Re: Leftists knocking Friedman ?

On Mar 12, 9:06=A0pm, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Mar 12, 10:27 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 9:58 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> Sketch System wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 11, 8:33 pm, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > >>>> On Mar 11, 6:35 pm, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mar 11, 4:08 pm, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > >>>>>> its a country with pure capitalism. you want a nanny state. if
yo=
u
> > >>>>>> were a rugged individual, you could defend your own rights and
> > >>>>>> properties.
> > >>>>>> then again, if it was pure laissez faire, all information is
perf=
ect,
> > >>>>>> all transactions are between rational human beings, so you
would =
need
> > >>>>>> no nanny state:)
> > >>>>> You seem to think that anarchism and capitalism are the same
someh=
ow.
> > >>>>> Laizzes fair Capitalism is merely a separation of economics and
st=
ate,
> > >>>>> much like secularism is a separation of church and state.
=A0Howev=
er,
> > >>>>> there is still a need for the protection of individual rights,
and=

> > >>>>> that is the proper - and necessary - roll of government
precisely
> > >>>>> because not all human beings are rational.
> > >>>> you mean a nanny state. if the nanny has to enforce property
rights=
,
> > >>>> thats a economic benefit to certain players of the markets
because.=
 if
> > >>>> you believe not all people are rational in their dealings, and
requ=
ire
> > >>>> state intervention, then again state intervention is a benefit to
> > >>>> certain players of the markets.
> > >>> What certain players?
> > >> Obviously those not clever enough to have protected their own
rights
> > >> without resort to gov't interference in the free market.
>
> > > =A0and if the certain players have a lot of private property, then
the=

> > > nanny state will spend much more time and resources protecting a
small=

> > > cabal of very wealthy players. hardly a free market, hardly laissez
> > > faire.
>
> > Cheese, are you for it, or against it? This is like reading the
ranting
> > of a politician.
>
> =A0i am against laissez faire.

Now I've seen two amazing things, one of which is that someone could
not know your position concering laissez faire, heck, you don't even
agree with my stand on fair-market globalism.  (I promote the notion
that a country could reasonably collect im****t tarrifs to offset
the costs of environmental, labor, etc. concerns as long as those
tarrifs
were turned over to an NGO to be used to correct those deficiencies
in the product's nation of origin.)