On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:10:00 -0700, Video61 wrote:
> On May 15, 1:17 am, orangata...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On 15 May, 07:03, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 14, 11:37 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > > It's much worse than that.
>>
>> > > By their own admission the "market" economists are too stupid to
>> > > answer a simple self evident truth:
>>
>> > > "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>>
>> > > There is no way you can pretend to be a "market" economist and
claim
>> > > to be too stupid to answer that question.
>>
>> > > Bret Cahill
>>
>> > of course you are right. and, is every participant in a transaction
>> > rational? of course not. our jails and metal institutions are full of
>> > people who were looking out for their own self interests.
>>
>> So we should take everyone's money and belongings away from them and
>> supply them with the stuff you think they should have?
>>
>
> typical response from a chanter. where did i ever say that. that
> response could be construed as insane.
>
>> > "our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
>> > contem****ary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
>> > dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
>> > the space between them."
>> > "The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
>> > miracle
>> > theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses
of
>> > the middle class"
>> > Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
>>
>> "Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more
>> urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government"
>> Milton Friedman
And this is where Friedman and the entire Libertarian philosophy finds
itself constantly in the ditch. I would object to the Friedman quote
above in that it assumes some sort holiness on the part of consumers. I
might remark that roaches are consumers too. But the notion that the
individuals of the society must guard against a malicious government is
totally correct. Government is a natural sociological happening arising
out of the desire for a social order in which we place restraints on the
actions of other individuals. Even if government is each of us standing
over a land claim protecting it and our belongings with a sharp stick,
such would still be a form of government. It would be a very inefficient
and stupid form of government but a government nonetheless.
The question really is, as Friedman rightly observes: how do we
control this thing called government such that it does not do us harm?
And this is where the "free market" folk seem to go in the ditch at all
times. It is not a question of whether or not there is to be a government
or a "free market", but instead, how to make government act in the best
interest of the members of the society. To what extent does a "free
market" actually serve the best interests of all the people? The "free
market" and the "economy" are not the gods served by governance. Nor is
every roach that is a consumer. Utilitarianism is the guideline for a
proper government. The "market" is a part of that and not the whole.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
