amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Kind of a silly argument to make as even safe bad products don't get sold and go off the market all the time, no government intervention required.
For Liberty(and pwnage) Ron Paul 2012 Part II
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Unlike with Obama, with Ron Paul, there will be no compromise, there will only be pwnage.
But the point is that unsafe products have been killing people all along. And that is despite the government trying to stop it.
So, since we know that the market will not stop it, and we know that the even the government can only reduce it, but never stop it entirely, and we know that it is profit maximizing to do things that way, then how do you justify not having the government save lives?
The other problem with this is people mean different things when they say reform. For example, I want tax reform, but that doesn't mean I want a flat tax or fewer brackets, etc.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Dude you don't get it; the free market will solve that problem if only the government wasn't there, enforcing silly things like health and safety
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Sinclair's novel? No, I haven't. I usually don't read fiction.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
5charsWikipedia said:
So the fact that profit maximizing businesses have often knowingly and through carelessness put unsafe products in the stores doesn't mean anything to you? The fact that in many instances profit maximizing businesses have often killed people to get a few more bucks doesn't influence your opinion at all?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Umm. No. It's not vague. The proposition is that people are better able to take care of their lives than thieves who take their money and arrogantly proclaim that this theft is better for the people than anything they could come with themselves. This is not only arrogant but also is evil. Theft is evil
All the caps you added to the paragraph without the slightest reason to explain why you worship theft add nothing to your argument.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
And property is theft!
Yeah, Congress would pwn Paul a lot.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Maybe that would be the unexpected benefit of a Paul presidency- making the President such a tremendous existential threat to the United States itself that the legislature are forced to massively diminish the power attributed to the office, and so return a little sanity to the American political system. One can only hope.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Millions of people have died - and still are dying - for the demagogue maximizing principle. Why don't you speak out against this? Why don't you point out that when "profit maximizing businesses have often killed people to get a few more bucks" they invariably use the institution of mass murder and mass theft (the state) to obtain their goals. Mass theft is impossible without state approval.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I hate it when you start to make sense.
You make that claim. However in the real world mass theft without state approval is a daily occurrence. So it's just not rational to think that it would do anything other than get vastly worse without the state.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't understand how you jump from one to the other. Why does the fact that violent actions occur beyond the state imply that the state is exclusively capable of facilitating non-violent interactions?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Throughout all of history the primary purpose of the state has been to enable the rich and powerful to steal from the ordinary and powerless. That is its objective. That is its sole goal. It has succeeded. The poor are sent to prison in vast numbers to benefit the police and the prison guards. The poor are denied the ability to right to get jobs by regulation and bureaucrats.
The thieving scum who use the state to deny a decent living to the poor are nothing less than criminal. Stop defending the thieves. Stop defending the institution which enables them. Do you have no decency?
There are plenty of non-violent interactions without the state. But there are also plenty of violent interactions both with and without the state. The real stretch beyond the realm of the believable is to assume that there will not be violent interactions without the state. After all, non state violence is something that occurs every minute of every day of every year.
But the daily violence that most people face is clearly reduced by the actions of government, when government chooses to do so. Often government looks the other way. And when that happens there are some people claiming that that violence is the fault of the state. This is a question of the difference between an act of commission and an act of omission. If I know you are going to commit violence, and I do nothing to stop you, do I bear some of the responsibility? Sure. But I'm not the one that committed the violence. As near as I can parse out what some people are saying, the person who got out of the way of the violence gets all the blame and the person who commits the violence gets a pass. This is what Ron Paul does when he says that the government caused the financial crisis.
What people do when they blame private violence on the state is to build a false justification for all the private violence to go on unchecked.
The police aren't any good at stopping all crime, so let's abolish the police, and crime will surely cease.
Seriously, where is the logic in that?
And we are not talking about all the people. Maybe 5%, maybe 10%. But that 5 or 10% is not going to cease to exist because of the state getting out of their way. They will do more and more violence. The fundamental irrationality is to assume that anything can make that minority of predators go away. All that can be done is control and punish them and have the threat to them serious enough to discourage them from trying it.
And that doesn't even take into account the reckless violence as opposed to the deliberate.
Similar threads
