DShiznit wrote:
Oh, so since Somalia has no government interference they must have no economic woes, right?
Nope. Everything is fine and dandy.
Any group that exerts authority through coercion over a wide range of people can be considered a government, regardless of its legitimacy or recognition internationally. If I recall correctly, there are a host of militants in Somalia that fit this description. Your argument fails.
Except that only happens, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FREAKING GOVERNMENT. Your ideal Road Warrior system of everyone fending for themselves simply does not work. Get over it.
We now interrupt this important debate for a word from our sponsor....
pokemon
We now return to the main broadcast.
my gosh, just trying too lightin the situation for a while
@dshiznit: ? what are you talking about?
I never said that all government was evil, just that interference was responsible for economic hardship. I believe in minimalist government of the people, by the people, and for the people that provides only military defense and internal police forces, with perhaps a few other allowances for such things as roads.
And in case you didn't notice, I defined Somalian rebels as a form of government anyway, albeit an illegitimate and probably internationally unrecognized type. It is still government, however you treat it. It's called 'martial law' in civilized countries.
me2labs wrote:
I never said that all government was evil, just that interference was responsible for economic hardship. I believe in minimalist government of the people, by the people, and for the people that provides only military defense and internal police forces, with perhaps a few other allowances for such things as roads.
And you'd be wrong. Economic hardship in this country has repeatedly been caused by the *lack* of government interference (aka, regulation)
Quote:
And in case you didn't notice, I defined Somalian rebels as a form of government anyway, albeit an illegitimate and probably internationally unrecognized type. It is still government, however you treat it. It's called 'martial law' in civilized countries.
That isn't martial law. The Somalian rebels are not a government. The point is that what you desire simply doesn't work. Never has, never will. It is naive in its idealistic beliefs.
Martial Law is were the active government sends out their military (Soldiers, tanks, helicopters etc) into civilian areas (Towns, citys, homes).
Kllrnohj wrote:
The point is that what you desire simply doesn't work. Never has, never will. It is naive in its idealistic beliefs.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I feel sorry for people like you two.
OK, can you give me an example where government interference produced a long-term (more than 20 years) benefit without any detrimental effects whatsoever?
me2labs wrote:
I feel sorry for people like you two.
OK, can you give me an example where government interference produced a long-term (more than 20 years) benefit without any detrimental effects whatsoever?
Nobody has said that government interference is perfect. Can you show me where the lack of government interference has produced a long-term gain? Of course you can't. I can easily show that the recent economic collapse was due to the lack of regulation. You can't show that government interference in this country has caused anything resembling that.
Regulation is a necessary evil. If you believe that corporations (which are run by greed, by the way) will all play nice and compete fairly, you're a complete moron.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Nobody has said that government interference is perfect. Can you show me where the lack of government interference has produced a long-term gain? Of course you can't. I can easily show that the recent economic collapse was due to the lack of regulation. You can't show that government interference in this country has caused anything resembling that.
Of course, the two are slightly different in that I'm not aware of any time in history where a national economy has been unregulated.
elfprince13 wrote:
Of course, the two are slightly different in that I'm not aware of any time in history where a national economy has been unregulated.
Not in this country, but even still, the idea that it could work is laughable at best. Look at the crap corporations try to pull when there IS government regulation preventing it. Removing the regulation won't suddenly mean companies will develop ethics.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Not in this country
Find me an example of any country in recorded history that has had a completely unregulated economy.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Look at the crap corporations try to pull when there IS government regulation preventing it. Removing the regulation won't suddenly mean companies will develop ethics.
And antitrust laws are really the only beneficial regulations related to corporate behavior that I'm aware of.
me2labs wrote:
I feel sorry for people like you two.
OK, can you give me an example where government interference produced a long-term (more than 20 years) benefit without any detrimental effects whatsoever?
The economic boom in the 90s?
DShiznit wrote:
me2labs wrote:
I feel sorry for people like you two.
OK, can you give me an example where government interference produced a long-term (more than 20 years) benefit without any detrimental effects whatsoever?
The economic boom in the 90s?
fail.
Quote:
We libertarians believe that the ultimate source of economic woes is the government.
People and corporations are causing their own misery by engaging in unscrupulous practices and encouraging irresponsible spending. There seems to be this belief among Americans that a modest lifestyle is equivalent to poverty or social castration; so (usually, fresh out of college) people take out massive loans and put money down on expensive homes, vehicles and other lifestyle accouterments they can't actually afford. Not surprisingly, major banks, Realtors and car manufactures start declaring bankruptcy, and then everybody misdirects the blame at the government for "stealing" their money to put food on poor folks' tables; or to put their children through college.
As long as America's priorities unduly emphasize lifestyle-spending, this is what we'll always have to deal with. People need to be more realistic and stop using money (that they don't have) to buy crap that makes them feel better than everybody else.
The problem with Randian capitalism is that the industrialists in her books don't actually exist (in large enough numbers anyway).
Some regulation is good. Just a little. America's strong 18th century economy is an example.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum