What’s the difference?[/quote]
Tyranny and facism did not provide the computer[/quote]
Oh yes they did, if your arguments are to hold any water at all.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Moore should have cracked a book on Austrian economics before he made another emotional, from the heart, documentary. It was a good documentary, but not even he knew what the premise was. Which is : Regulation and Laws and Big Brother create monopolies, create ponzi schemes, create the travesties that are becoming our financial system. Should have been titled “Corporatism: A love Story” .
No system can harness man’s greed and selfishness better than Capitalism can.
[/quote]
You do know it was the wrong assumptions and mysticism of Austrian economics that got us here, right?
[/quote]
In what way? You can’t just say things like this without evidence. A single powerful regulation, say a cap on the liability of corporations, would throw this statement out of contention wouldn’t it?
[/quote]
How surprising–another defender of Austrian economics displays clumsy reasoning. Notice that I did not say that the presciptions of Austrian economics caused the recession. Rather, it was the same assumptions and the same basic attitude that did.
So no, a single powerful regulation would do nothing to harm my argument.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah let me rage against capitalism on my computer.
[/quote]
You rage against “facism” and “tyranny” on the computer. What’s the difference?[/quote]
Tyranny and facism did not provide the computer[/quote]
Oh yes they did, if your arguments are to hold any water at all.
[/quote]
Clever.
But my argument is that we would have even more awesome devices if governments would not stand in the way of the free market.
A parasite is hardly praiseworthy if its host thrives in spite of it.
[quote]orion wrote:Clever.
But my argument is that we would have even more awesome devices if governments would not stand in the way of the free market.
A parasite is hardly praiseworthy if its host thrives in spite of it.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I suppose. Here’s a hint, though: it’s not government standing in the way of a free market. It never has been.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:Clever.
But my argument is that we would have even more awesome devices if governments would not stand in the way of the free market.
A parasite is hardly praiseworthy if its host thrives in spite of it.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I suppose. Here’s a hint, though: it’s not government standing in the way of a free market. It never has been.
[/quote]
It’s people like you who stand in the way of a free market, it’s people like you who gleefully elect politicians who oppose free market solutions, It’s then politicians like that who serve in government, it’s then a government like that standing in the way of a free market.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:Clever.
But my argument is that we would have even more awesome devices if governments would not stand in the way of the free market.
A parasite is hardly praiseworthy if its host thrives in spite of it.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I suppose. Here’s a hint, though: it’s not government standing in the way of a free market. It never has been.
[/quote]
Also, and be honest here, do you really think that the current administration is not standing in the way of free markets? Right now, the HHS Secretary is tightening the noose around private insurance companies, and streamlining (forcing) Americans into a federal insurance program. If they weren’t standing in the way they would be allowing for free market solutions to bring down the cost of health care. Obviously they aren’t, why do you think this is? I’ll answer that for you; it’s all about power. This is exactly why a government has every incentive to stand in the way of free markets; free markets mean less power for the government.
We’ve been through this before Ryan. Governments are made up of people, people crave power; we must therefore place maximum restrictions on the people of government who crave that power.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:It’s people like you who stand in the way of a free market, it’s people like you who gleefully elect politicians who oppose free market solutions, It’s then politicians like that who serve in government, it’s then a government like that standing in the way of a free market.
[/quote]
I don’t vote.
But aside from that, you simply raise further questions and fall right into a big zany conspiracy theory. Namely, why do these politicians allegedly oppose a free market, and why do people elect them? If life under the free market is so good, then why have people always and everywhere since their introduction, opposed free markets? Are they all just stupid? Is it a massive conspiracy?
By attempting to maintain your pure ideology, you run into all kinds of logical problems.
The current administration is standing in the way of free markets, defined in the Libertarian sense. This is because they are more intelligent than the Libertarians. The current administration is not quite as dogmatic as the far right, and so they are doing what is necessary to preserve capitalism as it grows increasingly irrational and increasingly hostile to the public interest. True free market solutions would destroy capitalism probably within a couple of decades.
It is because free market solutions will not bring down the cost of health care. Over and over again, it has been demonstrated that single-payer health care systems are the most efficient and produce the best results. It is because they wish to simultaneously preserve our economic system and help people get quality medical care, coupled with the fact that they are not totally blinded by ideology.
And we’re right back to the conspiracy theory. It is the easy way out, I suppose.
I won’t argue with you, but don’t be surprised when you continue to be mystified by economics and politics.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:It’s people like you who stand in the way of a free market, it’s people like you who gleefully elect politicians who oppose free market solutions, It’s then politicians like that who serve in government, it’s then a government like that standing in the way of a free market.
[/quote]
I don’t vote.
But aside from that, you simply raise further questions and fall right into a big zany conspiracy theory. Namely, why do these politicians allegedly oppose a free market, and why do people elect them? If life under the free market is so good, then why have people always and everywhere since their introduction, opposed free markets? Are they all just stupid? Is it a massive conspiracy?
By attempting to maintain your pure ideology, you run into all kinds of logical problems.
[/quote]
Im not neccessarily aiming this at you Ryan bc I dont know your whole situation but I find it funny how Ill see people just go off on how this country is going yet they dont vote. If you want change then at least vote if anything. And that goes for both sides of the political spectrum
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”
Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”
Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]
After 1,997 failed attempts, you finally make an accurate post.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:It’s people like you who stand in the way of a free market, it’s people like you who gleefully elect politicians who oppose free market solutions, It’s then politicians like that who serve in government, it’s then a government like that standing in the way of a free market.
I don’t vote.[/quote]
Right, cuz you’re way too smart and far too elite to dirty yourself with the common voter.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I don’t vote.
[/quote]
and this admission from the great “voice of the people” and “worker’s revolution” socialist . . . . can’t even get up the passion to participate enough to try to change over to the system he adores . . . maybe he’s waiting on a violent revolution instead . . .
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
“It is only when the threat of popular participation is overcome that democratic forms can be safely contemplated.”
Voting changes nothing. The entire process is set up in such a way that no candidate who is a danger to the status quo can be elected. No matter who wins, things stay the same.[/quote]
You accuse me of supporting conspiracy theories, then you post shit like this? You’re inconsistent Ryan.