And yet another free-market theory failure - Page 2

You keep pretending that you can compartmentalize freedom. We'll never get anywhere if you cannot break out of this tunnel vision.



We probably should start with a discussion about rights and what our rights are and aren't. That really needs to be the first discussion and clarification, because it looks like you are confused here with statements like this one.

Human being have three basic rights: Life, liberty and property. The second two are really logical derivatives of the first of course. There are other logically derivative rights like the right to defend one's self (and property) against aggression and violence (derived from the right to life, liberty and property). You have the right to speak, think, believe, worship, etc. You have the right to not be enslaved or imprisoned. These are your rights.

A person has a right to own property, but you don't have a "right" to prevent them from owning that property if they are in proximity to you because you don't like the property. You, of course, have a right to use your powers of influence (such as they are) to try and convince people around you to dispose of and stop owning property you don't think they should own. And they have the right to ignore you and reject your pleas and wishes.

A person has a right to speak, but you don't have a "right" to prevent them from speaking certain things if they are in proximity to you because you don't like what they are saying. You, of course, have a right to use your powers of influence (such as they are) to try and convince people around you to stop saying the things you don't think they should say. And they have the right to ignore you and reject your pleas and wishes.

You cannot logically have a "right" to something that ultimately involves violating the right or rights of another person or persons. That is not a "right." It is something else (perhaps a desire, wish, privilege...not sure), but it isn't a "right."

You do not have a "right" to education if what you mean by having this "right" is a right to force someone else give you an education. You, of course, have a right to pursue an education with your time, energy and other resources at your disposal (either earned or voluntarily given to you.) But you do not have a right to enslave others to obtain it. That is a wish or a desire.

You do not have a "right" to healthcare if what you mean by having this "right" is a right to force someone else give you healthcare products and services. You, of course, have a right to maintain your health and seek out healthcare with your time, energy and other resources at your disposal (either earned or voluntarily given to you.) But you do not have a right to enslave others to obtain it. That is a wish or a desire.

Does this help?

And you not saying anything about it brings partisanship into it also ( better to let them think it's all Obama's fault ). You sited the last 10 years of lost of freedoms through government intervention. I mearly sited who's been in charge for most of that time. Given that another election is coming up I'm sure you wouldn't want to discuss that.

And what exactly do you mean by economic freedom? Less or no regulation?

You're telling him that he's being partisan because he's....not writing anything partisan. WTF? \

WTF?!?!



I cited the last 10 years because the index to which I was specifically referring only goes back for 10 years. I personally think freedom in the US has been in decline for about 100 years.



First, I don't really think that freedom can be easily compartmentalized into "economic" and other areas. Freedom is freedom.

Second, the index to which I was specifically referring tries to evaluate some economic aspects of freedom. You're welcome to read what they say about their index.

Finally, if we were to discuss "economic freedom" it would have to do with freedom of economic activity. The freedom to trade with whomever you want under whatever mutually agreeable terms you and your trading parter voluntarily agree to. The freedom to enter industries and trades and occupations. Knowing that your property is secure from theft. Things like that. The freedom to use your property (including money) as you wish so long as you do not violate the basic rights of others.

We should stop there, because it's the root of the issue. tonton took a single stat and assigned all sorts of meaning to it. He claims that "socialized" countries have "better financial performance" and standards of living than "non-socialized" countries. He bases all of this on a single stat...the stock markets of those respective countries.

tonton
In short...so? Stock markets are not indicative of economic performance overall, nor does this single measure account for other differences between nations. Using this data point to promote socialist policies in the U.S. is even more problematic. Is there a political party promoting Sweden's system? Of course not. That is because not all socialism is created the same. Politicians in the U.S. are pursuing a very different agenda, notably the cementing of their own power through government dependency. Even assuming there was a well-known national political party promoting Sweden's exact system, that is no guarantee it would work due to the aforementioned differences between our countries. Our population is different. Our geography is different. Our culture is different. Our role in world affairs is different. Once one starts to look at the variables, tonton's message begins to look quite silly.

Hey, you can stick your fingers in your ears all you like. But the fact is that pretty much every major region in Canada except Quebec has embraced a Conservative federal government. Toronto, 'the socialist capital of Canada' recently embraced a Conservative mayor by a landslide.

And no less than the country's most liberal paper is reporting that Ontario is poised to make the journey to the Conservative side complete this October.

The country is changing. Don't blame the messenger.

Conservatives: Focus on the fraud as an excuse to limit access to social safety nets.

Liberals: Yeah, some will abuse the system, but it's more important that everyone who is need gets help without hassle.

Oh look.

The evil Stalinist kuluk-murdering gulag state of Sweden is bouncing back from the crash in ways that the British and the Americans can only dream of.

Freedom for Sweden!

Yes, they rank fourth on the international press freedom index, just below Norway. And they are one of the freest nations in the world. This is true.

But they have VERY HIGH EQUALITY OF INCOME!

Think of the poor millionaires!

Forgive me for the heresy, but it’s almost as if the creation of a tiny minority of super rich people isn’t the only standard by which to judge a nation’s success.

Yes, let's look:




Sweden's economy booms with cautious turn to the right:

At least you now agree that the Swedish economic and social model works.

Now you agree that the Swedish model works, can you imagine how it might be if America were to implement some of those economic policies in America?

That would be great no?

I think I'd be careful about making broadly generalized statements about "Swedish economic and social model"...things are often more complicated than they seem...but I agree that cutting taxes and government fiscal conservatism help the economy grow and I'd love to see that happen in the US. In fact, that's what I've been calling for for some time now.

Er..?

You would like to see similar levels of social spending to those in Sweden and a similiar base tax rate to that in Sweden?

You think that that would make your economy grow like the Swedish economy?

Or is it simply that the magick is in the cutting? As if cuts are enough? On their own?

Do, please, explain.

No.

It is ironic that I pointed to more specific and concrete government policy actions (cutting taxes and fiscal conservatism...e.g., low or no deficits, spending and debt) and state that I believe (based on ample supporting evidence) that these help economies grow vs. making a broad generalized and non-specific statement like "Swedish economic and social model" and assuming it is all about this vaguely defined "Swedish economic and social model".

I don't worry about what you expect. I will note, however, the irony of your choice to engage in insults while expecting, in your opening post, that others would attack the messenger and level charges of ignorance.

The thread title "another free market theory failure" says it all: The "free market" is only a theory anyway. Put into practice, in the real world, its an inglorious fvck-up, as it is with "communism". In the real world, outside of Friedmanite lectures, the "free market" becomes very unfree... ie controlled, manipulated and non-meritocratic. In the real world, in practice, outside of marxist lectures, "communism" becomes enforced, inegalitarian and hierarchical.

...which is always, every time, how you respond when your arguments are tested, even in the gentlest way.

Absolutely no attempt to even address the logical problem in your argument. Just a smilie in lieu of an argument. Again.

You want it both ways. You do not get it both ways.

Because he was talking about lost freedoms in the last 10 years and he left something out about thise 10 years. Also I did mention both administrations that were in office at that time. I just mentioned the facts.

Hey I was quoting you when I said " economic feedom ".

And here's nother take on the Heritage Foundation : http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archi...909miller.html

From that link :
Well color me surprised!

I'm sorry if responding no to your yes or no question bothers you in some way.



I'm sorry that your non sequitur question did not elicit the response you expected or hoped for.

Ohh...interesting. I wonder if this an example of what tonton was referring to as "attacking the messenger?"

And I was referring to a specific index that attempts to measure the economic aspects of freedom. Context matters here.

Hey look folks! A false dilemma. Not to mention a mis-characterization of free-market capitalism.

P.S. I'm quite certain that the model Jesus would prefer involves individuals helping other individuals and sometimes even banding together, voluntarily, in groups to help others. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't expect me to steal from you to help someone else.

Rampant fraud and waste can poison a country's work ethic, drain its tax revenues and wreak its finances in a relatively short period.
For more on this topic, book a flight to Greece.

This seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

Nope. Just further clarification.

Nope. I think you were avoiding discussing the facts (nothing new there) and instead focused on who provided those facts (The Heritage Foundation) and what you perceive their bias to be (again, nothing new). That's flirting with ad hominem.

Here's the thing...is Sweden actually a "socialist" country? And, has Sweden ever experienced problems from the overreaching of government intervention and taxation?

Hmmmm.


Hmm...so Socialist Paradise Sweden (herein referred to as SPS) realized that they were running out of other people's money. The government cut spending (that doesn't sound very socialist, now does it?) and "instituted a multitude of reforms (read: deregulation and pro-business policies) to combat the problem.

And this coming from someone who likes to call people " Sweetie ".

I didn't avoid anything. Your source is biased and therefore partisan. Nuff said.

But he likes anarchy. Haven't you heard? Apparently freedom is in the eye of the beholder for MJ. As long as that eye is a conservative one.

See...there you did it again. Do you have anything valuable to contribute to the thread or have you simply come in to try and pick a fight and do your drive-by posts?

Here again you seem to want to make the topic about me for some reason. Do you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion?



Actually no...I think freedom is a reasonably clear concept. It is leftists, who claim to be the advocates of liberty, who have a hypocritical inconsistency on the issue of freedom which makes it look like freedom is in the eye of the beholder for them. These are the ones for whom words have conveniently squishy meanings.

He wasn't discussing it in a partisan political context. In fact, I think he's been pretty clear about his universal condemnation of our government's usurpation of our freedoms in general. If he was talking about what one party or person has done, I'd see what you might want to point that out. But accusing him of being partisan by pointing out he didn't say anything about partisanship is...weird. \