Re: Leftists knocking Friedman ?

On Mar 12, 11:28 pm, forbisga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, 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 you
> > > >>>>>> were a rugged individual, you could defend your own rights
and
> > > >>>>>> properties.
> > > >>>>>> then again, if it was pure laissez faire, all information is
perfect,
> > > >>>>>> 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
somehow.
> > > >>>>> Laizzes fair Capitalism is merely a separation of economics
and state,
> > > >>>>> much like secularism is a separation of church and state. 
However,
> > > >>>>> 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
require
> > > >>>> 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.
>
> > > >  and 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.
>
> >  i 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.)

 yes, dan is a bit confused, and he seems to be following me around
getting more confused daily.
 i have little or no argument with what you propose,
surprise ,surprise. but, i would tweak it a bit. also, the costs to
our planet from ****pping stuff back and forth, when most of it can be
made locally, is becoming a strain that one cannot ignore. the mass
burning of fossil fuels that are the engine of globalism, its simply
not sustainable. so, tweaking will become a matter of survival for the
planet.
 slowing down the hyper trade will extend the finite resource called
energy. one day we will be cursed at for spending fossil fuels to fly
chickens to china to exploit slave labor, no labor or environmental,
and no health regulations. then the chickens are processed, and flown
back to america as nuggets(yep, they are doing it).
 or 13 of our 15 most ex****ted catagories are scrap paper, metals, cow
hides, and parts to be assembled and sent back to america as finished
products. so if you do not pay attention to what this is doing to
americas economy, then at least tweak it for the environment.