Re: Leftists knocking Friedman ?

On Mar 13, 1:39=A0pm, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > =A0i am against laissez faire.
>
> Yet you don't seem to understand what it is.

I think you have that backwards.
You seem to think there's a place for control in laissez faire
capitalism.  The only court, if there is one, is the best one
can buy.

The problem is if one has no money one can be exploited by those
who do.  The court is just window dressing for the application
of will by the powerful.  The lip service to "The nonagression
axiom" fails because it is the winner who decides what is
agression.  Where a society has agreed to communal property
the ararcho-capitalist will see the agression of government
into private affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire

   Laissez-faire activists sup****t no governmental intervention:
   free markets, minimal taxes, minimal regulations and private
   owner****p of property. They sup****t negative liberty and oppose
   positive liberty, such as wealth redistribution, given by the
   state. However, some laissez-faire proponents, especially those
   who attend to the Chicago School, prefer Milton Friedman's
   negative income tax as a replacement to the existing welfare
   system, arguing that it is simpler and has fewer of the "perverse
   incentives" of "government handouts".

   They are based on the belief that redistribution of wealth takes
   capital from the most productive sectors of the economy, and is
   enforcing economic egalitarianism, which reduces productivity and
   the incentive to work. They may further argue that any tem****ary
   equality of outcome gained by redistribution would quickly
collapse
   without coercion because people have different levels of
motivation
   and native abilities, and would make different choices based on
their
   differing values. Material inequality, they argue, is a necessary
   outcome of the freedom to choose one's own actions without
imposing
   on others.

And yet for all the talk they still want government.

   Murray Rothbard was a prominent critic of laissez-faire
minarchism.
   As an anarcho-capitalist, he argued that government defence is
   inefficient. He criticized laissez-faire activists for sup****ting
   geographically large, minarchist states.

What is a government if not interference in the market?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist

Laissez-faire is just a word used by winners to justify their
oppression of others and by losers who rail against the current
government in their attempt to become a winner and justify their
own oppression of others.

I cannot own myself if there can be property.  Assertion of property
is aggression.  How am I to live free when you aggress against me?
What I trade is knowledge for that alone has no existence outside
the individual.

Get thee behind me Satan with your assertions of a government that
doesn't limit the liberty of the individual.