On May 15, 3:50 pm, "Econotron" <njmfi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:9d48afba-d643-409a-86b2-2692bc07dcd1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >> Friedman was an issue dodger just like all the remaining ****lls
at
> >> >> >> GOP
> >> >> >> "thank" tanks like Hoover, Heritage, Am. Enterprise, the
Chicago
> >> >> >> School, etc.
>
> >> >> >> Friedman would never address the land issues raised by the
> >> >> >> Georgists
> >> >> >> and he'ld never touch the "free markets w/o free speech" issue
> >> >> >> either.
>
> >> >> >> When you dodge issues that are fundamental to your field you
are a
> >> >> >> fraud.
>
> >> >> > Care for some cheese with that whine?
>
> >> >> > Yeah, and let us know when you win a Nobel Prize.
>
> >> >> It's also a classic straw man. "I'll decide what issues should be
> >> >> fundamental to 'your field',
>
> >> > The precondition of free markets is of no concern to free marketry?
>
> >> Not directly.
>
> > The direct effect of censor****p is that free markets are impossible.
>
> > Are you saying that free marketeers do not care if we have free
> > markets or not?
>
> > This is certainly not true for GOP ****ll tank "market" economists.
>
> > That's why they dodge The Question:
>
> > They fear free speech and free markets more than anyone.
>
> Free markets, as you understand them, are impossible with free speech
(which
> is impossibility of its own) or without, because the true meaning of the
> term "free" is different, when applied to the markets, from the one
being
> applied to the speech. The "freedom" of the markets has more to do with
> symmetry, rather than range, presuming un-skewed legal and political
> confines within which the markets are allowed to operate. The ranges of
> those confines may be different from society to society, but they have
> little to do with the markets' "freedom", while having everything to do
with
> the freedom of speech. This is your answer, and leave the Friedman
alone.:-)
> e.
but, lying is free speech, and lying is involved in many
transactions. so if you outlaw lying in transactions, you no longer
have a free market. and if the wounded recipient of lying in a
transaction demands satisfaction, you no longer have a free market
because both parties were not rational. freidman knew this.
|
