Re: Leftists knocking Friedman ?

On Mar 13, 5:53 pm, forbisga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Mar 13, 1:39 pm, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > >  i 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.

What control?  I have only stated that a proper roll of government is
the protection of individual rights.

> The only court, if there is one, is the best one
> can buy.

Protection of individual rights, against fraud, can certainly be
handled by the court system.  The government's role as such is to
provide the service, making sure that representation does not depend
on who has the money.  It is the proper roll of government to ensure
that all trading is voluntary - not to decide who trades with who.

> 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.

Because the government is actively involved in economics.

> The lip service to "The nonagression
> axiom" fails because it is the winner who decides what is
> agression.

The winner of what?  If economic interaction is voluntary, who is the
loser?

> Where a society has agreed to communal property
> the ararcho-capitalist will see the agression of government
> into private affairs.

I am against communal property.

> 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.

I fail to see how forcing the creator of wealth to turn it over to the
state is a "positive liberty."

>    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".

As I understand it, Friedman is for a separation of economy and state.

> And yet for all the talk they still want government.

Limited to the protection of individual rights through the courts,
police force, and armed forces.  Some recognize that some
infrastructures function under state control (highways, for example).

> What is a government if not interference in the market?

A protector of individual human rights.

>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchismhttp://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.

This is a fine example of a loaded premise clearly written by a
socialist that is no way representative of those in favor of Laissez-
fair, who are interested primarily in the ability to keep the results
of their own efforts and trade them voluntarily with others.  The only
coercive force truly available is that of government, who can legally
force people to surrender the wealth they have created to be
distributed among others who did not.  The proper roll of government
is to physically protect citizens from force, and to protect them from
fraud - by ensuring all trading is voluntary.

> I cannot own myself if there can be property.

What meaningless garbage is this?  How is it that the creation of
something is the loss of the self?

> 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.

So, if you create something - a product, service or idea - and claim
it to be your own, you are an aggressor?  Absurd.  But, if you allow
the state to take it from you by force in the interest of the "common
good" there is no aggression?

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

Who asserted this?  Not I.